BETA

13 Amendments of Jacky HÉNIN related to 2011/2035(INI)

Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
A. whereas EU cohesion policy has contributed greatly to the increased productivity achieved by all regions of the Union during the previous and current funding periods; whereas it is strikingto the narrowing of the economic, social and regional divide, as shown by thate ex-post evaluation has also shown a significant narrowing of the economic, social and regional divide; whereas these developments have equally positive effects on social security and on investment in the protection of the environment,
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
C. whereas gearing the Structural Funds to the Lisbon Strategy objectives has proved effective, as is evident from the impressive commitment rates for the Convergence and the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objectives, although it is regrettable that only 20% of projects under the heading of Territorial Cooperation accord with the Lisbon aims,deleted
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 objective dynamism of the regions; calls for support for ideas and projects which can serve as models, on the basis of integrated development plans, and for the upgrading of urban-particularly those making it possible to upgrade and increase synergies and links between cities, their environs and rural linkareas;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure and designated E-roads must therefore be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions; suggests that ‘infrastructure’ be accorded more importance as a category of project eligible for support in connection with the third objective of European Territorial Cooperationcalls with insistence for the full integration and participation of the Outermost Regions in the Trans-European Transport Network, as well as for priority programs;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
19. Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with GDP/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the EU average); points out that supplementary indicators relevant for measuring social cohesion ( like unemployment rates, poverty, etc.) and territorial cohesion and continuity, as well as environmental indicators should applied; points out that the competent national authorities must continue to have scope for the use of additional indicators at the relevant decision-making levels;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
30. Calls, in the interests of efficiency, for the elimination or merger of funds relevant to both regional development and cohesion; recommends that the Globalisation Fund be abandoned as a stand-alone instrument and that appropriate provision for its functions be included in the Social Fund; calls for consideration of whether a merger of the Cohesion Fund and the Regional Development Fund would be compatible with the European Treaties; points out that, as a rule, monies from the Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund are spent on the same types of project;deleted
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 417 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
39. Calls for the indicators to concentrate Endorses the use of a limited number of common indicators, linked to the economic, social and territorial cohesion tareas of impact with European added value (increases in productivity, research, transport services, regional growth and relevant environmental improvements); calls for quantitative targets to be eschewed when measuring progress in areas where responsibility rests largely with national authorities (i.e. on educational standards, poverty thresholds and integratgets, such as employment, social inclusion, reduction of richness disparities, research, innovation, SSGI quality and universality, transport services, regional growth, improvement in terms of environmental management, as well as the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, to enable the Commission to conduct a comprehensive and continuous evaluation throughout the programming period, whereas most of indicators should be established at regional level taking into account the specific nature of each region) and for assessment, instead, of projects' potential as models and ofthe priorities set; the indicators must reflect how necessary any proposed approach is for the dregree of innovation they displayion's development;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 444 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
42. Calls, in the case of direct subsidies to undertakings, for it to be recognised that Cohesion Policy funding, rather than influencing decisions by companies – and particularly bigger companies – to open a plant in a given location, tends to be pocketed by companies which have already taken such decisions (deadweight effect), and fosters regional development and job creation; calls, therefore, for, on the one hand, support for undertakings to focus on investment in research and development or for it to be provided, in more cases, indirectly through infrastructure financing; also calls for, given that such financing directly helps to create jobs in the undertakings to which it is provided, and, on the other hand, clear provisions to be included in the general regulation governing the Structural Funds ruling out EU support for the relocation of undertakings within the Union, and for a substantial lowering of the threshold for review of relocation investmentsmaking funding conditional on undertakings not relocating or introducing redundancy plans and on them meeting demanding environmental standards, failing which they would be required to repay the funding received;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 483 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
49. Regards the integration of the EU 2020 objectives into the existing system of objectives and funds as entirely feaclearly not possible; rejects any division of the EU budget under the notional headings of ‘smart’, ‘inclusive’ or ‘sustainable’ growthattempt to subordinate cohesion policy to the EU 2020 strategy, which is a macro-economic strategy coming first and foremost under the responsibility of the Member States and the Commission and dependent on their will; considers it inappropriate to expect the regions and cohesion policy to bear the consequences of the Commission’s and the Member States’ organisational and coordinating failings as regards implementation of the EU 2020 strategy; points out that the structural and cohesion policies were introduced with a view to ensuring the harmonious development of Europe’s regions, not as policies intended to help implement the Lisbon strategy or the EU 2020 strategy;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 488 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
50. Regards post-2013 cohesion and structural policy as the decisive policy arena for cross-sectoral implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and therefore calls for it to be treated at least as generously in budgetary terms it has beenfor achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion; therefore calls for it to receive higher budget appropriations as in the current planning period;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 552 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
57. Emphasises the importance in terms of cohesion policy of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) promoting cross-border cooperation with states outside the EU; sees infrastructure (transport and energy) links with neighbouring countries as having particularly positive effects on the European border regions; calls for ENPI funding to focus more closely on strategic needs in relation to energy and to transport infrastructure; urges the Commission to open the European wider neighbourhood policy up to the outermost regions, as was intended prior to the policy’s introduction, so that those regions are not denied the opportunity to take advantage of the ENPI that is afforded to other European regions;
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 565 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – footnote
On the assumption that Turkey and Croatia, which are currently in accession negotiations, receive support during the 2007-2013 programming period at the same average per capita level as the new Member States (the EU 12), the total financial requirement would be EUR 132.5 billion, of which Turkey’s share would be EUR 124.9 billion (94.3%) and Croatia’s 7.6 billion (5.7%). If support were given at a rate equivalent to the average (2006) level of EU transfers to the new Member States as a proportion of GDP, the additional financial requirement would total EUR 109.1 billion, of which Turkey’s share would be EUR 99.8 billion and Croatia’s EUR 9.3 billion. (Untiedt, G. (2011) Das Volumen und die Verteilung der EU- Strukturfondsmittel für die Förderperiode von 2007 bis 2013 unter Berücksichtigung der Türkei und Kroatiens, opinion of Professor G. Untiedt, GEFRA GbR, commissioned by Dr Markus Pieper, MEP)..deleted
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI
Amendment 569 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
61. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and, the Commission and the Presidents of EU Regions and Landers.
2011/04/20
Committee: REGI