Activities of Marie-Thérèse SANCHEZ-SCHMID related to 2010/2155(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
5th cohesion report and strategy for the post-2013 cohesion policy - Implementation of cohesion policy programmes for 2007-2013 - European urban agenda and its future in cohesion policy - Objective 3: future agenda for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation - Increased effectiveness between ERDF and other structural funds (debate)
5th cohesion report and strategy for the post-2013 cohesion policy - Implementation of cohesion policy programmes for 2007-2013 - European urban agenda and its future in cohesion policy - Objective 3: future agenda for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation - Increased effectiveness between ERDF and other structural funds (continuation of debate)
Reports (1)
REPORT on Objective 3: a challenge for territorial cooperation – the future agenda for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation PDF (216 KB) DOC (132 KB)
Amendments (25)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas informal cooperation arrangements, the Euroregions, the Eurodistricts, the EGTCs, Council of Europe initiatives, the successive Treaties and the EU’s secondary legislation have all contributed to establishing stronger and more sustainable links between territories,
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas, at the EU’s external borders, the territorial cooperation objective is one aspect of the pre- accession process and of the implementation of neighbourhood policy, and whereas, consequently, coordination of the relevant Community arrangements must be improved,
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Advocates retaining the current structure of Objective 3, which is divided into three components (– cross-border (component A), transnational (component B) and interregional), (component C) – and the current emphasis on the cross-border component, which receives at least 70% of the territorial cooperation budget;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that, if a distinction should continue to be made between the cross- border component (component A), which meets the local needs of cross-border population catchment areas, and the transnational component (component B), which facilitates cooperation over wider strategic areas, better coordination between the two components is needed;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls nonethelessfurthermore – with a view to ensuring the coherence and continuity of territorial cooperation measures and given the strategic nature of the projects in question – for greater flexibility in exploiting the scope offered by Article 21 of the ERDF Regulation with regard to the location of cross-border and transnational cooperation activities; to that end, calls for a review of the geographical limit of 150 km set for cross-border cooperation programmes for coastal and maritime regions;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for forward thinking to ascertain the strategic needs of each border region and area of cooperation in connection with the Europe 2020 strategy, and, subsequently, for European territorial cooperation to be integrated in, and tailored to, all levels of strategic planning: European, national, and regional and local; urges the Commission to clarify, without delay, its proposals on the thematic concentration of funds, with reference to an EU 2020 ‘thematic menu’;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for funds for territorial cooperation no longer to be allocated by Member State, but at EU level and on a programme-by-programme basis, on the basis of the criteria laid down in Annex 2, paragraph 5 of the basic regulationto be allocated for each programme of territorial cooperation on the basis of harmonised criteria so as to provide a strategic, integrated response to the needs of each territory or area involved; invites in this respect the Commission to consider other relevant, strategic and measurable criteria that could reflect the needs of territories and reduceweight the demphasis on the most important criterion: demographyography criteria;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses once again the importance of interregional cooperation (component C), but deplores the lack of funds allocated to it; calls suggests, therefore, a reduction from 75% to 60% in the Community cofinancing rate of this programmecomponent for participants from the regions covered by the ‘competitiveness and employment’ objective, calls for the thematic areas of cooperation to be widened to encompass governance and territorial development; also encourages regions to make better use of the scope for interregional cooperation offered by Article 37(6)(b) of the basic regulation; advocates, therefore, that the ‘interregional’ component of Objective 3 should also be used to facilitatecover the coordination and running of such projects, tohe pooling of know-how and tohe exchange of good practices, on the basis of ever closer cooperation with, and the support of, INTERACT;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Advocates the continuation of the INTERACT programme, to provide support for territorial cooperation programmes, and calls for more effective coordination between INTERACT and URBACT, ESPON and component C, with a view to better implementing Objective 3;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Believes that greater complementarity between the ‘territorial cooperation’ objective, on the one hand, and the ‘convergence’ and ‘competitiveness and employment’ objectives, on the other, is needed; suggests that regional operational programmes should take an interest and participate in the cross-border and, transnational and interregional projects that concern them by earmarking funding by territory for priority projects identified in advance and agreed, in consultation with their partners in the programmes, in accordance with the principles of multi-level governance and the partnership;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that the concept of macro- regions, a Council initiative, came into being as an experimental, logical way of coordinating common projects covering a very large territory, characterised by common territorial problems, with a view to exploiting the advantages of an integrated and, multisectoral and territorial approach based on common strategic actions receiving support from existing funds; points out that these strategies must neither generate additional expenditure for the EU budget, nor necessitate the establishment of new institutions or the application of new rules;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out that territorial cooperation concerns both the EU’s internal and external borders, including matters relating to current and future macro- regional strategies; asks the Commission to consider how to create more effective synergies between initiatives under the ERDF, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the European Development Fund (EDF);
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – introductory part
Paragraph 21 – introductory part
21. Believes, however, that their establishment must be facilitated and calls on the Commission to propose amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on EGTCs without delay, taking due account of the problems identified by the regionlocal and regional authorities and the groupings already in place and on the basis of work undertaken by the Committee of the Regions, with a view to:
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – indent 3
Paragraph 21 – indent 3
– redrafting Article 4(3) to ensure stricter compliance with the three-month deadline for the processing of applications to set up an EGTC,
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – indent 4
Paragraph 21 – indent 4
– simplifying the laws governing the staff of and the tax arrangements applicable to EGTCsing;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – indent 4 a (new)
Paragraph 21 – indent 4 a (new)
– ensuring that the tax rules for EGTCs are no less favourable than other legal arrangements governing the implementation of cooperation projects or programmes;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the allocation of global grants to EGTCs with projects that reflect the objectives and strategies of the relevant cooperation programmes, to enable them to directly manage Structural Fund appropriations, and for the multinational and multilateral nature of EGTCs to be better reflected in regulations governing the other European funds, with a view to improving their access to other sources of financing;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Welcomes the launch by the Committee of the Regions of the European EGTC Platform, which aims to facilitate the exchange of experiences, the pooling of best practices and the provision of technical support for EGTCs;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Invites the Commission to propose specific measures which simplify rules on auditing and control, authorise more systematic standard-rate costing, lay down more detailed EU rules on eligibility for EU funding, make for greater flexibility in the implementation of automatic decommitments, raise the acceptable error rate to 5% and increase technical assistance to 8%, with a view to ensuring that the management bodies concentrate more on the launching and strategic managemensupport of projects, rather than merely on management and whether applications comply with administrative rules;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Calls on the Commission to clarify, as soon as possible, the provisions governing the principle of conditionality intended for territorial cooperation; considers that, if this conditionality is to create the conditions for the better and more effective use of funds, it must not further complicate implementation, to the detriment of programme managers and beneficiaries;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses, furthermore, that arrangements for involving private stakeholders must also be simplified; recommends setting up financial engineering systems, along the lines of the JEREMIE and JESSICA initiatives, to facilitate cross-border projects which generate revenueare vectors of economic development, the participation of private stakeholders and the establishment of public-private partnerships;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Deplores the low profile of territorial cooperation, in the eyes of both national and local authorities and the general public;, asksnd the Commission to come up with ways to raise the profile of EGTCs with territorial cooperation stakeholders and the general publicrefore calls for more effective communication on completed projects;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Asks the Commission to come up with ways to raise the profile of EGTCs and their activities among territorial cooperation stakeholders and the general public;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Asks for more effective coordination of communication between all stakeholders involved in the process of implementing territorial cooperation initiatives, suggests that all programmes in the same component should be recognisable by their use of the same logo, and invites the Commission, by the start of the next programming period, to come up with a large-scale media and awareness-raising campaign for border regions on the benefits and achievements of territorial cooperation ;