35 Amendments of Tamás DEUTSCH related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the European Court of Auditors has for many years reported that payments in the area of cohesion are affected by an error rate exceeding 5% and that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective; notes, however, that the error rate is decreasing, as it has been shown by the ECA Annual Report;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is therefore of the opinion that supervisory and control systems should be substantially strengthenedmade more efficient for the post- 2013 period and attention should be paid to avoid an increase in administrative burdens;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that a high percentage of errors in cohesion policy occur as a result of complex rules and procedures; calls on the Commission to simplify these, leading to a more efficient system; notes in addition that more attention should be paid to preventive control measures and a clear distinction should be made between errors, irregularity and fraud;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls, furthermore, for the supervisory role of the Commission to be strengthened by introducing automatic interruption and suspension of payments as soon as well established evidence suggests a significant deficiency in the functioning of the accredited authorities;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Is finally of the opinion that this should be complemented by a catalogue of sanctions to be borne by Member States and final beneficiaries in case of irregularities.; is further of the opinion that the use of sanctions should be based on clearly defined rules and regulations;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the incidence of errors and misuse of funds has been significantly lower in the most recent funding periods; whereas, regrettably, structural policy nonetheless remains an area with a continuing poor record in this respect, and some Member States still lack effective machinery for countering the misuse of funding and recovering money wrongly paid out; whereas it has to be noted that a significant part of the errors in cohesion policy can be attributed to legislative requirements outside cohesion policy such as public procurement, environmental requirements and state aids,
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas a comprehensive and well- funded European cohesion policy continues to be essential, given the significant imbalances between regional economies and in social terms, as well as specific structural problems and geographical disadvantages, and it is also a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty,
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that the Union will be able to hold its own in the face of global competition only if its cohesion policy can tap the development potential of all the regions in response to the challenges ofbottlenecks identified by the EU 2020 strategy;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of trans-regsupranational potential and adopt a joint approach to challenges stemming from the natural environment, e.g. in relation to environmental protection; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU Structural Funds;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities - including those of the capital cities and regions - in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 objectives; 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-rural links;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Sees scope under the Structural Funds for specifically supporting investment in energy infrastructure, although such support must be available onespecially in regions where political or geographical constraints significantly hamper the ability of the market to meet energy-supply needs; calls, too, for support from the Structural Funds to be made contingent in all cases on the adoption of a commercial approach and of compliance with the principle of multi- level governance;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in European regional cohesion and that development of TEN infrastructure, Motorways of the Sea 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 connec and outermost regions,; suggests that certain crossborder ‘infrastructure’ shall be considered as priority projects eligible to funds of the objective 1, 2 and 3 calls for a obligatory right to make the first proposal of the regional level for this type of action and equal participation withof the third objective of European Territorial Cooperation; border regions and local authorities in the planning;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
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/PEcapita below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDNP/PEcapita below 90% of the EU average); points out that the competent national authorities must continue to have scope for the use of additional indicators at the relevant decision-making levels;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross-cutting approach, to be upgradmaintained; stresses that the proven system of innovation clusters and competition for funding needs to be developed further;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Takes the view that a general new funding category based on GDP/PEcapita between the 75% and 90% rates would be at odds with the tried and tested principles of EU cohesion policy (to support the weakest and pool the inherent potential of the wealthier regions, taking a cross- cutting approach), and therefore rejects this intermediate category;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the Structural Funds to be increased to 7%, which should be allocated to programmes rather than Member States therefore should not be subject to the capping rule; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networks – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Takes the view that new issue-oriented funds (for climate, energy and transport) would undermine the tried and tested principle of multi-level governance and jeopardise the availability of synergies, the effectiveness of interventions and thus the regions' contribution to the achievement of the EU 2020 objectives;
Amendment 315 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to integrated development planning – to be facilitated and allowing for the option of multi-fund programmes;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Calls for a common strategy framework for the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the EAFRD and the EFF, for the post-2013 funding period; takes the view that the model of a standard regulatory approach (covering administration, eligibility, auditing and reporting rules) must be further strengthened by means of a joint framework regulation;
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Suggests, in this context, that reintegration of the regionally oriented EAFRD (Axes 3 and 4) programmes be considered, and calls for binding targets to be set for the Member States and the regions in order to establish more standardised arrangements for administering the EU Structural Funds and the regionally oriented rural development programmesalong with the reallocation of resources be considered;
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
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, the European Social 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;
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and regionsregional and local authorities, in accordance with constitutional and institutional set up of Member States, in drawing up development partnerships and operational programmes; considers it essential to make appropriate provision for this in the regulations governing the Structural Funds;
Amendment 371 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Supports the system of thematic prioriobjectives that the Commission is proposing; points out that the lower the level of development in a Member State or region, the more wide-ranging the list of prioriobjectives there needs to be, taking into account specific regional development needs;
Amendment 380 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls, in the event that binding prioriobjectives are set for all Member States, for these to cover innovation, infrastructure and resource management and to be tailored in each case to regions' specific needs; stresses that it must be possible to suggest and pursue additional priorities on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls for suggested priority areaobjectives to include energy, education and training, health and combating poverty;
Amendment 384 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; calls, too, for the technical equipmentassistance available to the relevant administrative authorities to be improved and for them to be more closely networked, for disclosure requirements to be reduced, and for a significant shortening of deadlines for putting the necessary expert reports out to tender and for their delivery;
Amendment 404 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls for the funding under investment partnerships to be made conditional on the implementation of reformcertain commitments by the Member States, in order to ensure that it is used efficientectively in areas directly related to cohesion policy; considers it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering procedures, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform;
Amendment 426 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Regards co-financing as one of the basic principles of cohesion policy; calls for a review of the percentage ceiling for EU funding – which should take more account of regional development levels, European added value and the types of measure funded and should be raised or lowered accordingly;
Amendment 436 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed 785%, otherwise applications will be driven less by the case for the projects than by the prospect of the funding they can attract; calls for it to be made easier for regions to use private co- financing and market-oriented credit options to cover their share of project financing;
Amendment 450 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
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 calls, therefore, for grant support for private 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 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 investments;
Amendment 452 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recognises the leverage effect of new financial instruments and their potential to mobilise investment, supports increased financing from credit in principle, and calls for the use of revolving financial instruments to be extended to more areas eligible for funding (including research and infrastructure); calls for procedures to be simplified to that end and for a greater degree of legal certainty throughout the entire funding period; takes the view that at the end of a funding period, at the latest, responsibility for how the funds are spent should transfer to national level or project level;
Amendment 490 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
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 been as in the current planning periods financing to be at least maintained in budgetary terms;
Amendment 505 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
Amendment 511 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
Amendment 521 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Calls, in the interests of reducing red tape, for the more general application of standardised procedures, with higher standardised units of cost and declaration of overheads on a flat-rate basis; calls for greater account to be taken of the principle of proportionality, i.e. for the implementation of smaller programmes to be subject to significantly reduced reporting and auditing requirements; believes that there is a need to simplify the currently very complex regulatory framework and that a common interpretation of rules and obligations should be established along with a clear separation of tasks and responsibilities of different bodies at different levels;
Amendment 547 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Supports the Commission's proposal that the N+2 rule should be applied systematically possibly at the level of Member States allocations to provide for more flexibility, except in the first year of funding and that derogations from it should be abolished; considers this will guarantee that a balance is struck between high- quality investment and smooth and speedy programme implementation;