9 Amendments of Sophie AUCONIE related to 2010/2211(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points to the increased importance of cohesion policy following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and to the fact that a third pillar – territorial cohesion – has been added to it, and notes that the regions are best placed to implement that policy on an active basis and that sectoralisation iswould therefore be counterproductive;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the success of economic and social cohesion policy can be clearly seen in the 271 regions of the 27 Member States and notes that the subsidiarity principle and multilevel governance and partnership are fundamental prerequisites for that success; reaffirms its position on best practice, as set out in its resolution of 24 March 2009 on best practices in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the Structural Funds;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 1
Paragraph 5 – indent 1
we need sustainable economic growth which has a positive impact on the labour market in both urban and ruralurban, rural and extremely remote areas;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Endorses the view that that the ESF must remain an integral component of cohesion policy and be strengthened; calls for greater coordination with cohesion policy measures and rural development measures under the ERDF so that rural regions can be properly involved and resources used more efficiently;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Insists, in keeping with a spirit of solidarity, on specific support for the EU- 27's mo‘least’ disadvantaged regionseveloped regions (Objective 1); stresses, at the same time, the need for a powerful Objective 2 and sound transitional rulefor the 'most' developed regions and fair provisions for intermediate regions;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that funds must be spent transparently and efficiently in the regions, on the basis of rules that are as simple as possible and sound management; urges that, in keeping with the proportionality principle, the frequency of checks should be commensurate with the risk of irregularities;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes that a five-year period is too short, since authorisation procedures would be much too long and would not make it possible to use resources efficiently; points to the fact that a seven-year period has proved its worth in the past and that the programming period should in no circumstances be shorter; underscores the fact that a seven-year period, until 2020, would make the link with the EU 2020 strategy clear; notes that it might make sense thereafter to consider a 10-year model (five years + five years) in such a way as to match the scheduling of financing priorities with the terms of office of Parliament and the Commission, combining this with a vision and a policy strategy stretching over 10 years;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that cofinancing and the n+2 and n+3 rules should be maintained, possibly combined with greater flexibility to cover exceptional situations which might be expected to arise within the nex (except for the first programming periodyear); insists that unspent funds should be made available for other regions and not returned to the Member States;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that, in addition to assisting the regions, cohesion policy measures also raise the EU's profile in the regions, and points out that better public relations work in the Member States could demonstrate this even morecommunication by all those involved – European institutions, Member States and local authorities - could make the added value of European action even clearlyer;