30 Amendments of Derek VAUGHAN related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 1 #
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%, although notes that this fell from 11% for the last discharge procedure, and that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective; calls in addition for clarification on the method of calculating errors, as discrepancies in figures provided by the European Court of Auditors and by the Commission lead to confusion and distrust of official figures;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that common rules on the management, eligibility, auditing and reporting of projects financed by the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund and of projects supporting the economic diversification of rural and fisheries areas under the EAFRD and the EFF would play a key role in simplifying the management of funds, reducing the risk of error and facilitating participation in cohesion policy programmes by smaller stakeholders, as well as easier absorption of available funding;
Amendment 11 #
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 evidence suggests a significant deficiency in the functioning of the accredited authorities; calls on the Commission also to put in place more robust plans for increasing the rate of recoveries of erroneous payments;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Notes that around 50 % of errors in spending on cohesion policy occur in the field of procurement; calls on the Commission to come forward with clear and transparent rules on the procurement procedure as a way of cutting down on the error rate;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises however that there is a pressing need to address the accuracy and availability of data on regional participation in Framework Programmes and other EU research and innovation funding programmes, to enable local and regional authorities to benchmark their performance at EU level, and to enable structural weaknesses in performance to be identified accurately;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for this partnership principle to be further strengthened; the new rules should require Member States to involve, in a structured and systematic way, the local and regional level in planning, decision-making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and in some Member States are actually growing – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on evening out differences between regions' levels of development; regardless of the member state in which they are located;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environment; reiterates its call to Member States for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (including, but not limited to outermost regions, northernmost regions and regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions);
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses however that cohesion policy is not merely an implementing tool for EU 2020. Continued focus on the core principles of cohesion policy will have the added value of sustaining the achievements of Europe 2020 even after the strategy has come to an end;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of trans-regional 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; further notes that Local Development Plans could prove to be the most efficient method of achieving cohesion policy objectives, through integrated development of projects at an infra-regional level based on a bottom-up methodology;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. DoubtQuestions whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as groups of local authorities, metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits; this particularly aware, in relation to such programmes, of the absence ofshould be an option in those programmes with political bodies (including democratically elected bodies) with a sufficiently wide- ranging remit to implement them; calls insteadit should be the preferred option of delivery in those regions where sub-regional delivery provides added value vis-à-vis national and regional programmes; further calls for closer coordination of macroregional or natural-environment strategies at inter- governmental levels;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities 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 place- based integrated local development plans, and for the upgrading of urban-rural links;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to continue to allow Member States and regions to define urban areas as appropriate to them;
Amendment 208 #
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 only 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 271 #
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 upgraded; stresses that the proven system of innovation clusters and competition for fundingensuring that more developed regions are able to modernise their social and economic capital and to address specific pockets of deprivation and a lack of economic development needs to be developed further;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Takes the view that a general new funding category based on GDP/PECalls for a transitional objective for the support of regions coming out of the Convergence objective and for regions with a GDP per capita 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 categoryto replace the current phasing-out and phasing-in system, thus creating a fair system which reflects the negative impacts of the economic crisis; Believes that such a system will guarantee truly equal treatment between regions and will enhance the release of the endogenous development potential of all EU regions;
Amendment 318 #
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 place-based integrated development planning – to be facilitated;
Amendment 333 #
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 targetcommon indicators 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 programmes;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 363 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and regionlocal and regional authorities 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 374 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities 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 areas to include energy, education and training, and combating poverto allow a necessary degree of flexibility for regions to define additional investment priorities, according to local and regional development needs and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 390 #
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 equipment available to the relevant administrative authorities to be improved and for them to be more closely networked, for disclosure requirements to be reducviewed, and for a significant shortening of deadlines for putting the necessary expert reports out to tender and for their delivery;
Amendment 396 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls for the funding under investment partnerships to be made conditional on the implementation of reforms by the Member States, in order to ensure that it is used efficiently 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, providing the following conditions are respected: the conditionalities serve to increase effectiveness and efficiency of cohesion policy, the actors involved in the management of Operational Programmes have the possibility to influence conditionalities, those actors have the necessary competence and institutional capacity to carry out the required changes, and that they have ownership of the conditionalities and can relate to them; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform; all conditionalities should fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and partnership;
Amendment 425 #
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 popposes the introduction of differcentage 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 accordiated co-financing rates as this could lead to unpredictable consequences and might ultimately render EU funds unavailable in some regions, especially competitiveness regions, as strained domestic budgets would prevent increased rates of national co-financingly;
Amendment 432 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed 75%, otherwise applications will be driven less by the case for the projects than by the prospect of the funding they can attractalls on the Commission to examine and to establish the most appropriate maximum level of support on the basis of a thorough analysis of the development situation and the specific needs of the regions in the framework of each objective, in order to ensure that applications will respond to the real needs of each region and will aim to sustainable results in a long-term perspective; 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 469 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Sees global grants at subregional level as an appropriate tool for developing independent innovation strategies in line with European structural-policy objectives; proposes that the tried and tested approach of competitive procedures should also be applied in respect of global grants;
Amendment 473 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Supports the creation of a flexibility reserve established on the basis of appropriations automatically de- committed during the programming period, and aimed at triggering the Structural Funds in an economic, social or environmental crisis in conjunction with the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Union Solidarity Fund;
Amendment 491 #
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 ina real terms rise in the Cohesion Policy Budget for the next period compared to the current planning period;
Amendment 498 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Calls, in respect of Member States that are falling significantly short of the EU stability criteria requirements and also have a poor record on the use of monies from the Structural Funds, for a proposal for the automatic application of more stringent rules in order to monitor the use of such monies in accordance with the law and the relevant objecon a procedure of systematic interruption and suspension of payments as soon as evidence suggests significant deficiency in the functioning of the accredited authoritives;
Amendment 523 #
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 where this system is appropriate; 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;