Activities of Derek VAUGHAN related to 2011/2312(INI)
Reports (1)
REPORT on optimising the role of territorial development in cohesion policy PDF (219 KB) DOC (134 KB)
Amendments (20)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. recognises, in order to achieve this collaboration, the importance of the code of conduct for Member States consulting with regions and local authorities during the preparation stages of funding programmes;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights the need for the focus on a results-led system to include flexibility at member state and regional level, taking into account simplification, programming priorities and partnership, so that results- led systems are regional-specific in order to achieve the best possible efficiency;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need to ensure a flexibility for funding programmes based onle approach to setting local and regional objectives, with stakeholders at regional level involved at all stages to ensure that European funding programmes meet the needs to tackle social and economic disparities;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that flexibility should extend to greater provision for projects to operate across different funds covered by the CPR and that this increased flexibility would help to simplify project delivery and increase the complementary and cross- cutting aspects of European funding;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recognises that cohesion policy can make a valuable contribution to delivering EU2020 targets; notes, however, that cohesion policy, as a permanent and legally binding objective of the EU, must not be used solely as a means of implementing EU2020; by introducing a territorial dimension
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Expresses concern regarding the definition of cities and urban areas given the differing size, resources and social and economic aspects of cities in the EU; welcomes a definition decided at Member State or regional level
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Stresses that territorial cohesion also applies to cohesion within territories i.e. ensuring that the whole area makes an economic contribution and not just the large cities and emphasises that the potential of small and medium sized towns in rural areas to make a significant contribution to the region should not be overlooked;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Highlights that developing better integration between cities and surrounding rural areas requires a strong multi-level focus and collaboration between rural and urban stakeholders;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Highlights that a stronger and more integrated territorial approach to European funding, with an efficient and strategic approach to implementing funds at the level closest to the citizen, is a positive way of ensuring that money is directed towards addressing Europe's long-term social and economic challenges;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Stresses the need for clear and well defined Partnership Contracts, with the involvement of actors at local and regional level, so that all parties can contribute to the preparation and delivery of programmes;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Welcomes the proposals for a regulatory framework with a sub-regional focus foron local and integrated development through ‘'community-led local development’', ‘'joint action plans’' and ‘'integrated territorial investment’';
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that, following the Commission's proposals, clear links must now be developed between these delivery instruments in order to ensure that all investment complements local needs and does not overlap with other projects;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. highlights the need to keep the application of the proposed instrument as simple as possible to avoid adding to the administrative burden of local authorities and to keep in line with simplification objectives;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Highlights the example of the sub- delegation to councils in the Netherlands, which includes parts of funding programmes (e.g. ERDF) being delegated from the regional authority to large local authorities, with actions implemented at local level to address local needs; stresses that allocating management responsibility to local authorities gives greater potential to integrate the best combination of funds tailored to local needs; emphasises that, with the management structures already in place at local level, this approach could benefit the delivery of ITIs, JAPs and CLLDat local or sub- local level;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. recognises the past success of LEADER as an important tool for the delivery of rural development policy and believes that through CLLD this delivery mechanism can be instrumental in responding to local and regional challenges;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the Commission to clarify its proposals on CLLD in the implementation phase in order to allow potential participants to fully determine the likely purpose, scope and effect of CLLD through; looks forward to the preparublication of delegated and implementing acts;a guide to CLLD for Managing Authorities
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Stresses the importance of ensuring that these instruments are developed alongside the CLLD in order to ensure that the CLLD grows into more than merely a strategic tool which relies on the JAPs or ITIs to deliver the programmesfor local capacity development;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Highlights the example of a proposed model for ITIs from Greater Manchester, which integrates funding from as many relevant sources as possible to achieve better value from investment; highlights the fact that the development of this model is ongoing and could potentially be used to support a strategy bringing many economic and social benefits to the city region; emphasises that the proposed ITI would integrate ERDF priorities with ESF measures and that, given the increased focus of ERDF on SMEs and innovation, there is potential for the ITI to include support fromcreate links with Horizon 2020 projects in the future;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34 a. stresses that in the future funding framework Financial Instruments should have the ability to lever private funding and offer flexibility to Member States and regions to tailor target sectors and implementation methods to their specific needs;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 b (new)
Paragraph 34 b (new)
34 b. Integration of CSF funds with other EU policies and instruments . welcomes the proposals in the Common Strategic Framework for Partnership Contracts to outline potential alignment between CSF funds and other funding programmes, such as the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (previously FP7, now Horizon 2020), LIFE + or the Connecting Europe Facility; . recognises that, while funding programmes such as H2020 are primarily focused on excellence, Structural Funds have previously been successful in a 'capacity building' role by providing funding to develop businesses or organisations that have then gone on to become partners in FP7 or Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) projects; . stresses that the existing synergies between CSF funds and Horizon 2020 mean that both funds could potentially be used while working towards complementary thematic objectives;