14 Amendments of Andrey KOVATCHEV related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for cohesion and structural policy programmes to place more emphasis on European added value; deems such added value to be achieved where EU projects bring about a lasting and measurable improvement in the economic, infrastructural, social and/or environmental status of a disadvantaged, less-developed regions, and where such improvement would not have been achievable without the European stimulus,
Amendment 80 #
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;(Does not affect English version)
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits; is particularly aware, in relation to such programmes, of the absence of political bodies (including democratically elected bodies) with a sufficiently wide- ranging remit to implement them; calls instead for closer coordination of macroregional or natural- environment strategies at inter- governmental levels;
Amendment 164 #
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 integrated development plans, and for the upgrading of urban-rural links; stresses that towns and cities can make a key contribution, as growth centres and growth drivers, to a given region; at the same time, points to the need for rural settlements to participate in integrated solutions for a given functional geographical entity by means of the fostering of partnerships and networks;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes the view that the development of basic infrastructure and support for conventional forms of energy should also be regarded as compatible with EU 2020, because only when they have competitive transport, energy and communications networks and waste-disposenvironmental infrastructure will the convergence regions be in a position to contribute to achieving the EU 2020 objectives – and that is precisely why the weaker and neediest regions must be given some leeway to interpret those objectives;
Amendment 250 #
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/PE below 75% of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (GDP/PE below 90% of the EU average), with reference to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006; 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 298 #
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%; 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; calls for simplification of the implementing rules governing Objective 3 programs, based on the principle of proportionality, as well as for the development of a common set of eligibility rules, all of which are pre- conditions for these programs to become more effective and more visible;
Amendment 317 #
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 common eligibility rules and for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to integrated development planning – to be increased and facilitated;
Amendment 341 #
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 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 353 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Welcomes the objectives of the development and investment partnership contracts between the EU and the Member States, which the Commission is proposing in place of the strategic framework plans previously prepared for individual Member States; calls for key investment priorities geared to the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and the achievement of other cohesion-policy and structural-policy objectives to be set at this stage; considers that the allocation of responsibilities between the various levels involved needs to be clarified, and calls for national and/or regional competences to be retained in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 437 #
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 463 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Emphasises that the provision of subsidies must always be retained as an option and that it must be the responsibility of those involved on the ground to use the funding mix best suited to regional needs; considers that subsidies should continue to dominate in regions lagging behind;
Amendment 496 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
Amendment 546 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Supports the Commission's proposal that the N+2 rule should be applied systematically except in the first year of funding and that any other derogations from it should be abolishedshould only reflect the administrative burdens required by the programming process; considers this will guarantee that a balance is struck between high- quality investment and smooth and speedy programme implementation;