Posėdžio stenograma

Antradienis, 2013 m. sausio 15 d. - Strasbūras

1. Posėdžio pradžia

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.05 Uhr eröffnet.)

2. Darbotvarkė

  Der Präsident. − Zunächst heiße ich den Präsidenten der Republik Zypern, Staatspräsident Christofias, herzlich willkommen, der gleich die Erklärung zur zypriotischen Präsidentschaft abgeben wird. Herzlich willkommen, Herr Staatspräsident!

Bevor ich Ihnen das Wort erteile, eine Mitteilung zur Geschäftsordnung beziehungsweise zur Tagesordnung. Gemäß Artikel 140 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung schlage ich Ihnen eine Änderung der heutigen Tagesordnung vor. Sie erinnern sich an die lebhafte Debatte gestern zu Beginn unserer Aussprache. Eine Erklärung der Hohen Vertreterin der Union, Frau Lady Ashton, mit Aussprache über die Lage in Mali wird nach Einvernehmen zwischen mir und den Fraktionen, wofür ich mich ausdrücklich bedanke, heute Nachmittag um 16.30 Uhr zur Tagesordnung hinzugefügt. Es gibt zu dieser Aussprache keinen Entschließungsantrag. Die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung des Ausschusses für Verkehr und Fremdenverkehr über die sogenannte Ein-Handgepäckstück-Regel einiger Fluggesellschaften wird als erster Punkt der Tagesordnung am Donnerstag aufgenommen.

(Der Präsident stellt fest, dass es keine Einwände gegen diese Vorschläge gibt.)

3. Pateikti dokumentai (žr.protokolą)

4. Diskusijos dėl žmogaus teisių, demokratijos ir teisinės valstybės pažeidimo atvejų (paskelbiami pateikti pasiūlymai dėl rezoliucijų) (žr. protokolą)

5. Sprendimai dėl kai kurių dokumentų (žr. protokolą)

6. Kipro pirmininkavimo Europos Sąjungos Tarybai apžvalga (diskusijos)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Bilanz des zyprischen Ratsvorsitzes (2012/2728(RSP)).

Hierzu begrüße ich auch den Präsidenten der Kommission, Herrn Barroso. Ich erteile das Wort an Herrn Staatspräsident Dimitris Christofias.

  Δημήτρης Χριστόφιας, Ασκών την Προεδρία του Συμβουλίου. − Κύριε Πρόεδρε του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, αξιότιμοι Πρόεδροι των πολιτικών ομάδων του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου, αξιότιμα μέλη, κύριε Πρόεδρε της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, Επίτροποι, κυρίες και κύριοι, θα ήθελα κατ’ αρχάς να ευχηθώ σε όλους κάθε καλό για τη νέα χρονιά, υγεία και προσωπική ευτυχία. Να ευχηθώ επίσης όπως το 2013 καταστεί η χρονιά που θα σηματοδοτήσει την πραγματική έξοδο της Ευρώπης από την κοινωνικοοικονομική κρίση που την ταλανίζει τα τελευταία χρόνια. Μια άνευ προηγουμένου σε ένταση και βάθος κρίση, που δυστυχώς, έχει πλήξει την κοινωνική συνοχή στην Ένωση και την ευημερία των πολιτών μας.

Θα ήθελα επίσης, εξ αρχής, να ευχαριστήσω όλα τα θεσμικά όργανα της Ένωσης, αλλά πρωτίστως το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και τους προέδρους όλων των πολιτικών ομάδων, για τη στήριξή τους κατά τη διάρκεια της Κυπριακής Προεδρίας. Θα ήταν παράλειψή μου αν δεν αναφερόμουν στην πολύ στενή μας συνεργασία με την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και να ευχαριστήσω θερμά τον φίλο πρόεδρο José Manuel Barroso, η προσωπική συμβολή του οποίου υπήρξε καταλυτική στην προώθηση της κοινής ευρωπαϊκής ατζέντας. Θερμές ευχαριστίες θέλω να εκφράσω και προς τους εταίρους μας στο Tρίο Προεδρίας. Την Πολωνία και τη Δανία για την εξαιρετική συνεργασία και, φυσικά, σε όλους όσοι εργάστηκαν σκληρά για την προετοιμασία και την πραγματοποίηση της πρώτης Κυπριακής Προεδρίας.

Είμαι σίγουρος ότι η τρέχουσα Ιρλανδική Προεδρία του Συμβουλίου θα πετύχει πλήρως στην αποστολή της. Η ιρλανδοί εταίροι μας αναμφισβήτητα έχουν τις ικανότητες, έχουν τη δέσμευση και την εμπειρία να οδηγήσουν την Ευρώπη μπροστά. Θα είναι πραγματικά τιμή μας αν θα είναι χρήσιμα γι’ αυτούς όσα εμείς προσπαθήσαμε και χτίσαμε κατά το περασμένο εξάμηνο.

Επιτρέψτε μου τώρα να απευθυνθώ προσωπικά σε σας, κύριε Πρόεδρε του Σώματος, φίλε Martin Schulz, ευχαριστώντας σας από καρδιάς για τη συνεργασία, την αφειδώλευτη αρωγή και τη στήριξη που παρείχατε στο έργο της Κυπριακής Προεδρίας τους τελευταίους έξι μήνες. Σας είμαι πραγματικά ιδιαίτερα ευγνώμων για την εμπιστοσύνη που μας δείξατε.

Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί φίλοι,

Η Κύπρος ανέλαβε τον περασμένο Ιούλιο για πρώτη φορά από την ένταξή της στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση την εξαμηνιαία προεδρία του Συμβουλίου μέσα σε, ομολογουμένως, πολύ δύσκολες συνθήκες για την Ένωσή μας. Αβεβαιότητα για το μέλλον της Ευρωζώνης και του Κοινού Ευρωπαϊκού Νομίσματος, κλυδωνισμοί στη θεσμική ενότητα της Ένωσης και αμφιβολίες για το μέλλον της Ενωμένης Ευρώπης.

Ειδικά σε ό,τι αφορά στην Ευρωζώνη πιστεύω ότι θα πρέπει να αναγνωριστούν τα σαφή βήματα που έχουν γίνει τους τελευταίους έξι μήνες και, όπως όλα δείχνουν, έχουν συμβάλει καθοριστικά στην ενίσχυση και διαφύλαξη της συνοχής της Ευρωζώνης και στη διασφάλιση του μέλλοντος του κοινού ευρωπαϊκού νομίσματος. Ειλικρινά εύχομαι να έχουμε αφήσει οριστικά πίσω μας τα χειρότερα.

Από την αρχή στηρίξαμε την άποψη πως οι τρέχουσες δυσκολίες και προκλήσεις που αντιμετωπίζει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση απαιτούν ρηξικέλευθες ευρωπαϊκές απαντήσεις. Τονίσαμε ότι σε τέτοιες περιόδους κρίσεων καθίσταται επιτακτική η ανάγκη όπως πετύχουμε μια πιο αλληλέγγυα και πιο αποτελεσματική, μια καλύτερη Ευρώπη. Ο ευρύτερός μας στόχος ήταν να εργαστούμε προς μια καλύτερη Ευρώπη που να σημαίνει περισσότερα για τους πολίτες της. Μια καλύτερη Ευρώπη στον κόσμο. Μια Ένωση που να λειτουργεί στη βάση των αρχών και των αξιών της. Μια πιο αποτελεσματική Ένωση με βιώσιμες πολιτικές που να ενισχύουν την απασχόληση, την ανάπτυξη και την κοινωνική συνοχή.

Θέσαμε ως πρώτιστο πολιτικό στόχο να συμβάλλουμε στο μέτρο των δυνάμεων και των αρμοδιοτήτων μας για μια Ένωση με πιο ορατά οφέλη για την ευημερία των ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Πιστεύουμε ακράδαντα πως η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση σήμερα, περισσότερο από ποτέ, έχει ανάγκη των πιο συνεκτικών πολιτικών που να διαφυλάσσουν την κοινωνική συνοχή και την ευημερία των πολιτών της. Αναμφίβολα αυτό που έχουν ανάγκη σήμερα οι πολίτες μας είναι να οικοδομηθεί μια πραγματικά κοινωνική Ευρώπη. Χρειαζόμαστε μια Ένωση της κοινωνικής αλληλεγγύης που να στέκεται αρωγός και να δίνει αξιόπιστες λύσεις στα καθημερινά κοινωνικοοικονομικά προβλήματα των πολιτών της. Θεωρώ πως αυτό είναι οφειλόμενο χρέος, αφενός στους οραματιστές της ευρωπαϊκής ενοποίησης και αφετέρου στις νέες γενιές της Ευρώπης που βλέπουν ζοφερό το μέλλον τους, αφού είναι τα παιδιά μας, κυρίως, που υφίστανται τόσο άδικα τις επιπτώσεις της ανεργίας.

Εκφράζω ιδιαίτερη ικανοποίηση για το ότι η Κυπριακή Προεδρία του Συμβουλίου έχει προωθήσει οριζοντίως αυτόν τον μείζονα πολιτικό στόχο κατά το δεύτερο εξάμηνο του 2012. Έχουμε εμβολιάσει με τις δικές μας πολιτικές θέσεις και κοινωνικές ευαισθησίες τον ευρύτερο ευρωπαϊκό διάλογο για την αναγκαιότητα θεμελίωσης μιας κοινωνικής Ένωσης, που θα συμπληρώνει και δεν θα ακυρώνει, βεβαίως, τις συλλογικές μας προσπάθειες για ενδυνάμωση της οικονομικής και νομισματικής ένωσης, καθώς και τις επίπονες προσπάθειες που καταβάλλουν το σύνολο σχεδόν των κρατών μελών της Ένωσης για οικονομική εξυγίανση και έξοδο από την κρίση.

Η Καλύτερη Ευρώπη συνίσταται και στην ευκολότερη και αποτελεσματικότερη θεσμική σχέση και επικοινωνία μεταξύ των κύριων οργάνων της Ένωσης. Μια από τις κύριες μας φιλοδοξίες - η οποία πιστεύω ότι εκπληρώθηκε - ήταν να ενεργήσουμε ως έντιμος διαμεσολαβητής, επιδιώκοντας να εργαστούμε εποικοδομητικά, τόσο στο Συμβούλιο όσο και σε στενή διαβούλευση με τους άλλους θεσμούς, προάγοντας με αυτόν τον τρόπο την διοργανική συνεργασία. Στοχεύσαμε στη συνέργεια και συμπληρωματικότητα μεταξύ των θεσμικών οργάνων και των παραγόντων της Ένωσης προωθώντας την κοινή ευρωπαϊκή ατζέντα. Πάντα με σεβασμό προς τους θεσμικούς συνομιλητές μας και προασπίζοντας την αξιοπρέπεια και την καλή πίστη ως βασικές ηθικές αξίες της όλης προσέγγισης και λειτουργίας μας ως Προεδρία του Συμβουλίου.

Είμαι ιδιαίτερα ευτυχής που η Κυπριακή Προεδρία συνέβαλε ουσιαστικά στην εμβάθυνση μιας αγαστής, αδιάλειπτης και ειλικρινούς σχέσης συνεργασίας με την Επιτροπή, αλλά κυρίως με το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Είναι σημαντικό να υπογραμμίσω πως, όπως δεσμεύτηκα ενώπιόν σας στις 4 του περασμένου Ιουλίου, η Κυπριακή Προεδρία ακολούθησε πιστά την Κοινοτική Μέθοδο και διασφάλισε μια δημιουργική σχέση συνεργασίας και εμπιστοσύνης με το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Θέλω να τονίσω επίσης πως εργαστήκαμε εποικοδομητικά και με πλήρη σεβασμό στις αρμοδιότητες όλων των θεσμικών οργάνων της Ένωσης.

Αδιαμφισβήτητα, η ενισχυμένη αμοιβαία εμπιστοσύνη που έχει οικοδομηθεί τους τελευταίους έξι μήνες μεταξύ των δύο Συννομοθετικών σωμάτων της Ένωσης θα πρέπει απαρέγκλιτα να συνεχιστεί και να διευρυνθεί ακόμα περισσότερο.

Αυτή, κυρίες και κύριοι, είναι κατά την άποψή μου, η πιο βασική πολιτική επιτυχία της πρώτης Κυπριακής Προεδρίας του Συμβουλίου με σημαντικές θεσμικές προεκτάσεις.

Η Κυπριακή Προεδρία αφιέρωσε πολλές δυνάμεις και ενέργεια στο ζήτημα του Πολυετούς Δημοσιονομικού Πλαισίου 2014 - 2020, όπως ήταν και η σχετική εντολή που δόθηκε από το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο τον περασμένο Ιούνιο. Δυστυχώς, δεν κατέστη δυνατό να επιτευχθεί συμφωνία επί του μείζονος αυτού θέματος. Πιστεύω όμως, και πιστεύω ακράδαντα, ότι η επίπονη εργασία που επιτελέστηκε από πλευράς της Κυπριακής Προεδρίας αποτελεί συμβολή στην αναγκαία ζύμωση που θα πρέπει να συνεχιστεί και τις επόμενες εβδομάδες υπό την καθοδήγηση του Προέδρου του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου, με στόχο την κατάληξη σε συμφωνία. Εξακολουθώ να πιστεύω πως το νέο πολυετές δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο θα πρέπει να αποτελέσει το κατ’ εξοχήν εργαλείο που έχουμε στη διάθεσή μας για να δώσουμε ξανά ώθηση στην ανάπτυξη και στη δημιουργία νέων θέσεων εργασίας.

Κύριε Πρόεδρε, Αξιότιμα μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, επιτρέψτε μου να σημειώσω με κάθε σεμνότητα και ειλικρίνεια ότι η Κυπριακή Προεδρία έχει επιτύχει στοχευμένα και σημαντικά αποτελέσματα για την Ένωση ακολουθώντας με συνέπεια μια λειτουργική και πραγματιστική προσέγγιση. Θα αναφέρω επιγραμματικά μόνο μερικά από αυτά.

Ένας από τους κύριους στόχους της Κυπριακής Προεδρίας ήταν η ολοκλήρωση του κοινού ευρωπαϊκού συστήματος ασύλου. Η Κυπριακή Προεδρία κληρονόμησε τις τέσσερις εναπομείνασες νομοθετικές προτάσεις που εκκρεμούσαν ώστε να ολοκληρωθεί το κοινό ευρωπαϊκό σύστημα ασύλου. Με ιδιαίτερη ικανοποίηση μπορώ να ισχυριστώ πως αναντίλεκτα είμαστε πολύ κοντά στην ουσιαστική εκπλήρωση αυτού του μεγάλου στόχου.

Καταφέραμε μετά από συντονισμένες προσπάθειες με το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο και ειδικότερα με την καταλυτική μας συνεργασία με τον Πρόεδρο Schultz, να εξομαλύνουμε την κατάσταση σε σχέση με τη Διακυβέρνηση Schengen. Με τη βοήθεια όλων των κρατών μελών και βεβαίως της Διάσκεψης των Προέδρων του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου, η Κυπριακή Προεδρία πέτυχε να αποφευχθεί ένας μεγάλος σκόπελος που δυνητικά θα μπορούσε να δυσχεράνει οριζόντια τη συνεργασία του Συμβουλίου με το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο, ανατρέποντας έτσι το Συννομοθετικό έργο και τον ευρύτερο προγραμματισμό μας.

Περαιτέρω θα ήθελα να σημειώσω την ιδιαίτερη ικανοποίησή μου για το γεγονός πως το έκτακτο Συμβούλιο Οικονομικών και Δημοσιονομικών Θεμάτων που συγκάλεσε η Κυπριακή Προεδρία στις 12 Δεκεμβρίου πέτυχε τον μείζονα στόχο επίτευξης συμφωνίας στο Συμβούλιο, στο πλαίσιο γενικής προσέγγισης για το νέο εποπτικό μηχανισμό, κάνοντας έτσι ένα σημαντικό βήμα προς την απευθείας ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των τραπεζών και την υλοποίηση της τραπεζικής ένωσης, βασικής συνισταμένης της Οικονομικής και Νομισματικής Ένωσης. Προσβλέπουμε στη στενή συνεργασία μαζί σας ούτως ώστε μέσα στα πλαίσια της συνήθους νομοθετικής διαδικασίας να οριστικοποιηθεί το ταχύτερο και να υλοποιηθεί ο Ενιαίος Εποπτικός Μηχανισμός.

Μια άλλη αξιοσημείωτη, θα έλεγα, επιτυχία της Προεδρίας, η οποία κατέστη δυνατή μέσα από την αγαστή συνεργασία με το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο, και μέσα από εξαιρετικά δύσκολες συνθήκες, αποτέλεσε η έγκαιρη επίτευξη συμφωνίας με το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο για τον προϋπολογισμό της Ένωσης για το 2013 και τους συμπληρωματικούς προϋπολογισμούς του 2012.

Η επίτευξη συμφωνίας για το Ενιαίο Δίπλωμα Ευρεσιτεχνίας αναντίλεκτα, αποτελεί σπουδαίο επίτευγμα για την Ένωση. Υπερπηδήθηκε η διαθεσμική κρίση που προέκυψε τον περασμένο Ιούνιο και μετά από διαπραγματεύσεις πέραν των τριάντα ετών, έχει επιτέλους υπογραφεί ο σχετικός κανονισμός, κάτι που θα βοηθήσει σημαντικά την ανταγωνιστικότητα και την ανάπτυξη ειδικά των μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων, της ραχοκοκαλιάς της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας. Επιπρόσθετα, παρά τη γενικότερη καθυστέρηση που παρατηρήθηκε ως προς κάποιες νομοθετικές προτάσεις, θα ήθελα να αναφέρω με ικανοποίηση πως η Κυπριακή Προεδρία έχει επιτύχει συμφωνία με το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο επί πέντε σημαντικών δράσεων της Πράξης για την Ενιαία Αγορά.

Καταφέραμε επίσης στον τομέα του Εξωτερικού Εμπορίου, να κάνουμε ένα σημαντικό βήμα με την έναρξη διαπραγματεύσεων για συνομολόγηση συμφωνίας ελευθέρου εμπορίου με την Ιαπωνία. Είναι αξιοσημείωτο πως σύμφωνα με εκτιμήσεις της Επιτροπής αναμένεται να δημιουργηθούν 400.000 επιπλέον θέσεις εργασίας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ως αποτέλεσμα αυτής της Συμφωνίας.

Ως τελευταίο, αλλά όχι έσχατο, θα ήθελα να κάνω ειδική αναφορά στην επιτυχία της Κυπριακής Προεδρίας να επανενεργοποιήσει την Ολοκληρωμένη Θαλάσσια Πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Με τη Διακήρυξη της Λεμεσού έχει δοθεί μια νέα δυναμική στην αξιοποίηση των τεράστιων δυνατοτήτων της γαλάζιας ανάπτυξης. Αναμφίβολα, οι θαλάσσιες και ναυτιλιακές δραστηριότητες μπορούν να συμβάλουν καθοριστικά στην οικονομικά δύσκολη αυτή συγκυρία για δημιουργία ανάπτυξης και νέων θέσεων εργασίας.

Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί φίλοι και φίλες, κύρια επιδίωξή μας κατά το εξάμηνο της Προεδρίας μας ήταν να συμβάλουμε εποικοδομητικά στην περαιτέρω ευρωπαϊκή ολοκλήρωση. Ειλικρινά πιστεύω ότι τα κύρια αποτελέσματα της προεδρίας μας, όπως τα έχω σταχυολογήσει προηγουμένως, είναι η αδιαμφισβήτητη απόδειξη της θετικής μας συμβολής.

Κυρίες και κύριοι, με την ευκαιρία της σημερινής μου παρουσίας στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, και λαμβάνοντας υπόψη ότι πολύ σύντομα ολοκληρώνεται η θητεία μου στην Προεδρία της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, θα ήθελα να μοιραστώ μαζί σας την αγωνία μου για το μέλλον της Ένωσής μας. Ο βαθιά γραφειοκρατικός τρόπος με τον οποίο θεσμικά είναι δομημένη η Ένωση διαβρώνει κατά την πτωχή μου άποψη την παραγωγή ορθολογικών πολιτικών που να στοχεύουν στην αποτελεσματικότερη αντιμετώπιση των καθημερινών αναγκών των ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Είναι πραγματικά με λύπη που διαπιστώνω ότι υπάρχει σοβαρή διάσταση μεταξύ των πολιτικών αποφάσεων που λαμβάνουμε για παράδειγμα στο επίπεδο του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου, από τα όσα υλοποιούνται σε τεχνοκρατικό επίπεδο. Δεν μπορεί να αποφασίζουμε στο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο του Ιουνίου να επικεντρωθούμε, επιτέλους, σε μέτρα ανάπτυξης και ενίσχυσης της απασχόλησης, και την ίδια ώρα οι τεχνοκράτες-εντολοδόχοι της τρόικα να προωθούν τις ίδιες, αποτυχημένες, συνταγές της μονόπλευρης και αυστηρής λιτότητας που οδηγεί εκατομμύρια ευρωπαίους πολίτες στη φτώχεια, την ανέχεια και τον κοινωνικό αποκλεισμό.

Η κατάσταση αυτή, δίκαια απογοητεύει τους πολίτες μας. Έχουμε καθήκον να αναστρέψουμε το κλίμα απογοήτευσης έναντι της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, που ολοένα και διευρύνεται στις κοινωνίες των χωρών μας. Οφείλουμε να δράσουμε συντονισμένα και να ξανακάνουμε ελκυστική την ευρωπαϊκή ολοκλήρωση, δίνοντας ξανά ελπίδα στους ευρωπαίους πολίτες και κυρίως στους νέους μας. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν μπορεί να δίνει την εντύπωση πως στηρίζει μόνο τις μεγάλες επιχειρήσεις και τους τραπεζίτες. Οι πολιτικές απόλυτης ελευθερίας της αγοράς, που ισούται με ασυδοσία της αγοράς και με ελευθερία των κερδοσκόπων και των πολυεθνικών εταιρειών να επιβάλλουν στους λαούς της Ευρώπης πολιτικές λιτότητας, που πνίγουν την ανάπτυξη και διαρρηγνύουν τον κοινωνικό ιστό, επιβάλλεται να εγκαταλειφθούν. Είναι ακλόνητη πεποίθησή μου ότι οι πολιτικές μονόπλευρης λιτότητας αποτελούν εγγυημένη συνταγή αποτυχίας, αφού το μόνο που πετυχαίνουν είναι να κάνουν τους πλούσιους πλουσιότερους και τους φτωχούς φτωχότερους.

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αν θέλει να αναγνωριστεί από τα εκατομμύρια των πολιτών της ως εγγυητής σταθερότητας και ειρήνης, πρέπει να προωθήσει, με ουσιαστικό τρόπο, την κοινωνική συνοχή στην Ένωση. Χωρίς κοινωνική συνοχή και κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα είναι μια οργάνωση κρατών χωρίς όραμα. Η ευημερία όλων και η Κοινωνική Ειρήνη αποτελεί αναπόσπαστο στοιχείο του ευγενούς οράματος των ιδρυτών της Ενωμένης Ευρώπης.

Κερδίσαμε το Νόμπελ Ειρήνης, αλλά σε χώρα μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης επικρατεί ακόμα κατοχή του 37% του εδάφους της από χώρα που φιλοδοξεί να γίνει και μέλος της Ένωσης.

Είναι πεποίθησή μου ότι ιδιαίτερα στις μέρες μας, που η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση διέρχεται μια πολύπλευρη κρίση, πρέπει να στραφούμε για καθοδήγηση στις ιδρυτικές αρχές της Ένωσης. Και κυρίως, στην Αρχή της Αλληλεγγύης. Οφείλουμε να ξαναδώσουμε πλήρες νόημα στην Αρχή της Αλληλεγγύης. Όχι για να εξυπηρετήσουμε, όπως κάποιοι ενδεχομένως να φοβούνται, την άκρατη δανειοδότηση του «φτωχού ευρωπαϊκού νότου από τον πλούσιο ευρωπαϊκό βορρά», αλλά για να διατρανώσουμε μέσα από διαφανείς διαδικασίες και βέλτιστες πρακτικές, πως η λέξη «Ένωση» στον τίτλο «Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση» δεν είναι κενή περιεχομένου, αλλά έχει ουσία που μετουσιώνεται σε πολιτική πράξη μέσα από αποτελεσματικές δράσεις που κάνουν τη διαφορά για τους πολίτες.

Ολοκληρώνοντας την παρέμβασή μου, θα ήθελα να υπογραμμίσω εμφαντικά πως η εντατικοποίηση του κοινού μας αγώνα για μια Καλύτερη Ευρώπη, πιο ανθρωποκεντρική και με πιο ορατά οφέλη για τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες είναι σήμερα πιο αναγκαία από ποτέ. Γνωρίζουμε πως ο δρόμος προς την Ιθάκη είναι μακρύς και δύσκολος. Αναμφίβολα όμως, όλοι μαζί, μπορούμε να τα καταφέρουμε καλύτερα!

Σας ευχαριστώ θερμά

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, President Christofias, honourable Members, I want to start by thanking and also congratulating President Christofias, and through him all the people and authorities involved in the running of the Cyprus Presidency.

I want to pay tribute today to Cyprus, which, as one of our smallest Member States, with its particular geographical location and itself facing important political and economic challenges these days, has proved its pro-European commitment, professionalism and efficiency during its Council Presidency. Together we have reached important results during this period, and I am convinced that Cyprus will continue to make an important contribution to our Union beyond its term of Presidency.

President Christofias, dear friend, thank you very much for your kind words regarding the role the Commission and myself have played in contributing to your very successful Presidency.

Honourable Members, our debate today gives us the opportunity to take stock of what has been achieved so far, and what is still on the table. During six months not all problems can be solved. Not all files can be closed. Nevertheless, a lot of important groundwork has been done in 2012 which, in that sense, was a crucial year.

Crisis-hit Eurozone countries have made important progress in bringing their budgets in order and in tackling deep-rooted structural problems. They have done so with determination and resolve. At every phase, they have been driven forward, advised and assisted by the European institutions. This process needs to continue. The ever-sceptical financial markets have taken note of these efforts and acknowledged them. Private investors are finding their way back to Eurozone countries in need. Competitiveness, notably of the least competitive Member States, is improving, leading to the gradual rebalancing the Eurozone so far has lacked. Overall public finances are improving, slowly but surely. We have safeguarded the integrity of the Eurozone. We have stopped the existential threat hanging over us earlier.

Of course, we must avoid any kind of complacency. As long as unemployment remains very high, the crisis is certainly not over yet. And I have been extremely clear saying that we still have a crisis in front of us, namely a social crisis, very deep in some of our Member States. But we have turned a page in the crisis. No more, no less. And we are now ready to write the next chapter of the recovery.

This next chapter will be about building confidence by further strengthening our economic governance, by completing the banking union and by exploiting every means possible to create growth – sustainable growth – and jobs and to address the most pressing social problems in our countries.

The Commission will continue to take the lead in this. The line the Commission has been defending, and will continue to defend, is of course about putting our public finances in order. Because without that there is no confidence, without confidence there is no investment, without investment there is no growth. But this is just part of the answer. We have at the same time highlighted how important it is to have reforms for competitiveness and also investment, because investment is indispensable for growth. I wish all governments of Europe could share the same priority the Commission is giving to the need for investment at European level.

We will continue to firmly defend the European interest. And we will continue to work hand in hand with this Parliament. The European Union and its Member States have to continue on the path of reform. We have yet to prove the sustainability of this process. Looking at the past year I feel encouraged that we will be successful.

In fact, this is the main lesson I draw from what happened and from what did not happen over the last few months: those speculating against the euro have underestimated the political capital that is invested in it. Let us continue to prove them wrong, and take care not to disinvest at such a crucial moment, just when our investment is starting – and I underline starting – to pay off. A lot still has to be done.

This is also why it is crucial to complete our work at European level. Despite the important efforts deployed by the Cyprus Presidency and by many of you in the European Parliament, we have not been able to finalise the two-pack. And the two-pack is essential for making progress on economic governance within the Community method.

After a year of negotiations, with 13 trialogue meetings, I believe it is time to conclude and send, once again, the signal that Europe is capable of decisive action. This is the first opportunity we have to keep the reform momentum going.

Likewise, we have not had the chance to break the deadlock in the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework, something both Parliament and the Commission would have welcomed. The Cyprus Presidency made the first attempt to reach a consensus. However, the conditions were not yet met to reach agreement.

Clearly, these have been the most difficult and complex budget negotiations ever. Now, negotiations have reached a point where, I must say, further cuts risk weakening the European Union as such, while our common goal should be to strengthen our Union.

The MFF is a fundamental European tool for growth, for investment, for solidarity – concrete solidarity. The Commission will continue to work towards an agreement between Member States and also between our institutions. We have highlighted constantly that the approval of the Parliament is indispensable. And we need that agreement. We have seen, in the extremely difficult negotiations on the European Union’s budget for 2013 and the amending budget for 2012 – where, by the way, the Cyprus Presidency made a tremendous and at the end successful effort – how negative it would be if we could not have the predictability that a multiannual budget can give for investment in Europe.

And I will also keep fighting for the truly European parts of the package, notably those aimed at growth and jobs. But as I said, we are not yet there. Further efforts will be needed to bring positions together. This will be difficult but certainly not impossible.

That was also clear from the debate on the road towards a European banking union. The centrepiece of the Cyprus Presidency was to make progress on the Commission’s proposals for a Single Supervisory Mechanism. And in this, we have achieved a significant breakthrough, both on the Council and on the Parliament side. Parliament has worked on this very efficiently and the Thyssen and Giegold reports are constructive and supportive, and in very many points rather similar to the approach taken by the Council. I hope making the final step for formal adoption is a matter of weeks, not months.

Next should be a swift conclusion on the pending proposals on bank capital rules, bank resolution and deposit guarantees. Following the adoption of the SSM the Commission will make a formal legislative proposal for a single resolution mechanism in the banking sector before the summer. I consider this a matter of utmost political priority. This proposal will be by no means less important than the SSM, and neither will it be less complex to frame in legal, technical and political terms.

At the same time, we have not neglected to prepare the ground for the major debate needed before the European elections: in presenting our Blueprint on a Deep and Genuine EMU, the Commission stuck its neck out. That is our role. It is the only way for Europe to keep its focus on the long road still ahead, to provide coherence and also to structure our day-to-day efforts.

The focus that we had to give to the financial sector, to the fiscal situation and to questions of economic governance does not mean Europe is losing sight of the real economy. On the contrary, the real economy is and should be our first priority.

And in this sense the contribution made by the Cyprus Presidency in the last six months needs to be highlighted here. After some 30 years of debate, and based on Commission proposals, an agreement was finally reached between Member States – even if not all – on the Single European Patent.

We have concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement with Singapore, and you have given the final consent to trade deals with Central America, and with Colombia and Peru; and we have agreed to launch negotiations for a free trade agreement with Japan.

We also took stock of the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe, halfway through its five-year strategy, and found that it had achieved many of its targets and is on track to meet most of the others.

The Commission presented its proposal for a Council recommendation on youth guarantees. First discussions have taken place in the Council. It is key that we prioritise for job and training opportunities for those hit hardest by the crisis. This is a matter where Member States can give a concrete demonstration that they are committed to growth and to tackling the very serious problem of unemployment, namely youth unemployment.

A very good contribution of the Cyprus Presidency was the Limassol Declaration, giving a new impetus to our integrated maritime policy. This is a matter very close to my heart. I was happy to be in Cyprus for that occasion and I believe this can be a real contribution to boost growth.

Finally, and I could of course quote other matters, but among the most important, progress was also made on the asylum package and it has brought us very close to concluding the discussions on the Common European Asylum System and, with our groundwork, important steps have been achieved in negotiating with this House on the Schengen governance package, preparing the ground for an agreement in early 2013.

I truly believe that over the last few months, while many important and difficult challenges remain, notably the social ones, we have regained trust, we have reaffirmed composure and recovered momentum. The Cyprus Presidency can therefore look back with satisfaction at a number of important achievements in economically and socially difficult times. During these last six months, Cyprus has shown its European commitment in holding its first Council rotating Presidency.

It will be our job over the months to come, through serious efforts, to show that Europe works and delivers – each of us with his or her own role to play, but never forgetting our collective responsibility as a Union.

(Applause)

  Corien Wortmann-Kool, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Vandaag kijken wij terug op het Cypriotisch voorzitterschap. Dat was geen gemakkelijk halfjaar en voor Cyprus ook het eerste roulerend voorzitterschap van de Europese Raad.

Ondanks de beperkte grootte en ook de beperkte ervaring is er op een aantal belangrijke thema's goede voortgang geboekt. Terecht heeft Cyprus de provocaties van Ankara genegeerd, dat de relaties met het roulerend voorzitterschap heeft bevroren en deelname aan bijeenkomsten heeft vermeden. Dat getuigt van een gebrek aan respect voor de Europese Unie als geheel. Ik zou Cyprus en in het bijzonder ook de inzet van de ambtelijke staf van het Cypriotisch voorzitterschap willen prijzen voor de bereikte voortgang in het afgelopen halfjaar.

Na dertig jaar is er eindelijk een Europees patent en dat is belangrijk voor innovaties en daarmee een bron voor toekomstige werkgelegenheid. Ook werd een overeenkomst over de begroting voor 2013 bereikt, zodat toegezegde betalingen aan concrete investeringen en projecten toch uitgevoerd kunnen worden. Ook dat draagt bij aan groei en werkgelegenheid.

Ik noem deze punten speciaal, omdat de werkloosheid en vooral de bestrijding van de jeugdwerkloosheid onze grote prioriteit moet zijn. Dat vereist daadkracht en actie. Daarvoor is ook herstel van stabiliteit en vertrouwen in Europa en in onze bankensector van groot belang. En ook op dat punt is voortgang bereikt. Er ligt een gemeenschappelijk standpunt over het gemeenschappelijk toezichtsmechanisme, het nieuwe Europese bankentoezicht bij de ECB. Op dit moment worden de onderhandelingen gevoerd met het Europees Parlement, die hopelijk snel tot resultaat leiden.

Voorzitter, op Europees niveau is goede voortgang geboekt, maar thuis in Cyprus bleek de regering niet in staat de crisis in eigen land te beheersen. De Cypriotische regering verzuimde noodzakelijke maatregelen te nemen voor een duurzaam begrotingsbeleid en voor structurele hervormingen om de concurrentiekracht te versterken. Ook de aanpak van foute praktijken als witwassen van geld ontbrak. Daardoor kwam de bankencrisis extra hard aan. Helaas betalen de Cypriotische burgers de prijs. Ik was afgelopen week op bezoek in Cyprus en zag de schade van de crisis, maar ook de ondernemingslust en de veerkracht van de Cypriotische burgers.

Voorzitter, een snel akkoord over Europese steun uit het noodfonds ESM is vereist, maar dat vereist wel een geloofwaardig plan om het Cypriotische huis weer op orde te krijgen, inclusief een geloofwaardige implementatie. Het ziet ernaar uit dat deze regering dat niet kan bieden en na de verkiezing een nieuwe regering nodig is om de Cypriotische burger nieuw perspectief te bieden.

  Elisa Ferreira, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente da Comissão, Senhor Presidente Christofias, Chipre ocupou a presidência do Conselho num dos períodos mais difíceis da vida da União Europeia. O trabalho foi realizado em circunstâncias económicas e políticas de grande dificuldade e, se tivermos em conta a dimensão do país, o facto de ser a primeira vez que esta função foi assumida e as dificuldades internas do próprio país, nomeadamente em termos económicos, é digno e é merecedor o nosso apreço coletivo e o nosso agradecimento público à Presidência.

Este agradecimento justifica-se ainda mais se tomarmos em conta as manifestas dificuldades reveladas em várias circunstâncias pelo Conselho em responder atempadamente, de forma coerente e articulada, à evolução dos acontecimentos e à urgência de respostas sistemáticas e coerentes. Outros falarão melhor do que eu sobre o trabalho feito em relação a Schengen e ao asilo, ao impulso em matéria comercial externa, em relação à política monetária europeia e ao sucesso concretizado na patente europeia.

Em matéria económica, e a economia ainda não saiu do centro da agenda, e em termos legislativos, gostaria de sublinhar o enorme esforço realizado pela equipa cipriota. Em alguns destes dossiês não foi possível concluir mas a conclusão a que se chegará ficará sempre a crédito em grande medida da presidência cipriota, refiro-me ao reforço dos capitais, à Capital Requirements Directive ou CRD4, onde muito trabalho levou a uma quase conclusão deste importante dossiê. Também aos fundos de capital de risco e aos fundos de empreendedorismo social mas, relativamente ao two pack, sendo esta uma das peças fundamentais da regulação económica, está neste momento em curso e em debate uma proposta pré-conciliação final sobre a qual eu espero que haja progresso muito rápido que não evite ou não esconda a necessidade de abordarmos de uma forma sistemática a dívida soberana e a necessidade de uma agenda de crescimento.

Do lado dos sucessos, gostaria de sublinhar o que hoje vai ser aqui debatido e que, durante esta sessão plenária, nos levará a uma conclusão: as agências de notação. Também aqui a posição do Conselho nem sempre foi clara, mas chegamos a um ponto em que de facto nós temos progresso claro na defesa, nomeadamente da dívida soberana face aos especuladores.

Por último, foi também durante a presidência cipriota que começaram a ocorrer mudanças fundamentais relativamente à agenda da União Europeia e em particular da zona euro. É durante a presidência cipriota que nós encontramos pela primeira vez, depois de muito tempo e de muitos pedidos por parte deste Parlamento, um pensamento de médio e longo prazo sobre o futuro da União Monetária, os relatórios dos quatro Presidentes mais um e a iniciativa da Comissão relativamente ao Blueprint são passos claros nesse sentido.

Termino já, Sr. Presidente, para dizer que, no fim da presidência cipriota, a agenda europeia é mais clara, o futuro é mais claro e que temas como o crescimento, o emprego, a dimensão social e também a luta contra a fraude e a evasão fiscal têm de ganhar força, de ganhar dimensão e de ganhar dinâmica na presidência que se segue.

  Cecilia Wikström, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας ALDE. – Αγαπητέ κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητέ κύριε υπουργέ, θέλω να σας ευχαριστήσω με όλη μου την καρδιά για την Κυπριακή Προεδρία που έφτασε στο τέλος της.

Cypern är ett ungt medlemsland i EU och har nu genomfört sitt första ordförandeskap. Nu är det tid för oss att summera den tid som gått. Många är vi som med glädje konstaterar att EU under cypriotiskt ordförandeskap har nått framgång på skilda områden.

Som gruppledare i det rättsliga utskottet JURI så är det glädjande att minnas hur det europeiska patentet under ert ledarskap blev verklighet. Efter 37 års upprepade försök nådde vi i mål, och detta kommer många av oss att minnas med tacksamhet och glädje.

Som föredragande för Dublinförordningen, alltså LIBE-utskottet, erkänner jag också alla era försök att nå överenskommelser kring det gemensamma europeiska asylpaketet. Att vi inte nådde hela vägen fram, det berodde sannerligen inte på det cypriotiska ordförandeskapet och dess ledarskap, utan på egenintresse och ovilja till gemensamt ansvarstagande för de asylsökande i medlemsländerna. Detta perspektiv kom att dominera, vilket jag beklagar djupt.

Vi är många som kommer att minnas det cypriotiska ordförandeskapet med erkänsla, tacksamhet och glädje under dagar som kommer. Så ska vi fortfarande tänka på Cypern som ett litet, vackert och spännande medlemsland som under sitt första ordförandeskap lärde oss att se och förstå att vi ska betrakta Cypern inte bara som ett litet land, ett turistmål, utan som ett litet land som har gjort stor skillnad för EU och som har visat sig vara ett för EU mycket viktigt medlemsland. För detta vill vi tacka. (Avslutning på grekiska)

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΑΝΝΥ ΠΟΔΗΜΑΤΑ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Präsident Christofias, vielen Dank für Ihre Rede. Ich möchte mich im Namen meiner Fraktion auch für die große Offenheit bedanken, mit der Sie bei unseren Besuchen mit uns über die wunderbare und lange Geschichte Ihrer Heimatinsel gesprochen haben.

Ich muss allerdings an dieser Stelle auch wieder betonen, dass ich bei meinen Besuchen jedes Mal über die aktuelle Situation der Insel schockiert war, über die Spaltung, und dass ich natürlich – gemessen an dem, was wir zu Beginn der Ratspräsidentschaft gesagt haben – heute diesen einen Punkt nur als große Enttäuschung ansprechen kann. Zur Überwindung dieser furchtbaren Spur der jüngeren Geschichte, nämlich der Spaltung durch eine echte Grenze auf Zypern, ist nichts beigetragen worden.

Wenn ich mir die aktuellen wirtschaftlichen Probleme Zyperns ansehe, muss ich sagen, es wäre für Zypern und für alle Zyprioten besser, wenn die falsche Blockiertheit, das Denken in einer überkommenen nationalen Orientierung, überwunden werden könnte. Wirtschaftliche Entwicklung, bessere Perspektiven, auch entgegen dieser falschen Einseitigkeit der Entwicklung der Wirtschaft, die wird Zypern nur mit einer Einigkeit schaffen. Die Visiere sind zu weit geschlossen. Sie haben ehemals sehr dazu beigetragen, die Überwindung der alten Konflikte anzugehen. Es ist leider bisher gescheitert und Sie sind so blockiert in Ihrer Heimat wie eh und je.

In Deutschland und in anderen europäischen Ländern haben wir jetzt sehr stark die Debatte über Hilfsmaßnahmen für Zypern in der Finanzkrise. Ich glaube, dass es ein großer Fehler ist, wenn in Zypern jetzt so getan wird, als gäbe es dort keine Probleme mit dem Steuerhafen, der Steueroase Zypern. Es wäre falsch, so zu tun, als wenn nicht auf Zypern tatsächlich Hilfestellung geleistet würde für Steuerflüchtlinge und Steuervermeider. Selbst über Geldwäsche in Ihrer Heimat sollten Sie offen reden. Wenn die Verhandlungen über die Hilfsmaßnahmen nun anlaufen, dann muss das alles Thema sein. Sie könnten mit einer Offenheit und dem Eingeständnis der Problemlage dazu beitragen, dass die Europäer insgesamt diese Probleme angehen, denn Zypern ist ja nicht das einzige Land, das Steuerungerechtigkeit möglich macht.

Sie haben nochmals dafür appelliert, dass Europa mehr für Wachstum tun muss. Europa muss aber auch gemeinsam etwas dazu tun, dass die Einnahmen des Staates fair erfolgen. Deswegen müssen wir etwas gegen Steuerungerechtigkeit tun. Der Aktionsplan gegen Steuerflucht liegt auf dem Tisch, die Revision der Geldwäsche-Richtlinie liegt an, die Finanztransaktionssteuer. Sie sollten unbedingt von Zypern aus dem Club der Anhänger der Finanztransaktionssteuer beitreten. Und Sie müssen unbedingt dazu beitragen, dass die ersten Schritte, die wir in die Bankenunion getan haben, nicht schon die letzten sind, denn der Restrukturierungsfonds und die Einlagensicherung sind die beiden anderen Säulen, auf denen diese Bankenunion gebaut werden muss.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Paul Rübig (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Kollegin Harms, Sie haben auf die Energiepolitik in Zypern und in Europa nicht spezifisch Bezug genommen. Können Sie etwas sagen, was Zypern für die erneuerbare Energie tun könnte? Und wie glauben Sie, dass man die Arbeitslosigkeit dort beseitigen kann? Könnte man dort auch etwas für kleine und mittlere Betriebe tun?

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Wir haben in den Gesprächen in Zypern immer wieder besonders auf das Potenzial der Insel für erneuerbare Energien hingewiesen. Leider haben wir festgestellt, dass sich durch die Entdeckung von Rohstoffreserven vor den Küsten Zyperns die Hoffnungen im Moment eher auf eine Verlängerung des fossilen Zeitalters richten und man weniger auf die Chancen gerade auch für die Entwicklung kleiner und mittelständischer Unternehmen im Zusammenhang mit der Erschließung der erneuerbaren Potenziale setzt.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL), ερώτηση “γαλάζια κάρτα”. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρία Harms, θέλω κατ’ αρχήν να σας πω ότι θεωρώ ότι είστε ένας από τους πιο σοβαρούς συναδέλφους, εκτιμώ πάρα πολύ τη δουλειά σας. Ευχαριστώ, επίσης, για την ευαισθησία που δείχνετε για τη διαίρεση στην Κύπρο. Σας έχω ακούσει μερικές φορές να αναφέρεστε σε αυτό το θέμα. Θα ήθελα να σας ρωτήσω δύο πράγματα: εσείς μεν αναφέρεστε στον αποκαλούμενο φορολογικό παράδεισο στην Κύπρο, αλλά εμείς στην Κύπρο αυτό που συζητούμε, και θέλω να το σχολιάσετε, είναι ο φορολογικός παράδεισος, γενικά, που ευνοεί λόγω του ευρωσυστήματος που υφίσταται καθώς και της έλλειψης δασμών, χώρες όπως η Γερμανία και άλλες οι οποίες πλουτίζουν και εξαιτίας του γεγονότος ότι έχουν διαγραφεί οι δυνατότητες επιβολής δασμών. Άρα πρέπει να βρεθούν τρόποι που να συζητηθούν όλα αυτά τα ζητήματα και, δεύτερον, σας έχω στείλει αποφάσεις και έρευνες της Επιτροπής Μόνεϊβαλ του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης του 1998, 2001, 2005 και του 2010 που όλες επισημαίνουν ότι η Κύπρος υιοθέτησε όλα τα μέτρα που συνάδουν με τα διεθνή πρότυπα και το νομικό πλαίσιο για τους φορολογικούς παραδείσους και τους δασμούς και τα οποία τέθηκαν σε εφαρμογή και κρίνονται ...

(Η Πρόεδρος αφαιρεί το λόγο από τον ομιλητή)

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Ich kann nur noch einmal ausdrücklich bekräftigen, was ich in meiner Rede gesagt habe: Zypern ist ein Land, das Steuerflucht ermöglicht, so wie andere Länder in der Europäischen Union auch. Zypern hat Briefkastenunternehmen in großer Zahl, aber auch andere Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union haben das. Wir ermöglichen in Europa viel zu sehr Steuerflucht und auch Geldwäsche.

Wir müssen das zusammen angehen. Ich finde es völlig falsch, dass in Deutschland eine Diskussion nur wegen Zypern entfacht wird. Ich finde es richtig, eine Diskussion darüber zu entfachen, wie wir europäisch gemeinsam für Steuergerechtigkeit und gegen Geldwäsche vorgehen. Dazu sollte Herr Christofias Frau Merkel auffordern.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Αντιγόνη Παπαδοπούλου (S&D), ερώτηση “γαλάζια κάρτα”. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η δική μου ερώτηση είναι και πάλι στην κυρία Harms. Έχω ακούσει μετά λύπης μου να αναφέρετε ότι «η Κύπρος είναι φορολογικός παράδεισος, τόπος για φοροφυγάδες και πολιτικούς πρόσφυγες». Μήπως αναφέρεστε στην κατεχόμενη Κύπρο; Αυτή είναι η πρώτη ερώτηση. Γνωρίζετε ότι η νομοθεσία μας έχει προσαρμοστεί και εναρμονίστηκε πλήρως όσον αφορά την πάταξη της φοροδιαφυγής και ως εκ τούτου η Κύπρος δεν είναι φορολογικός παράδεισος; Αν έχετε αντίθετα στοιχεία να τα παρουσιάσετε.

Και η δεύτερη ερώτηση: Έχετε μιλήσει πολύ σωστά για μια "μπλοκαρισμένη" διαπραγμάτευση όσον αφορά την επανένωση του νησιού. Ποιος φταίει γι’ αυτό; Διότι οι κυπριακές κυβερνήσεις, και η παρούσα κυβέρνηση, έχουν δώσει πολλές μάχες για την επανένωση της Κύπρου...

(Η Πρόεδρος διακόπτει την ομιλήτρια).

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Nochmal: Ich will die Mitgliedstaaten nicht alle aufzählen. Aber dass unfaire Steuerpolitik gemacht wird, dass es einen unfairen Steuerwettbewerb in der Europäischen Union gibt, das sollten die Kollegen hier unterschreiben. Sonst bräuchten wir ja nicht den Aktionsplan gegen Steuerflucht, sonst bräuchten wir gar nicht die Revision der Geldwäscherichtlinie oder der Vorgaben zu Mutter-Tochter-Gesellschaften. Zypern ist eines der Länder, die diese Probleme verschärfen. Wir werden mit Irland noch in diesem Plenum darüber diskutieren. Wir werden auch, wenn Herr Faymann kommt, heute über dieses Problem in diesem Parlament diskutieren.

Zweitens: Ich bin ein Kind Deutschlands. Ich bin in der Nähe der innerdeutschen Grenze aufgewachsen, im Westen. Ich fand es erschreckend, wie viel an guter gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung in Zypern immer noch durch die Teilung der Insel verhindert wird. Ich habe mich wirklich sehr erschrocken, weil ich diese Grenze das erste Mal in meinem Leben während der Ratspräsidentschaft gesehen habe.

  Derk Jan Eppink, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I visited Cyprus in spring last year, and I wondered how the country would deal with the EU Presidency. A small island with so much diversity looks like Europe in a nutshell. There are Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, and next to them there are Russians, British, Lebanese and many other people running around in your country. I admit that I was also sceptical because you, Mr Christofias, are a long-standing Communist. You were trained at the Party School in Moscow in the 1970s. That sounds scary to European Conservatives. You are in fact the first, and I presume the last, Communist rotating President of the EU. But you are also the only Communist I know who is against the financial transaction tax, so please convince your comrades over there. They are very close to you.

At the end of your Presidency – I want to be honest Mr President – I think you, your government and your officials did very well. Let me address you in the language of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin:

(The speaker spoke in Russian)

Since Russian, Madam President, is not yet an official language of the EU, I can say that I thanked the President for the good work and wished him a blossoming Cyprus. Unfortunately Cyprus is not blossoming now; in fact, it is in need of a bail-out. Mr President, you are going from the rouble to the rubble. If there is a bail-out, the debt of Cyprus will jump to 150% of GDP, so whom are we bailing out: you or the Russian billionaires?

Cyprus established a good record as rotating president. There is a budget for this year. Progress has been made on banking supervision. The single European patent was agreed after 30 years. One dossier remains stuck, however: the two-pack to assure fiscal discipline in the eurozone. That is not your fault, Mr President; it is our fault. The Parliament should approve this piece of legislation soon. But, oddly enough, it is held to ransom by the leader of the Liberal Group Mr Verhofstadt. He demands mutualisation of debt like redemption funds and eurobonds in return. Now I have known Mr Verhofstadt for about 20 years and mostly it has been a pleasure, because life would be boring without him, would it not, Mr Barroso? But it struck me that he always wants to jump from A to Z whereas he is not able to get from A to B.

To get proper underpinning for the euro, we need the two-pack. We need to progress step by step from A to B to C and so on. So I appeal to the Liberal Group to approve this two-pack. Sir Graham Watson, you are listening to me I presume? Practise what you preach, please.

So, Mr President, ... (the speaker spoke in Russian)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE), blue-card question. – I have a question for you, Mr Eppink. Do you think, at the end of the Cyprus Presidency when we all agree that Cyprus has made significant progress, that the best way to address the President of that country is in a language that is not an EU language, in a foreign language which you did not check whether he knew? As you know, many people who were once Communists develop into real democrats and real Europeans, as we can witness in this very Chamber. Do you think that the best method is to be extremely impolite and aggressive towards those who come to engage in dialogue and cooperation with us?

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR), blue-card answer. – I was just trying to be kind to the President. The President studied in Moscow at the Party School, so I am sure that he speaks and understands Russian. I should be allowed to use just a few phrases, for hospitality’s sake. I do not understand the question. I was not insulting or invasive in any way. I also spoke within my speaking time, by the way.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), blue-card question. – Thank you, Mr Eppink, for your speech, which was quite refreshing. I am here to replace Mr Verhofstadt, who is absent from the Chamber this morning and thus unable to defend either himself or his visions. On behalf of the ALDE Group, I would like you to tell me: what are the EFD Group’s visions for Europe?

What we need today, in these times of financial crisis, is for people to stand up, as Mr Verhofstadt always does, and to have a vision for a bright future for Europe. That is missing in your political group. We are facing economic crisis, but there is also a crisis of values and someone has to be brave and courageous. Mr Verhofstadt is one of those political leaders.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR), blue-card answer. – I am not a member of the EFD. The chair of the EFD, Mr Farage, should be here but is not. I am a member of the ECR and I am very constructive with regard to the six-pack. I have always been and I voted in favour of the six-pack unlike some people on the other side of this House. I am also in favour of the two-pack and I agree with the President here that the two-pack is needed. It is needed now.

  Νίκη Τζαβέλα, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας EFD. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, με την Προεδρία η Κύπρος μας υπενθύμισε ότι είναι μια χώρα οργανωμένη, με σταθερές, σύγχρονες υποδομές και με πολυπολιτισμική παράδοση και πολιτισμό. Η Κύπρος μας υπενθύμισε ότι, λειτουργώντας ως σταυροδρόμι Ανατολής και Δύσης, διαθέτει δυναμικό ικανότατο στις διαπραγματεύσεις, τις εποικοδομητικές προσεγγίσεις με ιστορική ωριμότητα και εμπειρία.

Και σ’ αυτό το σημείο θα ήθελα να αναφερθώ και να τονίσω ότι, παρά το γεγονός ότι η Τουρκία διέκοψε τις σχέσεις της με την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή λόγω της Κυπριακής Προεδρίας, κατά τη διάρκεια αυτής και με πρωτοβουλία και εργασία της Κύπρου, καταρτίστηκε ο οδικός χάρτης για την φιλελευθεροποίηση των θεωρήσεων με την Τουρκία. Αυτό δείχνει μια ιστορική ωριμότητα.

Θα ήθελα επίσης να αναφερθώ στο ενεργειακό συνέδριο που πραγματοποίησε ο Υπουργός Ενέργειας της Κύπρου, στο οποίο ήταν παρόντες από την περιοχή της Νοτιοανατολικής Μεσογείου όλοι οι πρέσβεις της Βορείου Αφρικής και της Μέσης Ανατολής, συμπεριλαμβανομένου και του Ισραήλ και της Παλαιστίνης.

Όλα αυτά, κυρίες και κύριοι, μας οδηγούν στο συμπέρασμα ότι η Κύπρος είναι ένα πολύτιμο μέλος της Ένωσης και θα έπρεπε να χρησιμοποιείται στην εξωτερική μας διπλωματία.

  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, lieber Demetris Christofias! Ihnen gebührt das Verdienst, sich in dieser Präsidentschaft von Anfang an für die europäische Integration eingesetzt zu haben. Damit beschämen Sie Regierungen wie z. B. die britische – und nicht nur diese –, die der Entsolidarisierung und der Renationalisierung das Wort reden.

Im Unterschied zu vielen anderen Präsidentschaften haben Sie auch von Anfang an den Finger in die Wunde gelegt. Sie haben es vorhin noch einmal klar gesagt: Die Austeritätspolitik zur Bekämpfung der Krise ist falsch. Sie verschärft Krisenprozesse, sie ist antieuropäisch. Ohne die Stärkung des sozialen Europas hat die Union keine Zukunft. Aber es ist auch klar, dass eine solche Aufgabe nicht von einer Präsidentschaft alleine gestemmt werden kann. Wir konnten alle hautnah verfolgen, dass in den Verhandlungen über den Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen 2014-2020, die Haushalte 2012/2013 und die Struktur- und Kohäsionsfonds nationale Egoismen, aber auch die Interessen der großen Wirtschafts- und Finanzlobbyisten im Vordergrund standen. Einigungen, die den solidarischen Zusammenhalt der Union fördern, werden unter diesen Bedingungen immer schwerer. Sie haben trotz aller dieser schwierigen Umstände, in denen sich die Präsidentschaft vollzogen hat, immer wieder auch versucht, Klartext zu reden und deutlich zu machen, dass wir nur gemeinsam die Europäische Union nach vorne bringen können. Dafür gebührt Ihnen unser Respekt!

Auch angesichts der äußerst schwierigen Situation in Zypern, die hier schon mehrfach angesprochen wurde – die hohe Verschuldung, insbesondere die Auswirkungen, die sich durch den Schuldenschnitt für die griechischen Banken für Ihre Banken ergeben haben – wird deutlich, dass Sie unter schwierigen Bedingungen arbeiten müssen. Ich kann nur hoffen, dass den Menschen in Ihrem Land insgesamt die Hilfe, die Solidarität und der Respekt zukommen, die einfach notwendig sind, um einen Ausweg aus der Situation zu ermöglichen. In diesem Zusammenhang finde ich es fatal, wenn im Vordergrund dieser Entscheidung die Frage steht, ob Ihre Banken systemrelevant sind. Muss es nicht vielmehr in erster Linie darum gehen, dass der soziale Zusammenhalt innerhalb der Europäischen Union und die Interessenlage der Menschen berücksichtigt werden?

Diese Präsidentschaft hat mehr als alle anderen vorher auch gezeigt, dass wir nach wie vor ein Systemproblem haben, dass es nicht klar ist, wie die Zuständigkeiten, die Verantwortlichkeiten zwischen der permanenten Präsidentschaft und der rotierenden Präsidentschaft verteilt sind. Es kann beispielsweise nicht sein, dass Herr Van Rompuy Vorschläge für den Gipfel unterbreitet und letztendlich hier im Parlament der Vertreter der zypriotischen Präsidentschaft, der einen anderen Vorschlag unterbreitet hat, jenen hier verteidigen muss. Das kann nicht sein!

Abschließend möchte ich mich für die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Europäischen Parlament und für die enge Kooperation mit uns als Fraktion bedanken.

  Trevor Colman (NI). - Madam President, my congratulations to the Cyprus Presidency for making the best of one of the toughest economic crisis to hit Europe since the Second World War, and my congratulations also – if that is the right word – to the European Commission for its instrumental role in creating that crisis. In 2004, the Commission missed its chance to right one of the gravest wrongs in Europe: the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.

Was it right that Cyprus should accede to the EU with such a border dispute? Was it right that the Commission should have even mooted the possibility of Turkey becoming a candidate country whilst its armed troops are occupying Northern Cyprus? The Commission swept the problem under the table in the interests of political expediency, instead of bringing diplomatic pressure to bear on Turkey.

In May of this year, displaced residents of the Northern Cypriot town of Kyrenia plan to cross the border for the first time since occupation in order to attend to their religious duties in their own church. My colleague Nikki Sinclaire will be with them. I am sure that this House shares my hopes that this event will pass off smoothly and peacefully.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Prezydencie! Panie Przewodniczący! Słyszeliśmy już dzisiaj dużo dobrych słów pod adresem prezydencji cypryjskiej i nie będę powtarzać tych komplementów, chociaż bardzo chętnie bym to zrobiła, bo sama mam bardzo dobre doświadczenia ze współpracy z prezydencją. Nie będę też mówić o tym, jak trudny to był okres dla całej Unii Europejskiej. Wiemy też wszyscy, z jakimi problemami zmaga się Cypr. Nie będę się na tym skupiać, ale chciałabym powiedzieć, że dziś należy znaleźć konkretne rozwiązania, zjednoczyć Europejczyków pokazując im, do czego Unia rzeczywiście jest potrzebna, jak ułatwia im życie na co dzień dzięki konkretnym małym krokom. I czyniąc te konkretne kroki prezydencja cypryjska sprawdziła się bardzo dobrze, jak wynika również z mojego osobistego doświadczenia.

Już kilka razy był wspominany patent. 30 lat minęło, oczywiście nie możemy tutaj pominąć zasług Komisji Europejskiej ani poprzednich prezydencji, żeby nareszcie rozwiązać ten problem. Ale jeżeli mówimy dzisiaj o Unii Europejskiej, gdzie jest wysokie bezrobocie, szczególnie wśród młodych ludzi (11% bezrobocia w Unii Europejskiej, przeszło 22% bezrobocia wśród młodych, a w niektórych krajach nawet 50% bezrobocia), to właśnie te konkretne prace dotyczące jednolitego rynku (jednolity rynek, gdzie małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa to jest mniej więcej 85% miejsc pracy), te postępy, które poczyniła prezydencja cypryjska na jednolitym rynku, koncesje, kwalifikacje zawodowe, pozasądowe rozwiązywanie sporów, nad którym pracowaliśmy razem, również pozasądowe rozwiązywanie sporów w handlu online, który to daje na każde stracone miejsce pracy w tradycyjnej gospodarce 2,5% miejsc pracy w gospodarce internetowej. To są zasługi prezydencji cypryjskiej. Chcę więc pogratulować i podziękować za nią oraz za zaangażowanie i kompetencje wszystkich, z którymi osobiście współpracowałam. Będę mieć dobre wspomnienia. Dziękuję!

  Αντιγόνη Παπαδοπούλου (S&D). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, είδαμε το προηγούμενο εξάμηνο την Κυπριακή Προεδρία να προωθεί μια φιλόδοξη ατζέντα με αυστηρή προσήλωση στα ευρωπαϊκά ιδεώδη και να επιτυγχάνει, εν μέσω βαθιάς οικονομικής κρίσης, μια αξιοπρεπή παρουσία γιατί λειτούργησε ως έντιμος διαμεσολαβητής και αξιόπιστος εταίρος. Προετοίμασε ικανοποιητικά το έδαφος για μια τελική συμφωνία όσον αφορά το Πολυετές Δημοσιονομικό Πλαίσιο και πέτυχε σημαντικές συμφωνίες και πρωτοβουλίες, σχετικά με τον Ενιαίο Εποπτικό Μηχανισμό, τον συμπληρωματικό προϋπολογισμό του 2012, τον προϋπολογισμό του 2013, τη Διακήρυξη της Λεμεσού, το Ενιαίο Δίπλωμα Ευρεσιτεχνίας, ενώ προώθησε επίσης ικανοποιητικά το ευρωπαϊκό σύστημα ασύλου και τη Διακυβέρνηση Schengen.

Σημειώνω με ιδιαίτερη ικανοποίηση την ολοκλήρωση του φακέλου για το 2013, Ευρωπαϊκό Έτος Πολιτών, που στοχεύει στην ενημέρωση των ευρωπαίων πολιτών για τα δικαιώματα που μας παρέχει η ευρωπαϊκή ιθαγένεια καθώς και στην ενίσχυση της συμμετοχικής δημοκρατίας. Υπενθυμίζω, ωστόσο, πως το θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα της ελεύθερης διακίνησης, εγκατάστασης και εργασίας που μας παρέχει η ευρωπαϊκή ιθαγένεια παραβιάζεται κατάφωρα στη δική μου πατρίδα, στην Ευρωπαϊκή Κύπρο, από την κατοχική Τουρκία που απαξίωσε την Κυπριακή Προεδρία, ολόκληρο αυτό το εξάμηνο, και επίσης ακύρωσε την 70ή Σύνοδο της Μικτής Κοινοβουλευτικής Επιτροπής ποδοπατώντας ευρωπαϊκές αρχές και υποχρεώσεις.

Οι κύπριοι ευρωπαίοι πολίτες ζητούμε ειλικρινά, πρακτικά μέτρα καθώς και την ευρωπαϊκή αλληλεγγύη για την αποκατάσταση των καταπατημένων ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων του προσφυγικού κόσμου, ολόκληρου του Κυπριακού λαού, ο οποίος δυστυχώς τα τελευταία 39 χρόνια ζει σε μια διχοτομημένη πατρίδα. Ζητούμε, επίσης, την απευθείας ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των τραπεζών από τον Ευρωπαϊκό Μηχανισμό Σταθερότητας με αναδρομική ισχύ και εύχομαι αυτή την πρωτοβουλία να τη θέσει πράγματι με επιτυχία η Ιρλανδική Προεδρία και να την πετύχει. Γιατί οι κύπριοι πολίτες, όπως και οι πολίτες στον ευρωπαϊκό νότο, στην Ισπανία, την Πορτογαλία, την Ελλάδα, πραγματικά "μπουχτίσανε" από μονόπλευρες πολιτικές λιτότητας της Τρόικας και απαιτούν εδώ την ευρωπαϊκή αλληλεγγύη και τη στήριξη από τον Ευρωπαϊκό Μηχανισμό.

Εύχομαι το όραμα της Κύπρου για μια καλύτερη Ευρώπη να γίνει πραγματικότητα.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). - Madam President, I was rather critical of the Cyprus Presidency at the outset, but I would like to congratulate President Christofias and his government on a fruitful first presidency and to salute especially the excellent work of Andreas Mavroyiannis in difficult political and personal circumstances. President Christofias, Liberal Democrats regret that no progress has been made with regard to matters on your island that affect hundreds of thousands of other EU citizens, such as reform of your land laws and the establishment of a banking ombudsman. We are also deeply concerned about discrimination by your broadcasters, especially CYBC – or RIK as you call it – against our candidate in your current presidential election, but we hope that your experience of seeing how other Member States function will inspire the domestic reforms which will make your country a well-functioning modern democracy.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il semestre della Presidenza cipriota si è di fatto concluso con un fallimento, perché non si è riusciti a liberare la parte di Europa occupata militarmente da uno Stato terzo. Nel 1974 la Turchia ha invaso la parte nord di Cipro, allontanando la popolazione locale e sostituendola con turchi dell'Anatolia, che hanno occupato paesi e città, portando via i beni, le case, il lavoro ai legittimi proprietari. La religione cristiana è di fatto vietata e le messe possono essere celebrate solo in poche chiese autorizzate. Come lei ben sa, oltre 500 edifici religiosi, fra cui cimiteri, sono stati distrutti e i beni rubati.

L'Unione europea, forse per puro interesse economico, non ha mai avuto il coraggio di affrontare la situazione con decisione, arrivando addirittura a finanziare la costruzione di opere pubbliche nella stessa Turchia. Immaginavo che la sua Presidenza ponesse, come prima condizione per ogni proseguimento di rapporti con la Turchia, la liberazione di Cipro Nord occupata e la restituzione dei beni ai legittimi proprietari. Ma così purtroppo non è stato.

  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης (GUE/NGL). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Κύπρος ανέλαβε την Προεδρία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στην πιο δύσκολη στιγμή από τη μέρα που ξεκίνησε η συστημική κρίση. Βαθιά ύφεση, ανεργία, σκληρά μέτρα λιτότητας, αυξανόμενη φτώχια αλλά και τα μεγάλα προβλήματα εντός της Ευρωζώνης.

Η κυβέρνηση της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας προέβαλε μια Προεδρία με κοινωνική ευαισθησία, χωρίς οδηγίες που στρέφονται κατά των ευάλωτων στρωμάτων και τήρησε αυτή τη δέσμευση, παρά το ότι καμιά προεδρία δεν αλλάζει δραστικά τα πράγματα από μόνη της. Έκλεισαν σημαντικοί φάκελοι και επιτεύχθηκε πρόοδος σε μια σειρά από θέματα όπως το κοινό ευρωπαϊκό σύστημα ασύλου. Χαιρετίζουμε την αυτονόητη στήριξη που προσφέρθηκε στην Προεδρία για να αντιμετωπίσει τις απρόκλητες απειλές της τουρκικής κυβέρνησης.

Θέλουμε αυτή η στήριξη να μετατραπεί σε απαίτηση, ώστε η Τουρκία να άρει την ομηρία της Κύπρου. Θέλουμε ο φυσικός πλούτος της Κύπρου να αποτελέσει εργαλείο συνεργασίας και ανάπτυξης σε ολόκληρη την περιοχή της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου, και όχι αντικείμενο εκβιασμών κατά της κυριαρχίας της Κύπρου. Είναι με αυτόν τον πολιτικό φακό της συνεργασίας που η Κυπριακή Προεδρία ανέπτυξε τις προτεραιότητές της.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, I found the Cypriot President’s New Year’s Eve message refreshingly honest, as far as it went. He admitted that the policies implemented on a pan-European level had not succeeded in providing a solution to the crisis.

He could, of course, have gone further and said that, if southern European countries in the eurozone were to revert to their own currencies, each being left to find its own value, those countries would enjoy export-led recoveries. He could have said that EU countries – individually or collectively – should protect their industries from imports from the so-called emergent economies.

Earlier in December 2012, he did explain that the impasse on the Cyprus problem had been caused by Turkey, which used the Cyprus Presidency as an excuse. He might have added that the EU, for all its talk of solidarity, appears not to regard the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus and the desecration of its Christian places of worship as an impediment to talks on Turkey becoming a member.

  András Gyürk (PPE). - Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Nehéz időszakban vette át Ciprus a stafétabotot, és csak részben tudott eleget tenni az elvárásoknak. Kevés előrelépés történt a válságkezelés területén, és sajnálatos, hogy az Unió 7 éves költségvetéséről szóló megállapodást sem sikerült tető alá hozni.

A közös energiapolitikával kapcsolatosan azonban jelentős eredményt könyvelhet el a ciprusi elnökség. Az infrastruktúra csomag lezárása valódi mérföldkő az egységes energiapiac létrehozása szempontjából. Ma ugyanis még az a helyzet, hogy megfelelő infrastrukturális összeköttetések hiányában az uniós állampolgárok nem részesülnek az egységes energiapiac nyújtotta előnyökből. Több tagállam a diverzifikációs törekvések ellenére még mindig egyetlen gázforrástól függ. A közép-kelet európai piacok likviditása továbbra is alacsony, és a volt állami energiavállalatok gyakran komoly piaci erőfölénnyel rendelkeznek. Ezért kulcsfontosságú, hogy az ellátásbiztonságot és a versenyt növelő beruházások megépüljenek. Az infrastruktúra csomagnak köszönhetően az engedélyeztetési folyamatok felgyorsulhatnak, a rendelkezésre álló pénzügyi források pedig leírhatóvá válnak. Ez lökést adhat a ma még parkolópályán álló beruházásoknak. Ez tehát egyértelmű siker. Most a tagállamokon a sor, a következő lépés ugyanis a hatályos uniós szabályozás átültetése a nemzeti jogrendbe, hogy ott kerüljön sor fejlesztésre, ahol arra valóban a legnagyobb szükség van.

Διαδικασία catch-the-eye

  Γεώργιος Κουμουτσάκος (PPE). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, Κύριε Πρόεδρε της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας θέλω να σας ευχαριστήσω για την παρουσίαση του απολογισμού της Κυπριακής Προεδρίας και στη βάση αυτού του απολογισμού να σας συγχαρώ, να συγχαρώ στο πρόσωπό σας όλους εκείνους που εργάστηκαν σκληρά για την επιτυχημένη Προεδρία που άσκησε η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία.

Ήταν μια πράγματι δύσκολη και εξαιρετικά απαιτητική Προεδρία. Πρώτον, γιατί ήταν η πρώτη φορά που η Κύπρος άσκησε αυτά τα απαιτητικά καθήκοντα. Δεύτερον, γιατί διεξήχθη στην πιο δύσκολη, από πολιτικής και οικονομικής απόψεως, περίοδο της ιστορίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενοποίησης. Τρίτον, γιατί αντιμετώπισε τη συνειδητή και επίμονη προσπάθεια της Τουρκίας να υποσκάψει το κύρος των προσπαθειών που κατέβαλε η Κυπριακή Προεδρία μη αναγνωρίζοντάς την.

Παρόλα αυτά κάνατε την πρόκληση μια ιστορική ευκαιρία για την Κύπρο, με τον μετριοπαθή και αποφασιστικό τρόπο που χειριστήκατε τα καθήκοντα. Θέλω και πάλι να σας συγχαρώ.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Tisztelt Šefčovič Biztos Úr, Kedves Kollégák. A ciprusi soros elnökség alatt merült fel az a javaslat, hogy a pénzügyi szemeszterhez hasonlóan jöjjön létre egy, a jogállamiságot, az igazságügyi rendszerek működését ellenőrző uniós monitoring rendszer. Ennek szükségességét Barroso bizottsági elnök úr és Vivian Reding igazságügyi biztos asszony is felvetette. Ez lehet a ciprusi elnökség leginkább maradandó eredménye, amennyiben a most induló ír elnökség, illetve az uniós intézmények – elsősorban a Bizottság – meg is valósítja ezt a javaslatot. A jogállamiság demokratikus ellenőrzésének szükségességét a legutóbbi magyarországi események is igazolják. Az egyetemisták és a középiskolás diákok hetek óta tüntetnek az ellen, hogy a kormány az úgynevezett hallgatói szerződésekkel 6–12 évig röghöz kötné a friss diplomásokat. A Bizottság ezt már vizsgálja, de remélem, hogy fellépése hatékony lesz.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - În timpul Preşedinţiei cipriote am avut ocazia să lucrez cu Preşedinţia cipriotă atât pe dosarul privind tahografele digitale, la care sunt raportor, dar şi ca raportor din umbră pentru dosarele privind Agenţia Europeană pentru Securitatea Reţelelor Informatice şi a Datelor, cât şi pentru proiectul Galileo.

Deşi ne-am fi dorit să avansăm mai mult cu aceste dosare, vreau să mulţumesc Preşedinţiei cipriote pentru întâlnirile tehnice pe care le-am avut, fără de care nu am fi ajuns în acest nivel avansat cu aceste dosare. Mulţumind Preşedinţiei cipriote pentru cooperarea pe care am avut-o, sunt convinsă că, în următoarele şase luni, vom reuşi să finalizăm aceste dosare.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE). - Madam President, Cyprus’s first Presidency has shown that such a small country is well capable of taking over such responsibilities in these tight and really very difficult political times in the European Union. You did not promise heaven and earth to us; you were, in my view, quite realistic, cooperative and open for discussions. All in all, you have worked hard to achieve what has already been mentioned.

In the financial debates concerning the European budget, you have achieved a great deal. I see the fact that the MMF remains uncompleted as a clear sign of Europe’s difficult current economic situation and the Member States’ different interests. Allow me one statement: I remind all colleagues who have criticised Cyprus for the Cypriot problems that the topic of today’s debate is indeed the review of the Cyprus Presidency, and in that sense, efharisto para poli (thank you very much in Greek).

  Σοφοκλής Σοφοκλέους (S&D). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θα συμφωνήσω ότι η Κύπρος απέδειξε ότι δεν υπάρχουν μικρά ή μεγάλα κράτη. Υπάρχουν ικανά και αποτελεσματικά ή αναποτελεσματικά και λιγότερο ικανά. Η Κύπρος πραγματικά αξίζει συγχαρητήρια για την Προεδρία. Η ερώτησή μου είναι πολύ συγκεκριμένη και δεν πρέπει να περάσει απαρατήρητη. Ο Πρόεδρος της Δημοκρατίας, κ. Χριστόφιας, ουσιαστικά κατήγγειλε ότι οι αποφάσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου οι οποίες λαμβάνονται, στην πράξη δεν υιοθετούνται ή δεν υλοποιούνται από τους τεχνοκράτες. Συμπερασματικά, μήπως το Συμβούλιο δεν μπορεί να επιβληθεί ή οι τεχνοκράτες είναι πιο ισχυροί; Θα ήθελα μια πιο συγκεκριμένη απάντηση.

(Λήξη της διαδικασίας catch-the-eye)

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, I think we would all agree – as was very well testified to in this debate – that 2012 was one of the most difficult years in European Union history.

We can all remember how we started last year. This room was full of doom scenarios and very difficult predictions for the fate of the European Union. Despite the fact – as so well described by President Christofias – that sometimes it takes us too long to get decisions taken at a top political level to be implemented on the ground – the so-called implementation gap – I think the European Union, thanks to both presidencies of last year, achieved a lot.

This really helps us to focus this year on consolidation and on maintaining the sustainability of the decisions we took last year. I also think that it is very clear from this debate that our top priority must be a clear focus on growth and jobs. We need to work on keeping our public finances in order because this helps us to restore confidence, both in the European Union and in the EU decision-making process. This will bring us back investment and the increased competitiveness of our economy. I think that, in the last days of last year and the first days of this year, we have already seen positive signs in the different economic indexes, the situation on the financial markets and the lowering of spreads, but it is quite clear that we are not there yet. We cannot be complacent about the current situation and we still have to work very hard to make this achievement consolidated and solid.

Therefore, I strongly support all those who are calling for the completion of very important legislative work on the two-pack. We have to work hard to complete banking union, which would finally restore confidence in our financial industry. And we have to work very hard on the tax evasion package, because we are losing billions of euros in the European Union every year in this way.

Several of you referred to the troika and technocrats. Here again, I would just remind you that the decisions are very much framed by the discussions and the decisions of the Euro Group. On behalf of the Commission, I would like to assure you that the Commission always advocates and calls for a comprehensive approach. Yes, we need to have order in public finances, but we would never advocate austerity solutions alone. We are advocating important and necessary structural reforms and targeted, well-oriented investment.

Unfortunately, here I have to say that sometimes there are differing positions or opinions among some of the Member States. This was clearly shown in several interventions this morning relating to the discussion on the multiannual financial framework. I have to say that, listening to the further calls for additional cuts, these would make the proposal on the MFF very difficult, because the overall cuts, including the cuts for administrations, which are very often advocated in such a proportion that it would make them unrealistic, would lead us in a direction where the savings made would be small, but the structural damage to long-term goals and the overall project of the European Union would be very harmful and long-lasting. We have to resist those calls and work very hard for a meaningful compromise for the future of the European Union and of our economies and our citizens.

To conclude, I would like thank President Christofias and his EU team very much for the fair and open manner in which they conducted the EU presidency. A long list of achievements has already been mentioned. Some took us decades to complete, like the EU patent. Some are of a really groundbreaking nature, like the decision on the single supervisory mechanism. I do not think that those achievements would have been possible without a very professional team headed by Minister Mavroyiannis and Ambassador Korneliou, who did a great job, in Council, Coreper and his frequent contacts with the European Parliament. Therefore, I would like to thank Cyprus for a great job done. The Presidency deserves a lot of credit for all its achievements. Thank you very much for the excellent cooperation.

  Δημήτρης Χριστόφιας, Ασκών την Προεδρία του Συμβουλίου. − Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ευχαριστώ θερμά τόσον τους εκπροσώπους της Επιτροπής, όσον και τους αρχηγούς των πολιτικών ομάδων, αλλά και πολλούς άλλους ομιλητές που εξήραν τον τρόπο με τον οποίο η Κύπρος έχει πραγματοποιήσει την πρώτη της εξαμηνιαία Προεδρία του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου. Είμαστε ευγνώμονες για τα καλά σας λόγια. Εμείς λειτουργήσαμε με καλή θέληση, λειτουργήσαμε ως ευρωπαίοι, σε μία προσπάθεια να αντιμετωπιστούν τα τεράστια προβλήματα που βρίσκονται μπροστά στην Ένωση σήμερα, οικονομικά, πολιτικά, κοινωνικά.

Ασφαλώς έχουν επιτευχθεί διάφορα πράγματα και ευχαριστούμε για την εκτίμησή σας. Και άλλα, οπωσδήποτε, απαιτούνται να γίνουν και εύχομαι και ελπίζω οι επόμενες προεδρίες να συνεχίσουν στην ίδια κατεύθυνση και να επιτύχουν ακόμη περισσότερα.

Εδώ έχουν ακουστεί όμως και άδικες επικρίσεις, οι οποίες φρονώ ότι στηρίζονται είτε στην έλλειψη πληροφόρησης, είτε σε όχι και τόσο καλή βούληση. Επιτέλους, δεν γίνεται "ξέπλυμα βρόμικου χρήματος" στην Κύπρο. Με ποιό τρόπο να το πούμε αυτό, για να γίνει κατανοητό; Και να σταματήσουν, κάποιοι να θυματοποιούν τη χώρα μου μπροστά στις εσωτερικές πολιτικές τους σκοπιμότητες. Και το λέω πολύ έντιμα αυτό, διότι γινόμαστε θύματα εσωτερικών αντιπαραθέσεων διαφόρων μεγάλων χωρών. Αυτό πρέπει να τερματιστεί, πρέπει να σεβαστείτε μια μικρή χώρα, η οποία υποφέρει από κατοχή.

Το επόμενο που θέλω να πω απευθυνόμενος στο φίλο απέναντί μου είναι ότι επιτέλους ορισμένοι πρέπει να απαλλαγούν από το σύνδρομο του κομμουνισμού, διότι αντιμετωπίζω αυτήν την προκατάληψη από την ημέρα που πάτησα το πόδι μου σ’ αυτό το Κοινοβούλιο. Εξέφρασα το σεβασμό μου, ναι, είπα ότι είμαι περήφανος γιατί είμαι κομμουνιστής και συνεχίζω να είμαι περήφανος και θα είμαι μέχρι το τέλος της ζωής μου. Γιατί πιστεύω ότι το λάθος δεν είναι η ιδεολογία αυτή, το λάθος είναι ο τρόπος με τον οποίο κάποιοι εφάρμοσαν αυτή την ιδεολογία στην πράξη.

Εν πάση περιπτώσει έχουμε ή δεν έχουμε, επιτέλους, ελευθερία της έκφρασης στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση; Νιώθω ελεύθερος να πιστεύω αυτό που θέλω να πιστεύω ως το καλύτερο, και επαναλαμβάνω κάποιοι πρέπει να απαλλαγούν απ’ αυτό το σύνδρομο. Το έχω ζήσει πολλές φορές στη διάρκεια αυτής της πενταετίας και στο Συμβούλιο και σε πολλές διαβουλεύσεις. Όμως, την ίδια ώρα έχω καταγράψει και τον πλήρη σεβασμό από τους επικεφαλής των θεσμικών οργάνων της Ένωσης, επειδή οι άνθρωποι αυτοί αναγνωρίζουν ότι εργάζομαι σκληρά για το καλό της Ένωσης, χωρίς να σκέφτομαι ακριβώς μικροπολιτικά ή με τις όποιες ιδεολογικές στρεβλώσεις.

Σας καλώ λοιπόν να σεβαστούμε ο ένας τον άλλον και, επειδή μου μιλήσατε και στα ρωσικά, εσείς πού γνωρίζετε τα ρωσικά; Μπορώ να σας απαντήσω κι εγώ με αυτόν τον τρόπο. Μήπως έχετε τις όποιες διασυνδέσεις; Δεν επιθυμώ προσωπικά να "πέσω" σε χαμηλό επίπεδο. Ας μη ρίχνουμε το επίπεδο αυτού του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου χαμηλά. Θέλω να κρατήσουμε ένα υψηλό επίπεδο, όπως αξίζει στους εκπροσώπους των κομμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Αυτά είναι που επιθυμούσα να πω.

Θέλω, επίσης, να ευχαριστήσω θερμότατα για τη συνεργασία το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο και την Επιτροπή καθώς και τον Χέρμαν Βαν Ρομπαϊ και να ευχαριστήσω τέλος όλους τους φίλους μου οι οποίοι στάθηκαν στο πλευρό μου σαν πραγματικοί κύπριοι που αγωνίστηκαν για την τιμή της χώρας τους, για να αποδείξουν ότι και μια μικρή χώρα μπορεί να κάνει καλή προεδρία. Μπορεί να είμαστε μικρή χώρα, έχουμε, όμως, και εμείς ως λαός την αξιοπρέπειά μας. Και αυτή την αξιοπρέπεια, αν θέλετε, είναι που υπερασπιστήκαμε αυτούς τους έξι μήνες, όπως την υπερασπιζόμαστε τα τελευταία πενήντα χρόνια που υπάρχει η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία μέσα σε πολύ αντίξοες συνθήκες. Αγωνιζόμαστε λοιπόν για την τιμή του λαού μας, αγωνιζόμαστε για τους ελληνοκύπριους, αλλά και για τους τουρκοκύπριους. Γιατί και οι τουρκοκύπριοι συμπατριώτες μας υποφέρουν κάτω από το βάρος της τουρκικής κατοχής και δεν θέλουν να χάσουν την κυπριακή τους ταυτότητα, και για το λόγο αυτό απευθύνονται στην Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία και στον Πρόεδρο της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας σαν φίλο και συναγωνιστή και δεν σκέφτονται ότι είναι κομμουνιστής και είναι ντροπή.

Εν πάση περιπτώσει, είμαι Κύπριος και είμαι περήφανος για την κυπριακή μου ταυτότητα, είμαι ευρωπαίος και είμαι περήφανος και γι’ αυτό. Εργάζομαι για μια καλύτερη Κύπρο και εργάζομαι και για μια καλύτερη, πιο δίκαιη, κοινωνικά και πολιτικά, Ευρώπη.

Εύχομαι καλές δουλειές προς όφελος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και των ευρωπαϊκών λαών.

  Πρόεδρος. - Σας ευχαριστώ, κύριε Πρόεδρε και σας συγχαίρω θερμά για την πολύ επιτυχημένη πρώτη Προεδρία της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 149)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. – Cyprus prebral predsedníctvo v zložitom období, a to nie len z pohľadu stále pretrvávajúcej krízy a nepriaznivej situácie, ale aj v kontexte napätých vzťahov s Ankarou. Nedostatok rešpektu k cyperskému predsedníctvu zo strany Turecka bolo sklamaním. Ak Turecko nerešpektuje rozhodnutia EÚ, nemôže očakávať ani kompromisy. Cyprus v poslednom období trpel nielen pre krízu v eurozóne, ale aj pre Grécko. Cyprus teda nielen, že musel zodpovedať za riešenie krízy eurozóny, ale sám čelí veľmi náročnej ekonomickej situácii. Netreba zabúdať ani na zložitú situáciu v oblasti azylu, a to v kontexte udalostí v severnej Afrike a následnej rozsiahlej vlne imigrácie do Európy. Napriek zjavným ťažkostiam chcel Cyprus Únii pomôcť pri dosiahnutí jej najdôležitejších cieľov. Jeho predsednícka agenda bola skôr skromná, a to aj vzhľadom na malú rozlohu a zložitú diplomatickú situáciu. Ostrov sa sústredil na limitovaný počet priorít, o to však relevantnejších. Najväčšou z nich bol pokrok v rokovaniach o viacročnom finančnom rámci, čiže dlhodobom rozpočte EÚ na obdobie 2014 až 2020. Rozpočet je základom strednodobých priorít EÚ, ktorými sú urýchlenie hospodárskeho rastu, tvorba nových pracovných miest a zlepšenie konkurencieschopnosti, preto išlo o najvýznamnejší bod agendy. Očakávanie finálnej dohody o novom rozpočte ešte počas jeho mandátu však bolo nereálne.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – Cyprus took over its first Presidency of the European Council in the second half of last year under very difficult economic conditions, particularly in the eurozone. Today, as we are reviewing the achievements of the Presidency, we congratulate them on a great deal done in certain areas. Such include: the future cohesion policy, the agreement to establish a single supervisory mechanism (SSM) for the oversight of credit institutions, and other agreements reached with the European Parliament on a number of legislative proposals. Furthermore, the Presidency should be applauded for concluding the negotiations on the European Unitary Patent, negotiations which were ongoing for the last 30 years. While the Presidency was not successful reaching an agreement on the next MFF 2014-2020, it was able to negotiate and deliver an important compromise on the EU’s budget for 2013. Even though the country has faced domestic economic troubles during its Presidency, Cyprus showed a great deal of professionalism and dedication in delivering important work for the benefit of all European citizens. It has succeeded in most of its goals and smoothly handed over the Presidency torch to Ireland. In conclusion, despite being a small EU country, Cyprus has achieved a big EU Presidency.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), na piśmie. – Cypr – sprawując w minionym półroczu po raz pierwszy przewodnictwo w Radzie – stanął przed ogromnym wzywaniem. Nie możemy bowiem zapominać, że ta niewielka wyspa, oddalona o tysiące kilometrów od centrum Europy, przejęła na siebie liczne obowiązki administracyjne i polityczne. Mała liczba urzędników i dyplomatów oraz coraz bardziej uwidaczniające się kłopoty ekonomiczne sprawiały, że niewiele osób wierzyło w jej sukces. Dzisiaj jednak możemy powiedzieć, że Nikozji się udało. Politycy i urzędnicy cypryjscy wykonali powierzone im zadania w najlepszy sposób, na jaki pozwalały im okoliczności. Przede wszystkim sprawnie poprowadzili wstępne negocjacje nad najbliższymi wieloletnimi ramami finansowymi i próbowali doprowadzić do kompromisu pomiędzy państwami członkowskimi w tej materii. Trzeba bowiem jasno powiedzieć, że brak porozumienia w sprawie następnego siedmioletniego budżetu nie wynika z zaniedbań Nikozji, a raczej z ogromnego podziału wewnątrz Unii.

Osobiście, w prezydencji sprawowanej przez Cypr zabrakło mi wyrazistego elementu prospołecznego, który zapowiadał prezydent tego kraju Dimitris Christofias w czasie przemówienia w Parlamencie Europejskim. Coraz bardziej bowiem widać, że prowadzone działania sanacyjne, mające uzdrowić europejską gospodarkę, w praktyce prowadzą do wzrostu bezrobocia i nierówności społecznych. Można było oczekiwać więcej od jedynego państwa w Unii rządzonego przez przedstawiciela partii komunistycznej. Nie można wykluczyć, że bardziej aktywna postawa ze strony cypryjskiej prezydencji pozwoliłaby uchronić kraje przeżywające trudności budżetowe przed kontynuowaniem błędnej polityki.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – The Cyprus Presidency gave extensive support to personalised medicine. A major achievement was the launching of the Personalised Medicine Manifesto which calls for five key actions: 1. Ensuring a regulatory environment which allows early patient access to novel and efficacious personalised medicine; 2. Increasing research and development for personalised medicine; 3. Improving the education and training of healthcare professionals; 4. Acknowledging new approaches to reimbursement and HTA assessment, which are required for patient access to personalised medicine and its value to be recognised; 5. Increasing awareness and understanding of personalised medicine.

Another important accomplishment of the Cyprus Presidency was the launching of the report, ‘Building an open innovation ecosystem in Europe for healthcare’, which proved that economic growth and lower healthcare costs are possible if Europe exploits the opportunities of personalised medicine. I am pleased to see that during the Irish Presidency this issue remains on the political agenda, with an important conference to be held in March on patient access to personalised medicine. In addition to continuing the efforts of the Cypriot Presidency, I call on the Irish Presidency to also create a regulatory environment that will enable equal access to innovative medicine in all Member States.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. – Preşedinţia cipriotă a avut o sarcină dificilă, având în vedere că s-a confruntat cu negocierile pentru Cadrul financiar plurianual 2014-2020, confruntări dublate de preocupări legate de criza din UE, de situaţia economică grea din Cipru şi de divizarea insulei. Sub preşedinţia cipriotă, UE a realizat obiectivul instituirii unui brevet european, care este foarte important pentru cercetare şi inovare şi reprezintă o sursă pentru ocuparea forţei de muncă în viitor. De asemenea, s-a ajuns la un acord pentru bugetul pentru 2013. A început să se lucreze la stabilitatea şi încrederea în Europa prin reformele din sectorul bancar european, care reprezintă un pas înainte pentru protejarea integrităţii zonei euro. Rămân încă multe lucruri de făcut, în particular pentru atingerea unui acord pentru Cadrul financiar plurianual, pentru punerea în aplicare a Agendei digitale, pentru pachetul de guvernanţă Schengen şi, în general, pentru creşterea economică şi crearea locuri de muncă.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

7. Klausimų Komisijai valanda

  President. − The next item is Question Time with the Commission. I would like to welcome colleagues and also Commissioners Kroes, Geoghegan-Quinn and Vassiliou. The topic is innovation, research and development, especially in the framework of Horizon 2020.

Just to remind you of the ground rules. Questions are taken exclusively on a catch-the-eye basis. The officials are taking notes of those who wish to take the floor. Members have one minute to put questions, 30 seconds for a supplementary. The Commissioner has two minute to reply if only one Commissioner is speaking. If more than one Commissioner replies, each one has one minute.

Two other points. The Conference of Presidents is discussing on Thursday revisions to the procedures at Question Time to try and make it a little bit fairer. Secondly, Mrs Kroes has notified me that she unavoidably has to leave in the middle of Question Time and I have accepted her explanation for that.

  Christian Ehler (PPE). - Madam Commissioners, thank you for being here in the Parliament. I think we are in a situation where we should raise public awareness in Europe on the question of the research programme and specifically of its importance for jobs and growth. My question is, since we are now in the midst of the discussions in the trialogue on that issue, what is your overall impression on the negotiations with the Council on its willingness to fulfil its own proposals when it says it would like to spend 3% of GNP on research and development issues and would therefore boost the opportunities for jobs and growth in Europe by means of research and really driving Europe towards leadership in research and development, on a worldwide basis as well?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I think one of the issues that has been raised again and again in Parliament and in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) in particular is the issue of gender balance. Today you will see that you have three Members of the Commission who are all women here present, and I think that is a big step forward. However, to return to your question, I would have to say in general that, while individual Members of the Council have been very supportive of Horizon 2020 and of the whole area of research and innovation, it being the area from which growth, jobs, sustainability will come in the future, at the same time the discussions on the multiannual financial framework have been disappointing from that point of view.

I can understand that Member States have their own particular priorities and I can understand that the net contributors feel that their biggest priority is to reduce the overall budget, but I would have expected and I think Parliament would have expected that within that reduction people would look at the policy areas that create jobs, that create growth and that give the kind of development potential to the European Union that will enable it to remain a global player in this whole area. So from that point of view, I would have to say that I am disappointed. However, this Parliament has been the key ally of the Commission on the proposal that we have put forward and I would very much like to pay tribute and compliments to the Members of Parliament because they have been steadfast in their support for this policy area – and I know that you will remain steadfast. We honestly depend on and need your support really strongly during his particular debating period.

I think Parliament recognises and has from the very beginning that research and innovation have the potential to release the kind of investments that are required in the European Union but that investors need to understand and to know that there is a stable platform right into the future where they can invest and they know they will get a return on that investment and that the European Commission and the European Union will support that. Thank you for your support and we really need that support to continue.

  Judith A. Merkies (S&D). - Geachte drie commissarissen, dank voor uw talrijk optreden hier en voor het laten zien van genderevenwicht. Innovatie hoort onze prioriteit te zijn in Europa en toch zien wij dat het anders is. Wij zien dat de begroting gehalveerd dreigt te worden. Wij zien dat er weinig aansluiting is tussen het beleid van de verschillende lidstaten en dat er weinig toezicht is, opdat de regels die wij elke keer weer nieuw uitvinden en nieuw op de markt gooien, werken.

Het gaat vooral om de implementatie. Wij hebben vorige week in Nederland met een nieuwsartikel over energiezuinige auto's gezien dat die energiezuinige auto's helemaal niet zo zuinig zijn als zij lijken, want dat er heel veel wordt getweaked, zeg maar, aan de raampjes, aan de omstandigheden, de temperatuur, waardoor uiteindelijk dat wat de consument wordt voorgeschoteld iets heel anders is dan daadwerkelijk werd bedoeld. Die energiezuinige auto is helemaal niet zo zuinig als hij voorgeeft te zijn. Die regels zijn dus af en toe misleidend, liever gezegd, wij geven daaraan te veel flexibiliteit.

Hoe gaat u ervoor zorgen dat die regels ook goed worden uitgevoerd? Want dat is af en toe veel belangrijker dan nieuwe regels.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I think in relation to each of the elements of Horizon 2020, particularly in the societal challenges, we have laid down very clearly what those challenges are, and we have said within those challenges that there are certain areas that are hugely and vitally of concern to the European Union. Within that, energy will consume – if I can use a pun – a large proportion of the funding, as we have set out in the EUR 80 billion budget proposal.

I think that if one looks at energy security throughout the world as a whole, it is an issue of major concern to governments everywhere. Therefore, I believe that what is being done on the energy side by Commissioner Oettinger, with support from us, is highly important. It is highly visible, and it also is a matter of Member States coming together, coming to the table and realising that in supporting different aspects of energy policy they are going to have to look not just within their own economies, but at the European economy as a whole. That, of course, is the basis on which the funding on energy policy comes under Horizon 2020. It is funding for what is in the best interest, and in the critical interest and strategic interest of the European Union. I expect that, as always, we will have a tremendous discussion in the Council in relation to this.

Also within Horizon 2020, obviously simplification is a crucial issue and one of the issues that has been mentioned again and again in the European Parliament discussions. Therefore, I think that better application of the rules comes with simplification, if we really want to have true simplification. I think that will assist in the kind of issues and challenges that you mentioned.

  Judith A. Merkies (S&D). - Dank u wel commissaris, toch ben ik niet tevreden met uw antwoord. Het gaat mij namelijk helemaal niet zozeer om het energiebeleid, het gaat mij om de vraag hoe u gaat zorgen dat de regels werken. The proof is in the eating. Niet in het maken van de regels, maar in de uitvoering. En die is simpelweg met té veel regels teleurstellend.

In dit geval heb ik alleen maar het voorbeeld "energie" genomen en of het nu gaat om de etikettering van energiezuinige apparaten, energiezuinige auto's, over stillere of energiezuinige autobanden, de consument wordt hier simpelweg misleid. Tussen de lidstaten is te veel verschil en er is te veel vrijheid voor de fabrikanten om de regels zeg maar naar hun eigen hand te zetten. Daar wil ik graag paal en perk aan stellen en hoe gaat u dat doen?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I think that it is very important that we engage with industry and with manufacturers. We need to engage with the regulators in the Member States and that obviously will be done by us insofar as it relates to Horizon 2020 and the research policy and by Commissioner Oettinger insofar as it relates to pure energy policy. We are working very closely together to ensure that the implementation of the rules is as simple and as clear as possible so that we do not have this wiggle room as you refer to it.

I also think that standardisation is really important. This is an issue, as you well remember, in innovation union, for example in the flagship, where we talked about faster standard-setting and standardisation in general, working not just within the European Union and not just within the European continent but with other continents and across the Atlantic in particular, to put in place the kind of standards that are necessary.

So I think we have to come at the issue which you raised from several different angles: from our own policy area, from the energy policy area and also from the overall standardisation policy area.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). - My question is again to Ms Geoghegan-Quinn. No single country can solve the problems of the world on its own. I specifically refer to problems such as climate change, food security and tackling chronic diseases. In this context, Commissioner, what plans does the Commission have under Horizon 2020 to further intensify international cooperation in the fields of research, innovation and science? Linking into this, I would also like to ask: how is the Commission prioritising unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, which we all agree is at catastrophic levels rights across Europe now?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − International cooperation in the area of research and innovation is absolutely crucial and critical. We cannot as you rightly said solve problems alone whether they are on the health side, the energy side, the food security side – whatever aspect of research and innovation is involved we have to work together. We have to work across borders in Europe and we also have to work with neighbours all around the world.

We have had an international cooperation policy over many years in DG Research but as you know last September we launched our new international cooperation strategy paper. We are looking at having a much better focus on what we do in terms of scope and scale and we are looking also at the flagship initiatives in which we are involved. We have S&T agreements around the world with very many countries as well as individual ones and we are now looking at whether to continue with individual S&T agreements or to more or less concentrate on regional S&T agreements.

Recently, I had the great privilege of visiting South Africa and launching the second phase of one of our flagship initiatives, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) in the company of Ms Carvalho from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE). There I saw for myself the difference that relatively small amounts of European funding can make in the townships where they are struggling to cope with finding solutions to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

I think we have to be strategic in the way we cooperate. We have to have flagship initiatives like EDCTP in other areas around the world and we also have to remember at all times what the strategic interest of the European Union is. I think there is a huge area of cooperation in which we should be involved. Youth unemployment is not an area in which I am directly involved, but it is an area in which the Commission as a whole is consumed at the moment. Commissioner Andor obviously takes the lead and is putting forward various initiatives. I understand that this is one of the key priorities for the Irish Government during its presidency for the next six months.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). - Thank you for your reply, Commissioner. Following on from that, as more and more knowledge is created in third countries, what instruments are offered under Horizon 2020 to entice researchers and investors to the European Union? What measurable markers will you put in place to make the Union the most attractive location for carrying out research and innovation and to assess our progress on an ongoing basis in this regard?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − We need to be able to prove internationally that Europe is a good place to come and work and a good place in which to invest. Horizon 2020 is all about creating the landscape and the architecture to prove to investors and researchers that Europe is a place to come and invest.

For researchers, for example earlier last year I had the great opportunity of meeting about 80 European researchers who are working in the Harvard MIT area of Massachusetts. During this meeting, I asked them where they would like to see themselves in ten years’ time. Each one of them said they would like to see themselves at home and I asked whether this meant their own Member State, and they said that it meant the European Union. I asked what was preventing this from happening, and they said that it was because everything is unclear. Their career profile was unclear. Mobility was difficult. Taking a funding grant with them across borders is impossible so they need us to put in place the kind of landscape that is necessary to encourage them to come back.

That is what Horizon 2020 is doing. That is what it is about and that is what the European Research Area is all about. It is creating that level playing field so that people feel that it is a good place to do business and that they should be here.

The European Research Council is a perfect example of a case in which we have the organisation that is now accepted worldwide as the barometer for excellence. It funds researchers, no matter where they come from, to come and do their research in the European Union. The grants are substantial, and it is a huge badge of honour, not just for the researcher, but indeed, importantly, for the institution within which the researcher operates.

So I think if you look overall at Horizon 2020 and what we are doing in the whole area of research, together with my colleagues, it shows that we are putting in place the kind of climate and the kind of architecture where people feel comfortable to come and invest because they will get a return. They know what the rules are and they know there will be a stable environment into the future. Also for researchers, they know that we are putting in place the kind of environment in which they feel comfortable working.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). - I would like to ask the Commissioner her views on the changes that this Parliament’s committee has made to the allocations of the budget for science and research. I support investment in research. It is critical to drive innovation and growth, and it is also critical to meet society’s biggest challenges. One of those challenges, for example, is food.

Food poverty is not just an issue for developing states, in my own region there are more than double the number of families needing help with food bills than there were a year ago. The Commission’s original proposal was EUR 4.7 billion invested in food research; this Parliament has cut that by 10%. They have also sliced money of health and transport just when our small companies and families are finding the cost of transport unaffordable. I believe many of the changes made by this committee were made to get short-term political headlines without thinking through the long-term impact. What is your view, Commissioner?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Ms Ford, first of all, it would be invidious of me to comment on any changes that have been made by this Parliament or indeed by the Council while we are at the beginning of a trialogue. I do not think you would expect me to come down on one side or the other. Let me say that the Commission has put forward a budget proposal and the Commission stands by that budget proposal. The Commission’s officials and myself will fight for that proposal as we go forward in the trialogue. Of course, we are open to discussion, as we always are. We look forward very much to the support of Parliament in those discussions, but that is the basic fundamental position of the Commission. We stand by the proposal that we put forward.

Of course I understand the question of food security and price of food and so on. If one looks at the kind of statistics that are out there – that by 2030 the world will need to produce 50% more food and energy, together with 30% more available fresh water – those figures are frightening. They are figures that dictate that we must concentrate very seriously on policies that can mitigate the kind of challenges that are in front of us. Therefore, for us, when we set down our budget proposal, we were very conscious of these grand societal challenges that are out there. As you say, they are not just challenges in the developing world – they are challenges that are right with us in parts of Europe now.

It is crucial that the kind of proposal that we put forward is supported in a very strong way. I look forward very much to the trialogue discussions with Parliament, and I also look forward to the Council facing up, in the discussions in the trialogue, to these actual challenges that are in front of us now.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). - In advance of our first trialogue meeting, please will you help us by putting some analysis behind what the potential impact will be of the changes that Parliament’s committee has proposed on how science could be funded, and what the impact of those reallocations could be on the research that is happening on the ground in our laboratories and in our businesses.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Certainly my understanding of any discussions and dialogue in the trialogue will be that each side would have to put forward – well certainly the Commission would have to put forward – the impact that cuts would have in the different areas. I think exactly what you ask for will be something which will be done in the trialogue. I very much look forward to Parliament and the Council engaging in a real way in these discussions.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - I would like to ask the Commissioner how she can justify the proposed increase in funding in Horizon 2020 for security research. I note that research carried out by a policy department of this Parliament concluded that, in the current framework programme, it is mostly large defence companies that are the main beneficiaries. These large defence companies, of course, are the merchants of death responsible for one-third of the world’s arms trade. The examples of Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, which have received tens of millions of euros in European taxpayers’ funds, surely illustrate the point. These are firms involved in the building of the Israeli apartheid wall and involved in supplying the drones and war planes that terrorise the Palestinian people.

How does this funding tally, how does it square, with the rhetoric of the Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning European Union? Would the Commissioner not agree that Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industry should be explicitly excluded from Horizon 2020, and that the armaments industry in general should not receive any taxpayer funding?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − In times of unprecedented transformations and, indeed, growing global interdependencies, Europe is confronted with major socio-economic challenges which significantly affect Europe’s future. Some of those challenges include the many forms of insecurity, whether it is crime or violence or terrorism or cyber attacks or privacy abuses for example – and indeed other forms of social and economic disorder.

For security in particular, the social sciences and humanities have the appropriate tools, and indeed also have the methods, to contribute to addressing the intricacy of these challenges. That enhances the social dimension of security policy and research. It is important to realise that the areas in which research funding is provided is civilian in nature at all times. That does not mean, however, that funding which is given for the civilian aspects of security may not be used in other ways, but we do not have control over that. What we have control over is the fact that we fund the civilian dimension and aspect of this policy area.

There is huge growing concern now. Vice-President Kroes, who is here, has a particular strategic interest in cyber-security for example, and she may want to add something when I am finished, because this is an area to which we need to pay particular attention. There are a number of significant incidents which have arisen in the Member States that you and I know best in very recent terms which show that this is an area in which we really need to support research and provide funding.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - I thank the Commissioner for her answer. I have to say that I do not think there is any social dimension whatsoever to the activities of Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries. The Commissioner might elaborate on the social nature.

I welcome the statement by the Commissioner that the reality is that funding provided for supposedly civilian aims goes to armaments companies and there is nothing to stop that funding, which is is paid for by European taxpayers at this time of austerity, being used for military means at a later stage, and this also applies to the innovations that have been developed. Would the Commissioner not agree that this is part of a process of militarisation of Europe that is ongoing and includes the development of battle groups? And does the fact that the Irish Government is going to coordinate this militarisation process not make a mockery of any semblance of neutrality?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I do not know what I can say that will convince you about the funding aspects of the framework programme up to now and what the funding aspects of Horizon 2020 will be other than to repeat once again that we do not engage in the funding of other than the civilian dimension of security. We are very conscious of this and always have been, and we have ethical responses within the directorate-general in relation to this whole area. We are conscious that the funding – the money that comes from the European taxpayers – needs to be used in research and innovations that add to the well-being of the European Union, that provide the kind of growth and innovations and sustainability that is required within the European Union. But we do not have control, which I think you accept, if those innovations or that research is then used in for military purposes. We do not fund military research in any way.

We are very conscious of the sensitivities in relation to the funding of research in Israel. As you know, this Parliament and the Council signed up to a proposal or protocol in relation to what that funding might be. Obviously in the course of the discussion on Horizon 2020 if Parliament and the Council wish to change that in any way, then it will be up to Parliament and the Council to do that, but we do not operate in any way outside what has been agreed and sanctioned by Parliament and the Council in this area. I think that as a Member of Parliament you have a particular role and a particular voice to play when that discussion comes up.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − I could not agree more with what Ms Geoghegan-Quinn mentioned in talking about cyber security. It calls for another mindset, so to speak; it is no longer the old-fashioned definition of military activities, rather it is talking about all those actions and activities that are connected with services that are made for our society. I am talking about water services, energy, etc.

I would also take this opportunity, to say that this is connected to what we are discussing this morning. It started with creating jobs and talking about a future economy. The future economy of Europe is connected with research and innovation; otherwise we cannot beat our competitors outside Europe. I can assure you they are alert. I am talking about South Korea, Taiwan, the People’s Republic of China, and what they are spending on research and innovation is nearly double what we are.

Having said that, there is also a connection with the issue of jobs and the younger generation in particular. If we are talking about new areas – for example ICT – where research is being focused, it is new industrial areas where we can play a major role as Europe. I am talking about photonics, nano-electronics, micro-electronics. All of this relates to research and innovation, otherwise we are losing, and we are losing opportunities for the younger generation too. So, please be aware that a different mindset is needed when talking about all those phases we are faced with.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). - Immediately with three Commissioners, it is so much and so rich. Let me focus on the EIT, the European Institute for Innovation and Technology. We have wonderful researchers. We have great researchers, but a lot of our activities and high-earning capacities are flowing away around the world, and we should keep them here. So the question is: can we step up the EIT not only through those KICs, but also through having more regions and more universities forming regional innovation clusters? I know that you have been hesitating for rather a long time with regard to taking my ideas on board. Can you be precise now? Do we extend? Do we get them on board in the new approach?

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − First of all let me say that it is exactly for this reason that the EIT was created. For many years Europe has been investing quite rightly in research – and we should continue doing that – but in comparison with our competitors from around the world we are lagging behind in innovation. We have excellent research centres, excellent universities and very dynamic businesses, but we do not innovate, we do not produce products and services directly to the market.

This is exactly the purpose of the EIT. I know that you are a great supporter of the EIT, but coming from a less developed part of Europe I fully share your concern that, for the time being, the EIT and its KICs are concentrated more in the core countries of the European Union. Believe me, our purpose – and that is why we have made it one of our three priorities for the future of the EIT – is to extend the knowledge and the benefits that are being acquired from the KICs to the less developed areas of Europe.

I know that one of the amendments put forward by Parliament is the creation of the regional innovation schemes. I support that, but let me be frank: we should try to do this, but not to the detriment of excellence, because EIT is based on excellence and the KICs, in the way they are created, are bottom-up partnerships and unless we have excellence in certain areas we cannot have a full-fledged KIC in that area.

However, at the same time we want to give the chance to experts, in the various regions of Europe, to work together with existing KICs and the EIT in order to transfer this knowledge to the less developed areas and gradually help in building these regional innovation schemes which you are proposing. So I am in favour and we have to discuss the details of these schemes.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). - Additionally, to both Commissioners now present, the question is that 2014 will soon be here and we have to prepare our new programmes. What I am hearing in the countries is that there is too little enthusiasm for your new approaches. Can you come forward with an intelligent communication strategy in the coming months? 2014 is a new year of programmes and elections, so can you wake up the Member States with a communication?

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Let me say that we have already started awareness-raising activities in the various Member States, because you are absolutely right: there is ignorance about this. When I speak about the EIT, people do not know what it is all about. That is the only way that we can mobilise the expertise that there is in the various regions, and that is why I am vigorously promoting awareness-raising activities in the various countries.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Signor Commissario, desidero sollevare tre questioni veloci: vorrei sapere se l'attenzione dedicata in Orizzonte 2020 al principio del trasferimento tecnologico quale volano per l'innovazione, sia un punto di partenza o di arrivo per il prossimo periodo di programmazione.

Secondo punto: credo che sia fondamentale per la competitività investire di più e meglio nelle politiche per lo spazio; è importante aderire a programmi di ricerca e bisogna dare concretezza al programma GMS, perché è una risorsa decisiva per monitorare lo stato del cambiamento climatico e dell'inquinamento atmosferico.

Infine, nell'ambito delle priorità, occorre orientare di più e meglio gli investimenti verso lo sviluppo delle piccole e medie imprese, quelle più innovative, che sono una risorsa importante per lo sviluppo economico per il lavoro.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I would imagine that technology is always going to be the starting point. If we look at the start of FP7 and the technologies that were available then, we can see there has been such enormous development in technology, whether you are talking about the future emerging technologies or the ones that are of enormous significance now and will be going forward, like nanotechnology and biotechnology, for example.

Therefore, investing in technology is key for us. Regarding the key enabling technologies, we had a high-level group which examined the key enabling technologies. These, in a way, are the primary responsibility of Vice-President Kroes. But working together, we have pushed forward what we consider to be an ambitious programme in the whole area of technologies. For example, the framework conditions in which all of these can operate are going to be very important, and innovative financial instruments are going to be crucial for those who want to further develop these technologies.

Together with the European Investment Bank – you will be aware of the risk-sharing finance facility where the larger ICT companies have gained significantly – we have now learned that we can provide – and indeed have provided – an instrument, the risk-sharing instrument, which is primarily aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises.

We think that, if we have listened carefully – which we have – to the technology companies, this is what they have said. They talk about all the issues that were raised during the discussions that we had on the innovation union flagship for example, as issues that prevent them from further developing within Europe. So we have tried to push aside the obstacles that are there and that prevent all the innovations that Commissioner Vassiliou talked about from taking place. So together we have worked to push those obstacles aside – the patent, the standard setting, public procurement issues, and so on. Obviously, from our point of view, financial instruments are a key part of that kind of support for those companies involved in these technologies.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE). - Herr talman! Tack så mycket för förslaget från kommissionen som har ett tydligt fokus på innovations-, småföretagande- och förenklingssträvanden. Nu är vi ju inne i förhandlingarna i trialogen och jag ska be att få kommissionsledamöternas synpunkter, inte be dem döma mellan de olika förslagen, men komma med synpunkter. Till exempel, när det gäller EIT och KIC-arna har parlamentet i sin position satt större fokus på mer konkurrens och innovation i själva urvalsprocessen för att stimulera mer och ytterligare konkurrens och innovation. Jag skulle gärna vilja be om kommissionsledamotens kommentar på det förslaget från parlamentet i vår position.

Den andra frågan gäller deltagandereglerna. Här har parlamentet prioriterat att programmet ska leverera och vara effektivt i förhållande till de pengar vi satsar. Rådet har föreslagit ett lönetillskott medan vi har diskuterat mer synergier med strukturfonderna, och jag skulle vilja ha kommissionens kommentarer i samband med våra försök att bredda programmet till fler medlemsländer. Bör man jobba mer med forskarlönerna och stöd till dem eller jobba mer med systemet kring strukturfonderna? Gärna kommissionens kommentarer till de båda varianterna och synpunkter på att bredda deltagandet. Tack.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − As you very well know, the money that goes to KICs and the EIT makes up only 25% of their budget. The remaining 75% comes from other sources, either from industries – which contribute quite a lot of money – or from regional or national funds. Of course, we do not exclude the possibility of those funds also coming from Structural Funds. What you are proposing with the regional innovation schemes is very much related to the absorption of more Structural Funds from the EU. I think we should make the most of it, but the advantage of the EIT, as I said before, is the leverage money that is created by the very small amount of 25% of what needs to be invested for them to grow and be sustainable.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − As regards getting more people involved, I think the main aspect of that has to be first of all providing the incentives. So whether it involves grants or prizes or financial instruments, I think all of those have to be tailored to meet the requirements. As regards widening participation, excellence is not everywhere but it can be found anywhere. I think what we have to do is to develop that excellence, and this is why we are very happy that Parliament has put such an emphasis on widening participation and on using the synergies between Horizon 2020 and the cohesion funds, for example.

I think that is crucial, because Horizon 2020 funds on the basis of excellence, and that will not be watered down in any way; but the cohesion funds need to be used for capacity-building. We have put in place and are putting in place the elements that are required to widen participation, whether it is teaming or twinning, further advances in the whole cost programme or using the two funds for funding the same project but different aspects of it, which was not possible up to now. And of course the European Research Area Chairs, which are also very important.

We have put together a full package to widen participation, and I know that the newer Member States are particularly interested in utilising those elements of Horizon 2020. I do not think we should ever put a quota on what is acceptable for participation in Member States, but I think we need to encourage excellence to grow when we find it.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE). - Herr talman! Tack så mycket för kommentarerna. Jag har en kompletterande fråga när det gäller EIT och KIC till kommissionsledamoten. Som nämndes här är det en oerhört stor insats som företagen gör i det här sammanhanget. Jag gör den bedömningen att företagen också, trots den ekonomiska krisen, är beredda att kanske göra ännu mer insatser inom det här området kring KIC-arna. Jag vill ställa frågan: delar ni också den bedömningen?

När det gäller deltagandereglerna tycker jag att vi nu kommer att ha en väldigt intressant situation här, där rådet mera presenterat hur vi ska bredda detta med hjälp av individuella insatser kring forskarlönerna, och parlamentet kanske har en position som innebär att vi ska hitta synergier på det mer strukturella området med hjälp av sammanhållningspolitiken. Det är en intressant diskussion som vi har framför oss där vi kan byta erfarenheter och göra en bra lösning framöver. Tack.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − You know very well that when we are deciding on the themes for the new KICs, visibility and clear rules are very important for us. This is what makes it attractive for business to participate. And that is what I have been insisting on, in the inclusion of the EIT in Horizon 2020, because this flexibility and these clear rules are very important for industries.

That is why I believe that we cannot decide that we should have another four KICs or five or six KICs without also specifying the themes, because that is what makes it attractive to business – and for other partners for that matter, such as research centres and education institutions – to participate: visibility, clear rules and flexibility.

  Romana Jordan (PPE). - Imam vprašanje, ki je pravzaprav nadaljevanje enega od prejšnjih.

In sicer me zanima več o ukrepu teaming. Z njim bomo uvedli okvir za sodelovanje med odličnimi raziskovalnimi inštitucijami in manj razvitimi evropskimi regijami.

Od Komisije pa bi želela izvedeti več, na kakšen način si predstavlja, da bo izvajala teaming.

In drugo vprašanje, kdaj lahko pričakujemo natančnejša določila o tem ukrepu, predvsem s stališča, katere regije lahko sodelujejo in kakšna kombinacija evropskih sredstev bo zahtevana, se pravi kombinacija med kohezijskimi skladi in pa programom Obzorje 2020.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Teaming and twinning are very important elements of the widening participation part of the proposal. In looking at how this might operate, obviously we are very conscious of the fact that twinning aims at significantly strengthening a defined area of research in an emerging institution. When we talk about teaming, we are aiming at the creation of new centres of excellence or a significant upgrade of existing ones that are working in, and are part of, a low-performing Member State or region.

When you ask me when the very detailed elements of this proposal might emerge, I would expect them to emerge during the course of the trialogue discussions with Parliament and the Council. I think there is, particularly in Parliament, huge interest in, and support for, this whole area of policy. We have had a number of discussions in the Council on widening participation, and particularly those Ministers from the newer Member States were very anxious to be able to tie down exactly what each of these proposals meant. So it was not just talk, or a proposal that we threw out there; behind the proposal there are specific actions that need to be taken so that we can prove that, when you put policies in place, it is possible to widen participation and to get a greater family of researchers and institutions into the framework programme. That is what I think you will see during the course of the trialogue discussions.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señoras Comisarias, como ponente del nuevo programa marco Horizonte 2020, tras la aprobación de la propuesta por el Parlamento, creo que podemos afirmar que nuestra visión no se aleja demasiado de la propuesta de la Comisión, y coincidimos también en que este es nuestro principal instrumento para ser competitivos en ciencia e innovación y, por tanto, en conocimiento, lo que, según todos los expertos, es imprescindible para salir de la crisis.

Sin embargo, todo ello ―usted lo ha dicho muy bien, señora Comisaria― requiere inversión suficiente y, de momento, la tendencia en muchos Estados miembros es a reducir la inversión en estos ámbitos y hay constantes amenazas que anuncian que el nuevo marco financiero plurianual reducirá el presupuesto para Horizonte 2020.

Lo que quisiera preguntar es si la Comisión tiene datos sobre cómo una posible rebaja perjudicaría no solo al programa en su conjunto, sino también a su impacto en la competitividad, en el crecimiento y en la creación de empleo de la Unión Europea, porque ello podría poner rigurosamente al Consejo ante la evidencia.

En relación con la imagen de la Unión Europea, en caso de rebaja, ¿no cree, señora Comisaria, que sería muy perjudicial para la imagen de Europa también? Porque Europa, una vez más, estaría mostrando poca credibilidad debido a la diferencia entre una retórica que apuesta por la inversión en ciencia e innovación y una práctica que se aleja de tal propósito.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Thank you, Ms Madurell, for all the hard work that you are doing with your fellow rapporteurs in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy to support Horizon 2020.

You have made a good point. It is one that we certainly understand very well within the Commission. I said in response to Mr Ehler’s question at the very beginning that, while Member States themselves have made crucial decisions in relation to continued investment in research and innovation – if I talk about the net contributors for example for a moment – it seems that, when they come to the collective table of the European Council, the same kind of urgency is not being pursued in relation to investments in research and innovation. Of course, a significant number of Member States have reduced, as was rightly said, investment in research and innovation.

So in fact for many Member States the only investment, or a substantial amount of the investment, that will be made in research and innovation will come from the European funds. That is another reason why we need a really good, strong budget as the Commission has proposed. Any reduction can damage the programme itself and will damage different elements of the programme. While I am not going to go into the discussions that are ongoing in relation to the MFF here, I would like to reassure Members of the Parliament that I have personally – as have my officials and my colleague Commissioners who are here today and other colleagues in the research family – been using all the powers of persuasion that I have at the very highest political level in Member States, and at the highest level in the business and research community, to impress on those who are going to come to that MFF table how crucial investment in the future economy of the European Union is.

If I just look at one figure, for example, EUR 1 billion less of funding for Horizon 2020 would mean that 600 SMEs would not be in projects, or 500 projects would not be launched. That is perhaps the only figure that I should engage in here. That is why it is crucially important, as I said, even when net contributors want to reduce the overall budget, that within that proposal they look crucially at what is good for growth, jobs and sustainability within the European Union. If they do, and when they do, I think that they will see that investment in research and innovation provides growth and jobs and is the economy of the future.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, sabemos que usted comparte la preocupación de este Parlamento. Solo un comentario más, porque en las próximas semanas la credibilidad y el futuro de Europa están en juego.

Solo quiero decir que voy a hacer un llamamiento desde aquí al Consejo exigiendo una propuesta seria y responsable que apueste decididamente por la ciencia y la innovación. Es mucho –como hemos dicho todos– lo que está en juego: nuestro crecimiento, la creación de empleo y nuestro sistema social, del que tanto presumimos, todo ello depende de una economía dinámica, competitiva y basada en el conocimiento.

Señor Presidente, aunque el Consejo no está presente, yo le pido que usted, como Presidente de esta Cámara, le haga llegar este llamamiento.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Can I just add to that, Ms Madurell, that I feel that the Members of the European Parliament have a really crucial role to play in all of this, because all of you interact on a regular basis with the governments in your own Member States. I think that Members of the European Parliament are highly respected by their governments and therefore should use the opportunity to impress upon those that come to that MFF table, as I refer to it, how important and crucial it is in helping us to remain a global player to secure a good, strong budget for research and innovation in the European Union.

Vice-President Kroes talked about what is happening in Korea, the United States, China, Singapore – a whole lot of areas of the world where they see that research and innovation is the key to exit a financial crisis. I think it would be a pity if the European Union lost this opportunity that it has now to really strongly invest in the whole area of research and innovation.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). - As you know, Commissioner, my party – Sinn Féin – has been arguing for a more joined-up approach on the policy of innovation, research and development in Ireland, both North and South.

As a low-performing area, only 424 companies out of a business space of 70 000 invest in R&D in the North of Ireland, and many of the SMEs have no understanding or awareness of their eligibility to take part or to avail themselves of the opportunities. Therefore, while Invest NI, without doubt, has much more to do to increase that awareness (and I think they need to look quite closely at what Enterprise Ireland has been doing, so that we can avail ourselves of the opportunities), I would like to hear more about how SMEs are going to understand the simplification process that you talked about, the flexibility that you said is going to be applied, the role that you see the Commission having in facilitating the increased engagement of SMEs – particularly (I have to say) in a low performing area like the North of Ireland. In particular, do you see a strategic role for the Commission in encouraging and facilitating an all-Ireland synergy in this area?

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Ms Anderson, I very much understand the challenges that there are in Northern Ireland in the whole area of research and innovation, and in fact one of the first visits that I made when I became a Commissioner was to Northern Ireland to explain to Ministers and officials the real opportunities that there were for funding under the framework programme and for getting companies and researchers to apply for funding under the research programme.

I am very pleased at what I have seen happening over the last 18 months, in that there is a real engagement from the authorities in Northern Ireland, from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister down – engaging here in Brussels, engaging in Belfast with those of us who have gone over to work with the Executive, and indeed yourselves and each of your colleagues that are here from Northern Ireland working with the Northern Ireland Office representation here in Brussels.

I think Northern Ireland is like quite a number of areas of the European Union where the information did not get across really well. So that is the first thing: that Invest Northern Ireland, plus ourselves in the Commission and yourselves as public representatives, have a role to play in explaining what is available, and how you go about applying.

Many up to now felt that the rules were just too complicated, it was too much trouble; and in good times obviously they applied to their own governments, their own authorities. That day has passed now and they are coming back to the European Union, so I think there is an onus on us to communicate what is available, to explain how to apply, to organise for them to come here and visit, to meet those people in the Directorate-General that are involved in the various areas, whether it is health or energy or agriculture or fisheries, whatever the area might be that is of interest.

I think it is also important for Northern Ireland to look at its own strengths and say: ‘What areas are we really strong in? And if we are going to be smart and if we are going to specialise then we should specialise in those particular areas’. I think that is really a process that is happening at the moment.

The simplification will be crucial for SMEs, a one-stop-shop where they do not have to submit applications in triplicate, where they understand exactly that the red tape has been cut, that in relation to costs there will be a new system in place – in other words, all of the elements of simplification that we carried out ourselves, all the elements of simplification that Parliament helped us with in the revision of the financial regulation, for example, and other simplifications that will come when Horizon 2020 is finally approved.

All of that is an indication of how serious we are in the Commission about this time really having a true simplified procedure, a simplified application framework available which will bring more and more people into the programme.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). - I look forward to working well with your officials, particularly by way of sharing the kind of information that we need to get across to the SMEs. As a junior minister who attended the meeting at which you put on the table the opportunities that exist for the North and how those opportunities need to be maximised, I hope that we can organise such a visit for the SMEs and I would like to play a part in that.

Recognising the benefits of the synergies that exist that should allow business and higher education and the public research institute to benefit from the strategic framework of Horizon 2020, I am thinking of a research institute like CTRIC in my own area where I live – in Derry – and many, many others. I would like the Commission to say what we could do to maximise those synergies in terms of Horizon 2020 so that, when I am encouraging SMEs to come here, and hopefully involved in organising such a visit, we can share that kind of information with them.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Yes, I think sharing of information is crucially important, and showing them the elements of simplification that are particularly directed at SMEs. This is something we can help you with. Anytime you simplify, an SME is truly delighted that this has happened.

We also will have in place an instrument like the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programme they have in the United States, which again is crucially important for SMEs. We will have the financial instrument that I talked about earlier, the risk-sharing instrument, which is targeted at SMEs, and we will also have the national contact points which are there already for SMEs, but they obviously will be reinforced. I think there are a lot of elements there that are particularly directed at SMEs. We had a target in the last framework programme of 15% of the funding going to SMEs. As you know last year we passed that target and we were very pleased with it. We have proposed a target in Horizon 2020. I am sure that will be one of the elements of the discussions in the trialogue, but we are very conscious of bringing more and more SMEs to the table and into the framework programme.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - Tisztelt Biztos Asszonyok! A strukturális alapok és a keretprogram közötti szinergiát biztosító rendelet végrehajtása nem volt zökkenőmentes, és nem hozott egyenletes sikereket. Bár az EU-2020 stratégia pártfogásába vette ezt a modellt, egyetértek azon képviselőkkel, akik úgy gondolják, hogy pénzügyi stabilitás és humánerőforrás-stabilitás nélkül ez a keretprogram nem vezethet sikerre. Egyetértek azokkal is, akik azt mondják, hogy ebben növelni kell a kkv-k szerepét, mert fontos a foglalkoztatás területén ez a szerep.

Nem hallottam a mai vitában azonban egy másik aspektusról, ami legalább ilyen fontos: a női vállalkozásoknak a kérdése, és a női kutatóknak a kérdése. Meggyőződésem, hogy ez az új terület nem csak új látásmódot, hanem egy új innovációt is hozhat ehhez a területhez Kérdésem a biztos asszonyokhoz, hogy kívánnak-e ezzel a területtel külön foglalkozni, nem is úgy, mint az egyenjogúság kérdése, és tudom, hogy biztos asszony nem támogatja a kvótát, de a kiválósági modellen túl hogyan lehetne pozícióba helyezni például a női kutatókat, női vállalkozókat? Várom a válaszukat.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − Can I just say on the last point that the Commission has a policy in relation to quotas of women on state boards which is fully supported by every single member of the College of Commissioners, including every single one of the women. That is the first point I want to make.

My second point is that, in relation to women, we are very conscious that in the whole research area we have a high percentage of women coming out of college and getting involved in the research area, and then a period of time during which that high number falls away and in which it is very difficult them for them – and sometimes impossible – when they decide to come back into the workforce to get back into research. So we are very conscious that we need to do something to stimulate that and make it easier. We have various proposals in place for doing that.

But one of the crucial elements is that in the whole area of STEM education, which is a problem and a challenge for all the Member States, it is an even bigger problem to get girls involved in this whole area. So we proposed a policy, ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’, which we launched last year. In the autumn we rolled out in a number of Member States a very successful communication drive in relation to this whole programme. We have a Facebook page with 28 000 ‘likes’, of which 70% are girls between the ages of 13 and 18. That is the exact target age group that we have for ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’ because that is when students make decisions about their future and where they would like to study. That means in effect that we are reaching our target.

The roll-out in a number of Member States of ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’ and the proposals that we have is very important. From a gender point of view generally, if you look at different areas of the programme, there is a higher percentage of women involved in certain aspects of the framework programme – health, for example, is an area where a lot of women are involved and continue to be involved. However, I think that we need to focus on getting more women involved in science at a very early age. I had a great privilege over the weekend in the Member State that I know best of visiting the BT Young Scientist & Technology Exhibition, where again and again the number of young women who are enthusiastic, involved, have their projects, are confident and can describe in great detail what their project is about is amazing. But we lose them somewhere along the way when they leave education. I think that is an area that we need to concentrate on and certainly we are putting the proposals in place, together with the support of the Commissioner responsible for education, Commissioner Vassiliou, who has been particularly interested in the whole area of gender and how girls get involved in this whole area of research and innovation.

I think we have done a lot. There is a lot to be done, but I think it is also a national responsibility and that governments – and in particular education departments of governments – have a crucial role to play. They need to take their responsibility and we will support them in whatever responsibility they take.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − In addition to what Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn said, I would like to add that, as Commissioner responsible for education, it is one of our priorities to encourage from the very early stages –in primary schools – to encourage young girls to show inclination and interest in science, in mathematics, exactly the fields we need most. This, of course, also goes for the higher level of education, and in EIT of course we place special emphasis on that.

I will give you a very concrete example: in the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions under Horizon 2020, we have put as one of our priorities the encouragement of women researchers. We set a target of 40%, which I am very pleased to say we have achieved. This year we are aiming even higher. Why? Because we can create a very conducive atmosphere and climate for women to participate; we recognise maternity rights – we give women the same rights when they come back after a career break – so it is a very conducive environment for women.

This year we have introduced a special prize for Marie Curie Actions, and I am very pleased to say that out of the three people who were awarded the prize, two were women.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - Elnök úr, egy nagyon rövid jelzés csak. Köszönöm biztos asszonyoknak ezt a válaszát. Azt szeretném Önöktől kérni, hogy szélesebb körű nyilvánosságot biztosítsanak ezeknek az információknak és ezeknek az elemzéseknek az eredményeinek, hogy a nemzetállamok szintjén és a kutatók szintjén is mind többen kaphassák meg ezeket az információkat, és az előrehaladásnak ezt a fokát is megkaphassák.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − You can be assured that we are very conscious of the fact that we need to communicate what our policies are. In this area I think the ‘Science: It’s a girl thing!’ policy is particularly important. As I said, it got a lot of publicity at the beginning, when it was launched. It is now being rolled out over a number of Member States – last autumn, for example – very successfully. We are using social media because we think that social media is a really important aspect, and an area in which young women, as well as all young people, get a lot of their information. It is also important to say that the web is available in all of the languages, so there is no excuse at the moment for people to say they could not understand what was on the webpage. It is available in all of the languages and we are, you can be assured, very conscious of the fact that we need to communicate what we are doing because it is, we believe, a very positive policy area.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). - Signor Commissario, si è parlato molto oggi della contraddizione tra gli obiettivi e le disponibilità di risorse. Io non ho dubbi sulla vostra reale intenzione: però devo dirvi che non ho la sensazione che l'intera Commissione sia con voi. E allora un atto formale, da parte del Presidente della Commissione, che rivendichi le disponibilità di risorse finanziarie che servono alla realizzazione dei vostri obbiettivi, forse potrebbe aiutare a fugare questi dubbi e queste perplessità.

La seconda questione che volevo porvi è relativa al rapporto tra le politiche e gli obiettivi che si vogliono realizzare. In una fase di crisi ci devono essere delle priorità: penso che la priorità dell'Europa oggi consista nella difesa del suo sistema produttivo e la sua innovazione. Se questo non viene definito e non c'è coerenza tra le azioni che vengono svolte da alcuni Commissari e da altri, si rischia di avere tantissime buone intenzioni ma di non arrivare ai risultati auspicati.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I think first of all you need to be reassured that the Commission is fully behind the proposal that it presented, which included a proposal of an EUR 80 billion investment in research, innovation and science. I also think it is important to state here that one of the most avid supporters of investments in research and innovation has been President Barroso himself. From day one when I got this job, he made a very clear statement in which he stated that we do wonderful research in Europe, but we have failed to translate that research into innovations. He told me that my job would be about clearing the obstacles which are in the way of making that happen. In all of the public pronouncements that he has made, he has been very clear that the investment and the economy of the future is investment in research, science and innovation.

In relation to prioritising, I agree with you entirely, it is very important that, rather than putting out a proposal which scatters small amounts of funding over a very large area, it was important for us to decide which priority areas we needed to focus on. What are the challenges which are facing not just Europe but the world? What are the areas that are in Europe’s strategic interest? This is indeed what we have said: strategic programming for us means the whole research family within the Commission working together strategically to programme for the future. I think that is a huge development. It is an area in which you have not just all of the Commissioners working together, but you have all of the services also working together to ensure that what we do is done in a strategic way.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo aggiungere un'osservazione: ho parlato non a caso di beni produttivi come obiettivo primario nella difesa dell'assetto tradizionale della nostra parte di mondo e del suo rilancio. Ma vorrei aggiungere anche il settore dei servizi, perché in molti servizi noi abbiamo assolutamente bisogno allo stesso modo di innovazione. Infatti, quando i servizi funzionano, quel territorio attrae investimenti. Allora bisogna rompere questa tendenza a considerare l'innovazione e la ricerca come destinati, se non esclusivamente, prevalentemente a un ambito che è quello della produzione dei beni. Anche i servizi hanno lo stesso valore.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − In fact that was one of the reasons why, when we defined what innovation meant, we were very particular that we did not confine ourselves to manufacturing or ICT for example, but that in fact we had the broadest possible definition of innovation, which included services, design, the public sector and all aspects of our policy area. We have worked on that basis, and in the flagship Innovation Union initiative we have set out very clearly that all of these aspects of policy are included in the definition of innovation.

So I agree entirely with what you say. It is not just about manufacturing, important as that is as an industrial area in Europe, but it is also about services and all the other aspects where we need innovations to get ahead.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, provengo del País Vasco, que ha hecho en estas tres últimas décadas una apuesta profunda por la innovación y la investigación aplicada. Con poco más de dos millones de habitantes, disponemos de dos grandes corporaciones tecnológicas, que son Tecnalia e IK4, que emplean a 5 000 investigadores, el 40 % del output de la investigación industrial del Estado español, y de cuatro parques tecnológicos con 14 000 empleados y 403 empresas.

El programa Horizonte destaca el papel de las regiones en la implementación de esta estrategia a través del principio de especialización inteligente. Por ello, quiero saber cómo se va a plasmar en realidad operativa y con qué grado de interlocución se va a aplicar este principio.

En la Europa de los Estados, me preocupa lo que pueda pasar cuando regiones con esta vocación industrial e innovadora están ubicadas en Estados con otro tipo de tejido productivo y modelo de desarrollo económico. También quiero saber qué medidas se están adoptando para promover las etapas finales de la I+D+I a fin de lograr un impacto más rápido y claro en la aparición de nuevos productos y servicios.

Finalmente, ¿qué opina del necesario adelanto a 2014 de la puesta en marcha de la comunidad del conocimiento e innovación para manufacturing? Esto es lo que están pidiendo los centros tecnológicos que se dedican a la aplicación, a la innovación y a la investigación en el País Vasco.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − I agree. When I talk about the fact that we do not have excellence everywhere but we can have it anywhere, the Basque region is obviously a beam of hope in the context of all of the regions in Europe. They have very much applied themselves to the kind of smart specialisation that the Commission talks about now. I think that this has worked very well for the Basque region.

The WIRE Conference will be coming up during the next six months, giving the innovative regions of Europe an opportunity to come together, to have discussions, to look at their policies, to see how those policies can be worked together, where they can cooperate, and what elements of the European policy are preventing the kind of smart specialisation that they would like to see developing. If one looks from a manufacturing point of view at the key enabling technologies for example, they have, as you know, the largest budget line within the Horizon 2020 policy.

There is a real opportunity for those innovative regions to first of all further develop themselves, but also share their knowledge and the aspects of their policy with other regions in Europe that are not doing as well and have not focused and are not looking at specialisation in the way that the Basque region has.

Certainly I would support very strongly what you have said. I think that in the policy that we have put forward we are rewarding those that have done well but we are encouraging those that have not done as well to come into the programme.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señora Comisaria, le pedía también su opinión sobre la necesidad del adelanto de la fecha de 2018 a 2014 en el caso del manufacturing. Esto es vital para el sector tecnológico del País Vasco.

  Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Member of the Commission. − When I responded I referred to key enabling technologies which, from a manufacturing point of view, are the future of Europe. We very strongly support key enabling technologies. We have done this in the high-level group, which was chaired by Vice-President Tajani and had Vice-President Kroes and myself as members, where European industry and industry which is not European but is working in the European space were very much involved. There are crucial proposals laid out in that final report which will be worked on as we move forward. For us, manufacturing is very important. I think that what is happening in an area as innovative as the Basque region is something that needs to be supported strongly.

  President. − That concludes Question Time.

I am grateful to Commissioners and to colleagues. I apologise to those who were not called. As I said, we are discussing a new procedure for Question Time to make it more transparent and more fair.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. GIANNI PITTELLA
Vicepresidente

8. Klaidų ištaisymas (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 216 straipsnis) (žr. protokola)

9. Balsuoti skirtas laikas

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca il turno di votazioni.

(Per i risultati delle votazioni e altri dettagli che le riguardano: vedasi processo verbale)

9.1. Miestų atnaujinimo indėlis siekiant ekonomikos augimo ES sanglaudos politikos srityje (A7-0406/2012 - Andrea Cozzolino) (balsavimas)

9.2. Teritorinio vystymosi vaidmuo įgyvendinant sanglaudos politiką (A7-0421/2012 - Derek Vaughan) (balsavimas)

9.3. Europos solidarumo fondas, įgyvendinimas ir taikymas (A7-0398/2012 - Rosa Estaràs Ferragut) (balsavimas)

9.4. ES administracinio proceso teisė (A7-0369/2012 - Luigi Berlinguer) (balsavimas)

9.5. Darbuotojų informavimas ir konsultavimas, restruktūrizacijos numatymas ir valdymas (A7-0390/2012 - Alejandro Cercas) (balsavimas)

9.6. ES strategija dėl Afrikos Kyšulio (A7-0408/2012 - Charles Tannock) (balsavimas)

9.7. Intelektinės nuosavybės teisių į genetinius išteklius vystymosi aspektai: poveikis skurdo mažinimui besivystančiose šalyse (A7-0423/2012 - Catherine Grèze) (balsavimas)

  Presidente. − Con questo si conclude il turno di votazioni.

10. Paaiškinimai dėl balsavimo

10.1. Miestų atnaujinimo indėlis siekiant ekonomikos augimo ES sanglaudos politikos srityje (A7-0406/2012 - Andrea Cozzolino)

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, più di 2 terzi della popolazione europea vivono nelle aree urbane ed è proprio nelle città che di conseguenza si concentrano maggiormente i problemi come disoccupazione, povertà e discriminazione. Promuovere la riqualificazione e la rigenerazione urbana rappresenta quindi una delle sfide principali cui l'Unione europea deve dare risposta. Solamente grazie a un'attenta pianificazione territoriale e a un rilancio del settore urbanistico sarà possibile rafforzare il legame tra il centro e le periferie, creare nuove opportunità di sviluppo e rendere le città europee più sicure, moderne e tolleranti.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signor Presidente, anch'io ho votato a favore di questo dossier che sviluppa concretamente iniziative volte alla coesione economica e alla crescita sostenibile e intelligente. Nel contesto urbano vive l'80% della popolazione, per questo le risorse che a tal fine vengono utilizzate debbono promuovere il benessere e la qualità della vita. In concreto, una serie di iniziative volte alla riqualificazione dei centri urbani, ad innestare nuove attività per garantire standard di livelli di qualità in linea con le attese della popolazione.

In questa direzione, i Fondi strutturali debbono essere impiegati in maniera corretta, con obiettivi misurabili e definiti che garantiscano al meglio le esigenze della popolazione: tutela delle risorse naturali, valorizzazione dell'efficientamento energetico e, ancora, iniziative come il Patto dei sindaci, che garantiscono al meglio le istanze del territorio.

  Lara Comi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, ho sostenuto con il mio voto favorevole questa importante risoluzione. Sono sempre stata convinta che il contesto urbano rappresenti il luogo più importante dove far sentire la presenza dell'Europa, per migliorare la crescita sociale ed economica delle nostre società e soprattutto riconquistare la fiducia dei cittadini. La democrazia si ricostruisce dal basso ed è nel livello più prossimo ai cittadini che devono essere assicurate politiche e servizi adeguati, che migliorano direttamente la nostra vita quotidiana.

La politica europea di coesione ha questa finalità e deve essere sempre al passo con i cambiamenti economici e sociali. Il modello di sviluppo locale oggi deve essere innovativo e adeguato ad affrontare le nuove sfide, tra le quali la crisi economica, i cambiamenti climatici e l'invecchiamento demografico. Anche la riqualificazione urbana dovrebbe accogliere azioni di sperimentazione, abbandonando gli approcci tradizionali e ripensando le metodologie di pianificazione territoriale. In questa direzione, sostengo con forza la scelta di prevedere nella politica di coesione che almeno il 5% del Fondo europeo di sviluppo sia dedicato a questo.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). - Signor Presidente, l'attribuzione del 5% del fondo gestito direttamente dalle città per azioni integrate a favore dello sviluppo urbano rappresenta un buon punto di partenza proveniente dalle istituzioni europee per pensare alle città del futuro. Infatti, il riassetto urbano del territorio costituisce uno strumento irrinunciabile di crescita economica e sociale a livello locale.

A tal proposito, la nuova politica di coesione dell'Unione dovrà garantire la sostenibilità sociale della trasformazione urbana, al fine di contenere il rischio di espulsione delle fasce più deboli della popolazione dalle aree interessate dai processi di riqualificazione.

Signor Presidente, le politiche di coesione sono uno strumento che mira a eliminare gli squilibri sociali tra i cittadini e il territorio dell'Unione e in questo senso, in questo contesto, la riqualificazione urbana può costituire uno strumento per migliorare la qualità della vita, a patto però che vengano valorizzate identità e memoria delle soggettività culturali e territoriali inserite nei contesti urbani.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I make this statement on behalf of the British Conservative Delegation to the European Parliament. Whilst this report attempts to deal with the renewal of urban areas through cohesion policy, I am afraid that the text is sorely lacking in any concrete suggestions which could help town and city centres deliver the employment and growth which Europe so much needs. Rather, this text focuses on an alternative agenda of using more cohesion funds to integrate marginalised groups in urban areas and attempts to interfere further in the integration of town planning across the EU.

It is unacceptable, furthermore, that the report suggests using more cohesion funding for the technical assistance of local government, which may frequently mean nothing more than a by-word for increased bureaucracy. In summary, this text will do little to help job creators in urban areas, and my delegation has voted against this disappointing report.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Oraşele se confruntă în prezent cu probleme mari privind expansiunea suburbiilor şi degradarea urbanistică şi cu marginalizarea unor categorii vulnerabile de populaţie, ceea ce a generat declin economic şi social. De aceea, susţin implicarea comunităţilor şi a organizaţiilor civice în procesele de reînnoire urbană şi, mai ales, în deciziile politicii de coeziune. Cer transparenţă din partea autorităţilor publice şi le cer să coopereze cu cetăţenii şi organizaţiile civice.

Planurile de urbanism trebuie făcute publice, dezbătute cu comunităţile locale şi, abia apoi, adoptate. Proiectele concrete pentru oraşe, prin care se solicită fonduri europene, trebuie, mai întâi, discutate cu oamenii comunităţii, pentru că ei ştiu cel mai bine nevoile şi priorităţile. Această măsură va da vizibilitate acţiunilor comunitare şi va contribui la trăinicia transformărilor urbane.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). - Signor Presidente, desidero esprimere il mio apprezzamento per questa relazione, perché finalmente si mette al centro della politica di coesione la dimensione urbana. Il 2013 sarà un anno decisivo, perché tutti gli attori dello sviluppo economico e sociale della regione europea saranno impegnati nella preparazione dei loro programmi operativi, nell'augurio che essi diano la giusta attenzione alla riqualificazione delle periferie urbane e alle zone degradate delle nostre città, pianificando veri e propri programmi di rigenerazione urbana sociale.

Le zone urbane sono certamente un motore di crescita, ma sono anche luoghi dove si annidano i maggiori problemi sociali, che potranno essere affrontati solo in una logica nuova di integrazione, che tenga conto anche di quelle zone suburbane e periferiche. Dare centralità alla dimensione urbana significherà dare prova di un uso intelligente delle nuove risorse della politica di coesione e dei fondi strutturali.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). - Signor Presidente, il rilancio economico delle città è fonte di creazione di posti di lavoro e di miglioramento della qualità della vita. Ma vuol dire soprattutto integrazione sociale e territoriale. Credo che sia molto importante l'attribuzione del 5% del Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale per azioni integrate a favore dello sviluppo urbano sostenibile.

Questo significherà attivare finalmente nuove politiche di riqualificazione urbana, rilanciare l'edilizia popolare – da troppo tempo ferma – avere risorse aggiuntive e preziose per realizzare migliori servizi pubblici, più spazi verdi attrezzati e strutture per il tempo libero, la cultura e lo sport.

Ringrazio quindi davvero l'onorevole Cozzolino per l'ottimo lavoro svolto.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). - În cadrul viitoarei politici de coeziune, zonele urbane trebuie să joace un rol mai important, deoarece vor continua să fie motoarele de creştere şi centrele creative şi inovatoare ale Uniunii. Pentru următoarea perioadă de programare, trebuie să beneficiem de o agendă urbană ambiţioasă, cu resurse financiare substanţiale şi cu atribuţii sporite pentru autorităţile locale în conceperea şi punerea în aplicare a strategiilor urbane.

Consider însă că nu este suficient şi, pentru o dezvoltare regională sustenabilă, avem nevoie de elaborarea unui cadru pentru o dezvoltare integrată, echilibrată rural-urban, în funcţie de necesităţile fiecărei regiuni. În acest sens, solicit Comisiei să analizeze şi să propună metodologii de lucru pentru încurajarea parteneriatelor urban-rural, care să ducă la combaterea fenomenului de depopulare a zonelor rurale şi, în acelaşi timp, la stimularea dezvoltării urbane durabile.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). - Hr. formand. Det er jo velkendt, at Den Europæiske Union tager sig af store spørgsmål som finanspolitik, udenrigspolitik, at den er optaget af at redde verden og den slags vigtige temaer. Men at man også går helt ned i detaljen og nu begynder at have en politik for, hvordan byerne skal udvikle sig og ovenikøbet vil have en ny EU-reguleringsfase med planer om at bevare og genskabe byområder osv., det er efter min mening nyt. Det er interessant, at det ikke længere er nok bare at redde verden og få styr på økonomien, for helt ned i detaljerne, helt ned dér, hvor spørgsmålet om byudvikling tages op, dér skal EU's institutioner åbenbart også fungere.

Mine damer og herrer, må jeg gøre Dem opmærksom på, at der findes noget, der hedder subsidiaritetsprincippet, nærhedsprincippet, hvor der altså er områder, som EU simpelthen skal holde sine klamme og altid magtbegærlige hænder væk fra. Kunne vi ikke blive enige om, at spørgsmålet om, hvordan byerne udvikler sig, måske er et anliggende om ikke for medlemslandene så måske helt nede på byniveau for kommunalbestyrelser osv. og ikke noget, som kommissærer og europa-parlamentarikere skal tage sig af.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). - Signor Presidente, su questa relazione ho dato il mio voto favorevole, forte non solo del lavoro svolto in commissione ma anche del positivo risultato del dibattito di ieri, il quale ha registrato una positiva convergenza tra il Parlamento e la Commissione sui punti fondanti del rapporto di iniziativa della commissione REGI.

Ho lavorato come relatore ombra alla relazione Cozzolino e sono fermamente convinta che la dimensione territoriale e per essa lo spazio urbano sia incidente per promuovere la coesione sociale ed economica in Europa, attraverso un uso trasparente e intelligente delle risorse strutturali. Le città devono acquisire un nuovo volto che consenta loro di ammortizzare i colpi della crisi economica, abbattendo le barriere culturali e sociali e promuovendo l'integrazione tra i cittadini urbani.

Per raggiungere questi obiettivi, con la relazione Cozzolino chiediamo – e ieri il Commissario Hahn sembra avere aderito a questa nostra richiesta – che l'agenda urbana punti agli obiettivi della sostenibilità, dell'innovazione e dell'inclusività, che si promuovano azioni multifondo perché quel 5% del FESR sia solo il punto di partenza, che il modello di sviluppo locale sia quello di tipo partecipato e che quindi gli amministratori locali partecipino non solo alla fase di gestione ma anche a quella di decisione.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Správu som podporila, aj keď ma mrzí, že sa v nej nespomína najdôležitejší dôvod pre obnovu miest, ktorým je rodina a medzigeneračná spravodlivosť.

Politika bývania je dôležitou súčasťou rodinnej politiky. Pre rodiny s deťmi sú väčšie priestory na bývanie v centrách miest často príliš drahé. Rozvoj miest a rodinná politika sa tak stretávajú v politickej vízii orientovanej na budúcnosť. Žiaľ, niekedy to nestačí.

Podpora mestských centier by však nemala viesť k zanedbávaniu vidieckeho priestoru. Rodiny na vidieku už beztak musia znášať nevyvážené reformy poľnohospodárskej politiky Európskej únie. V mnohých európskych regiónoch vymierajú celé dediny. To by nemalo byť cieľom, ani výsledkom kohéznej politiky orientovanej na mestá.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the Cozzolino report on urban development as a contribution to EU growth concludes that the EU Cohesion Policy must focus on developing and assisting local initiatives. As an MEP for London, this of course makes sense to me. We must avoid taxpayers’ money being filtered by bureaucratic layers, leaving only residues for those that are targeted.

It is to the local level that citizens feel most attached, and to which intangible assets like historical and cultural ties are closely linked. However, this text I regret is far too prescriptive and will not help growth.

As a UK Conservative, I am a believer in localism; it enables the most efficient spending to be matched with the most democratic consent. Therefore, the ERDF and cohesion policy, which frankly need to be radically reformed and repatriated anyway, ought to bolster a new approach to urban policies. Nevertheless, I do agree it is vital that such a substantial part of European funding is conducted efficiently, but also with full local participation and also it must promote economic growth throughout the European Union.

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Mr President, 80% of EU citizens live in urban areas. There is no doubt that Europe’s cities are key economic generators. As such, cities have a key role to play in achieving the economic, social and environmental aims of the EU 2020 Strategy.

Urban regeneration and economic revitalisation are closely related. In an economic downturn, regeneration areas face even greater challenges attracting investment and enterprise. The development of liveable and attractive cities can be a crucial factor in economic recovery. As a former Lord Mayor and councillor for Dublin City, I welcome the emphasis placed in this report on restoring cities – including marginalised areas – the conversion of disused spaces and concentrating resources on deprived urban areas. These were priorities that I held during my term as Lord Mayor.

EU cohesion policy must focus on local development, since this is closest to the level of the citizen. Therefore, I very much agree that at least 5% of ERDF resources should be made available for integrated actions and that sustainable urban development should be delegated to the cities themselves to manage.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE). - Signor Presidente, con il voto appena espresso a larga maggioranza, il Parlamento intende dare una dimensione più concreta alla politica di coesione dell'Unione europea, mettendo al centro dell'azione il contesto in cui più di due terzi della popolazione europea vivono, ovvero i centri urbani. Le città sono storicamente luoghi in cui più si fanno sentire le difficoltà della vita quotidiana: non mi riferisco soltanto ai termini economici, ma anche sociali e interpersonali.

La politica di coesione europea, che nel periodo 2007-2013 ha rappresentato una fetta importante del bilancio europeo con 347 miliardi di euro (che corrispondono al 35,7% dell'intero bilancio) vuole con questa risoluzione dare risalto alla dimensione più vicina ai cittadini. Ovviamente un nuovo approccio in merito a problemi quali la gestione efficace dell'energia, la gestione dei rifiuti, l'immigrazione, l'invecchiamento della popolazione, solo per citarne alcuni, non può prescindere dalla necessità che le istituzioni europee annettano maggiore importanza ai rappresentanti locali eletti dai cittadini, ovvero i sindaci.

  Monika Smolková (S&D). - Mestá historicky predstavujú hybnú silu hospodárstva, výroby a zamestnanosti. Ponúkajú výborné podmienky pre školstvo, vedu a technológie, kultúru či inovácie. Súbežne s pozitívami mesta sú to aglomerácie, v ktorých sa sústreďujú problémy, ako je nezamestnanosť, kriminalita, diskriminácia či chudoba.

Preto podporujem správu a očakávam, že jej naplnenie prispeje k sanácii miest a hospodárstva i celej infraštruktúry v nich. Vytvorenie atraktívnej mestskej lokality môže oživiť hospodárstvo, môže mobilizovať kultúrne a infraštruktúrne zdroje, ale predovšetkým môže prispieť k mestskej solidarite, sociálnemu začleneniu a integrácii zraniteľných a marginalizovaných skupín v mestských oblastiach.

V mestských oblastiach zdôrazňujem preto, že do tohto procesu je nevyhnutne potrebné zapojiť aj vidiecke oblasti a prepojiť ich s potrebami mestských oblastí, aby sa podporil nekonfliktný synergický vzťah.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, bhí áthas orm tacaíocht a thabhairt don tuarascáil seo agus ní nach ionadh gur glacadh leis go héasca anseo inniu. Mar tá níos mó ná dhá-thrian dár ndaonra ina gcónaí sna bailte agus sna cathracha, agus ba cheart dúinn díriú orthu gan dabht ar bith. I ngach aon bhaile agus i ngach aon chathair tá áiteanna saibhre agus tá áiteanna bochta agus ba chóir dúinn díriú ar na háiteanna bochta. Ba mhaith liom, go háirithe, dhá rud a lua – polasaí fuinnimh a chur i bhfeidhm sna háiteanna bochta. Chonaic mé seo i Londain anuraidh nuair a rinneadh retrofitting ar na tithe go léir in eastát amháin. Ní dhearnadh le hairgead Eorpach é ba mhaith liom a rá. De bharr na hoibre sin, bhí na heastáit níos deise, bhí na tithe níos compordúla agus bhí na billí níos lú. An pointe deireanach ba mhaith liom a rá gur cheart dúinn níos mó béime a chur ar an oideachas chun seans a thabhairt do na daoine bochta, go háirithe na daoine óga, éalú ón mbochtanas amach anseo.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - Arvoisa puhemies, äänestin tämän mietinnön puolesta. EU:n nykyistä aluepolitiikkaa on kritisoitu siitä, ettei rahoitusta kohdisteta vain köyhille ja syrjäisille alueille. Mielestäni kehittyneet alueet ja kaupungit kaipaavat myös erityistä tukea. Tukea kaivataan etenkin siitä syystä, että suurin osa kansalaisistamme asuu nykyisin kaupungeissa. Kaupungeilla on myös merkittävä rooli työllisyyden, kasvun sekä talouskriisin selättämisessä. On tosiasia, että ihmiskunnan tulevaisuus on kaupungeissa. Kun globalisaation myötä yksittäisten kansallisvaltioiden merkitys heikkenee, niin kaupunkien merkitys itsenäisinä poliittis-taloudellisina toimijoina taas kasvaa entisestään. Tämän mietinnön kautta EU:lla on mahdollisuus vastata paikallisiin, alueellisiin ja globaaleihin muutoksiin sekä parantaa kansalaistensa hyvinvointia.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, it was a truly extraordinary debate this morning. The President of the Commission said that the existential threat to the euro was over, the crisis was finished and then, one after another, colleagues lined up to lend their voices to that proposition. There is an extraordinary denial going on in this Chamber and in the EU institutions as a whole. I was thinking of what it would be like to be a strutting boulevardier from 100 years ago, with an exquisitely embroidered waistcoat, twirling your silver-topped cane, stroking your beautifully-trimmed beard, but your guts inside rotting and your innards being destroyed by syphilis – because we have not addressed the fundamental problem. Unemployment is rising, growth is stuck, and those things are going to carry on until we accept that the fundamental problem is that we are applying a single monetary policy to countries with widely-divergent conditions and needs.

In one sense we were right to say that the crisis was over. A crisis is a crossroads, a moment of decision, a moment when there is one of two futures. The euro is no longer critical: the squalor, the wretchedness, the poverty and the unemployment have become structural.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, it is very important that we do talk about the urban redevelopment as a contribution to economic growth but I think we have missed an opportunity to talk about some of the very real issues and implications of looking towards urban development for economic growth.

Have we looked at some of the ideas from my own country, for example, where there is an accusation of a North-South divide? Are we looking at urban developments of certain towns at the expense of others? Are we also looking at urban development at the expense of rural development so people living in sparsely populated rural areas complain that the focus is all on urban development?

Why do we find yet another excuse to spend yet more taxpayers’ money without any real economic benefit? Surely the best way to promote economic growth and urban development is to pay off our debts. Surely the best way to promote economic development is to make sure we do not spend more money than we have coming in and surely the best way to promote economic growth is to create the right conditions for those people to invest in urban and rural developments for economic development.

Dichiarazioni di voto scritte

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente relatório, considerando que a definição de políticas urbanas coerentes deve ser uma prioridade, uma vez que a maioria dos cidadãos europeus vivem em áreas urbanas, realidade esta que todas as políticas da União Europeia devem ter em consideração. Por outro lado, é importante não esquecer os casos dos cidadãos da União Europeia que residem nas Regiões Ultraperiféricas, onde a dimensão urbana/rural, devido às suas características geográficas, andam de lado a lado. Portanto, a eficácia das políticas mais importantes da União Europeia baseia-se em políticas urbanas bem preparadas, que incluam todas as dimensões urbanas. Aqui sublinho também o caso das ilhas, de modo a que estas possam contribuir cada vez mais para o desenvolvimento económico da União no seu todo.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport d’initiative visant à souligner l’importance qu'a l’aménagement urbain dans la vie quotidienne des citoyens, particulièrement les plus défavorisés. Le but est ici de mobiliser les fonds de cohésion et ainsi de participer à une reprise économique dans ces zones grâce à des projets en lien avec l'efficacité énergétique dans les bâtiments, la gestion de l'élimination des déchets, la migration et le vieillissement de la population.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl tvarios miestų plėtros, kuriuo siekiama išnaudojant ES regionų ir miestų teritorijų plėtros galimybes skatinti visos ES konkurencingumą. Siūloma miestų teritorijoms sukurti vidutinės trukmės ir ilgalaikius veiksmų planus, pagal kuriuos bus baigiamos statyti ir atkuriamos miestų dalys, restruktūrizuojamos apleistos vietos, remiamas meno ir kultūros paveldas, bei optimizuojamas sanglaudos politikos lėšų panaudojimas šiems tikslams įgyvendinti. Kadangi miestų atkūrimo procesai kelia grėsmę pažeidžiamiausioms gyventojų grupėms, (kurios dažnai išstumiamos), pritariu, kad pirmenybę reikėtų teikti miestų pertvarkymo socialinio tvarumo užtikrinimui, numatant tinkamą būsto politiką ir paslaugų teikimą, pažeidžiamų bei atskirtų miesto teritorijų grupių integraciją. Svarbu gyventojams suteikti galimybę turėti viešąsias erdves, parkus, taip pat laisvalaikiui, kultūrai ir sportui skirtas vietas. Taip pat pritariu raginimams priimti skatinamąsias kovos su neefektyviu energijos naudojimu priemones, mažinti miestų taršą ir triukšmą, užtikrinti tvaraus judumo, kokybiškas vandens tiekimo bei atliekų tvarkymo paslaugas.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului, deoarece, deşi s-au înregistrat progrese semnificative în vederea convergenţei în Uniune, există în continuare inegalităţi, iar unele dintre ele se extind. Coeziunea teritorială poate contribui la atingerea obiectivelor Strategiei Europa 2020. Pe de altă parte, trebuie să ne asigurăm că sunt atinse şi obiectivele imediate ale Uniunii, respectiv creşterea şi competitivitatea economică, dar şi ocuparea forţei de muncă. În acest sens, implicarea autorităţilor locale şi regionale în fiecare etapă a programelor de finanţare este esenţială pentru a se asigura abordarea nevoilor locale. Iar una dintre soluţiile cele mai bune ar fi descentralizarea procesului decizional. Astfel, se poate asigura o mai bună gestionare a fondurilor structurale, iar proiectele finanţate pot răspunde mai bine nevoilor specifice fiecărei comunităţi.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − Mais de dois terços da população europeia vivem em zonas urbanas. É nas cidades que se concentram, de forma amplificada, problemas como o desemprego, a discriminação e a pobreza. É nas zonas urbanas que incidem maioritariamente os efeitos da crise económica. A fase de expansão urbana das últimas décadas expôs uma grave situação de degradação urbanística e imobiliária que se concretizou na carência de obras de urbanização e de serviços essenciais. Assim, devem partir das instituições europeias novos estímulos e instrumentos que permitam pensar as cidades do futuro. Promover a requalificação e a regeneração urbana constitui um enorme desafio. É necessário, para o relançamento social e económico das cidades, repensar as metodologias do setor urbanístico e da planificação territorial. A nova programação da política de coesão deverá desenvolver ações de governação do território que assumam a questão da sustentabilidade social e da transformação urbana como tema prioritário, que deverá prever instrumentos de crescimento para a qualidade de vida, valorizando as identidades, a memória e a história dos territórios. Por concordar com as medidas propostas, votei favoravelmente o presente relatório.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Mi sono astenuta nella votazione sulla relazione Cozzolino sul contributo del riassetto urbano alla crescita economica nella politica di coesione dell'UE. Il collega nella sua relazione chiede una maggiore concentrazione delle risorse dell'FESR sulle aree urbane, individuandole come centro nevralgico per lo sviluppo della futura politica di coesione. Ritengo che, pur essendoci parti condivisibili in questo testo, l'interesse della politica di coesione non possa essere limitato alle sole aree urbane ma debba avere un respiro ben più ampio.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi Europos miestai yra viena pagrindinių mokslo ir inovacijų, kultūros ir technologijų klestėjimo erdvių, kuriose gyvena daugiau nei du trečdaliai visų Europos gyventojų. Kita vertus, miestuose taip pat yra patiriama ir daugiausia problemų, susijusių su nedarbu, skurdu ir diskriminacija. Galima būtų teigti, jog kokia bus tolimesnė mūsų miestų plėtra, tokia bus ekonominės, socialinės ir teritorinės plėtros ateitis. Miestų kūrimas ir atnaujinimas yra vienas iš svarbiausių rodiklių, siekiant sukurti Europos tvarios miestų plėtros modelį. Tokių programų, kaip „Urban“, įnašas buvo itin svarbus, nes jas įgyvendinant buvo įgyvendintos ir socialinei integracijai skirtos priemonės, kaip antai, naujas požiūris į miesto atnaujinimą, bendra vizija, siekiant viršyti visas socialines, ekonomines, aplinkos ir infrastruktūros priemones. Taip pat svarbu pabrėžti, jog yra būtina atkreipti didesnį dėmesį į priemiesčius ir jų gyventojus. Jei pavyktų miestą nors kiek tolėliau nukelti į priemiesčio rajonus, tai priemiesčiai galėtų tapti naujo socialinės ir ekonominės plėtros modelio pagrindu. Siekiant maksimaliai pasiekti užsibrėžtų tikslų ir rezultatų „Europa 2020“ strategijoje, reikėtų siekti įtraukti visus sektorius, administracijos lygmenis ir teritorijas bei skatinti jų bendradarbiavimą, kuris padėtų įveikti ardančias tendencijas, išryškėjusias ekonominės ir finansinės krizės metu.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), per iscritto. − Condivido l’analisi che sottende la risoluzione così come il dispositivo e pertanto esprimo un voto favorevole. Effettivamente le aree urbane sono il luogo principe in cui si consuma la sfida più impegnativa al nostro modello sociale e ai nostri principi fondanti, di benessere diffuso e di diritti civili. Aggiungo: una sfida che si traduce nella sottile tentazione di alimentare, spesso con le migliori intenzioni, il grado di dipendenza dei cittadini dai sistemi di welfare e in generale dalla mano pubblica, aggravando così una spirale di insostenibilità della spesa e di impoverimento materiale e intellettuale delle nostre comunità. Persino programmi di grande valore come Urban sono stati talvolta piegati a logiche di corto periodo da parte di amministrazioni preoccupate innanzitutto della loro immediata situazione finanziaria, più che del governo dei processi di trasformazione urbana nel senso della creazione di opportunità adeguate alla fisionomia e ai bisogni delle nostre società urbane. Mi pare che la risoluzione offra ipotesi di soluzione a questi problemi, anche in ambiti specifici quali quelli di cui ai paragrafi 9 e 14, che propongono un rafforzamento della partecipazione e del coinvolgimento del territorio in funzione di costruzione del consenso, di obiettivi di interesse generale e di controllo dell’efficacia della spesa.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While this report attempts to deal with the renewal of urban areas through cohesion policy, I am afraid that it is sorely lacking in any concrete suggestions which could help town and city centres deliver the employment and growth which Europe so much needs. Rather, this text focuses on an alternative agenda of using more cohesion funds to integrate marginalised groups in urban areas and attempts to interfere further in the integration of town planning across the EU. The report suggests using more cohesion funding for the technical assistance of local government, which may frequently mean nothing more than a byword for increased bureaucracy. In summary, this disappointing report will do little to help job creators in urban areas, therefore my delegation and I has voted against it.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté pour le rapport Cozzolino. Je suis convaincu que le développement local doit avoir sa place dans la politique de cohésion, étant donné qu'il se situe au plus près du citoyen. J'estime que l'efficacité énergétique dans les bâtiments, la migration et le vieillissement de la population sont autant de questions qui doivent être abordées par la politique de cohésion.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Mais de dois terços da população europeia vivem em zonas urbanas. Estima-se que, em 2050, cerca de 70% da população viverá em cidades. Esse crescimento causará uma mudança enorme nas cidades e na expectativa dos cidadãos sobre a qualidade de serviços como saúde, transporte, educação, etc. Tendo em linha de conta o atual clima económico, é evidente que o financiamento no âmbito da coesão política está a ganhar cada vez mais importância nas regiões europeias e que existe a necessidade crescente de garantir que o dispêndio de dinheiro seja efetuado de forma mais eficaz, para que os cidadãos possam beneficiar plenamente do financiamento europeu. A nova programação da política de coesão – através desta abordagem estrutural – deverá desenvolver ações de governação do território que assumam a questão da sustentabilidade social da transformação urbana como um tema prioritário.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), în scris. − Multe oraşe se confruntă cu ameninţări grave de stagnare sau declin economic. În prezent, economia europeană nu mai poate să asigure un nivel adecvat al ocupării forţei de muncă, un procent cât mai mare din populaţie urmând să fie exclus de pe piaţa forţei de muncă sau constrâns să accepte locuri de muncă în sectorul serviciilor cu nivel scăzut de calificare şi prost remunerate. Această situaţie agravează disparităţile, amplifică polarizarea veniturilor şi segregarea socială. În prezent, România analizează o posibilă reformă administrativ-teritorială, pentru o gestionare cât mai eficientă a fondurilor europene, deoarece, pentru revitalizarea economică şi socială a oraşelor, este necesară o regândire a metodologiilor de dezvoltare urbană şi de planificare teritorială. Ele ar fi capabile să îmbogăţească politicile de mediu, teritoriale, comerciale şi de transport comercial. Trebuie îmbunătățită capacitatea administrativă a autorităţilor locale şi regionale şi a actorilor economici şi sociali, prin intensificarea folosirii asistenţei tehnice - în privinţa gestionării fondurilor structurale, în scopul unei guvernanţe reale pe mai multe niveluri pentru a garanta îndeplinirea obiectivelor. Este esenţială dezvoltarea şi promovarea de reţele multifuncţionale sustenabile, bazate pe bune practici, pentru a stimula formarea de parteneriate şi integrate de tip urban-rural, în funcţie de necesităţile fiecărei regiuni.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. − O modelo de desenvolvimento local representa um ponto forte da política de coesão da UE. Tendo em consideração que 80% dos cidadãos europeus vivem no meio urbano, torna-se necessário repensar novos estímulos e instrumentos que permitam pensar as cidades do futuro. Note-se que é no tecido urbano que realidades como o desemprego, a pobreza e discriminação têm contornos mais acentuados nestes tempos difíceis. Daí considerar que promover a requalificação e a regeneração urbana (criando riqueza e oportunidades) é um dos desafios que cabe à União dar resposta, promovendo um verdadeiro modelo de desenvolvimento urbano sustentável. Apoio pois o presente relatório ao solicitar uma atenção especial no sentido de completar e reabilitar bairros marginalizados, reconverter funcionalmente locais em abandono, mobilizar recursos culturais e económicos, permitindo assim a inclusão social e integração de grupos marginalizados. Especial ênfase, neste processo de requalificação urbana, à possibilidade de através dos fundos estruturais estabelecer uma abordagem integrada das disfunções do desenvolvimento demográfico nas cidades, nomeadamente no crescente envelhecimento. Deverá, de igual modo, ser dada uma atenção especial aos problemas ambientais que passam pelo aumento dos espaços verdes, pela qualidade do ar e essencialmente pela gestão dos resíduos urbanos.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), în scris. − Adevăraţi poli de influenţă, dar şi motoare economice, oraşele riscă să nu mai facă faţă cerinţelor, din cauza supraaglomerării. Este necesară mobilizarea resurselor culturale şi economice în vederea transformării urbane, pentru a exploata pe deplin potenţialul de dezvoltare şi, în acest scop, susţin propunerea de rezoluţie a Parlamentului referitoare la contribuţia reamenajării urbane la creşterea economică în cadrul politicii de coeziune a UE. Este primordial ca politica de coeziune să contribuie la dezvoltarea oraşelor şi a regiunilor la potenţialul lor maxim. Regenerarea urbană poate fi un factor de relansare economică printr-un număr mai mare de investitori, companii şi chiar locuitori.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), na piśmie. − Miasta stają się centrami rozwoju gospodarczego, dlatego utrzymanie ich dynamicznego rozwoju staje się ważnym czynnikiem zapewniającym wzrost gospodarczy w UE. Dlatego tak ważne jest utrzymanie dalszego wzrostu środków na politykę spójności oraz rozwój regionalny. To właśnie te fundusze inwestowane w rozwój transportu, szerokopasmowej sieci internetu, budowy kolejnych centrów łączących badania i biznes mogą wspierać miasta, jednocześnie będąc silnym wsparciem dla powrotu całej Europy na ścieżkę wzrostu. Dlatego poparłem to sprawozdanie.

Szczególnie istotne jest zbyt słabe ujęcie sytuacji regionów biednych i marginalizowanych oraz regionów dotkniętych biedą strukturalną związaną np. z upadkiem głównego, czasem jedynego, zakładu przemysłowego.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. − Consider că statele membre ar trebui să acorde mai multă atenţie promovării unei relaţii urban-rural cât mai strânse, fără conflicte şi care să permită complementaritatea acestora. Sunt benefice totodată extinderea reţelelor de transport periurban şi a conexiunilor cu mediul rural, atât în ceea ce priveşte transportul de persoane, cât şi de mărfuri, pentru aprovizionarea corespunzătoare a localităţilor rurale, precum şi îmbunătăţirea serviciilor de orice natură, mai ales a serviciilor acordate persoanelor în vârstă şi cu mobilitate redusă din mediul rural.

  Mário David (PPE), por escrito. − Quando dois terços da população europeia vivem em zonas urbanas, reequacionar o papel e o contributo do ordenamento urbano para o crescimento económico, no atual contexto socioeconómico da União, é um exercício capital para a política de coesão da UE. E, por isso, votei favoravelmente este relatório. Se, por um lado, é nas cidades que se manifestam amplamente os efeitos da crise económica e problemas como mobilidade, pobreza, envelhecimento, criação de emprego, é também nos tecidos urbanos, mais propícios ao desenvolvimento de sinergias entre ciência, tecnologia, inovação, cultura ou empreendorismo, que se encontra a chave para o relançamento social e económico das cidades. Neste contexto, sublinho a importância que o desenvolvimento local pode, e deve, assumir como elemento crucial no futuro da política de coesão. O envolvimento dos cidadãos e do poder local nos processos de requalificação e regeneração urbana conduzirá não só à adoção de melhores opções políticas – ou seja, as medidas mais eficazes, coerentes e economicamente mais eficientes para cada cidade –, como ao consolidar da cidadania europeia e partilha de boas práticas no espaço da UE. Por exemplo, nalgumas cidades do meu país, os cidadãos já são convidados a pensar na sua cidade através da iniciativa "orçamento participativo".

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), par écrit. – En votant cette résolution, le Parlement a exprimé ses ambitions en matière de réaménagement urbain telles qu'elles devraient être développées dans la prochaine programmation de la politique de cohésion en 2014-2020 (5 % minimum de financements du Fonds européen pour le développement régional seront désormais dévolus au développement urbain durable). Je m'en félicite car prêter attention au développement urbain est primordial quand on sait que les villes comptent deux tiers de la population européenne et que les problèmes de chômage, pauvreté, discrimination, vieillissement y sont légion! Cette résolution entend présenter un plan européen en faveur des villes via l'utilisation intelligente des nouvelles ressources de la politique de cohésion et les fonds structurels. L'élaboration d'un tel plan fournirait une base juridique définissant des objectifs communs à long terme et optimiserait l'utilisation de ces fonds. Il y met en avant, entre autres, une meilleure efficacité énergétique des bâtiments et la rénovation des banlieues. La résolution appelle également à des actions visant à recoudre le tissu de quartiers urbains existants, y compris des quartiers marginalisés, à promouvoir la reconversion fonctionnelle de sites en friche et de zones de conversion.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), írásban. − Mivel az EU lakosságának 73%-a él városokban, illetve ezek a lakott területek adják az Unió GDP-jének közel 80%-át, az energiafogyasztás 70%-át, továbbá ezek a városi területek jelentik az innováció, a tudás és a kultúra központját, a gazdasági fejlődés motorját, így a városok kiemelt szerepet játszanak a gazdasági növekedésben és az Európa 2020 stratégia megvalósításában. Ugyanakkor szem előtt kell tartani azt is, hogy a városokba koncentrálódnak olyan problémák is, mint a környezetszennyezés, a munkanélküliség magas aránya, a szegénység, az éghajlatváltozást kiváltó legfőbb okok, stb., ezért olyan komplex fejlesztésekre van szükség, amelyek élhető városokat, fenntartható gazdasági fejlődést produkálnak. Üdvözlöm a bizottsági jogszabálytervezetek azon aspektusait, mely szerint a kohéziós politika integrált és területi jellege a következő időszakban hangsúlyosabb módon jelenne meg. Az integrált megközelítés rugalmasan megalkotott közösségi szabályozással biztosítható, amely a tervezés és végrehajtás minimumkövetelményeit határozza csak meg, és kellő teret biztosít a tagállami tervezési szabadságnak, a tagállami és regionális specifikumokhoz való igazításnak. A rugalmasság különösen fontos a javasolt új opcionális eszköz, a CLLD-k (Community-led local development – közösségvezérelt helyi fejlesztések) esetében.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o relatório relativo ao "contributo do ordenamento urbano para o crescimento económico no âmbito da Política de Coesão da UE", porque, tendo em conta que a maioria dos cidadãos europeus vive em zonas urbanas, é necessário que a Política de Coesão e o Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional apoiem igualmente políticas coerentes e inovadoras de desenvolvimento urbano.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report as it promotes the redesign of town planning and territorial planning methods. This is important as proper town planning could enrich environmental, commercial, transport and infrastructure policies. In Wales we have several large towns and cities and, while focus should not only be put onto developing urban areas, it is vital that our towns and cities are properly designed to ensure investment is coming into these areas.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − As cidades são o berço da civilização tal como a conhecemos. Foi nelas que se forjaram e desenvolveram a maioria dos conceitos e das instituições que ainda hoje perduram e que estruturam as nossas sociedades. Nunca será demais frisar a sua importância e lamentar a decadência em que algumas hoje incorrem, fruto de políticas urbanísticas e de modelos económicos errados. Por toda a Europa, as populações amontoam-se nos subúrbios das grandes cidades e abandonam os seus centros que se encontram tomados por escritórios e atividades comerciais, perdendo a vitalidade que as caracterizava, pondo em causa a sobrevivência das comunidades que as sustentavam e povoando-os de edifícios que muitas vezes põem em causa a harmonia urbana e a traça tradicionais. As populações encontram-se atomizadas, perdeu-se a noção de vizinhança e de comunidade locais. Saúdo a reflexão desenvolvida sobre a importância crucial do ordenamento urbano para o crescimento económico no âmbito da Política de Coesão, e desejaria que fossem promovidas novas formas de melhorar a qualidade de vida dos cidadãos e de renovar e valorizar os espaços em que vivem, trabalham e se divertem. Há que repensar as nossas cidades e devolvê-las às pessoas e às comunidades.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − A Europa, além da crise que atravessa, vive um processo de perda de população só atenuado pela imigração, o que condicionará, num futuro muito próximo, a sustentabilidade dos sistemas de segurança social europeus. Considerando que a Europa, apesar de todas as vicissitudes que atravessa, ainda é o melhor continente para se viver, é fundamental que se continue a apostar na sua excelência. Neste campo, o ordenamento urbano assume um papel fundamental enquanto motor de desenvolvimento económico e de criação de emprego. Há muito a fazer em ordem a tornar – e a manter – as cidades atrativas. Para tal, é necessário conceber e implementar, a nível europeu, um plano de utilização inteligente das redes urbanas. A regeneração urbana e social, a elaboração de planos de segurança para o património arquitetónico e dos edifícios – sobretudo em regiões sujeitas a riscos naturais como os terramotos – e a criação de condições de fixação para faixas da população mais desfavorecidas como jovens e mulheres devem estar na linha da frente para aplicação dos fundos comunitários, nomeadamente o Fundo de Coesão e o Fundo de Solidariedade da UE.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O modelo de desenvolvimento local representa um ponto forte da política de coesão. A elaboração de planos de proteção e de requalificação das áreas urbanas, a reabilitação de bairros marginalizados, a reconversão funcional de locais abandonados de forma a torná-los mais atrativos, dando resposta simultaneamente à necessidade coletiva de espaço público, espaço verde, de tempos livres e desporto, a promoção do património histórico e cultural, podem constituir indiscutíveis contributos para o crescimento e o desenvolvimento económico nas cidades.

Esta abordagem prevê uma interconexão do sistema natural e ambiental com o histórico-cultural e o sócio produtivo, fazendo também referência à importância do desenvolvimento do acesso aos serviços públicos, melhorando os espaços urbanos e o crescimento do tecido económico, obras residenciais e infraestruturas. Sem prejuízo de algumas divergências pontuais, e sem esquecer a necessidade de integrar os requisitos do desenvolvimento local na problemática das áreas suburbanas, circundantes e rurais, no sentido de promover uma relação não conflitual, consideramos o relatório globalmente positivo. O desenvolvimento das zonas rurais é indissociável da problemática da sobrelotação das zonas urbanas e do consequente abandono e desertificação do mundo rural, com todas as implicações económicas, sociais, culturais e históricas que esse fenómeno acarreta. Assim, a promoção desse desenvolvimento representa uma incontornável forma de combate ao problema da concentração urbana.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Viac ako dve tretiny obyvateľov Európy žijú v mestských oblastiach. V mestskom prostredí sú výborné podmienky pre vedu a technológie, kultúru a inovácie. Na druhej strane sú to práve mestá, kde sa sústreďujú tiež umocnené problémy, ako je nezamestnanosť, diskriminácia a chudoba. Európske inštitúcie musia preto poskytnúť nové stimuly a primerané nástroje, ktoré umožnia vymyslieť mestá budúcnosti. Mestá musia zároveň zohrávať aktívnu úlohu pri vypracúvaní a vykonávaní európskych politík a opatrení, ktoré majú okamžitý vplyv na rozvoj ich území. Bude to práve rozvoj našich miest, ktorý určí budúcnosť hospodárskeho, sociálneho a územného rozvoja.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), írásban. − A városi területek rehabilitációjának és regenerációjának előmozdítása – amely szándéka szerint jólétet és lehetőségeket teremt – az EU egyik legnagyobb megválaszolandó kihívása, megerősítve a város és fejlődés közötti, valamint a városközpontok és az őket körülvevő területek közötti kapcsolatot. Cozzolino képviselőtársammal egyetértésben jómagam is úgy vélem, hogy a városok társadalmi és gazdasági fellendítése érdekében újra kell gondolni a városfejlesztés és a területtervezés módszereit, és el kell kezdeni olyan tervezési gyakorlatok és beavatkozási eszközök összehasonlítását, amelyek képesek gazdagítani a környezeti, területi, kereskedelmi, szállítási és megvalósíthatósági politikákat a területek olyan sokoldalú felhasználása révén, amely integrálja a tárgyi infrastruktúrákat a nem tárgyi kapcsolatok rendszerével. Szavazatommal támogattam tehát e jelentést, ugyanis véleményem szerint a kohéziós politikának valódi változásra van szüksége, ami a városi területek fokozottabb és jobb bevonásán keresztül nem csupán az eredményeket és a célok teljesítését képes maximalizálni, de európai szellemiséget is kialakít, konszenzust teremt a közösségi intézményekkel és le tudja győzni a válság által felerősített bomlasztó tendenciákat is.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai soutenu le rapport de mon collègue Andrea Cozzolino sur la contribution du réaménagement urbain à la croissance économique. En effet, le fait urbain est majeur dans l'Union : plus de deux tiers des Européens vivent en ville. Ce sont dans les zones urbaines que se concentrent l'activité économique et la création de richesses, mais aussi, de manière symétrique, les plus grandes difficultés sociales, la précarité, ou encore les discriminations. La politique de cohésion doit donc mieux prendre en compte cette situation et mettre un accent particulier sur le financement notamment des projets de rénovation urbaine, qui ont fait leurs preuves pour lutter contre la ségrégation et pour améliorer le vivre ensemble pour les habitants des villes et des banlieues.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), skriftlig. − Jag har röstat emot betänkandet därför att jag motsätter mig förslaget om ytterligare överstatlig lagstiftning på detta område. Vi behöver en förnyelse av stadsbebyggelsen som kan bidra till att skapa fler hyresrätter och nya arbetstillfällen, samtidigt som bostadsmiljön och arbetet mot klimatförändringarna respekteras i byggplanerna. Men dessa beslut bör tas genom att det samlas en demokratisk politisk majoritet på nationell nivå.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), par écrit. – La dimension urbaine est un aspect essentiel de la politique de cohésion qui mérite une attention approfondie. En effet, 80% des citoyens européens vivent en milieu urbain et les effets de la crise se font plus souvent sentir dans les villes. En votant le rapport sur le réaménagement urbain comme vecteur de la croissance économique, le Parlement européen, auquel je m'associe, a souhaité exprimer sa préoccupation quant aux effets de la crise économique et sociale qui bouleversent nos villes et proposer des orientations pour lutter contre l'exclusion et la précarité, le chômage, la précarité énergétique et le vieillissement démographique. La dimension urbaine doit être complémentaire de la dimension rurale d'autant que la frontière n'est aujourd'hui plus aussi évidente et que les mouvements de population entre la ville et la campagne semblent parfois prendre le revers des tendances observées par le passé. Surtout, la dimension urbaine doit faire l'objet d'une approche globale et intégrée associant tous les acteurs pertinents et abordant aussi bien l'urbanisme que le transport, les infrastructures, le développement économique, la cohésion sociale et l'environnement afin que la rénovation urbaine participe concrètement de la revitalisation économique des villes européennes.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį dokumentą. Šiuo metu daugiau nei du trečdaliai Europos gyventojų gyvena miestuose. Miestai – tai mokslo ir technologijų, kultūros ir inovacijų klestėjimo erdvė. Kita vertus, miestuose taip pat kyla daugiausia tokių problemų kaip nedarbas, diskriminacija ir skurdas. Kadangi miestuose sprendžiamos problemos, susijusios su klimato kaitos padarinių sumažinimu, darbo vietų kūrimu, gerove ir gyvenimo kokybe, turime daug dėmesio skirti tvariai miestų plėtrai. Kokia bus mūsų miestų plėtra, tokia bus ekonominės, socialinės ir teritorinės plėtros ateitis. Miestų atnaujinimas ir atkūrimas, kurie suvokiami kaip turto ir galimybių šaltiniai, yra viena pagrindinių problemų, kurias turi spręsti ES stiprinant ryšius tarp miesto ir plėtros bei tarp miesto centro ir priemiesčių zonos.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. − Urban development plays a very important role in achieving the economic, social and environmental objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. Like the rapporteur, I believe that local development should be at the heart of cohesion policy. Urban development being a very complex area, the report manages to underline the most important problems that need to be addressed, like the dysfunction of demographic development, completion and restoration of existing parts of cities, including marginalised neighbourhoods, management of waste and many more. I agree with other colleagues who said that there is a need to focus aid on the deprived areas of the cities. This report has my full support.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Aktualnie 80% Europejczyków zamieszkuje obszary miejskie, a liczba ta sukcesywnie ulega zwiększeniu. Ponadto odpływ mieszkańców z obszarów wiejskich ku miastom ulega pogłębieniu również ze względu na oddziaływanie skutków kryzysu, który trudniej „przetrwać” poza obszarami miejskimi. Miasta tworzą dziś rozbudowane archipelagi, które, aby prawidłowo promieniowały na pozostałe obszary, należy rozwijać w odpowiedzialny, zrównoważony sposób.

Jednym z podstawowych problemów jest określenie prawidłowej strategii niezakłócania funkcjonowania tkanki miejskiej. Zaniepokojenie budzi choćby fakt emigracji mieszkańców starych dzielnic do nowopowstałych obszarów na obrzeżach aglomeracji. Proces ten prowadzi często do pustoszenia centralnych obszarów miast. Dlatego też polityka stawiająca sobie za cel przypominanie o historycznej i symbolicznej wartości opuszczanych dzielnic w połączeniu z reformowaniem zrębów polityk mieszkaniowych stanowi skuteczną blokadę dla niepokojących trendów.

O problemach jutra należy myśleć już dziś. Dlatego też opracowywanie nowych przepisów europejskich, uwzględniających realizację celów średnio- i długoterminowych, odbywa się we właściwym momencie. Niezwłoczne poparcie tego typu projektów pozwoli uniknąć sytuacji, w której eskalacja problemów doprowadzi do wytworzenia się dużo poważniejszych wyzwań.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − Local development is a key part of our cohesion policy since it is the level closest to the EU’s citizens. It is also at this level that the challenges we face are extremely demanding. Citizens feel more attached at the local level and there exist certain intangible assets, such as historical and cultural ties and links. There are many issues that need to be addressed: energy efficiency in buildings, disposal management, migration, population ageing, etc. New approaches to urban policies are something that the EU must seriously consider. More than two thirds of the European population live in urban areas. Promoting urban regeneration (the creation of wealth and opportunities) should be one of the main challenges the European Union must respond to. This includes reinforcing the bond between cities and development and between urban centres and the surrounding territory. For this reason, I voted in favour of this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − In un contesto sociale e geografico sempre più urbanizzato e nell’ottica del raggiungimento degli obiettivi della strategia Europa 2020, occorre ripensare al ruolo e alla funzione delle città, alla loro articolazione e capacità di collaborare per contribuire alla crescita economica degli Stati membri e, in senso più ampio, dell’intera UE. In tal senso, il programma “Urban”, già sperimentato, ha dato i suoi frutti e merita di essere ulteriormente approfondito, per potervi apporre gli opportuni miglioramenti. Sono convinto che lo sviluppo delle aree urbane costituisca un tassello fondamentale per una corretta implementazione delle politiche di coesione. Pertanto, avendo espresso voto favorevole alla presente relazione, auspico che possano esserne colti appieno i condivisibili stimoli programmatici.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), na piśmie. − Spójna polityka w odniesieniu do obszarów miejskich jest w tej chwili priorytetem, jako że większość ludności Unii żyje w miastach. Jednocześnie w ramach tej polityki ważny jest wymiar lokalny, jako że to na tym poziomie obywatele czują się bardziej związani ze środowiskiem, w którym żyją. Sprawozdawca w swoim sprawozdaniu podkreślił potrzebę rozwoju na poziomie lokalnym, zaznaczając równocześnie, iż rozwój ten ze względu na charakter zagadnienia powinien być wielotorowy i dotyczyć powinien szeregu zagadnień, bowiem tylko wtedy będzie mógł faktycznie przyczynić się do wzrostu gospodarczego.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului referitor la contribuţia reamenajării urbane la creşterea economică în cadrul politicii de coeziune a UE, deoarece măsurile propuse vizează, în primul rând, revitalizarea economică şi creşterea competitivităţii oraşelor europene. Având în vedere faptul că 80 % dintre cetăţenii europeni trăiesc în mediul urbane, iar efectele crizei economice se concentrează în principal în oraşe, care au simţit cel mai pregnant efectele crizei economice, confruntându-se cu probleme sociale şi de mediu grave, avem nevoie de măsuri urgente în vederea combaterii schimbărilor climatice, a creării de locuri de muncă şi a creşterii bunăstării şi calităţii vieţii cetăţenilor. Cunoscând rolul-cheie al zonelor urbane în realizarea obiectivelor Strategiei Europa 2020, precum cele economice, sociale sau de mediu, este evident faptul că nu vom putea fi competitivi la nivel global decât dacă vom exploata eficient potenţialul de dezvoltare al acestora prin intermediul politicii de coeziune. Fondurile structurale au un rol-cheie în realizarea tuturor acestor obiective şi, tocmai de aceea, pentru viitoarea perioadă de programare trebuie să ne asigurăm că atât la nivelul Comisiei, cât şi al statelor membre se vor lua măsurile necesare pentru a asigura o rată de absorbţie cât mai mare.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report. More than two-thirds of the European population live in urban areas. Cities are the source of problems, but are also places where solutions can be found. The urban fabric is a fertile breeding ground for science and technology, culture and innovation. On the other hand, problems such as unemployment, discrimination and poverty can also be concentrated and inflated in cities. Similarly, it is where the effects of the economic crisis are most strongly felt and the challenges of reducing the impact of climate change, job creation, well-being and quality of life are played out. It will be the development of our cities that will determine the future of economic, social and territorial development.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore del contributo del riassetto urbano alla crescita economica nella politica di coesione dell'UE in quanto credo che esso possa avere un impatto positivo sugli squilibri regionali all'interno della comunità, evitando così la segregazione delle classi sociali più bisognose, che spesso si concentrano e si polarizzano nelle zone periferiche. Inoltre, in un periodo di crisi come quello attuale, riqualificare la città, per attrarre un numero crescente di turisti, potrebbe essere utile alla ripresa economica che è strettamente legata alla riqualificazione urbana; è, quindi, fondamentale riconsegnare alla comunità gli spazi simbolo promuovendo, così, il patrimonio culturale.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport insiste sur la nécessité de créer plus d'espaces verts et de lieux publics. Il soutient une conception participative de l'urbanisme pour les citoyens. Il prône la lutte contre la pollution, le bruit et les embouteillages, autant de point que je soutiens.

Je regrette néanmoins que le rapport n'insiste pas sur la nécessité d'améliorer les réseaux de transport en commun et de faire reculer la publicité dans nos villes. C'est pourtant une nécessité.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − A falta de atenção prestada às zonas urbanas é um dos principais pontos de fragilidade que impediram a estratégia de Lisboa de cumprir em pleno os seus objetivos no que respeita à homogeneização das regiões e dos territórios. O modelo de desenvolvimento local é um ponto forte da futura política de coesão, já que é capaz de mobilizar fatores decisivos – entre os quais as competências e as motivações das populações locais – e de encorajar a seleção das melhores opções e das medidas mais coerentes, eficazes e economicamente mais eficientes. O envolvimento e a participação democrática e cívica nas opções da política de coesão poderão dar grande visibilidade às intervenções comunitárias, mesmo nas áreas da UE que enfrentam os desafios mais difíceis e que estão constantemente ameaçadas por um espírito de euroceticismo. É necessária uma verdadeira evolução das políticas de coesão que, através de mais e melhor envolvimento das zonas urbanas, consiga não só maximizar os resultados e os objetivos pretendidos, mas também criar consenso no tocante às instituições comunitárias e a um espírito europeu, capaz de vencer as tendências desagregadoras que a crise económica tem vindo a acentuar.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor del presente informe al suponer un impulso a la actividad económica en las áreas urbanas de Europa. La depresión económica que ha inducido la crisis financiera internacional en Europa ha conducido a un grave deterioro de muchas áreas urbanas, especialmente en el sur del continente. Este informe propone una resolución que sirva para reflotar tanto la actividad económica como la calidad de vida en las zonas deprimidas de las ciudades europeas. El informe insiste en desarrollar programas sostenibles de recuperación de las ciudades bajo dinámicas de planificación participativas que permitan a los ciudadanos desarrollar el tipo de ciudad en el que desean vivir. Por todo lo expuesto, considero que puede resultar un avance para las ciudades europeas y he votado a favor.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), par écrit. – Actuellement, 80 % des citoyens européens vivent en milieu urbain et cette tendance ne cesse de croître. Or, c'est dans les villes que se concentrent essentiellement les effets de la crise économique, que se jouent les défis de la lutte contre le changement climatique, de la création d'emplois, du bien-être et de la qualité de vie. Si les villes sont le moteur de l'économie, de la production et de l'emploi, elles constituent le contexte dans lequel se manifestent les problèmes de la suburbanisation et, d'une façon plus générale, de l'exclusion sociale et de la ségrégation, ainsi que de la pollution environnementale. C'est pourquoi je suis convaincu de la nécessité de traiter cette problématique importante au niveau européen dans le respect du principe de subsidiarité.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), písomne. − Európske mestá, v ktorých dnes žije približne 80 % občanov Európy, sa stali hospodárskymi centrami, kde sa sústreďujú výroba, zamestnanosť, technologický rozvoj a inovácie. Koncentrácia obyvateľstva prináša osobitné hospodárske, sociálne a ekologické výzvy, na ktoré môžeme vhodnými nástrojmi politiky súdržnosti reagovať a prispieť tak k rýchlejšiemu riešeniu najpálčivejších problémov miest a ich obyvateľov. Medzi takéto problémy jednoznačne patrí sociálne vylúčenie, znečistenie životného prostredia, energetická neefektívnosť, nezamestnanosť a čelenie migračným tokom. Domnievam sa, že je potrebné vytvoriť nový prístup k rozvoju miest založený na lepšom chápaní hospodárskych, ale aj sociálnych a ekologických potrieb obyvateľov, čo by sa malo odzrkadliť už pri územnom plánovaní a následnom prijímaní projektov. Z dlhodobého zdravotného a environmentálneho hľadiska mestá jednoznačne potrebujú dostatok zelených verejných priestranstiev na šport a voľnočasové aktivity a zároveň boj proti nadmernému dopravného znečisteniu a hluku. Súhlasím taktiež s myšlienkou, že do komplexného riešenia treba zapojiť aj vidiecke oblasti a prepojiť ich potreby s potrebami mestských oblastí, aby sa vytvoril vzájomne prospešný synergický vzťah.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório porque propõe uma utilização dos fundos de coesão adequada para construir um novo modelo de ordenação urbana que limita o seu uso para a criação de bolhas imobiliárias e, pelo contrário, fomenta ativamente um urbanismo com uma importante vertente social. O relatório propõe ações que visam reabilitar partes já existentes das cidades, fomentando a conversão funcional de zonas em desuso, destacando as suas características e o seu património cultural. Tudo isto deve estar ao serviço de uma utilização otimizada dos fundos de coesão, a nível quantitativo e qualitativo, ao serviço dos objetivos comuns em matéria urbana a nível europeu.

Além disso, propõem-se novas dinâmicas de planeamento em que participam associações e cidadãos com o objetivo de garantir a ligação necessária entre as políticas gerais e os âmbitos territoriais específicos, de forma que se reflitam na conceção das políticas as características peculiares, de identidade e de história do sítio onde vão ser implementadas.

Em conclusão, este relatório propõe aspetos importantes para a gestão urbana e impulsiona a implementação de programas de reabilitação urbana. Além disso, propõe-se uma focalização no património urbano em desuso e a sua redefinição para o seu maior aproveitamento.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Coherent urban policies became a priority as the majority of EU citizens live in cities and urban areas, and all EU policies have to take this reality into consideration. The effectiveness of the most important EU policies relies on an efficient urban policy and its contribution to growth. Therefore I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. − Die zunehmende Konzentrierung auf städtische Gebiete geht mit neuen Herausforderungen einher. Gerade das ständige Wachstum mit den damit anfallenden Erschließungsarbeiten will wohl geplant sein. Auch die verstärkten Probleme wie Arbeitslosigkeit, Armut und Kriminalität, die sich im zunehmenden Ausmaße dahingehend entwickeln können, dass ganze Stadtviertel unsicher werden, harren noch einer Lösung. Die Ansätze wie Mobilität in den Stadtzentren, Energiesanierung von veralteten Wohngebäuden, Bau neuer Sozialwohnungen usw. sind zu befürworten. Dabei darf indes nicht auf das Geschäftesterben in der Innenstadt und konzentrierte Ansiedelung von Asylwerbern und Co. vergessen werden. Da der vorgelegte Text nicht wirklich zielführend war, habe ich gegen den Bericht gestimmt.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), per iscritto. − È innegabile l'importanza che svolge ancora oggi la dimensione urbana all'interno dell'Unione europea, considerando che ben l'80% dei cittadini comunitari vive in questo contesto. Proprio questa realtà è quella che sta subendo maggiormente gli effetti dell'attuale crisi e negli ultimi anni sono stati numerosi i mutamenti avvenuti all'interno delle nostre città. È quindi necessario rivedere tutta la strategia europea, per riuscire a superare al meglio le nuove sfide che le città devono affrontare, a partire da un fenomeno che è divenuto sempre più evidente, con la corsa ad abbandonare le zone centrali per trasferirsi in aree periferiche, dove i costi delle abitazioni sono spesso maggiormente accessibili. Bisogna evitare che i centri cittadini, patrimoni storici e culturali di valore assoluto, possano correre il rischio di spopolamento, che può portare nella peggiore delle ipotesi anche a condizioni di degrado e abbandono. L'area urbana è spesso il traino anche della circostante area rurale, e le due dimensioni vanno viste unitariamente, come é giustamente sottolineato in questa relazione. Ben venga quindi una visione complessiva della dimensione urbana, con misure specifiche per i diversi contesti, ma con la possibilità di prendere spunto da esempi virtuosi che in diversi Paesi dell'Europa hanno portato a risultati soddisfacenti.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), písomne. − Ako bolo povedané aj v správe pána Vaughna, je dôležité posilňovať existujúce prepojenia mestských a vidieckych oblastí a podporovať vytváranie nových. Viac ako dve tretiny obyvateľov Európskej únie žijú v mestských oblastiach. Mestá predstavujú miesta, v ktorých vznikajú problémy, ale aj miesta, kde sa dajú nájsť riešenia. V mestskom prostredí sú výborné podmienky pre vedu a technológie, kultúru a inovácie. Európske inštitúcie musia preto poskytnúť nové stimuly a primerané nástroje, ktoré umožnia vymyslieť mestá budúcnosti. Podpora sanácie a obnovy miest, ktoré znamenajú zdroj bohatstva a príležitostí, predstavuje jednu z hlavných výziev, na ktoré musí Európska únia reagovať posilnením puta medzi mestami a rozvojom a medzi mestskými centrami a okolitým územím. Európsky model udržateľného rozvoja miest je však ohrozený. Demografické zmeny sú často príčinou vážnych problémov, akými je starnutie obyvateľstva, znižovanie počtu obyvateľov či výrazný odliv obyvateľov do predmestí, čo sa prejavuje v jednotlivých mestách odlišne. Účinnosť najdôležitejších politík EÚ preto závisí od efektívnosti politiky pre rozvoj miest a jej príspevku k rastu.

  James Nicholson (ECR), in writing. − The Cozzolino report on urban redevelopment is particularly pertinent given the recent unrest in cities across Northern Ireland. The flag protests have resulted in serious damage to the economy and unfortunately to cross-community relations in Northern Ireland. The urban redevelopment objective of reinforcing a sense of belonging and trust in institutions is vital to the aim of continued peace and prosperity in Belfast and more widely across Northern Ireland. I fully support the call for cohesion funds to contribute to projects supporting social inclusion and integration of communities in urban areas. Following the adoption of this report it is now essential that these solid policy objectives are supported by concrete plans. In the case of Northern Ireland the flag protests may have been the catalyst for the current tension but the underlying issues relating to youth unemployment, education and training still exist. The Cozzolino report provides a further opportunity to address these issues in the context of urban redevelopment.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), kirjalikult. − Toetasin antud raportit, pidades oluliseks pöörata rohkem tähelepanu linnade elukeskkonna kvaliteedile ning linnaruumi ümberkorraldamise vajadusele. Linnad, kus elab üle kahe kolmandiku Euroopa elanikest, on soodsaks pinnaseks teadusele ja tehnoloogiale, olles sellega tuleviku suunajaks ning majanduse mootoriks ja meelitades üha enam uusi elanikke koonduma linnadesse. Arvestades asjaolu, et peale majanduskriisi on hoogustunud inimeste juurdevool suurlinnadesse, peame otsima lahendusi, kuidas parandada inimeste elukeskkonda ülerahvastatud linnades. Kindlasti on oluliseks elukeskkonna kvaliteedi parandajaks rohealade kaitse ja uute loomine koos jätkusuutliku linnaplaneerimisega, mis arvestaks elanike huvidega. See tähendab, et kohalik omavalitsus peab olema pidevas dialoogis oma elanikega. Üheks suureks probleemiks on ajale jalgu jäänud linnade piirid, mille muutmine on tihtilugu naaberomavalitsuste vastuseisu tõttu peaaegu võimatu – valglinnastumisest tingituna elanikke juurde saanud omavalitsused tahavad oma tulubaasi nende arvelt küll suurendada, kuid ei panusta piisavalt oma taristu arengusse. Selleks et Euroopa linnastute arengut paremini planeerida ja tõsta inimeste elukeskkonna kvaliteeti, peame parandama kohalike omavalitsuste koostööd ning vajadusel muutma nende halduspiire, viies need vastavusse tegeliku olukorraga.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pranešimą, kadangi miesto plėtra, atnaujinimas yra neatsiejama visos ES ekonomikos atgaivinimo ir augimo dalis, o kartu ir ES konkurencingumo pasauliniu mastu didinimo. Įgyvendinant sanglaudos politiką ypatingas dėmesys turi būti skiriamas regionų ir miestų teritorijų plėtrai, miestų pertvarkymo socialinio tvarumo klausimui. Gyvenimo aplinkos ir kokybės gerinimas padės pritraukti aukštos kvalifikacijos darbo jėgą ir tokiu būdu prisidės prie patrauklių darbo vietų kūrimo, skatins mažesnių šalies miestų ūkio augimą ir verslo konkurencingumą. Siekiant užtikrinti geresnę aplinkos kokybę būtina ryžtingiau kovoti su neefektyviu energijos bei vietos potencialo naudojimu. Pažymėtina, kad išsaugotas gamtos, kultūros ir istorijos paveldas yra neatsiejamas gyvenimo kokybės elementas, todėl siekiant įgyvendinti šį tikslą šioje srityje reikia laikytis integruoto požiūrio.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), per iscritto. − Il 2013 si apre con un obiettivo fondamentale per l'Unione europea: sviluppare quelle politiche per la crescita senza le quali non si potrà uscire dal tunnel della crisi. Tutti i settori ne sono coinvolti e sono obbligati ad impegnarsi per un programma organizzato ed efficace. All'interno della politica di coesione dell'UE uno dei contributi alla crescita economica è il cosiddetto riassetto urbano che, partendo dall'analisi dei flussi migratori dalle aree periferiche, dovrà fissare un'agenda in grado di garantire sostenibilità e sviluppo in situazioni di costante aumento della popolazione.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D), per iscritto. − Esprimo voto favorevole riguardo alla relazione sul contributo del riassetto urbano alla crescita economica nella politica di coesione dell'UE. La riqualificazione e la rigenerazione urbana rappresentano una delle sfide principali a cui l'Unione Europea deve dare risposta, rafforzando il legame tra città e sviluppo e tra centri urbani e territorio circostante. A questo proposito, la relazione propone delle metodologie di rilancio del settore urbanistico e della pianificazione territoriale, aprendo una fase di confronto su pratiche di pianificazione e strumenti d'intervento, capaci di arricchire le politiche ambientali, territoriali, commerciali e viabilistiche. Sono convinto che la proposta, oltre a predisporre degli strumenti di crescita della qualità della vita dei cittadini europei, contribuirà significativamente all'evoluzione delle politiche di coesione.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE), γραπτώς. – Περίπου το 70% του πληθυσμού της Ε.Ε. διαβιεί σήμερα στα αστικά κέντρα. Εκ των πραγμάτων, επομένως, το μεγάλο μέρος της οικονομικής δραστηριότητας, των εργασιακών ευκαιριών, των κέντρων εκπαίδευσης, κατάρτισης και καινοτομίας εδρεύουν και δημιουργούνται σε αυτά. Είναι όμως και εκείνα τα όποια πρώτα επωμίζονται το κόστος και τις συνέπειες της κρίσης. Στο παρόν ψήφισμα ιδίας πρωτοβουλίας, το οποίο και υπερψήφισα, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, καλεί την Επιτροπή και τα κράτη μέλη να επιδείξουν μεγαλύτερη αποφασιστικότητα. Η προσπάθεια για την ανάπτυξη των αστικών ιστών όμως δεν μπορεί να περιορίζεται στην οικονομία. Ανάπτυξη σημαίνει χώροι πρασίνου, πολιτισμός, εθελοντισμός, αθλητισμός, ευκαιρίες. Ο νέος προγραμματισμός της πολιτικής για τη συνοχή θα πρέπει να ανταποκρίνεται συλλογικά σε αυτές τις προκλήσεις. Και οι ευκαιρίες χρηματοδότησης από το αντίστοιχο κοινοτικό ταμείο οφείλουν να είναι ισορροπημένες μεταξύ αυτών, δημιουργώντας προϋποθέσεις συνολικής ανάδειξης των κέντρων και όχι μόνο πυρήνων, οδηγώντας άλλες γειτονιές, όπως έχει συμβεί στην Αθήνα και σε άλλα ελληνικά αστικά κέντρα, στην υποβάθμιση, στην περιθωριοποίηση και στην υπανάπτυξη.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório que se refere à dimensão urbana dos objetivos da Europa 2020. Pretende-se com este relatório de iniciativa orientar as políticas europeias para que estas sejam sustentáveis e inteligentes. É um relatório que tem como objetivo criar um espaço mais amplo para a gestão eficiente dos recursos e das políticas urbanas. A maioria dos cidadãos europeus está em zonas urbanas e existe uma necessidade crescente de orientação das políticas para que estas possam contribuir para o ordenamento urbano. O ordenamento urbano pode ser, por si só, um instrumento para potenciar o crescimento económico e promover a coesão.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), por escrito. − Na boa integração entre infraestruturas materiais e sistemas de relações imateriais, encontramos a chave para o bom desempenho das políticas de ordenamento urbano no crescimento económico. O futuro económico, social e territorial só pode ser pensado numa lógica de interdependências, com vista a uma abordagem global dos problemas que tenha por base o princípio de integração entre os segmentos de intervenção. O ordenamento urbano, que procura criar um ambiente atraente nas cidades, pode tornar-se num fator importante para a retoma económica, permitindo alcançar melhorias na mobilidade nos centros urbanos, na requalificação energética do património habitacional obsoleto e na criação de novos alojamentos sociais como resposta mais urgente à pobreza. A promoção da requalificação e regeneração urbana destina-se a criar riqueza e oportunidades, ao mesmo tempo que melhora a qualidade de vida, valorizando as identidades, a memória e a história dos territórios. O presente relatório solicita, por isso, a elaboração de um plano para a proteção e requalificação das áreas urbanas que possa proporcionar a necessária base jurídica, definir objetivos comuns e partilhados de médio a longo prazo e otimizar a utilização dos fundos da Politica de Coesão. Votei favoravelmente.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − We supported the report in general as it provides for a broad picture of urban development challenges and reasonable considerations. The focus of our amendments was to improve the text and to stress the importance of pockets of poverty, citizens involvement and environmental concerns. Most of our amendments have been integrated into compromise amendments. The issue of urban development continues to be of interest for the REGI committee, although there is no direct EU competence. However, the use of Structural Funds and certain EU sector policies such as transport and environment have significant impact on the design of cities and planning processes. The report aims, inter alia, to promote the social and economic recovery of cities and deems it necessary to redesign town planning and territorial planning methods by opening a discussion on planning practices and instruments of intervention. This could enrich environmental, territorial, commercial, transport and infrastructure policies, via a mixed use of the territory, which integrates tangible infrastructure and intangible network systems.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − More than two thirds of the European population live in urban areas. Cities are the sources of problems, but are also places where solutions can be found. The urban fabric is a fertile breeding ground for science and technology, culture and innovation. On the other hand, problems such as unemployment, discrimination and poverty can also be concentrated and inflated in cities. Similarly, it is where the effects of the economic crisis are most strongly felt and the challenges of reducing the impact of climate change, job creation, well-being and quality of life are played out. I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it will be the development of our cities that will determine the future of economic, social and territorial development.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), per iscritto. − Giudico positivamente la proposta di risoluzione del Parlamento europeo. L'Europa non attraversa più una fase di costante crescita economica, per cui molte città si trovano a fronteggiare gravi minacce di stagnazione o declino economico. I cambiamenti demografici sono all'origine di una serie di sfide: l'invecchiamento della popolazione e la riduzione del numero di abitanti. Oggi l'80% dei cittadini europei vive in contesti urbani, una percentuale in ulteriore crescita data l'accelerazione dei flussi migratori dalle zone rurali a quelle urbane.

Problemi come disoccupazione, discriminazione e povertà sono determinanti per comprendere che il modello europeo di sviluppo urbano sostenibile è in pericolo. È proprio nelle città che si concentrano maggiormente gli effetti della crisi economica e si giocano le sfide della creazione di posti di lavoro, del benessere e della qualità della vita. Il modello di sviluppo locale rappresenta un punto di forza della politica di coesione, perché mobilita fattori decisivi, incoraggia la selezione delle scelte migliori più vicine ai cittadini, azioni congiunte più coerenti, efficaci ed efficienti, dando, inoltre, grande visibilità agli interventi comunitari anche in aree dell'UE che si trovano di fronte alle sfide più difficili.

  Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση σχετικά με την αστική αναβάθμιση ως συμβολή στην οικονομική ανάπτυξη, καθώς η τοπική ανάπτυξη σε αστικό επίπεδο οφείλει να αποτελεί ένα αναπόσπαστο κομμάτι της Πολιτικής Συνοχής, δεδομένου ότι αποτελεί το πιο πλησιέστερο επίπεδο για ένα πολύ μεγάλο μέρος των πολιτών που ζουν στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Συμφωνώ με την άποψη του εισηγητή που προτείνει μια νέα ολοκληρωμένη προσέγγιση των αστικών πολιτικών και την προώθηση της καθολικής αντιμετώπισης των προβλημάτων που απαντώνται στον αστικό ιστό. Επίσης, θεωρώ ότι η πρόταση για την ενίσχυση του μέσου του συμμετοχικού σχεδιασμού με τις τοπικές και περιφερειακές αρχές, δημιουργώντας τις κατάλληλες προϋποθέσεις για την σύναψη των εταιρικών σχέσεων, είναι ιδιαιτέρως σημαντική. Εν ολίγοις, μια συνεκτική πολιτική του αστικού χώρου θα πρέπει να αποτελέσει προτεραιότητα καθώς η πλειοψηφία των πολιτών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης ζει σε πόλεις και σε αστικές περιφέρειες και όλες οι πολιτικές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης οφείλουν να λάβουν υπόψη αυτή την πραγματικότητα. Η αποτελεσματικότητα της Πολιτικής Συνοχής, ως μια από τις σημαντικότερες πολιτικές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, στηρίζεται σε μια αποτελεσματική αστική πολιτική, η οποία συμβάλλει καθοριστικά στην ανάπτυξη.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte car, selon moi, les zones urbaines devraient développer des plans d'action à moyen ou long terme dans les domaines de cohésion économique, sociale et territoriale. 80 % des citoyens européens vivent en milieu urbain. Ce nombre ne cesse de croître, compte tenu de l'accélération des migrations des zones rurales vers les zones urbaines. C'est dans les villes que se concentrent essentiellement les effets de la crise économique et que se jouent les défis de la lutte contre le changement climatique, de la création d'emplois, du bien-être et de la qualité de vie.

Pour assurer la relance sociale et économique des villes, il est donc nécessaire de repenser les méthodologies du secteur urbanistique et de l'aménagement du territoire, en procédant à une comparaison des méthodes de planification et des instruments d'intervention. Cela peut enrichir les politiques conduites dans les domaines de l'environnement, de l'aménagement du territoire, du commerce, des transports et du trafic, moyennant une utilisation mixte du territoire qui intègre des infrastructures matérielles et des réseaux immatériels.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − Cerca de 80% dos cidadãos europeus vivem no meio urbano e é aí que se concentram maioritariamente os efeitos da crise económica e que se apresentam os desafios da luta contra as alterações climáticas, da criação de postos de trabalho, do bem-estar e da qualidade de vida. Defendo que as zonas urbanas devem elaborar planos de ação a médio/longo prazo nas áreas da coesão económica, social e territorial, definir medidas no sentido de completar e reabilitar zonas urbanas já existentes, assim como potencializar espaços verdes, de tempos livres, de cultura e de desporto. As áreas urbanas assumem um papel fundamental no relançamento económico e na criação de emprego da União Europeia, devendo participar ativamente nos objetivos e metas consagrados na estratégia Europa 2020. Penso que é, por isso mesmo, fundamental que seja criada uma reserva de pelo menos 5% dos fundos do FEDER, e que esta seja atribuída diretamente aos municípios e destinada a ações integradas para o desenvolvimento urbano sustentável.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru propunerea de rezoluţie referitoare la contribuţia reamenajării urbane la creşterea economică în cadrul politicii de coeziune a UE. Politica de coeziune sprijină dezvoltarea urbană durabilă integrată în întreaga UE prin investiţiile Fondului european de dezvoltare regională (FEDER), ale Fondului social european (FSE) şi ale Fondului de coeziune (FC). Solicităm realizarea unor acţiuni decisive pentru combaterea ineficienţei energetice, prin renovarea funcţională a clădirilor şi construirea de locuinţe mai eficiente din punctul de vedere al utilizării resurselor, inclusiv locuinţe sociale. De asemenea, susţinem necesitatea unor acţiuni care să conducă la reducerea ambuteiajelor, a poluării şi a nivelului de zgomot, astfel încât oraşele să devină mai competitive în privinţa protecţiei mediului; am votat pentru mobilizarea resurselor culturale şi economice care să contribuie la solidaritatea urbană, incluziunea şi integrarea socială a grupurilor vulnerabile şi marginalizate din zonele urbane. Salutăm dispoziţia referitoare la delegarea către oraşe a gestionării unor fonduri specifice de minimum 5% din resursele FEDER pentru acţiuni integrate în favoarea dezvoltării urbane sustenabile. De asemenea, solicităm îmbunătăţirea capacităţii administrative a autorităţilor locale şi regionale, precum şi a actorilor economici şi sociali - de exemplu, prin intensificarea folosirii asistenţei tehnice. Consider că „Pactul primarilor” poate contribui la îndeplinirea obiectivelor Strategiei UE.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − All the tools at our disposal are needed for sustainable economic growth. In this case, as well, we have to rethink how we can better use the public funds available to our cities. I am in favour of pushing forward the necessary public policies that it has been determined will diminish the pain of the turmoil that is affecting our cities and at the same time will help to construct a better society. As most people live in cities, and without acting against the interests of the one third of the European population that lives in smaller settlements or remote areas, it is of the utmost importance to find tools that will allow us to better design the cities of tomorrow. Economic growth that brings sustainable job creation, social cohesion and enhanced and better quality of life should be a public policy that has to be carried out.

  Frank Vanhecke (EFD), schriftelijk. − Hebben we onze les nu nog steeds niet geleerd? Het verslag-Cozzolino is een opeenstapeling van goede voornemens die regelrecht naar de hel leiden of toch iets dat erop lijkt, bijvoorbeeld de genereuze Europese studies voor straattoneel dat vliegende gorilla's moet uitbeelden. Geen grap maar trieste realiteit overigens.

Vanzelfsprekend heeft "Europa" niet het monopolie op ondoordachte of dwaze subsidies of op belastinggeld dat wordt verspild. Maar bij steden en gemeenten, bij lokale overheden en zelfs bij nationale overheden staat daar nog een min of meer efficiënt controlemechanisme tegenover en worden overheden ook afgerekend op hun beleid. Europa daarentegen is een ver-van-mijn-bed show en de Commissie maakt zich van alle vragen met een schouderophalen of arrogant antwoord "het is binnen de regels dus het mag" af. Dat is geen democratie meer. Meer subsidiariteit graag, ook in daden nu.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report on urban redevelopment. More than two thirds of the European population now live in urban areas and it is vitally important that the challenges facing these areas are tackled. I fully support the rapporteur’s view that local development should be strengthened in cohesion policy with a greater focus on ensuring that decisions are made at the level closest to citizens to ensure the greatest impact. I also welcome the report’s focus on urban-rural links to ensure that a strong city economy can have a positive effect on surrounding less populated areas. This is especially important for my constituents in Wales, where both cities and the surrounding rural areas can make a valued contribution to generating economic growth.

  Justina Vitkauskaite (ALDE), in writing. − The report tackles the issue of sustainable urban development which represents the engine of the economy, manufacturing and employment. Cohesion policy should focus on sustainable urban development which plays a key role in achieving the objectives of Europe 2020 and which is a source of economic growth. Economic growth can only be sustainable if it is led by measures designed to reduce poverty, social exclusion and environmental hazards. However, nowadays urban areas face many challenges which at this time of economic crisis are difficult to deal with. That is why the set of actions mentioned in the report could serve as a guideline in order to achieve sustainable urban development. Such actions include urban and social regeneration, energy efficiency and the fight against poverty. Lithuania, as a country where the majority of the population lives in urban areas, has to take actions in order to prevent urban decline, promote urban regeneration and support actions to reinforce social cohesion. I welcome the importance of this report for future cohesion policy and believe that urban development is vital for sustainable growth in Lithuania. The EU can only be competitive if cohesion policy fully uses the potential of its urban areas.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR), písemně. − Stejně jako zpravodaj Andrea Cozzolino jsem přesvědčen, že místní rozvoj by měl být základním principem pro další směřování politiky soudržnosti, protože právě starostové nejlépe ví, jaké projekty jsou potřeba. Hlasoval jsem proto pro tuto zprávu, která akcentuje roli měst při spravování evropských fondů.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), par écrit. – Notre Parlement rappelle, par ce vote, que les villes sont sources et moteurs de la croissance, en tant que bassins économiques, d'emploi, de production, et carrefours pour la mobilité des personnes et des biens. Le revers de la médaille, c'est que dans un contexte de crise, elles sont d'autant plus fragiles. Je me félicite que notre Assemblée se saisisse de ce problème et propose des pistes pour repenser l'aménagement urbain à la lumière des besoins en termes de cohésion économique, sociale, territoriale, et de durabilité. Renforcement de l'efficacité énergétique, mobilité durable des centres-villes jusqu'aux zones périurbaines, cadre de vie agréable, sont autant de réponses pour pleinement adapter la politique urbaine de l'Union aux enjeux du XXIème siècle. Mais cela ne peut se faire par la seule volonté, et je salue à ce titre la décision d'affecter 5% du FEDER aux actions en faveur du développement urbain durable, qui seront gérées directement par les villes, ce qui garantit des stratégies adaptées aux spécificités et aux besoins. La rénovation urbaine est un levier stratégique pour la croissance, la compétitivité, l'attractivité des territoires, il était important que nous posions les bases d'une stratégie européenne qui reste à construire et à mettre en œuvre.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), schriftlich. − Stadtsanierung als Beitrag zum Wirtschaftswachstum: Da mehr als zwei Drittel der europäischen Bevölkerung in der Stadt leben, gibt es auch Probleme, für die Lösungen gefunden werden müssen. Ein Ballungsraum ist reich an kreativen Ideen. Die Auswirkungen der Wirtschaftskrise sind zu spüren. Für die Stadtplanung von morgen müssen neue Anreize geschaffen und Mittel bereitgestellt werden. Gleichzeitig sollten sich die Städte aktiv an der Entwicklung beteiligen – zum Beispiel an der Mobilität in Stadtzentren, Energiesanierung, Sozialwohnungen. Die demokratische Beteiligung der Bürger und das Konzept der europäischen Bürgerschaft sollten gefördert werden. Die Umsetzung ist entscheidend, um die vielfältigen Herausforderungen in jeder Hinsicht bewältigen zu können. Die Entwicklung der Städte wird einen entscheidenden Beitrag zur Zukunft der wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und territorialen Entwicklung haben.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), na piśmie. − Jak wiadomo gospodarka światowa zwalnia. Również w Unii Europejskiej coraz częściej słyszy się o poważnych kryzysach gospodarczych i finansowych poszczególnych krajów członkowskich. Sztandarowym przykładem złej sytuacji jest Grecja, która uniknęła bankructwa tylko dlatego, że Wspólnota zgodziła się na udzielenie pomocy finansowej. Z projektu rezolucji dotyczącej rozwoju obszarów miejskich, jako wkład we wzrost gospodarczy, dowiadujemy się, że 2/3 ludności Unii mieszka właśnie w miastach. Dlatego wydaje się, że promowanie ośrodków miejskich w walce z kryzysem gospodarczym jest jak najbardziej uzasadnione. W takich miejscach o wiele łatwiej jest prowadzić działalność gospodarczą niż na peryferiach, głównie dlatego że tereny w miastach czy w niedalekiej odległości od nich są w większości przypadków odpowiednio przygotowane pod inwestycje. Mam nadzieję, że środki płynące z polityki spójności do wspomnianych obszarów miejskich przynajmniej w części spełnią swoje zadanie, przyczyniając się do poprawy sytuacji gospodarczej.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), na piśmie. − Miasta stają się centrami rozwoju gospodarczego, dlatego utrzymanie ich dynamicznego rozwoju staje się ważnym czynnikiem zapewniającym wzrost gospodarczy pośród krajów członkowskich UE. Dlatego tak ważne jest utrzymanie dalszego wzrostu środków na politykę spójności oraz rozwój regionalny. To właśnie te pieniądze inwestowane w rozwój transportu, szerokopasmowej sieci internetu, budowy kolejnych centrów łączących badania i biznes mogą wspierać miasta, jednocześnie będąc silnym wsparciem dla powrotu całej Europy na ścieżkę wzrostu. Dlatego poparłem to ciekawe sprawozdanie mimo kilku braków.

Szczególnie istotne jest zbyt słabe ujęcie sytuacji regionów biednych i marginalizowanych oraz regionów dotkniętych biedą strukturalną związaną np. z upadkiem głównego, czasem jedynego, zakładu przemysłowego. Uważam, że warto uzupełnić omawiany dokument o potrzebne zapisy.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − A elaboração de planos de proteção e requalificação das áreas urbanas, a reabilitação de bairros marginalizados, a reconversão funcional de locais abandonados de forma a torná-los mais atrativos, dando resposta simultaneamente à necessidade coletiva de espaço público, espaço verde, de tempos livres e desporto, e a promoção do património histórico e cultural, podem constituir indiscutíveis contributos para o crescimento e desenvolvimento económico nas cidades. Esta abordagem prevê uma interconexão do sistema natural e ambiental com o histórico-cultural e o socioprodutivo, fazendo também referência à importância do desenvolvimento do acesso aos serviços públicos, melhorando os espaços urbanos e o crescimento do tecido económico, obras residenciais e infraestruturas. Sem prejuízo de algumas divergências pontuais, e sem esquecer a necessidade de integrar os requisitos do desenvolvimento local na problemática das áreas suburbanas, circundantes e rurais, no sentido de promover uma relação não conflitual, consideramos o relatório globalmente positivo.

10.2. Teritorinio vystymosi vaidmuo įgyvendinant sanglaudos politiką (A7-0421/2012 - Derek Vaughan)

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, as an MEP for London, I am pleased to see that this report recognises cities as drivers of economic growth. I am also pleased that the report recognises that the definition of cities is best decided at Member State level. Structural funds are worth GBP 1 billion to the United Kingdom – to London in particular – and they support business urban regeneration in the capital. London should continue to receive these subsidies and they should be delegated to London to be managed directly.

Nevertheless, I am unable to vote for this report. This is not because I do not agree with its objectives. The report calls for the cohesion funds to be maintained at the current level. Cohesion and Structural Funds are the second largest item in the EU budget, accounting for one-third of the total expenditure. At a time of austerity, the EU budget needs to be cut down to size and this cannot exclude cohesion funds.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, è chiaro come i finanziamenti della politica di coesione stiano diventando sempre più importanti per le regioni dell'Unione. Soprattutto in considerazione della crisi economica che dal 2008 affligge l'Europa, è necessario garantire che le risorse a disposizione siano spese in modo efficiente affinché i cittadini possano beneficiare pienamente dei finanziamenti dell'Unione.

Il coinvolgimento degli enti locali e regionali in ogni fase della progettazione, dello sviluppo e dell'attuazione dei programmi di finanziamento diviene dunque essenziale per assicurare una risposta ai fabbisogni locali e sfruttare nel miglior modo possibile il potenziale territoriale nel raggiungimento degli obiettivi della politica di coesione.

  Lara Comi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, ritengo che questa risoluzione meriti tutto il nostro sostegno. I programmi di finanziamento dell'Unione europea compresi nel quadro strategico comune della Commissione e concepiti per l'attuazione delle politiche di coesione, devono essere coordinati tra loro il più possibile, proprio per essere più efficaci.

La coesione territoriale è annoverata tra gli obiettivi riconosciuti dal trattato di Lisbona e costituisce un aspetto trasversale tra i vari programmi: ecco perché è necessario tirare fuori il massimo sul punto da tutti programmi e coordinarli tra loro. I finanziamenti europei oggi rappresentano più che mai una risorsa importante per i territori, di fronte alla scarsità dei bilanci regionali e locali, aggravata anche dalla crisi economica. Pertanto, i fondi vanno spesi sempre più in una maniera intelligente ed efficace, coinvolgendo gli enti locali e regionali attraverso i contratti di partenariato, per conseguire uno sviluppo locale di tipo partecipativo, mediante investimenti territoriali integrati.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). - Signor Presidente, così come ho votato a favore del dossier dell'onorevole Cozzolino, con il quale mi complimento, ho votato a favore del dossier Vaughan sull'ottimizzazione del ruolo dell'assetto territoriale nella politica di coesione. Occorre infatti creare energie tra i programmi di finanziamento dell'Unione compresi nel quadro strategico comune. Solo una visione complessiva dei problemi e un approccio politico integrato con un'attuazione integrata dei programmi di finanziamento potranno determinare l'efficacia dei fondi dell'Unione a livello locale e regionale.

Per comprendere e fare un esempio, basti pensare ai Fondi strutturali e ai fondi "Orizzonte 2020", che dovrebbero potere entrambi applicarsi a progetti che mirano a rafforzare uno degli elementi principali sui quali ci stiamo concentrando, ovvero la ricerca, lo sviluppo tecnologico, l'innovazione, una delle priorità che, come dicevo prima, ci siamo dati tra gli 11 obiettivi tematici principali. È necessario dunque che gli strumenti suggeriti dalla Commissione per incoraggiare maggiori sinergie tra i fondi siano sostenuti da meccanismi di attuazione concreti a livello regionale e locale.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, may I say thank you for your speaking English today. It is very welcome though it is not doing very much for my attempts to learn Italian because I usually like listening to you in Italian so I am split on this one. However, I would like to give this explanation on behalf of the British Conservative delegation.

This report does contain a number of examples of best practice and cohesion policy across the EU, but our delegation has a number of concerns which prevent us from supporting the report. First and foremost, the report calls for the cohesion budget post-2013 to be maintained at its present level. For our delegation this is unacceptable. Savings can easily be made by restricting funding to those regions and Member States which really need the funds.

The report also inflates the supposed importance of the bureaucratic European groupings of territorial cooperation. None of these presently exist in the UK and our government rightly sees no fruitful reason ever to introduce them. We also take a sceptical view of the support for the proposed EU macro-regional strategies, which undermine national governments and lead to the creation of artificial entities with little popular support.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Consider că aspectul esenţial din acest raport este integrarea fondurilor europene pentru perioada 2014-2020. În mod special, pentru România şi alte noi state membre, este vitală folosirea unor instrumente alternative, care să asigure un acces mai uşor la finanţarea europeană şi care să înlăture o parte din dificultăţile de absorbţie pe care le-am întâmpinat în perioada precedentă.

În mod evident, şi ţările respective, inclusiv ţara mea, trebuie să progreseze rapid şi să adopte proceduri de achiziţii publice clare, simple şi transparente, să elimine conflictele de interese, corupţia şi frauda din utilizarea fondurilor europene şi mai trebuie să realizeze o evidenţă clară a proprietăţii şi utilităţilor publice - mă refer la cadastru. Cer însă şi Comisiei Europene să prezinte, în mod clar şi detaliat, modalităţile de implementare a noilor instrumente introduse pentru integrarea programelor de finanţare, pentru ca statele membre să se pregătească din timp.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). - Signor Presidente, la politica di coesione è uno strumento fondamentale per la crescita sociale ed economica e per garantire, con i fondi a disposizione, integrazione tra zone urbane e zone rurali. Per questo obiettivo è necessario promuovere una governance multilivello, creando partenariati, reti e progetti con i fondi del regolamento "disposizioni comuni".

Questi investimenti territoriali integrati possono apportare grandi vantaggi ai giovani, alle PMI, alle politiche sociali, alla lotta contro la povertà e l'esclusione sociale e molto altro ancora. Pertanto, è un buon pacchetto di proposte e mi auguro che venga attivato al più presto anche un portale, per consentire un facile accesso a tutte le informazioni sui fondi europei da parte dei cittadini, delle imprese e degli enti locali territoriali.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Pre krajiny ako je Slovensko, je politika súdržnosti kľúčová. Zároveň však narážame na problémy pri čerpaní alokovaných zdrojov.

Potreba zvýšiť efektivitu pri používaní týchto zdrojov často vyústi do ďalšieho nárastu byrokracie, ktorý ďalej brzdí čerpanie prostriedkov. Pritom moja krajina pre svoj rozvoj tieto prostriedky veľmi potrebuje.

Som veľmi rada, že správa kolegu Vaughana pomenúva tieto problémy a snaží sa hľadať riešenia. Myslím si, že pozitívne príklady, o ktorých hovorí, by sa mali stať inšpiráciou pre úvahy o tom, ako politiku súdržnosti ďalej zefektívniť.

Skutočná európska jednota je možná len vtedy, keď odstránime často priepastné rozdiely medzi novými a starými členskými krajinami.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). - Hr. formand! Jeg har igennem de seneste måneder interesseret mig en del for, hvordan EU anvender og reviderer sine budgetter. Det er, når man dykker ned i tingene, fuldstændig ufatteligt, hvilken kreativitet der i virkeligheden gør sig gældende, når man skal bruge skatteydernes penge. Landbrugsstøtte til golfklubber, skolemælksordninger, tyrefægtning på støtte og fuldstændig latterlige eksempler som flyvende gorillaer, gadeteater, støtte til tyrkiske kloakker og hvad ved jeg.

Det har jeg forsøgt at mangfoldiggøre, ikke bare her i salen i dag, hvor vi altså har stemt om et par milliarder mere, der skal bruges, men også på internettet og andre steder, og jeg har fået det fuldstændig guddommelige svar fra Europa-Kommissionen, at man ikke kan kritisere den slags ting, fordi det er lovlige aktiviteter. Altså mener man fra Kommissionens side, at selv de mest vanvittige aktiviteter kan forsvares finansieret med skatteyderpenge, hvis bare der er tale om lovlige aktiviteter.

Jeg vil bare gerne benytte forhandlingen i dag til at rette en varm tak til Europa-Kommissionen for at komme med så fantastiske indlæg i debatten, for selvfølgelig burde de eksempler, som jeg har nævnt her, slet ikke være lovlige. Alle almindeligt begavede mennesker kan selvfølgelig se, at man i intet tilfælde, om det er lovligt eller ulovligt, skal bruge penge på den slags pjat.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the report on territorial development and cohesion policy focuses on how to improve the funding programmes in the forthcoming 2014–2020 MMF, but it is too prescriptive, and its advocacy for increased funding is frankly not acceptable. Funding needs to be reduced. Nevertheless, I do welcome the stress on subsidiarity and flexibility. Contrary to the Commission’s wishes, the definition of cities and urban areas – and I represent London – must be decided at Member State level, given the differing size and economic and administrative resources in each Member State.

This approach demonstrates a growing rejection of a one-size-fits-all funding model and shows that subsidiarity works, and I welcome that. It also increases democratic and administrative accountability. We need to simplify the process of applying for EU funding in general. The UK is currently undertaking a sub-regional process, where EU funds are placed under a single portal allowing a common platform with a single application, payments, monitoring and evaluation process. This shift from supranational to subregional approach for the application of funding represents a positive change for Structural Funds beyond 2013, and I welcome that aspect of the report.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Auch ich habe für den vorliegenden Bericht gestimmt, weil er im Ansatz das richtige Bestreben hat. Es geht in der Europäischen Union auch darum, die wirtschaftlichen Unterschiede, die Unterschiede im Lebensstandard abzubauen. Ungeheuer wichtig ist dabei natürlich immer, einerseits die Region anzusprechen, regionale Besonderheiten zu beachten. Ich stehe auch zu dem Grundsatz, dass die Regionen darüber entscheiden können, wie sie das Geld verwenden und am besten einsetzen. Aber andererseits muss man natürlich diesen Anspruch ständig kontrollieren. Man sollte das hier auch deutlich machen. Es gibt in der Europäischen Union Regionen, die seit über 30 Jahren gefördert und unterstützt werden und wo sich de facto nichts bewegt. Hier müsste man ganz ehrlich nach den Ursachen fragen und nötigenfalls die Förderinstrumentarien ändern und effektiver machen. Wenn dieser zweite Teil meiner Rede beachtet wird, bin ich mit diesem Bericht nicht nur zu 99 % einverstanden, sondern zu 100 %.

  Monika Smolková (S&D). - V súčasnom období ekonomickej a hospodárskej krízy je financovanie politiky súdržností pre európske regióny ešte dôležitejšie. Rozdiely medzi regiónmi EÚ stále existujú a naďalej sa rozširujú.

Preto aj rozpočet na politiku súdržnosti musí priniesť ekonomické a sociálne oživenie vo všetkých regiónoch Európskej únie. Financovanie politiky súdržnosti sa musí zjednodušiť, zefektívniť, aby občania profitovali s európskeho financovania.

Prioritou musí byť zapojenie miestnych a regionálnych orgánov v každej fáze plánovania, rozvoja a realizácie európskych programov pre regionálne potreby. Územný rozmer musí priniesť väčšiu spoluprácu pre regionálne samosprávy, podnikateľské subjekty, vzdelávacie inštitúcie, tretí sektor, ale aj cezhraničnú spoluprácu.

Politika súdržnosti v rámci územného rozvoja prispeje tiež k tvorbe nových pracovných príležitostí. Aj preto predmetnú správu podporujem.

  Mojca Kleva Kekuš (S&D). - Ob obiskih občin, regij in lokalnih predstavnikov v Sloveniji pogosto poslušam pripombe o tem, kako pomembno in prepogosto zanemarjen je njihov pogled na vključenost v programe financiranja s strani Evropske unije in kako si želijo poenostavitev postopkov. To je vprašanje, ki se vedno pojavi.

Zato močno podpiram poročilo kolega Dereka Voughana, ki ne le naslovi to vprašanje, ampak celo predstavi pregled in učinkovit in uspešne mehanizme za ustvarjanje teh sinergij.

Sinergije so namreč izjemno pomembne ne le na področju koordiniranega pristopa vseh nivojev vladanja pri evropskih sredstvih, ampak tudi med različnimi politikami znotraj Evropske unije.

Veselim se in nestrpno pričakujem rezultate, ki jih bo v naslednjih sedmih letih moč videti pri implementaciji kohezijskih in regionalnih politik, ko bomo nacionalnim, regionalnim in lokalnim predstavnikom predali možnost črpanja sredstev iz več različnih skladov.

To je novost, ki jo res srčno pozdravljam.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, while we are talking about stimulus and promoting growth and cohesion, let me read you the latest unemployment figures for youth unemployment. France: 27%; Ireland: 30%; Portugal: 39%; Spain: 57%; Greece: 58%. This is the reality of what is happening outside these Chambers while we congratulate ourselves on all of the stimulus packages which we are decreeing.

There was an almost perfect symbolism when it emerged that, in the last mandate, the President of the Commission and President of the European Council had flown to the same summit in Russia in two separate private jets. That is, if you like, in microcosm, the EU’s approach to job creation. Why have just one private jet when you can stimulate the economy twice as much by having two private jets? Why have just one bureaucracy when you can have twice as many regulations by having two parallel bureaucracies? Why, indeed, stop at having just the eurocrats when you can have an army of consultants and contractors and other rent-seekers stimulating the economy around them? The truth, colleagues, is that the money has run out in the private sector because of our policies. And since that is the money that is paying all of us, there ought to come a moment when it starts to worry you too.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, what is cohesion policy? In simple terms, cohesion policy is a way of ensuring transfers of taxpayers’ money from richer countries to poorer countries or from richer regions to poorer regions. Some see it in more political terms and some see it as a sort of socialistic utopia of redistribution of wealth but, whatever happens or however you view cohesion policy, you have to accept that the money comes from somewhere and that money comes from the taxpayer.

That is why, at a time when countries across the EU and across the world are having to tighten their belts and cut spending, it is ridiculous to suggest that the cohesion budget for 2014-2020 should be maintained at current levels. As my colleague Julie Girling said earlier, it is quite right that they should focus spending on those areas of most urgent need. We should all tighten our belts and we should focus on those areas that really need the money because, at the end of the day, the money comes from somewhere and we have to ensure that we encourage wealth creation to create those taxes that people can spend to create those services that we want to see. But the best way to do it is for less government spending and to make sure that there is good use of government spending when there is.

Dichiarazioni di voto scritte

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente relatório. Acredito que um papel mais importante deve ser dado às autoridades regionais e locais de modo a aumentarem sua contribuição para o desenvolvimento económico da União Europeia, pois isso trará mais eficácia à execução da Política de Coesão. As regiões e as autoridades locais são os atores mais importantes na implementação da Política de Coesão. Contudo, penso que ainda não é dada a importância devida a estes níveis de poder ao nível europeu, devendo ser reforçado o papel de intervenção destas autoridades e permitir um uso mais pleno dos fundos que contribuem para a coesão económica e social no seio da União Europeia.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), în scris. − Iniţiativa de a acorda statelor membre şi autorităţilor regionale şi locale posibilitatea de a utiliza mai multe programe de finanţare europene pentru sprijinirea proiectelor pe care acestea doresc să le întreprindă la nivel local şi regional este una benefică, deoarece în acest fel se poate îmbunătăţi eficacitatea acordării de sprijin financiar de la nivel european. Consider că este nevoie de adoptarea unei abordări flexibile în ceea ce priveşte stabilirea obiectivelor locale şi regionale de dezvoltare, care să permită implicarea tuturor părţilor interesate, deoarece în acest mod se poate asigura faptul că programele de finanţare europene satisfac nevoile comunităţilor care vor beneficia de sprijin. Susţin o utilizare eficientă a programelor de finanţare care fac obiectul politicii de coeziune a Uniunii, care să pună accentul pe rezultatele cuantificabile ale acesteia în vederea creşterii sustenabilităţii investiţiilor realizate. Am votat în favoarea acestui raport.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport d’initiative visant à souligner l’importance que joue l’aménagement urbain dans la vie quotidienne des citoyens et particulièrement des plus défavorisés. Le rapport recherche des mécanismes efficaces et performants pour créer des synergies entre les programmes de financement européens en la matière.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pasiūlymą dėl efektyvesnės ir rezultatyvesnės ES finansavimo programų, skirtų vystyti ES teritorinės sanglaudos politiką, sąveikos ir koordinavimo. Ekonominės krizės metu sanglaudos politikos finansavimo svarba ES regionams auga, kartu augant poreikiui užtikrinti, kad lėšos būtų išleidžiamos tinkamai. Pasiūlymu taip pat numatoma įtraukti vietos ir regionų valdžios institucijas į visus ES finansavimo programų kūrimo ir vykdymo etapus, kad ekonominiai ir socialiniai poreikiai būtų tenkinami arčiausiu piliečiams lygmeniu. Pritariu išdėstytiems pasiūlymams aiškiau apibrėžti taisykles, patikrinimus ir tinkamumo kriterijus finansavimui gauti. Siūlomų priemonių taikymas turi išlikti kuo paprastesnis tam, kad nebūtų užkrauta papildoma administracinė našta vietos valdžios institucijoms. Taip pat pritariu šioms institucijoms suteikti galimybę naudotis daugiau nei viena ES finansavimo programa projektams remti ir taip gerinti finansavimo veiksmingumą. Lėšos privalo būti skiriamos taip, kad spręstų ES ilgalaikius socialinius ir ekonominius uždavinius.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), írásban. − Támogattam szavazatommal Derek Vaughan kollégámnak a kohéziós politikában a területi fejlesztés szerepének optimalizálásáról szóló jelentését, hiszen magyar képviselőként kifejezetten fontosnak tartom azt, hogy a kohéziós politika legfontosabb célkitűzése továbbra is a leszakadó régiók felzárkóztatása legyen. Kiemelném a jelentés 3. pontját, amely hangsúlyozza, hogy a 2013 utáni kohéziós politika költségvetését legalább a jelenlegi szinten meg kell tartani annak érdekében, hogy a gazdasági-társadalmi megújulást igénylő térségek továbbra is támogatáshoz jussanak. Magyarország számára továbbra is elfogadhatatlan az a javaslat, amely alapján a 2014 és 2020 közötti időszakra szóló uniós pénzügyi keretben a mostanihoz képest akár 30%-kal is csökkenne az országnak jutó kohéziós támogatás mértéke. Ahhoz, hogy a kohéziós politika céljai az Unióban maradéktalanul teljesüljenek, elfogadhatatlan a támogatások jelenlegi szintjének csökkentése.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − O objetivo do presente relatório é explorar mecanismos eficazes e eficientes que visem criar sinergias entre os programas europeus de financiamento abrangidos pelo quadro estratégico comum da Comissão Europeia. O mandato de negociação do Parlamento Europeu sobre esta legislação está agora definido e as suas prioridades incluem uma maior participação das autoridades locais e regionais, assim como maior flexibilidade tendente a permitir que as regiões definam as suas prioridades, tendo em consideração as suas necessidades, bem como a necessidade de uma maior incidência no incentivo ao crescimento e à competitividade. Torna-se, pois, necessária a criação de regras comuns e uma estreita coordenação para todos os fundos abrangidos pelo Regulamento sobre disposições comuns (RDC). Os Estados-Membros e as autoridades locais e regionais devem ter a oportunidade de utilizar mais do que um programa europeu de financiamento para apoiar projetos. É necessário reforçar a eficácia dos financiamentos europeus, aumentar a simplificação e permitir aos possíveis beneficiários um acesso mais fácil ao financiamento. Pelo exposto, apoiei o presente relatório.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho sostenuto con un voto favorevole la relazione Vaughan, che ben analizza il ruolo dello sviluppo territoriale nelle politiche di coesione. Nel testo viene ribadita con forza l'importanza della governance multilivello quale strumento capace di assicurare che le decisioni siano sempre più vicine e in linea con le esigenze dei cittadini e dei nostri territori. Mi auspico che la revisione della politica di coesione per il futuro periodo di programmazione 2014-2020 converga verso la massiccia semplificazione degli oneri amministrativi connessi all'utilizzo dei Fondi, onde assicurare l'accesso ottimale alle risorse e un maggiore coordinamento fra queste e i singoli programmi.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi bendrų nuostatų reglamentu, ar kitaip, sanglaudos politika, siekiama sumažinti Europos Sąjungos regionų skirtumus, stiprinant ekonominę, socialinę ir teritorinę sanglaudą. Svarbu pažymėti, jog Bendroje strateginėje programoje yra nagrinėjami mechanizmai, kuriais siekiama geriau koordinuoti fondus (ERPF, ESF, Sanglaudos fondui, EŽŪKPF, EJRŽF) ir kitas ES politikos sritis. Į tai atsižvelgiant, galima būtų teigti, jog teritorinė sanglauda, apimanti įvairias sanglaudos politikos sritis, Lisabonos sutartyje jau pripažįstama pagrindiniu ES uždaviniu. Svarbu paminėti, jog teritorinės sanglaudos tikslai yra neatsiejamai susiję su ekonominiais ir socialiniais uždaviniais. Tačiau, kuriant ir įgyvendinant sanglaudos politiką, svarbu užtikrinti, kad būtų tinkama pusiausvyra, atliekant būtinus lėšų naudojimo ir jų veiksmingumo tikrinimus. Taigi, finansinių priemonių naudojimui yra svarbu sukurti paprastesnes ir aiškesnes taisykles, kuriomis būtų užtikrinamas didesnis visų penkių fondų veiksmingumas.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de cette résolution car j'estime qu'il est essentiel que le budget pour la politique de cohésion après 2013 soit au moins maintenu à son niveau actuel afin d'assurer un soutien continu aux régions qui ont besoin de connaître un renouveau social et économique, et ce sur tout le territoire de l'Union. Nous devons également continuer de faire progresser la convergence au sein de l'Union, vu le nombre de disparités qui subsistent (par exemple en termes d'accessibilité) et qui continuent de s'aggraver entre les régions de l'Union.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − This report outlines yet another excuse to spend more taxpayers’ money without any real economic benefit. It calls for cohesion funds to be maintained at the current level – cohesion and structural funds are the second largest item in the EU budget, accounting for one third of the total expenditure. The report also inflates the supposed importance of the bureaucratic European groupings of territorial cooperation. Cohesion policy is a way of ensuring the transfer of taxpayers’ money from richer countries to poorer countries, or from richer regions to poorer regions. It feeds into the proposed EU macro-regional strategies, which undermine national governments and lead to the creation of artificial identities. I voted against.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport Vaughan qui vise à optimiser le rôle du développement territorial dans la politique de cohésion. J'estime que des mécanismes efficaces sont nécessaires afin de créer des synergies entre les différents programmes de financement du Cadre stratégique commun. Le développement territorial constitue une nouvelle dimension de la politique de cohésion, son importance méritait d'être soulignée.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Tendo em linha de conta o atual clima económico, é evidente que o financiamento no âmbito da coesão política está a ganhar cada vez mais importância nas regiões europeias e que existe a necessidade crescente de garantir que o dispêndio de dinheiro seja efetuado de forma mais eficaz para que os cidadãos possam beneficiar plenamente do financiamento europeu. Para reforçar a eficácia dos financiamentos europeus a nível local e regional, é importante criar sinergias entre os programas europeus de financiamento abrangidos pelo quadro estratégico comum da Comissão. Congratulo-me com a criação de contratos de parcerias pois estes refletem a crescente atenção prestada às autoridades regionais e locais. Os contratos de parceria devem definir uma abordagem integrada, destinada ao desenvolvimento territorial por meio da introdução de medidas que visem garantir a aplicação de mecanismos nacionais e regionais, a fim de incentivar a coordenação entre os fundos abrangidos pelo RDC e outros instrumentos europeus e nacionais de financiamento.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), în scris. − În contextul economic actual, este evident că finanțarea politicii de coeziune devine din ce în ce mai importantă pentru regiunile Europei și există o necesitate mai mare de a se asigura faptul că banii sunt cheltuiți într-un mod mai eficient, astfel încât cetățenii să poată beneficia integral de finanțarea europeană. Implicarea autorităților locale și regionale în fiecare etapă a planificării, a dezvoltării și a realizării programelor de finanțare europene este esențială pentru a se asigura abordarea nevoilor locale. Politicile privind ocuparea forței de muncă și politicile sociale joacă un rol important pentru dezvoltarea teritorială durabilă și echilibrată din punct de vedere social și contribuie semnificativ la reducerea inegalităților regionale și la creșterea bunăstării cetățenilor. Abordarea teritorială ar trebui să constituie un mecanism eficient de susținere a IMM-urilor pentru crearea de noi locuri de muncă durabile sau dezvoltarea unor programe de formare profesională. Statele membre trebuie să îmbunătățească condițiile actuale pentru noii antreprenori, deoarece contribuie la crearea de noi locuri de muncă durabile. Acțiunile sprijinite de FSE trebuie să fie coordonate la diferite niveluri ale politicii, pentru a se permite o abordare teritorială eficientă. Este necesar ca serviciile și facilitățile educaționale să fie legate de nevoile pieței muncii de la nivel local.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. − A política de coesão é uma das mais importantes da UE. Os desequilíbrios entre as várias regiões da Europa são a maior ameaça ao projeto de integração política e económica de uma União forte, justa e solidária. Ora, a dimensão territorial é um aspecto transversal da política de coesão que proporciona às regiões europeias a oportunidade de tirar proveito das suas potencialidades territoriais, atingindo assim os objetivos da política de coesão. Apoio assim este relatório por considerar positiva a pretensão de explorar mecanismos eficazes e eficientes que criem sinergias entre os programas europeus de financiamento abrangidos pelo quadro estratégico comum da Comissão Europeia, permitindo um reforço da eficácia dos financiamentos europeus ao nível local e regional. Note-se que não obstante os progressos no sentido de uma convergência em toda a União, persistem ainda disparidades entre as regiões da UE, considerando daí que os objetivos da coesão territorial são indissociáveis dos desafios económicos e sociais. Uma abordagem territorial permite mais coesão económica e social e constitui um incentivo ao desenvolvimento, ao emprego, à redução da pobreza e à inclusão social.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the adoption of the Vaughan report on the role of territorial development in cohesion policy. This resolution sets out some very practical suggestions to create synergies between five different EU funding programmes over the 2014-2020 period – the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the European Marine and Fisheries Fund – that are designed to implement EU cohesion, rural and fisheries policies. I agree that it should be easier for Member States, regional authorities and local authorities to take part in more than just one EU funding programme and that there should be mechanisms to bring all of these funds together. Such mechanisms would improve the overall effectiveness of EU funding as well as making it easier for applicants to take part in these programmes. As a former Dublin city councillor and former Lord Mayor of Dublin, I know that giving a greater role to local authorities and regional authorities will help improve the overall effectiveness of EU cohesion policy and achieve the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy. I hope the Commission will carefully study and act upon these positive proposals.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), în scris. − Susţin propunerea de rezoluţie a Parlamentului European care vizează optimizarea rolului dezvoltării teritoriale în cadrul politicii de coeziune pentru perioada 2014-2020. În condiţiile amplificării disparităţilor dintre regiuni, dezvoltarea teritorială este extrem de necesară pentru stimularea creşterii economice, ocuparea forţei de muncă şi dezvoltarea urbană. De asemenea, susţin implicarea autorităţilor locale, pentru eficientizarea strategiilor din cadrul politicii de coeziune şi satisfacerea nevoilor economice şi sociale ale cetăţenilor, mult mai bine observate de actorii de la nivel local.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. − Consider că dezvoltarea mai puternică a parteneriatelor public-private la nivelul zonelor urbane şi rurale din vecinătate va permite o implicare mai accentuată a zonelor rurale în activităţile integrate dintr-o anumită regiune şi va permite totodată consolidarea legăturilor actuale dintre oraşe şi mediul rural, precum şi apariţia de noi posibilităţi de cooperare.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – Les financements de l'Union pour le développement territorial existent, et sont un outil évident de la politique de cohésion : je me suis exprimée en faveur de ce rapport car il fait preuve d'un souci de simplification et d'efficacité dans leur usage. Les décisions, pour bénéficier aux citoyens européens, doivent être prises au plus près d'eux. Si l'on souhaite réduire les inégalités économiques et sociales entre nos territoires, c'est une évidence : il n'existe pas de "taille unique" en la matière. Mieux coordonner les fonds européens, c'est une bonne idée, à un double titre : répondre au mieux aux besoins des citoyens, tout en faisant le meilleur usage possible des fonds publics.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), írásban. − A jelenlegi gazdasági helyzetben a „better spending” fokozottabb jelentőséggel bír Európa régióiban, hiszen minden európai polgár egyformán élvezni szeretné a kohéziós politikai támogatás előnyeit. Üdvözlöm a Parlament ezen saját kezdeményezésű jelentését (INI), hiszen a régiók helyi szükségleteinek kielégítése érdekében a közösségek által irányított helyi fejlesztések (CLLD) ösztönzik a helyi közösségeket az integrált, „bottom up” megközelítések kidolgozására, fejlesztik a közösségi kapacitásokat, ezáltal segítve a többszintű kormányzást, így ez a fajta területi dimenzió lehetőséget ad a régiók számára, hogy a kohéziós politika célkitűzéseinek elérésére irányuló munka során hasznosítsák saját területi adottságaikat. Az alapok közötti szinergiákat teljes körűen ki kell aknázni az egymást kölcsönösen kiegészítő tematikus célkitűzések megvalósítása érdekében. A kohéziós politika ezen területi koncepciója hatékony eszköze annak, hogy előmozdítsa a gazdasági, társadalmi és területi kohéziót, beleértve a foglalkoztatás, oktatás fenntartását, valamint a szegénység csökkentését.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. − I congratulate the rapporteur on the work in bringing forward these reports. My constituency of Northern Ireland has seen real progress, especially since the creation of stable devolution in 2007. However we are still on that journey and many in this chamber will have seen the scenes of violence from Belfast in recent days. These riots have been immediately sparked by the actions of Sinn Fein, the SDLP and the Alliance Party in supporting a decision to remove the Union flag from Belfast City Hall and to fly it only on certain days. However the problems in these areas are very significant. They are the result of years of violence, high levels of unemployment and low educational attainment. The youth unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is around 20 %, and even higher in areas of inner city violence. Young people need to find their place in creating a stable society in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I encourage this house to support a further tranche of peace funding, focusing on youth unemployment and capacity building in this area.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o relatório sobre o "papel do desenvolvimento territorial na Política de Coesão", por incluir propostas que permitem criar sinergias entre os diversos Programas europeus de financiamento e reforçar o papel das regiões e das autoridades locais, tendo em vista a maior eficácia da Política de Coesão.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report as I believe that synergies need to be created between cohesion policy and other EU policies to ensure that cohesion funds are being spent effectively and address current employment and social challenges. In Wales, we receive convergence funding in the west and the valleys and competiveness in the east; we need to ensure that these funds are complementing projects in other policy areas in order to boost our economy. Furthermore, I welcome the community-led local development instrument as more initiatives should be led by the actors affected in the community. In Wales we still have strong communities, but we need to empower them in order to strengthen them.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − O acesso das regiões mais desfavorecidas à solidariedade europeia é uma das características mais nobres deste projeto, devendo saudar-se o propósito da União de perseverar no seu esforço de reduzir as disparidades entre as regiões que a integram apesar das dificuldades económicas e financeiras que afetam boa parte dos seus Estados-Membros. Subscrevo as preocupações daqueles que consideram que os fundos europeus devem ser objeto de uma gestão e de processos de concessão mais transparentes e inteligíveis, devendo adotarem-se as práticas que comprovadamente melhor têm provado nesse tocante. Reduzir o desperdício, flexibilizar o acesso, coordenar os apoios e acompanhar o seu uso são ideias-chave que devem nortear a ação europeia. Como deputado de um país beneficiário da política de coesão, acredito que esta deve ser melhor aproveitada pelos Estados-Membros e que, para que tal ocorra, não deverão existir excessivos obstáculos burocráticos nem exigências desrazoáveis que impendam sobre potenciais candidatos aos mesmos.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − Derek Vaughan apresenta-nos um relatório sobre a otimização do papel do desenvolvimento territorial na Política de Coesão (PC). O objetivo da PC da União Europeia é acabar com as disparidades económicas e sociais que ainda existem entre as 271 regiões que integram os 27 Estados-Membros (EM). Na realidade, uma em cada quatro regiões apresenta um produto interno bruto por habitante inferior a 75% da média da UE, sendo que as regiões periféricas e ultraperiféricas são as que têm índices de desenvolvimento mais baixos. Para obviar esta situação, a UE dotou o seu objetivo “Convergência” com cerca de 81,5% dos fundos da política de coesão, tendo em vista reforçar o crescimento das regiões menos desenvolvidas. Aos montantes deste objetivo, somam-se os valores dos objetivos “Competitividade Regional e Emprego” (16%) e “Cooperação territorial Europeia” (2,5%). Os governos dos EM e as autarquias, seguindo as linhas orientadoras das UE, devem procurar maximizar estes fundos – Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER), Fundo Social Europeu (FSE) e Fundo de Coesão (FC) – implementado as melhores práticas em ordem à consecução dos objetivos definidos na estratégia Europa 2020. Para tal, é fundamental que as autarquias e as regiões disponham de uma maior flexibilização na gestão destes fundos. Por isso, votei favoravelmente o relatório presente.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este relatório de iniciativa propõe o reforço do objetivo territorial da política de coesão, com maior integração dos fundos europeus no QFP 2014-2020, mecanismos para a integração dos Fundos Estruturais, e para a criação de sinergias entre os 5 fundos europeus (FEDER, FSE, Fundo de Coesão, FEADER e FEAMP) abrangidos no âmbito do Regulamento sobre as disposições comuns. São vários os aspectos negativos deste relatório. Merece destaque o facto de, numa altura crucial para o futuro da política de coesão, o relatório aceitar a chantagem dos que querem diminuir as verbas para a coesão ou, na melhor das hipóteses, mantê-las aos atuais níveis de indigência, desfiando em seguida os habituais argumentos da maior eficácia, das sinergias, dos instrumentos inovadores, iludindo, enfim, o essencial: sem um aumento substancial do orçamento, não será possível efetivar o tão propalado princípio da coesão, ainda para mais num contexto de aprofundamento da integração capitalista (mercado único, políticas comuns) e dos seus inevitáveis efeitos no incremento das desigualdades e da divergência. O relatório partilha da visão da subjugação da política de coesão aos objetivos da agenda neoliberal da estratégia UE2020 (liberalizações, aprofundamento do mercado único). É um caminho que se associa à chantagem da "macro-condicionalidade económica" e que liminarmente rejeitamos.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Táto iniciatívna správa sa zameriava na hľadanie účinných a efektívnych mechanizmov zameraných na vytváranie synergií medzi európskymi programami financovania, ktoré sú zahrnuté do spoločného strategického rámca Komisie. Integrácia realizácie programov financovania zvýši efektivitu európskeho financovania na miestnej a regionálnej úrovni. Tento dokument obsahuje príklady mechanizmov, ktoré sa v súčasnosti uplatňujú alebo ktoré sa posudzujú v súvislosti s využitím v európskych regiónoch. Politika zamestnanosti a sociálna politika majú dôležitý význam pre udržateľný a sociálne vyvážený územný rozvoj a významne prispievajú k znižovaniu regionálnych rozdielov a zlepšeniu blahobytu všetkých občanov, pričom súčasne poskytujú rovnaké príležitosti všetkým občanom.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), per iscritto. − L'importanza di creare una governance multilivello, con particolare attenzione alla creazione di macroregioni che adottino decisioni ad un livello più vicino ai cittadini, rappresenta una positiva evoluzione a livello europeo. Inoltre la semplificazione della procedura per l'ottenimento dei fondi europei e lo sviluppo dei collegamenti tra aree rurali ed urbane, sono obiettivi pienamente condivisibili. Per tutti questi motivi, il mio voto è stato favorevole.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), írásban. − A jelenlegi gazdasági hangulatban nyilvánvaló, hogy a kohéziós politikai támogatás egyre nagyobb jelentőséggel bír az európai régiók számára, ezért fokozottan gondoskodni kell arról, hogy a pénzeszközöket hatékonyabban használják fel, és ezáltal a polgárok teljes körűen élvezhessék az európai finanszírozás előnyeit. E saját kezdeményezésű jelentés célja a Bizottság közös stratégiai keretébe tartozó európai támogatási programok közötti szinergiák kialakítását célzó eredményes és hatékony mechanizmusok vizsgálata. Üdvözlöm e célkitűzést, hiszen jómagam is úgy vélem, hogy a támogatási programok összehangolt végrehajtása helyi és regionális szinten javítani fogja az európai támogatás eredményességét. Szavazatommal támogattam tehát a jelentést, s bízom abban, hogy az Európai Bizottság által az alapok közötti fokozott szinergiák megteremtése érdekében javasolt eszközöket mihamarabb kiegészíti a regionális és helyi szintű végrehajtást célzó mechanizmusokkal.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pasiūlymą, kadangi šia sanglaudos politika siekiama sumažinti ES regionų skirtumus. Tai bandoma padaryti stiprinant ekonominę, socialinę ir teritorinę sanglaudą. Dabartinėmis ekonominėmis aplinkybėmis aišku, kad sanglaudos politikos finansavimas Europos regionams tampa vis svarbesnis ir auga poreikis užtikrinti, kad pinigai būtų išleidžiami tikslingiau, kad piliečiai pajustų ES finansavimo naudą. Pritariau bendrų nuostatų reglamente pateiktiems pasiūlymams, nes jais raginama geriau suderinti ir integruoti finansavimo programas, siekiant užtikrinti didesnį finansavimo poveikį.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I supported this own initiative report because it explores effective and efficient mechanisms to create synergies between the European funding programmes covered in the Commission’s Common Strategic Framework. I believe that integrating the delivery of funding programmes may improve the effectiveness of European funding at local and regional levels. It should also be emphasised that implementing strategies at local level should be the responsibility of local actors and authorities, with the aim of ensuring that economic and social needs are met at the level closest to the EU citizen.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), písomne. − Je potrebné vytvárať účinne a efektívne mechanizmy na vytváranie synergii medzi európskymi programami financovania, ktoré sú zahrnuté do spoločného strategického rámca Komisie. Integrácia programov financovania môže zvýšiť efektivitu financovania na miestnej a regionálnej úrovni. Balík pre politiku súdržnosti pre roky 2014 – 2020 zahŕňa 5 fondov. Regionálny rozvoj, Sociálny fond, Kohézny fond, Poľnohospodársky fond pre rozvoj vidieka a Fond pre rybné hospodárstvo. Ak sa územná súdržnosť cez tieto fondy prepája na ekonomickú a sociálnu súdržnosť, existuje čoraz väčšia potreba intenzívnejšieho zapojenia regiónov a postupu zdola nahor v zaujme mobilizácie potenciálu miestneho a regionálneho rozvoja. Uvedené smerovanie som podporil.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Głosowałem za przyjęciem sprawozdania posła Vaughana, gdyż uważam, ze przygotowane przez niego sprawozdanie jest kompleksowym i rzetelnym dokumentem. Wyzwania, które stoją w tej chwili przed Europą, wymagają sprawnych i skutecznych instrumentów. Uważam, że kwestią kluczową jest obniżenie poziomu bezrobocia, zwłaszcza wśród młodzieży. Dlatego popieram wniosek o sprecyzowanie zasad przydziału środków na tworzenie nowych, trwałych miejsc pracy. Zgadzam się także z apelem o poprawę warunków dla nowopowstających firm.

Uważam, że konieczne jest zapewnienie elastycznego podejścia do określania regionalnych i lokalnych celów rozwoju, z uwzględnieniem specyficznych potrzeb i potencjału poszczególnych regionów. Uważam, że większa elastyczność uprości przygotowanie i wdrażanie projektów, a także przyczyni się do odejścia od nadmiernej biurokracji i do skupienia się na rezultatach, nie zaś na procedurach. Podobnie jak poseł Vaughan, chciałbym podkreślić potrzebę koncentracji na mierzalnych efektach polityki spójności, dbałości o trwałość inwestycji, a co za tym idzie skuteczności interwencji finansowanych ze środków europejskich.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − L’ottimizzazione del ruolo dell’assetto territoriale nella politica di coesione passa attraverso scelte che riguardano una comunicazione più efficace tra i diversi livelli politico-istituzionali, una collaborazione congiunta tra di essi e una comunità di intenti nel soddisfare e raggiungere esigenze ed obiettivi dei territori. In vista della definizione del nuovo Quadro Finanziario Pluriennale (QFP), che individuerà i massimali di spesa per il bilancio comunitario nei prossimi sette anni (2014-2020), il ruolo delle realtà territoriali sarà di nuovo messo in discussione e posto al centro del dibattito. È evidente che l’ottimizzazione dell’assetto territoriale è importante per una spesa efficace ed efficiente dei fondi europei. Si deve, quindi, procedere lungo il percorso tracciato finora, tenendo ben presenti le difficoltà fin qui riscontratesi per poterne analizzare le cause e trovare le opportune soluzioni per una crescita sostenibile, sia da un punto di vista economico che sociale, delle realtà locali.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), na piśmie. − Sprawozdanie to skoncentrowane jest na wynajdywaniu efektywnych i skutecznych mechanizmów tworzenia synergii pomiędzy europejskimi programami finansowania zawartymi we wspólnych ramach strategicznych. Osobiście popieram instrumenty przedstawione w rozporządzeniu w sprawie wspólnych przepisów (RWP), których celem jest zwiększanie rozmiaru polityki spójności, wzrost koncentracji na współpracy terytorialnej oraz przedstawienie lepiej skoordynowanego podejścia na wszystkich poziomach rządowych.

Zmiany zaproponowane w sprawozdaniu rozwiązują kilka problemów takich jak rola regionalnych i lokalnych władz podczas przygotowań, wprowadzanie i monitorowanie programów finansowania, wzmacnianie istniejących oraz promowanie nowych połączeń miejsko-wiejskich, potrzeba skuteczniejszego połączenia terytorialnych programów współpracy z 8 terytorialnymi strategiami, rola planu wspólnych działań w integracji młodych ludzi w rynku pracy, zwiększenie roli instrumentów finansowych w przyszłym planie finansowym, integracja wspólnych ram strategicznych z innymi unijnymi instrumentami takimi jak program ramowy „Horyzont 2020”, LIFE+ oraz instrument „Łącząc Europę”. Zarówno ja, jak i całe S&D, wierzymy, że zaopatrzenie władz lokalnych w więcej niż jeden europejski program finansowania zwiększy skuteczność finansowania projektów oraz ułatwi drogę ich uzyskiwania.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului privind optimizarea rolului dezvoltării teritoriale în cadrul politicii de coeziune, deoarece dimensiunea teritorială reprezintă un aspect deosebit de important al politicii de coeziune, care oferă regiunilor europene posibilitatea de a-şi utiliza potenţialul teritorial individual. Pentru viitoarea perioadă de programare, avem nevoie de măsuri clare, care să aibă în vedere o mai bună coordonare a fondurilor europene, dar şi un sistem de guvernanţă simplificat, pe mai multe niveluri, atât de necesar în procesul de luare a deciziilor privind planificarea, dezvoltarea şi realizarea programelor de finanţare europene. Însă acest lucru va putea fi realizat numai prin implicarea actorilor locali şi regionali, astfel încât să poată contribui la pregătirea şi realizarea programelor şi proiectelor finanţate din bani europeni. Şi în acest sens, doresc să salut propunerile privind crearea unui cadru de reglementare concentrat pe dezvoltarea locală şi integrată prin intermediul „dezvoltării locale gestionate de comunităţi”, al „planurilor de acţiune comune” şi al „investiţiilor teritoriale integrate”.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which considers that the territorial approach should prove an effective mechanism for supporting SMEs in creating new sustainable jobs and initiating or developing vocational training programmes; it considers that entrepreneurial activity aimed at growth and employment and the tapping of potential can work across administrative territorial boundaries, and it calls on the Member States to improve the existing conditions for new entrepreneurs in order to better exploit their high potential for creating new sustainable jobs.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport sur le rôle du développement territorial dans la politique de cohésion qui cherche à créer des synergies entre les programmes de financement de l'Union afin de les rendre plus efficaces. Il est important que nous cherchions à utiliser de manière adéquate les financements à tous les niveaux de décision. Ce rapport met en lumière les améliorations qui peuvent être apportées au système de financement en place grâce aux expériences passées.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − O presente relatório de iniciativa pretende explorar mecanismos eficazes e eficientes que visem criar sinergias entre os programas europeus de financiamento abrangidos pelo quadro estratégico comum da Comissão. Integrar a execução dos programas de financiamento permitirá reforçar a eficácia dos financiamentos europeus a nível local e regional. Este documento inclui exemplos de mecanismos que estão atualmente em curso ou cuja aplicação está a ser considerada nas regiões europeias. A coesão territorial constitui um objetivo do Tratado ao abrigo do artigo 174.º, juntamente com a coesão económica e social. Existe a necessidade crescente de uma abordagem no sentido ascendente com vista à mobilização das potencialidades do desenvolvimento local e regional. Para tal, é essencial a criação de regras comuns e uma estreita coordenação para todos os fundos abrangidos pelo RDC (Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional, Fundo Social Europeu, Fundo de Coesão, Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural e Fundo Europeu para os Assuntos Marítimos e as Pescas). Além disso, a aplicação de estratégias a nível local deve ser da responsabilidade dos intervenientes locais e das autoridades, tendo por objetivo dar resposta às necessidades económicas e sociais, mantendo a proximidade com os cidadãos.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − No he podido votar a favor de este informe debido a que mantiene una perspectiva privatizadora y financiera de la política local. Pese a pretender algunas modificaciones de interés en el funcionamiento de las fuentes de financiación de los ayuntamientos, tales como la simplificación, y exigir que al menos se mantengan los actuales niveles de inversión del Fondo de Cohesión, el informe cae en la participación y cofinanciación privada de la política local. El informe apoya la visión de la Comisión de fomentar los consorcios con participación pública y privada para la prestación de servicios básicos y en el desarrollo de las diferentes políticas locales. Como en la agenda 2020 de la Comisión, el informe sugiere de nuevo la misma línea reaccionaria de implementar las políticas a través de consorcios con participación pública y privada. Por ello me he abstenido en la votación de este informe.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), par écrit. – Le développement territorial joue un rôle primordial dans la politique de cohésion pour favoriser la création de nouveaux emplois durables par les PME et pour mettre sur pied des programmes de formation professionnelle.

De plus, une meilleure coopération territoriale et une élaboration de stratégies macrorégionales mieux adaptées pourraient se révéler des outils efficaces pour pallier les disparités régionales, comme l'accès inégal à l'éducation et à l'emploi. Cependant, malgré de nombreux efforts de la part de l'Union européenne, ces disparités subsistent et creusent un fossé entre les régions.

Par conséquent, il est important de maintenir le budget pour la politique de cohésion à son niveau actuel après 2013, afin d'assurer un soutien continu aux régions dans le besoin d'une relance sociale et économique, et ce, sur tout le territoire de l'Union. Pour ce faire, il serait judicieux d'appliquer une approche entièrement intégrée aux instruments de mise en œuvre de projets, tels que les stratégies de développement local menées par les acteurs locaux, les investissements territoriaux intégrés et les plans d'action conjoints.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), písomne. − Územná rozmanitosť EU prináša mnohé výhody pre rozvoj Únie ako celku, pokiaľ sa nesie v duchu územnej súdržnosti, ktorá sa v Lisabonskej zmluve uznáva ako jeden zo základných cieľov EÚ. Musím však konštatovať, že napriek pokroku dosiahnutému v oblasti konvergencie, rozdiely medzi regiónmi EÚ pretrvávajú a dokonca sa prehlbujú. Regióny dnes viac ako kedykoľvek pred tým potrebujú investovať v reakcii na hospodársku krízu do ekonomického a sociálneho oživenia. Silná a dostatočne financovaná politika súdržnosti zostáva predpokladom hospodárskeho posilnenia Únie. Pripájam sa preto k výzve, aby rozpočet na politiku súdržnosti v budúcom viacročnom finančnom rámci bol zachovaný na minimálne súčasnej úrovni. Disponibilné zdroje, samozrejme, musia byť v súlade s princípom synergie efektívne prepojené so sektorovými politikami. Rozvoj spolupráce medzi mestskými a vidieckymi oblasťami povedie napríklad k vytváraniu integrovaných geografických celkov, ktoré budú komplexne reagovať na sociálne výzvy, ako napríklad nezamestnanosť, chudoba a sociálna vylúčenosť, ale aj na mnohé environmentálne výzvy. Rád by som vyzdvihol európske zoskupenie územnej spolupráce ako jeden z nástrojov, ktorý má vysoký potenciál zvýšiť efektívnosť územných stratégií viacerých regiónov a navyše prispieť k výmene najlepších postupov.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I believe that providing Member States and regional and local authorities with opportunities to use more than one European funding programme to support projects will improve the effectiveness of European funding, increase the levels of simplification and provide potential beneficiaries with easier access to funding. A more important role of regions and local authorities will in this way increase the effectiveness of Cohesion Policy. In favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. − Auf der einen Seite wird immer wieder die Bedeutung der regionalen Entwicklung betont und im Rahmen der Kohäsionspolitik auch finanziell gefördert. Immerhin lag der Anteil der EU-Regionalfondsmittel an den gesamten öffentlichen Investitionen in der Vergangenheit bei manchen Mitgliedsstaaten bei gut 50 Prozent. Zeitgleich werden indes die ländlichen Regionen immer mehr finanziell ausgehungert und nimmt die Benachteiligung im Infrastrukturbereich (Post, Bank, öffentliche Verkehrsmittel, Schulen, ärztliche Versorgung etc.) immer mehr zu. Es ist Zeit, dass dieses Ungleichgewicht ein Ende hat. Da dies im vorliegenden Bericht zu wenig zur Geltung kommt, habe ich dagegen gestimmt.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), raštu. − Pritariu šiandien priimtame dokumente išdėstytoms nuostatoms, jog turi būti numatyta didesnė fondų integracija ir nustatyti efektyviau veikiantys fondų integravimo mechanizmai. Dažnai tas pats projektas galėtų būti efektyviau įgyvendinamas, jį finansuojant iš kito fondo lėšų, tačiau pernelyg sudėtingi ir nelankstūs mechanizmai to neleidžia (Lietuvoje, deja, tai buvo vienas iš trukdžių lėmusių lėtą pastatų renovaciją). Taigi patiriamas dvigubas nuostolis: prarandamos lėšos ir neįgyvendinami projektai. Taigi sveikinu Parlamento poziciją reikalauti paprastesnių ir lankstesnių fondų integravimo mechanizmų.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), písomne. − Správa pána Vaughana sa zameriava na hľadanie efektívnych mechanizmov na vytváranie synergií medzi európskymi programami financovania, ktoré sú zahrnuté do spoločného strategického rámca Komisie. Integrácia realizácie programov financovania zvýši efektivitu európskeho financovania na miestnej a regionálnej úrovni. Balík pre politiku súdržnosti na roky 2014 – 2020, ktorý predložila Komisia v októbri minulého roka, zahrnuje spoločné ustanovenia pre všetkých päť fondov zahrnutých do nariadenia o spoločných ustanoveniach – Európsky fond regionálneho rozvoja, Európsky sociálny fond, Kohézny fond, Európsky poľnohospodársky fond pre rozvoj vidieka a Európsky fond pre námorné otázky a rybné hospodárstvo. Súhlasím so spravodajcom a tiež vítam nové nástroje na zlepšenie miestnej dimenzie kohéznej politiky. Táto aktualizácia bude schopná predstaviť lepšie koordinovaný prístup na všetkých úrovniach vlády. Tiež je potrebné vyzdvihnúť spoločné akčné plány, ktoré zabezpečia, aby sa skupiny projektov mohli financovať viacerými operačnými programami. Taktiež môžu účinne pomôcť pri dosahovaní vyváženej integrácie mladých ľudí do trhu práce.

  James Nicholson (ECR), in writing. − I welcome the adoption of the Vaughan Report and in particular the emphasis on the need to align funding programmes such as Horizon 2020 with cohesion funding. The pursuit of synergies which can maximise the return on the investments made from the EU budget is both worthwhile and long overdue. Furthermore I welcome the Commission’s Integrated Urban Development Plan and the agenda for community-led local development (CLLD). CLLD shares characteristics with the Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Renewal schemes, which have been a widely successful means of urban regeneration in Northern Ireland. I agree with this report’s assertion that it is essential that instruments are developed which will enable CLLD to become more than merely a strategic tool. Bottom-up participation in local communities is without doubt the best way to ensure the effectiveness of funding programmes and to prevent overlap between projects. In my constituency of Northern Ireland we are very aware of the unique needs of each community. Cohesion policy holds incredible potential to develop valuable projects tailored to the needs of individual communities, however in order to achieve this we must invest in the participation of local actors.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), na piśmie. − W artykule 174 Traktatu o Funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej czytamy: „W celu wspierania harmonijnego rozwoju całej Unii rozwija ona i prowadzi działania służące wzmocnieniu jej spójności gospodarczej, społecznej i terytorialnej.”. Wymieniona w tym artykule spójność terytorialna to efekt ostatniej nowelizacji traktatu, związanej z przyjęciem traktatu lizbońskiego. Spójność terytorialna wiąże się z koniecznością większego zaangażowania władz lokalnych i regionalnych na każdym etapie planowania, rozwoju i realizacji programów europejskich.

Sprawozdanie Dereka Vaughana zawiera również istotny postulat zapewnienia państwom członkowskim, władzom lokalnym i regionalnym możliwości korzystania z więcej niż jednego europejskiego programu finansowania. Jego realizacja powinna przyczynić się do zwiększenia efektywności funduszy europejskich, większych uproszczeń i zapewnienia potencjalnym beneficjentom łatwiejszego dostępu do finansowania. Jest to szczególnie istotne w najbliższych latach, w których polityka spójności będzie odgrywać istotną rolę w polityce antykryzysowej Unii Europejskiej. W tych uwarunkowaniach fundusze w ramach polityki spójności muszą zostać wykorzystane w sposób optymalny. Europy nie stać na marnotrawstwo lub przejadanie środków. Uwzględniając te okoliczności, zdecydowałem się poprzeć sprawozdanie posła Vaughana.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), kirjalikult. − Toetasin antud raportit, kuna selle eesmärk on uurida erinevaid tulemuslikke mehhanisme, et luua vastava strateegiaraamistikuga hõlmatud Euroopa rahastamisprogrammide koostoime. Pean oluliseks keskenduda ühtekuuluvuspoliitika mõõdetavatele tulemustele, et suurendada investeeringute jätkusuutlikkust ja tagada rahastamisprogrammide tõhusus. Fondide suurema positiivse mõju saavutamiseks on rahastamisprogrammide omavaheline kooskõlastamine ja lõimumine võtmetähtsusega. Samuti on oluline tõhustada läbi vastavate sidusrühmade koostöö maapiirkondade ja linnade vahelisi sidemeid, et suurendada piirkondade territoriaalset ühtekuuluvust.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pranešimą, kadangi tik užtikrinus visų teritorijų vystymosi pusiausvyrą bus pasiektas visos ES klestėjimas. Atkreiptinas dėmesys į tai, kad teritorinė sanglauda yra horizontali, apimanti daugybę sektorių. Taigi siekiant konvergencijos ES sanglaudos politikai skiriamas finansavimas turi išlikti stabilus. Taikant griežtesnį ir labiau integruotą teritorinį požiūrį būtina skatinti didesnę Europos fondų integraciją bei glaudesnį bendradarbiavimą. Manau, kad reikia sukurti paprastesnes ir aiškesnes bendras taisykles, kurios užtikrins fondų veiksmingumą bei sudarys palankesnes sąlygas platesniam finansinių priemonių naudojimui bei administracinės naštos mažinimui. Į sprendimų, susijusių su konkrečiais regionais ir vietovėmis, rengimą ir priėmimą turi būti įtrauktos ir vietos bendruomenės taip pat skatinamos partnerystės ir tinklai. Tik bendrų pastangų dėka įgyvendinus šias priemones bus sumažintas ES regionų teritorinis atotrūkis bei užkirstas kelias teritorinei izoliacijai ir užtikrintas vienodas ES regionų klestėjimas.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE), γραπτώς. – Η παρούσα έκθεση ιδίας πρωτοβουλίας περιλαμβάνει σημαντικά παραδείγματα και καλές πρακτικές που είναι επί του παρόντος σε ισχύ ή εξετάζονται για να εφαρμοστούν στις ευρωπαϊκές περιφέρειες με στόχο την ανάπτυξη και την δημιουργία εργασιακών ευκαιριών. Η εδαφική συνοχή έχει πλέον προστεθεί στην οικονομική και κοινωνική συνοχή ως στόχος της Συνθήκης (άρθρο 174) και, επομένως, επιβάλει την μεγαλύτερη κινητοποίηση των τοπικών φορέων και αρχών με στόχο να διασφαλιστεί ότι οι όποιες πολιτικές λαμβάνονται κοντά στον πολίτη και με άμεσα και απτά αποτελέσματα.

Προκειμένου να πραγματοποιηθεί αυτό, όμως, απαιτείται και η μεγαλύτερη εμπλοκή των τοπικών φορέων, η διαφάνεια των προγραμμάτων και η σαφήνεια των στόχων τους. Ειδικά για χώρες όπως η Ελλάδα, που κατά το παρελθόν είχαν αντιμετωπίσει προβλήματα στην απορρόφηση και στην αξιοποίηση πόρων από τα κοινοτικά ταμεία, η περαιτέρω ανάπτυξη και ο καλύτερος σχεδιασμός των προγραμμάτων εδαφικής ανάπτυξης, αλλά και των διαρθρωτικών ταμείων γενικότερα, για την νέα δημοσιονομική περίοδο (2014-2020) μπορεί να αποδειχθεί ιδιαίτερα ωφέλιμη. Προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση κινείται και η έκθεση την οποία και υπερψήφισα.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − O presente relatório apresenta a criação de um novo quadro legislativo para a política de coesão que estabelece a integração dos 5 fundos e a sua sinergia de modo a otimizar os futuros valores financeiros disponíveis. Considero ser possível e desejável fazer mais com menos, mas tal não significa que aceite a posição do Conselho no que se refere à diminuição de fundos para a coesão no orçamento da União, situação dramática para Regiões no objetivo como os Açores. Vivendo-se numa crise económica, financeira e social ímpar, há quem queira impor cortes no orçamento da União, pela primeira vez na história. É paradoxal e absurdo. É antes preciso reforçar e rentabilizar os fundos para a coesão porque também é possível e desejável com mais fazer melhor, e esta é uma opção necessária e urgente. De facto, há regiões e situações em que os fundos comunitários são utilizados para criar dependências que contribuem para a perpetuação do poder. Os fundos envolvem menos cidadãos do que os que podiam envolver e gastam-se em projetos não sustentáveis em vez de serem investidos em projetos rentáveis criadores de riqueza, emprego e dinamismo económico.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), por escrito. − A política de coesão territorial, económica e social constitui um objetivo fundamental da UE, que procura reduzir a disparidade entre os níveis de desenvolvimento das diversas regiões e o atraso das regiões mais desfavorecidas. A implementação de tais políticas obedece ao disposto no Regulamento sobre as Disposições Comuns (RDC), que define regras aplicáveis para cada um dos cinco programas europeus destinados ao respetivo financiamento. No esforço de implementação, a dimensão territorial, enquanto aspecto transversal da política de coesão, merece especial atenção. Para conseguir o desenvolvimento das zonas rurais afetadas pela transição industrial e as limitações naturais ou demográficas, é necessário reforçar as relações com as zonas urbanas, a fim de incentivar a participação nas atividades integradas das unidades em que se inserem e, consequentemente, atingir os objetivos de desenvolvimento. O relator defende que, proporcionar aos Estados-Membros o uso de vários programas de financiamento, de forma integrada, atribuindo responsabilidades de gestão a autoridades locais e regionais, gera maior capacidade para integrar a melhor combinação de fundos adaptada às necessidades territoriais. Pelo exposto e tendo em vista a simplificação dos instrumentos, por forma a permitir aos beneficiários um acesso mais fácil ao financiamento, votei favoravelmente o presente relatório.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. The community-led local development instrument and a specific reference to micro-credits in paragraph 43 on financial instruments were key points for our group that were introduced by way of amendments. With territorial cohesion added by the Treaty of Lisbon to economic and social cohesion as a Treaty objective under Article 174, there is an increasing need for a bottom-up approach in order to mobilise the potential of local and regional development. The overarching concern of this report is that, in order to achieve this, common rules and close coordination for all funds covered by the CPR is essential. The legislative package for cohesion policy 2014-2020 includes common provisions for all five funds covered by the CPR (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund). In addition, implementing strategies at local level should be the responsibility of local actors and authorities, with the aim of ensuring that economic and social needs are met at the level closest to the citizen.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση του κυρίου Vaughan καθώς θεωρώ ότι υφίστανται αποκλίσεις (π.χ. σχετικά με την προσβασιμότητα) μεταξύ των περιφερειών της ΕΕ που συνεχώς διευρύνονται λόγω των δύσκολών οικονομικών συνθηκών για πολλά κράτη-μέλη καθώς και των δημοσιονομικών περικοπών. Συμφωνώ, με τον εισηγητή, ότι ο προϋπολογισμός για την πολιτική συνοχής μετά το 2013 πρέπει να διατηρηθεί τουλάχιστον στα σημερινά του επίπεδα προκειμένου να διασφαλιστεί ότι η στήριξη εξακολουθεί να παρέχεται σε περιοχές που έχουν ανάγκη από οικονομική και κοινωνική αναζωογόνηση.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), per iscritto. − La coesione territoriale è attualmente riconosciuta dal trattato di Lisbona quale obiettivo fondamentale dell'UE; la politica di coesione mira invece a ridurre le disparità tra le regioni dell'UE rafforzando la coesione economica, sociale e territoriale. La dimensione territoriale costituisce un aspetto trasversale della politica di coesione e offre alle regioni dell'Unione la possibilità di sfruttare il loro potenziale territoriale per raggiungere gli obiettivi della politica di coesione. Nell'attuale clima economico che stiamo vivendo, è chiaro che i finanziamenti della politica di coesione stanno diventando sempre più importanti per le regioni dell'UE. Inoltre, diventa sempre più necessario garantire che le risorse vengano spese in modo efficiente così che i cittadini possano beneficiare pienamente dei finanziamenti dell'UE.

Il coinvolgimento degli enti locali e regionali in ogni fase della progettazione, dello sviluppo e dell'attuazione dei programmi di finanziamento dell'UE diventa determinante per assicurare una risposta ai fabbisogni locali. Inoltre la dimensione territoriale, quale aspetto trasversale della politica di coesione, dà alle regioni dell'UE l'opportunità di sfruttare il loro potenziale territoriale nella persecuzione degli obiettivi della politica di coesione. Occorre pertanto in sintesi, un contributo fattivo ed una politica di coesione efficiente ed efficace in tal senso

  Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την συγκεκριμένη έκθεση που καταδεικνύει τη σημασία του ρόλου της εδαφικής ανάπτυξης στο πλαίσιο της Πολιτικής Συνοχής. Για τον σκοπό αυτό είναι απαραίτητοι οι κοινοί κανόνες και η στενή συνεργασία και για τα πέντε ταμεία του γενικού κανονισμού. Επίσης, η εφαρμογή στρατηγικών σε τοπικό επίπεδο θα πρέπει να αποτελεί ευθύνη των τοπικών φορέων και αρχών, με στόχο τη διασφάλιση ότι οι οικονομικές και κοινωνικές ανάγκες ικανοποιούνται στο επίπεδο που βρίσκεται πλησιέστερα προς τον πολίτη.

Επιπλέον, συμφωνώ με τον εισηγητή, ο όποιος υποστηρίζει ότι η παροχή ευκαιριών στα Κράτη Μέλη, τις περιφερειακές και τις τοπικές αρχές για να χρησιμοποιήσουν περισσότερα από ένα ευρωπαϊκά προγράμματα χρηματοδότησης για την υποστήριξη των έργων, θα βελτιώσει την αποτελεσματικότητα της ευρωπαϊκής χρηματοδότησης, θα ενισχύσει την απλοποίηση και θα παρέχει στους δυνητικούς δικαιούχους ευκολότερη πρόσβαση στη χρηματοδότηση.

Ως εκ τούτου, τα νέα μέσα που εισήχθησαν για την ενίσχυση της τοπικής διάστασης της Πολιτικής Συνοχής, για την αύξηση της στρατηγικής εστίασης της εδαφικής συνεργασίας και την εισαγωγή μιας πιο συντονισμένης προσέγγισης σε όλα τα επίπεδα της διακυβέρνησης κρίνονται ως μείζονος σημασίας.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport d'initiative de mon collègue Derek Vaughan. En effet, son rapport se concentre sur la recherche de mécanismes efficaces pour créer des synergies entre les programmes de financement de l'Union visés par le Cadre stratégique commun de la Commission.

Il me paraît évident que la complémentarité entre les programmes de financement permettra d'améliorer l'efficacité du financement de l'Union aux niveaux local et régional. Ce document présente ainsi des exemples de mécanismes actuellement en place, ou dont la mise en œuvre est prévue, dans les régions de l'Union.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − O presente documento da Comissão do Desenvolvimento Regional, da qual sou Membro, pretende explorar mecanismos eficazes e eficientes que visem criar sinergias entre os programas europeus de financiamento abrangidos pelo futuro quadro estratégico comum. Uma melhor integração da execução dos programas de financiamento permitirá reforçar a eficácia dos financiamentos europeus a nível local e regional. Além disso, após a entrada em vigor do Tratado de Lisboa, a coesão territorial constitui um objetivo do Tratado ao abrigo do artigo 174.º TFUE, juntamente com a coesão económica e social. Assim, existe a necessidade crescente de uma abordagem no sentido ascendente com vista à mobilização das potencialidades do desenvolvimento local e regional. Para tal, concordo que é essencial a criação de regras comuns e uma estreita coordenação para todos os fundos contemplados no quadro estratégico comum. Pelas razões apresentadas, votei a favor do documento.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru propunerea de rezoluţie referitoare la optimizarea rolului dezvoltării teritoriale în cadrul politicii de coeziune. Politica de coeziune vizează reducerea inegalităţilor dintre regiunile Uniunii prin consolidarea coeziunii economice, sociale şi teritoriale. Deşi s-au făcut progrese semnificative în vederea convergenţei între regiunile Uniunii, există în continuare inegalităţi între acestea. Solicităm ca, în perioada 2014-2020, bugetul aferent politicii de coeziune să fie cel puţin la nivelul celui din perioada financiară actuală. Consider că strategiile de cooperare teritorială şi cele macroregionale pot fi instrumente utile în ceea ce priveşte identificarea şi combaterea inegalităţilor regionale, precum şi pentru promovarea convergenţei dintre regiunile europene. De aceea, solicit ca, în perioada 2014-2020, strategia UE pentru regiunea Dunării să deţină o linie bugetară dedicată. Susţin ca stabilirea obiectivelor locale şi regionale să se facă cu implicarea părţilor interesate de la nivel local şi regional în toate etapele, pentru a se asigura faptul că programele de finanţare europene satisfac nevoia de a combate inegalităţile sociale şi economice. De asemenea, susţin propunerile privind crearea unui cadru de reglementare concentrat pe dezvoltarea locală şi integrată, prin intermediul „dezvoltării locale gestionate de comunităţi”, al „planurilor de acţiune comune” şi al „investiţiilor teritoriale integrate”.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − In the midst of the economic turmoil it is of the great importance to optimise the public resources that we have. Hence, to achieve the goals we have agreed upon it is necessary to invest our resources where they can provide the best possible outcome. Greater integration of the funds and their coordination will surely make them more efficient and help to achieve what the citizens expect. Reducing red tape as much as possible is also crucial.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR), písemně. − V této zprávě jsem uvítal důraz na subsidiaritu. Podobně jako zpravodaj jsem přesvědčen, že s ohledem na různou velikost sídel a na ekonomické a administrativní zdroje v každém členském státě není žádoucí teritoriální soudržnost normovat. Teritoriální soudržnost vyžaduje flexibilitu tak, aby obsahový, organizační i finanční rozměr odpovídal potřebám regionálních i místních samospráv v jednotlivých členských státech. Po zralé úvaze jsem uvítal subregionální a flexibilní zaměření této zprávy s tím, že jsem přesvědčen, že nabízí pozitivní příspěvek k právě probíhající diskusi o budoucí legislativní podobě strukturálních fondů po roce 2013. Proto jsem tuto zprávu podpořil.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), par écrit. – Dans la continuité des révisions des politiques européennes pour le budget 2014-2020, j'ai voté en faveur de ce texte qui souligne le rôle du développement territorial dans la mise en œuvre de la politique de cohésion, emblématique de l'Union. Historiquement destinée à réduire les disparités entre les régions, la politique de cohésion a partiellement atteint ses objectifs, mais doit aujourd'hui évoluer, surtout dans ses modalités. La première priorité, que je partage, est d'adapter les fonds européens aux spécificités et besoins locaux. Pour cela, il faut renforcer la concertation et l'interaction entre les échelons publics et avec les acteurs privés. C'est essentiel pour garantir que les fonds soutiennent des projets de développement territorial utiles et viables, vecteurs de croissance et de cohésion économique et sociale. L'autre priorité est de réduire la charge administrative et d'améliorer la visibilité des fonds. Trop souvent, les porteurs de projet ignorent les cofinancements européens disponibles ou sont découragés par leur complexité. Cette amélioration de la politique de cohésion doit désormais se traduire dans les faits, car elle est une vitrine de ce que l'Union peut faire dans le quotidien, pour les citoyens européens. C'est un de nos plus beaux acquis, adaptons-le aux nouveaux enjeux.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − Cohesion policy is an effective ‘promoting instrument’ when it comes to economic and social development. The territorial cohesion objectives are focused and linked to growth strategies in fields like employment, education and poverty reduction generally within the EU. Promoting and sustaining different forms of cohesion policy’s funding programmes implies a significant contribution to the development of big, small and medium-sized regions by using their own potential and individual strengths. There is a need for economic and social regeneration at EU level and decisions have to be made in favour of the citizens. The future funding framework of financial instruments for development has to be sustained and this is why I voted in favour of the report.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), schriftlich. − Ich begrüße den Bericht sehr, da hier noch einmal deutlich gemacht wird, wie wichtig es in der Regionalpolitik ist, die Interessenträger auf der regionalen und lokalen Ebene mit in die Planungen einzubeziehen. Das Geld, welches die EU und unsere Regionen in die Projekte stecken, ist nur dann gut investiert, wenn es nicht an den Bedürfnissen der Bürger vorbeiläuft. Je stärker die lokalen gesellschaftlichen, wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Interessensvertreter wie beispielsweise die Kirchen sowie die Kommunen in die Planungen der operationellen Programme mit eingebunden werden, desto höher ist die Chance, dass das Geld auch wirklich sinnvoll eingesetzt wird. Auch sind die Bedürfnisse von Region zu Region, ja auch innerhalb der Regionen, so unterschiedlich, dass die Ziele nicht für alle dieselben sein können. Hier muss ein angemessener Spielraum für die Akteure vorhanden sein. Die Arbeit auf Seiten des Parlaments im Rahmen der neuen Verordnungen für die Förderperiode 2014-2020 war dazu recht zufriedenstellend. Ich hoffe, dass dies in den Verhandlungen mit dem Rat und der EU-Kommission auch zu einem guten Ergebnis geführt werden kann. Ich teile ebenfalls die Ansicht des Kollegen zum Potential der Finanzinstrumente sowie der Synergieeffekte durch Verknüpfung der Förderprogramme in FuE mit der Kohäsionspolitik.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), na piśmie. − Polityka spójności to jeden z najważniejszych celów realizowanych przez Unię Europejską. Głównym założeniem wspomnianej polityki jest wspieranie działań, które prowadzą do wyrównania warunków społeczno-ekonomicznych we wszystkich państwach Wspólnoty. Szczególny nacisk kładziony jest na zmniejszenie różnic na poziomie regionów oraz likwidację zacofania najmniej uprzywilejowanych obszarów, w tym także obszarów wiejskich. Podstawowymi narzędziami realizacji polityki spójności są programy operacyjne w formie dotacji dla regionów w Unii Europejskiej.

W obecnej, nie najlepszej sytuacji gospodarczej polityka spójności realizowana w przyszłej perspektywie finansowej może stanowić panaceum na dzisiejszy kryzys. Jednakże niezwykle ważną kwestią, o której wspomniał sprawozdawca, jest uproszczenie i zastosowanie podejścia bardziej zorientowanego na konkretne rezultaty. Dodatkowym czynnikiem poprawy sytuacji w poszczególnych regionach może być również zapewnienie beneficjentom możliwości korzystania z więcej niż jednego europejskiego programu. Myślę, że takie działania w zbliżającej się perspektywie 2014-2020 będą skutecznie przyczyniać się do zmniejszania dysproporcji gospodarczych i społecznych pomiędzy poszczególnymi regionami.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), na piśmie. − Polityka spójności to najważniejsze narzędzie w walce Unii Europejskiej z kryzysem. Jest to narzędzie proinnowacyjne, prospołeczne i silnie wspierające inwestycje oraz rozwój gospodarczy. Dlatego tak ważne jest jej dalsze kontynuowanie oraz poszerzanie, cele te mogą być spełnione jedynie poprzez rozwinięcie jej finansowania w nowej perspektywie na lata 2014-2020.

Głosowane dziś sprawozdanie bardzo dobrze oddaje rozwojowy charakter polityki spójności, szczególnie w kontekście strategii Europa 2020. Niestety nie obejmuje w swojej treści wszystkich barier uniemożliwiających pełne wykorzystanie jego potencjału. Taką barierą są na pewno zbyt wysokie limity współfinansowania inwestycji z budżetu kraju członkowskiego lub inwestora. W nowej perspektywie problem ten powinien zostać rozwiązany. Pozwoli to na większe zaangażowanie środków w rozbudowę potencjału produkcyjnego oraz uwolnienie środków na tak potrzebne Europie inwestycje. Ich zwiększenie jest najważniejszą ścieżką do osiągnięcia większej spójności terytorialnej i pokonania nierówności dręczących Europę od początku jej powojennego podziału na dwie strefy.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este relatório de iniciativa propõe o reforço do objetivo territorial da política de coesão, maior integração dos fundos europeus no QFP 2014-2020 e mecanismos para a integração dos Fundos Estruturais e para a criação de sinergias entre os 5 fundos europeus (FEDER, FSE, Fundo de Coesão, FEADER e FEAMP) abrangidos no âmbito do Regulamento sobre as disposições comuns. Infelizmente, são vários os aspectos negativos deste relatório. Merece destaque o facto de, num momento em que a maioria do Parlamento diz defender, mais do que nunca, a "solidariedade", o relatório aceitar a chantagem dos que querem diminuir as verbas para a coesão ou, na melhor das hipóteses, mantê-las aos atuais níveis de indigência, desfiando em seguida os habituais argumentos da maior eficácia, das sinergias, dos instrumentos inovadores, iludindo, enfim, o essencial: sem um aumento substancial do orçamento, não será possível efetivar o tão propalado princípio da coesão, ainda para mais num contexto de aprofundamento da integração capitalista (mercado único, políticas comuns) e dos seus inevitáveis efeitos no incremento das desigualdades e da divergência. Rejeitamos ainda a chantagem da "condicionalidade macroeconómica", princípio que nada tem de "solidário".

10.3. Europos solidarumo fondas, įgyvendinimas ir taikymas (A7-0398/2012 - Rosa Estaràs Ferragut)

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, nel 2002, dopo le devastanti alluvioni verificatesi nell'Europa centrale, l'Unione europea ha varato il Fondo di solidarietà per aiutare le popolazioni colpite e gli Stati membri vittima di una catastrofe.

Nel corso di questi 10 anni il fondo ha fornito preziosi aiuti finanziari ma anche evidenziato alcune lacune: per esempio, l'attuale formulazione del regolamento risulta infatti ambigua e molto spesso ha suscitato false speranze nei cittadini degli Stati membri richiedenti.

Data la necessità di adeguare il fondo di solidarietà alla realtà attuale, accolgo con favore quelle modifiche che, senza comportare costi aggiuntivi, possono semplificare le procedure, definendo con maggior chiarezza il concetto di catastrofe e delineando in modo più preciso quando si ha diritto a beneficiare di tale strumento.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). - Signor Presidente, mi faccia manifestare intanto lo stupore nel sentire provenire dai banchi dei nazionalisti inglesi affermazioni circa la spesa pubblica dell'Unione europea, quando per stare in Europa si invoca lo sconto, il rebate, e viceversa si chiede l'applicazione dei pieni diritti.

Ritornando al Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea, più volte in quest'Aula abbiamo purtroppo assistito alle dichiarazioni di solidarietà e di testimonianza per i gravi danni che eventi atmosferici e situazioni imprevedibili hanno portato alle nostre popolazioni. Credo che il Fondo di solidarietà abbia dimostrato di essere uno degli strumenti di maggiore efficacia per le politiche di integrazione dell'Europa, essendo uno dei pochi strumenti che l'Unione europea ha a disposizione per testimoniare, dimostrare direttamente solidarietà e vicinanza ai cittadini europei.

L'attuale formulazione del regolamento, tuttavia, necessitava di alcune modifiche, sia per abbreviare i tempi per la concessione di aiuti, sia per dare un chiarimento alla definizione di catastrofe stessa, che attualmente risultava ambigua e pertanto suscitava – come diceva anche la collega Zanicchi – delle aspettative non dovute. Come parlamentari è da auspicare e accogliere positivamente l'accoglimento delle richieste per trovare un accordo almeno su questi due punti – mi rivolgo al Consiglio e alla Commissione – che scioglierebbero diversi nodi dal punto di vista procedurale nell'attuazione del Fondo di solidarietà.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - În ultimii zece ani, Fondul de Solidaritate a fost unul dintre instrumentele de succes ale Uniunii, dar el trebuie readaptat, pentru a oferi soluţii noi şi rapide problemelor, uneori foarte grave, cu care se confruntă cetăţenii europeni. De aceea, cer Comisiei să fie mai clară şi transparentă în stabilirea sferei de aplicare a Fondului de Solidaritate şi în definirea clară, simplă şi precisă a ceea ce înseamnă catastrofe şi a condiţiilor de eligibilitate ale acestora la nivel regional, pentru accesarea fondului.

Nu trebuie să existe loc de interpretări, claritatea este condiţia folosirii acestui fond în mod transparent, în mod echitabil şi într-un mod în care poate fi controlat. Astfel, se vor elimina incertitudinile juridice şi speculaţiile cu privire la criteriile de admisibilitate, care au generat, în unele cazuri, atitudini negative în rândul cetăţenilor, aceştia considerând că problemele lor nu s-a dorit a fi soluţionate de către Uniune.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Slovensko požiadalo o pomoc z Fondu solidarity zatiaľ dvakrát. V prvom prípade išlo o likvidáciu následkov veternej smršti vo Vysokých Tatrách, ktorá napáchala obrovské škody na území chráneného prírodného parku. Druhýkrát išlo o spoločnú žiadosť viacerých krajín v súvislosti so záplavami v roku 2010.

Aj na základe tejto skúsenosti sa pripájam k názoru, že podmienky na aktiváciu Fondu solidarity je potrebné revidovať. Účinnosť pomoci priamo závisí od schopnosti reagovať rýchlo, jednoznačne a adresne. Túto lekciu sa Európa naučila pri poskytovaní humanitárnej pomoci v krízových oblastiach sveta a bolo by dobré, keby sme ju aplikovali aj u nás doma.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I am delighted to be able to defy the stereotype on this one, and confirm that my delegation voted for this report on the European Solidarity Fund. On many occasions in this Chamber we have heard about the difficulties with administration and we have heard about the difficulties with allocation, and it seems that there is a general desire to reform, rather than abolish, the Fund.

We welcome the acknowledgement that in these challenging economic times there is no sustainable argument for increasing the budget line allocated to the Fund. Rather, the report concentrates on improving the functioning of the Fund and particularly on the issues of speed and simplicity and getting the money to where it is needed as quickly as possible and with as little loss through administration as possible. I have particular experience of this, representing the only region in the UK that has ever received Solidarity Funds – in 2007 – when we had some very bad flooding. I can confirm that those funds arrived almost two years after the event and they were simply used for paying back money which had already been advanced by the UK Government. I do not feel that was actually how the Fund was structured.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the report on the EU Solidarity Fund dealing with assistance to Member States following national disasters, acknowledges that austerity across the Union precludes an increase in the budget line allocated to the Fund and this aspect I particularly welcome. So I also welcome the Commission’s recent decisions that changes in the Solidarity Fund will not impose any additional financial burden on both the Member States and the EU’s budget.

How best can the Fund do its job? Although various Member States have in recent years benefited from the Fund, the report rightly criticises the legal and practical difficulties of accessing the Fund. The demand for access to this Fund requires the Commission to simplify procedures in order to prevent further delays. The time taken is unacceptably long and greater flexibility is now needed.

However, the Solidarity Fund does provide added value and has played a valuable role in rebuilding damaged infrastructure in affected territories such as Italy – the country you come from Mr President – after the earthquake.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE). - Signor Presidente, come giustamente ha ricordato il collega Tannock che mi ha preceduto, l'Italia ha goduto recentemente di questo Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea a seguito del terribile terremoto che ha coinvolto tre regioni, specialmente l'Emilia Romagna ma anche la Lombardia e il mio Veneto.

Sicuramente siamo parlando di uno strumento tra i più efficaci e concreti per realizzare lo spirito di solidarietà e vicinanza ai cittadini colpiti da catastrofi, sia che si tratti di catastrofi naturali o provocate dall'uomo. Abbiamo bisogno di questi cambiamenti; abbiamo bisogno di procedure più snelle e più trasparenti; abbiamo bisogno soprattutto che i cittadini sentano la vicinanza dell'Europa che, purtroppo, troppo spesso è invece avvertita come un'entità incapace di venire incontro ai bisogni e alle esigenze concrete dei cittadini.

Ho votato con convinzione con la mia famiglia politica a favore di questo documento e mi auguro che potremo accogliere nello stesso modo e continuare a lavorare su tale principio quando arriverà a breve in Aula la mia relazione "Potenziare la reazione europea alle catastrofi: il ruolo della Protezione Civile e dell'assistenza umanitaria".

  Monika Smolková (S&D). - Je pozitívne, že už desať rokov sa úspešne uplatňuje zásada solidarity prostredníctvom Fondu solidarity.

Každý z nás vo svojej vlasti zažil stav, keď prírodné katastrofy zasiahli rozsiahle územia a pocity bezmocnosti ľudí žijúcich v postihnutých oblastiach sa nedajú ani opísať. Po zničujúcich požiaroch, zemetraseniach či povodniach ľudia očakávajú pomoc. Rýchlosť pomoci je v takýchto ťaživých situáciách pre ľudí najdôležitejšia.

Preto podporujem názor Komisie, že je potrebné urobiť fond účinnejším skrátením času, ktorý uplynie od momentu katastrofy do chvíle poskytnutia pomoci. Tiež je potrebné odstrániť zložitú administratívu a určiť jasné kritériá pre poskytovanie prostriedkov z Fondu solidarity.

Nástroj Fondu solidarity by aj v budúcnosti mal zostať mimo rozpočtu Únie, pretože prírodné katastrofy nemožno dopredu predvídať, a malo by sa tiež uvažovať o možnosti vyplácania záloh pre najviac postihnuté regióny.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, like many others, I was pleased to support this report. There is an old saying which says that ‘a friend in need is a friend indeed’. In this regard, I think that the Solidarity Fund has shown that the European Union can be seen as a friend to citizens in their time of need.

I saw that in my own constituency last year when, after serious flooding, particularly in Cork, solidarity funds were made available to redevelop infrastructure, etc. There were two aspects to this: the first was obviously the financial aid, which was very welcome. But also, psychologically, it made a statement that the European Union did care about its citizens, particularly in their time of need.

There are proposals here to reform the Solidarity Fund. I welcome those, particularly in relation to defining disasters, reducing the time for aid – which Ms Girling referred to earlier on – and placing emphasis on disaster prevention activities. We can do all those and continue to aid our citizens in their time of need.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, when we look at the number of funds which are available – the Cohesion Funds, the Globalisation Funds and other funds – there is quite clearly a level of scepticism in my country about these funds just being viewed as taking hard-working taxpayers’ money away to be spent elsewhere. However, I have to say in the case of the Solidarity Fund, there is some understanding of the need for such a fund because, of course, when there is a natural disaster or people are suffering it is quite right that other countries, neighbouring countries, seek to help those neighbours in a time of need by showing true solidarity.

I welcome the fact that, with some of the other reforms proposed for the Solidarity Fund, we are looking at proper reform; we are not looking to increase the budget line and we are making sure that it really is used for those cases when it needs to be used. If only we could apply the same principles to some of the other funds that we have discussed today and at other times. If only we applied the same principles to those funds to make sure that we are only spending taxpayers’ money where it is really needed – and not for political purposes, but to help those most in need – then perhaps some of those other funds would get the support of the British Conservatives, as happened today.

  Mojca Kleva Kekuš (S&D). - Taka poročila potrebujemo.

Maja letos so potresi prizadeli severno Italijo, pri sanaciji groznih posledic je na pomoč pristopila tudi Evropska unija. Nekaj mesecev kasneje je narava na grozovit način pokazala svojo moč tudi v moji državi, v Sloveniji.

Velik del Slovenije so prizadele hude poplave, ki so povzročile ogromno škode v kmetijstvu, na stanovanjskih objektih, v gospodarstvu in na prometni infrastrukturi.

Brez vprašanja tudi Slovenci danes verjamejo in pričakujejo evropsko solidarnost in evropsko pomoč.

Evropski solidarnostni sklad predstavlja glavni instrument za evropsko izvajanje načela solidarnosti v primerih katastrofalnih dogodkov in podpora k izboljšani mobilizaciji tega sklada je brez vprašanja nujno potrebna v naslednjih sedmih letih.

Potrebno pa je narediti še nekaj več, predvsem, kar je v moči Evropskega parlamenta, in to je ukrepati pri oklestitvi birokratskih ovir in administrativnih preprek, ki jih ima tak sklad, ko se prijavljaš za solidarnostno pomoč, ker takrat so pač težki trenutki in je vsaka administrativna ovira odveč.

Dichiarazioni di voto scritte

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente Relatório, considerando que o Fundo de Solidariedade Europeu é o principal instrumento da União Europeia para implementar o princípio de solidariedade, plasmado não só nos Tratados para casos de catástrofe, mas também, e, mais importante do que tudo, enraizado nos valores fundamentais criadores da União Europeia: a solidariedade entre os povos europeus. Por seu turno, sou a favor de apoiar qualquer medida que minimize a burocracia e impeça uma mobilização eficaz e flexível deste importante fundo, principalmente em casos de catástrofe, para que este fundo fique imediatamente disponível. A solidariedade da União Europeia para com os seus Estados-Membros, e acima de tudo para com os seus cidadãos, nunca deve ser colocada em causa, sendo este o princípio e o valor que deve ser aplicado em concreto na realidade, pois sem expressão concreta deste valor não existe uma real União Europeia.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), per iscritto. − Condivido le raccomandazioni della mia collega Estaràs Ferragut sulla necessità di modificare l'attuale regolamento del Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea, migliorando l'efficacia e la rapidità delle procedure amministrative previste per la sua mobilitazione, introducendo la possibilità di effettuare pagamenti anticipati per velocizzare l'erogazione degli aiuti, soprattutto in caso di calamità cosiddette di "lenta evoluzione". L'Italia ha subito quest'anno due "catastrofi regionali straordinarie": esondazioni nella Regione Toscana ed terremoto in Emilia-Romagna, con gravi ripercussioni in termini economici. A tal proposito ritengo, come richiesto anche dalla relatrice, che il Fondo copra anche i "danni collaterali" provocati da questi eventi al tessuto socioeconomico, come ad esempio alle PMI. Spero vivamente che vengano presto chiariti i criteri di accesso agli aiuti.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport concernant le Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne (FSUE). Celui-ci a été créé en réponse aux grandes inondations ayant touché l'Europe centrale lors de l'été 2002. À ce jour, 23 pays européens en ont bénéficié pour un montant de plus de 3,2 milliards d'euros. Ce rapport vise à améliorer ce fonds de solidarité, sans entraîner de charge financière supplémentaire pour le budget européen ou celui des Etats membres. Le principe en vertu duquel l'auteur des dommages est le payeur est par ailleurs maintenu.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pasiūlymą dėl Solidarumo fondo reglamento suderinimo, supaprastinant finansavimo procedūras, pateikiant aiškesnes, tikslesnes ir skaidresnes apibrėžtis. Iš Solidarumo fondo, vienos iš geriausiai veikiančių ir teigiamiausiai vertinamų ES priemonių, parama skiriama vykdant skubias nuo nelaimės nukentėjusių žmonių gelbėjimo operacijas ir palengvinant naštą, su kuria nelaimės atveju susiduria valstybės narės. Dabartinė fondo lėšų mobilizavimo trukmė ilga, administracinės procedūros pernelyg užsitęsia, todėl pailgėja laikas, kol nukentėjusioms valstybėms narėms suteikiama pagalba, o dėl to dažnai nepasiekiama lauktų rezultatų. Solidarumo fondas turi būti lankstesnis, veiksmingesnis ir labiau matomas, todėl pritariu čia išdėstytiems siūlymams aiškiau apibrėžti fondo taikymo apimtį ir sritį, pašalinti bet kokį galimą teisinį netikrumą. Dauguma administracinių problemų susijusios su paraiškomis dėl išimtinės regioninių nelaimių kategorijos, todėl labai svarbu aiškiau apibrėžti kriterijus fondo paramai gauti kilus vadinamajai mažesnio masto nelaimei. Nelaimių prevencija yra paprasčiausias ir pigiausias būdas sumažinti pažeidžiamumą įvykus nelaimei, todėl pritariu raginimui ES regionams aktyviau naudotis įvairiomis nelaimių prevencijos finansavimo galimybėmis.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului deoarece consider că implementarea Fondului de Solidaritate trebuie îmbunătătită. În primul rând este nevoie de o accelerare a procedurilor de acordare a sumelor pentru fiecare stat lovit de o catastrofă. De asemenea, ar fi utilă o definitie mai flexibilă a catastrofelor care fac eligibil un stat pentru primirea de ajutor din acest Fond. În actualul context economic multe state membre ar avea dificultăti să mobilizeze sume importante de bani în eventualitatea unor catastrofe naturale. De aceea, sustin ideea raportoarei de introducere a unor avansuri care să fie plătite imediat după depunerea cererii de către statul membru. În acest fel s-ar simplifica foarte mult procedura actuală, iar interventiile pentru îndepărtarea efectelor unor catastrofe ar fi mult mai eficiente.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − Após as inundações devastadoras na Europa central em 2002, a União Europeia (UE) criou o Fundo de Solidariedade da UE que prestou ajuda financeira para fazer face aos danos causados por 49 catástrofes, principalmente inundações e incêndios. O Fundo de Solidariedade provou ser um dos instrumentos da União Europeia com mais sucesso e mais apreciados, sendo um dos poucos ao dispor da UE para demonstrar a sua solidariedade e proximidade com os cidadãos. Todavia, passado este tempo, deveremos proceder a uma simplificação de procedimentos bem como tornar as definições mais claras, precisas e transparentes. Se o fundo atua satisfatoriamente no caso de grandes catástrofes, o mesmo não acontece no caso de catástrofes de menor dimensão. Por isso, é necessário definir de forma clara e precisa o conceito de catástrofe bem como o acesso ao fundo no caso de “pequenas” catástrofes. Sendo impossível antecipar em que medida será utilizado ao longo do ano, este instrumento deverá permanecer fora do orçamento da UE e o mesmo deverá continuar a intervir em circunstâncias excecionais, mesmo no caso de a catástrofe não alcançar o limiar de elegibilidade. Por considerar importantes os objetivos do Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia, votei favoravelmente o presente relatório.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), na piśmie. − W okresie dziesięciu lat funkcjonowania Fundusz Solidarności zapewnił pomoc finansową w zwalczaniu skutków aż czterdziestu dziewięciu klęsk żywiołowych. Jest to więc istotny mechanizm wsparcia obywateli w sytuacji kryzysowej. W ostatnim czasie jednak liczba wniosków o środki z Funduszu systematycznie rośnie. Reforma mająca na celu uproszczenie oraz przejrzystość zapisów dotyczących warunków uzyskania pomocy w oparciu o nabyte doświadczenia powinna uwzględniać zwiększenie efektywności samego Funduszu. Na pewno warte uwagi są propozycje zredukowania procedur administracyjnych, co w sposób wydatny przyczyni się do skrócenia czasu reakcji w wypadku klęski żywiołowej. Należy zwrócić uwagę, że większość składanych wniosków dotyczyła klęsk o zasięgu regionalnym, z których znaczna ilość została odrzucona. Istotne zatem wydaje się doprecyzowanie zasad udzielania pomocy poszczególnym regionom, przy uwzględnieniu stopnia ich zamożności. Mając nadzieję na usprawnienie działania Funduszu, popieram sprawozdanie.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore della relazione dell'on. collega Ferragut. A due anni dalla terribile alluvione che ha colpito il Veneto, il Parlamento prende finalmente in considerazione i miei appelli e le battaglia combattute per portare all'attenzione della Commissione l'urgenza di una modifica del funzionamento del Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea (FSUE). Un aiuto che arriva in ritardo è un aiuto che può perdere la sua utilità.

Il Veneto ha atteso un anno per ricevere i fondi stanziati da Bruxelles, mentre quelli destinati alle zone terremotate dell'Emilia hanno rischiato, addirittura, di essere bloccati. Le regole della solidarietà in Europa e del suo strumento finanziario vanno riscritte: è necessario semplificare le procedure di mobilitazione dell'FSUE, renderlo indipendente dal bilancio comunitario ma, soprattutto, deve essere introdotto il meccanismo dell'anticipo, per dare un immediato sollievo alle popolazioni colpite da una grave calamità naturale.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi Europos Sąjunga jau nuo 2002 m., siekdama adekvačiai reaguoti į stichinių nelaimių sukeltus padarinius, įsteigė ES solidarumo fondą. Verta pažymėti, jog nuo tada, kai šis fondas buvo įkurtas iki pat 2012 m. rugsėjo, iš jo buvo suteikta finansinė pagalba 49-ių nelaimių (daugiausia gaisrų ir potvynių) sukeltai žalai atlyginti. Akivaizdu, jog šis solidarumo fondas yra svarbi priemonė, gelbėjanti daugelį valstybių ir jos gyventojų, ištikus didelio masto nelaimei. Tačiau pastaruoju metu buvo fondo veikla susilaukė vis daugiau dėmesio ir kritikos iš daugelio valstybių narių. Galbūt todėl, jog pastaraisiais metais į Europos Komisiją kreipėsi vis daugiau prašytojų – iš dalies dėl to, kad įvyko daugiau nelaimių, ir iš dalies dėl to, kad dabartinės taisyklės nepakankamai aiškios, t.y. reglamente pateikta šio tipo nelaimių formuluotė dviprasmiška. Pavyzdžiui, nėra aiškiai apibrėžta kokia nelaimė atitinka keliamus reikalavimus, norint gauti pagalbą, kai paraiškos teikiamos pagal išimtines neeilinėms regioninėms nelaimėms taikomas taisykles. Norint išvengti tolimesnio šalių nepasitenkinimo, būtina aiškiai ir tiksliai apibrėžti nelaimės sampratą, nustatant bendruosius sukeltos žalos dydžio įvertinimo kriterijus ir nustatyti ribas, kurios būtų pritaikytos atsižvelgiant į atitinkamą teritorinį lygmenį.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), per iscritto. − Il FSUE rappresenta uno dei principali strumenti di applicazione del principio di solidarietà europea; questa iniziativa appare quanto mai tempestiva a fronte delle tensioni che segnano la costruzione europea, per esempio nella risposta alla crisi economica, e che rischiano di alimentare sfiducia e diffidenza tra i nostri concittadini. Anche con ambizioni limitate, una revisione della disciplina potrebbe essere utile a garantire una risposta pronta delle istituzioni, per mettere al riparo i governi da infondate quanto ricorrenti iniziative dettate da opportunismo politico, e per rafforzare il concetto di cittadinanza europea attraverso un’erogazione pronta, anche attraverso il ricorso all’anticipo sub condicione, che si traduca in attività concrete a favore delle popolazioni colpite. Dobbiamo muovere dai due dati accertati, ovvero che i due terzi delle richieste avanzate a titolo di catastrofe regionale straordinaria sono stati respinti, e che il cap del 1,5% del PIL regionale non sarebbe adeguato a filtrare o a stabilire priorità. Nell’esprimere un voto favorevole alla relazione, aderisco alla richiesta che l’applicazione includa aspetti di declaratoria legalmente impegnativa che, pur tenendo conto della relativa imprevedibilità delle catastrofi, possono tuttavia muovere da una vasta casistica di eventi, debitamente analizzati in dieci anni di attività.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Utworzony w 2002 r. w celu finansowego wsparcia państw dotkniętych poważnymi klęskami żywiołowymi Fundusz Solidarności UE jest ważnym instrumentem pomocy państwom członkowskim w sytuacjach kryzysowych. Fundusz ten zasługuje na uznanie. Służy on okazaniu solidarności z ludnością zamieszkującą regiony dotknięte poważnymi klęskami, a także przekazaniu konkretnej pomocy finansowej i niezbędnego wsparcia w tak trudnym okresie, jak to miało miejsce np. w przypadku Republiki Włoskiej dotkniętej trzęsieniem ziemi w maju

2012 r.

Jednakże zmieniające się okoliczności, m.in. kryzys finansowy, a także analiza dotychczasowej działalności funduszu wymagają wprowadzenia pewnych modyfikacji, dlatego popieram przedstawiony przez panią poseł Rosę Estaràs Ferragut projekt sprawozdania dotyczący zmiany obecnego rozporządzenia w sprawie Funduszu Solidarności UE. Mam nadzieję, że zaproponowane zmiany przyczynią się do usprawnienia jego funkcjonowania oraz poprawy skuteczności bez generowania dodatkowych kosztów, tak by był on jeszcze lepszym narzędziem niesienia pomocy państwom członkowskim dotkniętym poważnymi klęskami żywiołowymi.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − These funds are primarily being viewed as taking hard-working taxpayers’ money away to spend it elsewhere. If there is a natural disaster or people are suffering, it is quite right that other countries, neighbouring countries, seek to help those neighbours in a time of need by showing true solidarity and providing financial support. We believe, however, that those monies should rather be given by the UK Government, which in itself has a long history as a financial donor.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté pour le rapport Estaras Ferragut relatif au Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne. Cet outil, qui incarne l'application du principe européen de solidarité en cas de catastrophe, est essentiel à mes yeux. Il doit être amélioré, sans pour autant entraîner une charge supplémentaire. J'approuve le maintien du principe en vertu duquel l'auteur des dommages est le payeur. Je salue également la demande d'une réduction du délai nécessaire à l'octroi de l'aide. Ce rapport propose des mesures de bon sens et je me réjouis de son adoption.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − As mudanças na situação económica da União e da maioria dos seus Estados-Membros tornam imperiosa a necessidade de se rever o regulamento do Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia para o novo período financeiro de 2014-2020. Este instrumento deve ser adaptado à realidade atual, com alterações que sejam capazes de melhorar a operatividade do Fundo, sem gerar custos adicionais. Congratulo-me com esta nova proposta de reforma que pretende simplificar os procedimentos e tornar as definições mais claras, precisas e transparentes.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), în scris. − Fondul de solidaritate s-a dovedit a fi unul dintre instrumentele cele mai de succes şi apreciate ale Uniunii, fiind unul dintre puţinele instrumente de care dispune Uniunea pentru a-şi putea demonstra solidaritatea şi apropierea faţă de cetăţenii europeni. Instrumentul oferă sprijin pentru operaţiunile de urgenţă în cazul unei catastrofe, reduce sarcina financiară pe care statele membre trebuie să o suporte în astfel de situaţii şi permite întregii Uniuni să îşi manifeste solidaritatea faţă de cetăţenii săi care se confruntă cu o situaţie dificilă. Este necesar să se îmbunătăţească eficacitatea instrumentului, reducându-se timpul scurs între producerea unei catastrofe şi acordarea ajutorului. Procedurile administrative sunt lente, complicate şi confuze, însă acest lucru ar putea fi evitat prin mici modificări, care nu ar schimba nucleul fundamental al regulamentului actual al Uniunii. Trebuie redusă birocraţia pentru mobilizarea fondului. Acordarea de avansuri ar fi foarte utilă şi adecvată şi fuzionarea procedurilor şi deciziilor ar contribui la accelerarea semnificativă a procedurii actuale. Acest instrument ar trebui să rămână în afara bugetului Uniunii, întrucât nu se poate cunoaşte dinainte în ce măsură va trebui utilizat pe parcursul anului. Instrumentele care trebuie să ofere un răspuns în situaţiile de criză excepţională şi neprevăzută trebuie să rămână instrumente extrabugetare.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. − O Fundo de solidariedade da UE, criado em 2002, representa, sem dúvida, a manifestação de solidariedade europeia mais clara, decisiva e importante para com os cidadãos confrontados com uma situação difícil (em caso de catástrofe natural ou de origem humana, ataque terrorista, etc.), sendo que, até final de 2010, foram aprovados cerca de 42 pedidos, com um apoio financeiro total de mais de 2,4 mil milhões de euros. O FSUE é amplamente reconhecido como um dos instrumentos mais satisfatórios ao dispor da UE. Porém, é necessário alterar o atual Regulamento, de modo a melhorar a operacionalidade e flexibilidade do Fundo, melhorando a eficácia e rapidez dos procedimentos administrativos necessários à sua mobilização, reduzindo o tempo necessário para a concessão da ajuda às regiões afetadas e aumentando a sua visibilidade com vista a melhorar a credibilidade da UE perante os seus cidadãos. É compreensível que, no atual clima político caracterizado por uma situação orçamental difícil em muitos Estados-Membros, seja difícil avançar com uma proposta que acarrete custos adicionais. Porém, parece-me razoável que se consiga chegar a um acordo, atempado, que permita adaptar este instrumento à realidade atual, dotando-o de uma maior eficácia, nomeadamente através da simplificação dos procedimentos e tornando as definições mais claras, precisas e transparentes.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − The EU Solidarity Fund was established in 2002 to enable the EU to provide limited financial support to Member States and regions affected by major natural disasters such as flooding and severe storms. Since then, financial aid amounting to almost EUR 3.2 billion from the Fund has been allocated almost 50 times, including EUR 13 million in response to the severe flooding that affected parts of Ireland in November 2009. I agree with the resolution’s suggestions as regards simplifying the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund, clarifying the access criteria, particularly as regards regional disasters, and the need to reconsider the intervention thresholds in order to better respond to the increasingly frequent and serious disasters that are occurring all across Europe. I also agree with keeping the Fund outside the Community budget since it is impossible to know in advance how much it will be needed. In view of its limited budget, the EU Solidarity Fund can only ever play a small part in helping communities recover from natural disasters. But it is one of the important symbols of European solidarity. I hope the Commission will now carefully consider Parliament’s suggestions to improve it.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), în scris. − Susţin această rezoluţie, subliniind necesitatea diminuării duratei de mobilizare a Fondului, care împiedică reacţia promptă şi eficientă în cazuri de urgenţă întâmpinate de statele membre, dar şi adaptarea acestuia la noile realităţi. De asemenea, pentru a spori operaţionalitatea în implementarea Fondului, este extrem de necesară reducerea birocraţiei. Fondul de solidaritate este instrumentul primordial al Uniunii Europene în ceea ce priveşte asistenţa în caz de catastrofe naturale în statele membre şi ţările în curs de aderare. Consolidarea eficienţei acestuia nu numai că ar furniza o imagine excelentă Uniunii Europene, dar ar confirma încă o dată solidaritatea cu care UE acţionează pentru cetăţenii săi.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului privind implementarea şi aplicarea fondului de solidaritate. Acest instrument urmăreşte acordarea de sprijin financiar statelor membre şi regiunilor afectate de catastrofe naturale grave şi are ca fundament principiul de solidaritate, înscris în Tratat. Fondul a fost folosit atât pentru refacerea locuinţelor deteriorate de cutremurul din regiunea Abruzzo, din 2009, cât şi pentru restaurarea infrastructurii avariate de inundaţiile din Austria din 2005. În acest context, procesul de revizuire a instrumentului de finanţare, propus în prezentul raport şi care urmăreşte extinderea scopului şi a aplicării acestuia, este binevenit.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), na piśmie. − Europejski Fundusz Solidarności wielokrotnie sprawdził się jako doskonała dźwignia pomocowa dla regionów dotkniętych klęskami żywiołowymi. W 2009 roku w Polsce, Czechach i na Węgrzech miały miejsce powodzie powodujące wielomilionowe straty. W 2010 roku z Funduszu Solidarności przyznano ponad 100 milionów euro na pomoc dotkniętym regionom. Dzięki wspólnotowym środkom oraz dofinansowaniu z budżetu państwa w Polsce udało się rozbudować system zabezpieczeń przed powodzią oraz systemy wczesnego wykrywania zagrożenia. Aby dalej móc aktywnie działać, fundusz ten musi mieć zapewnione stałe finansowanie.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – Le Fonds de solidarité de l'Union est notre principal outil pour rester unis et plus forts face aux catastrophes naturelles. Entre 2002 et 2012 il a permis de répondre à 49 situations de crise, en débloquant près de 3,2 milliards d'euros distribués à 23 pays. C'est l'un de ces grands projets qui bénéficient concrètement aux citoyens, notamment ceux en difficulté, et qui donnent ainsi du sens à l'Union. Cette réforme permettrait d'améliorer le fonctionnement du FSUE, la qualité et la rapidité de ses réponses sans faire peser plus de charges sur le budget des États membres. Je soutiens tout particulièrement l'objectif d'accélérer les paiements, afin que l'Etat en difficulté puisse bénéficier le plus tôt possible des fonds qui lui sont essentiels.

  Mário David (PPE), por escrito. − O Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia (FSUE) foi criado em 2002 no rescaldo das violentas inundações ocorridas na Europa Central e afirmou-se como o principal instrumento de assistência aos cidadãos europeus e Estados-Membros vítimas de catástrofes. Hoje, é sinónimo de 10 anos de sucesso na aplicação do princípio de solidariedade europeia com um valor de ajuda financeira prestada superior a 3,2 mil milhões de euros que beneficiou 23 Estados-Membros num total de 49 catástrofes. Votei favoravelmente este relatório porque entendo que, afim de se continuar a oferecer ajuda aquando de operações de emergência às populações fustigadas pelas catástrofes e aliviar os encargos financeiros a suportar pelos Estados-Membros, é necessário melhorar a eficácia do FSUE. Nomeadamente balizando de forma clara e concreta o conceito de catástrofe, clarificando em particular os critérios de acesso nos casos de "catástrofes regionais". Mas também reduzindo a burocracia inerente à mobilização do fundo reduzindo, por esta via, o tempo entre a ocorrência e a concessão da ajuda.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), írásban. − Üdvözlöm a Parlament ezen saját kezdeményezésű jelentését több okból kifolyólag is. Egyrészről azért, mert a 2002-ben, eredetileg a közép-európai árvíz okozta károk és károsultak megsegítésére létrehozott alapról szóló rendeletet a 10 év alatt nem módosították, továbbá azért is, mert az utóbbi években, részben a globális felmelegedés miatt, az ilyen típusú természeti katasztrófák száma megnövekedett, valamint a módosított rendelet hatálybalépése egybeesik a következő MFF időszakának kezdetével. 2012 szeptemberéig mintegy 49 alkalommal igényelték az érintett tagállamok a Szolidaritási Alapból nyújtott segélyezést, azonban a sokszor ellentmondásos, helyenként hiányos rendelet a fent említett okokból kifolyólag is megérett arra, hogy módosításra kerüljön.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o relatório sobre o "Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia, implementação e aplicação", por reiterar a necessidade de revisão deste regulamento do FSUE, com o objetivo de melhorar a sua operacionalidade e flexibilidade. Tendo em conta o aumento tendencial do número e da intensidade das catástrofes naturais, em resultado das alterações climáticas, é urgente simplificar e adaptar os procedimentos, de modo a reforçar a eficácia do FSUE.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report as, as it stands, the rules regarding eligibility for those Member States that have been hit by natural disasters are unclear. It is of utmost importance that these rules are clarified in order for those countries hit by natural disasters to receive the aid that they require. Recently, in Wales, we have been hit by heavy flooding, many people saw their homes damaged and businesses suffered; clearer rules in the EU Solidarity Fund would enable us to know what support we can receive from the EU in such times.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − O Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia tem corporizado o lema que muitas vezes tenho invocado e que reputo de essencial para a construção de um projeto de integração benquisto por todas as populações dos Estados-Membros: mais do que “unidos na diversidade”, deveremos dar mostras de estar “unidos na adversidade”. O meu país beneficiou já do apoio do Fundo. Reconheço a sua importância bem como a necessidade de uma avaliação acerca do modo como vem funcionando e melhorá-lo sempre que tal for necessário e possível. A circunstância de que, conforme se refere, a maioria das candidaturas ao Fundo (63%) tenha sido apresentada ao abrigo da categoria excecional "catástrofe regional" – das quais 66% foram rejeitadas após a avaliação da Comissão – torna patente a necessidade dessa reflexão profunda acerca do seu âmbito e limites. Espero que as recomendações do Parlamento produzam o efeito desejado e que a próxima avaliação do Fundo o aprecie de modo mais favorável. Desejo, sobretudo, que este venha a ser menos utilizado se tal significar a ocorrência de menos catástrofes na União. Aproveito também para saudar a minha colega Rosa Estaràs Ferragut e felicitá-la pelo excelente trabalho que aqui concretizou.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia (FSUE), criado em 2002, é um instrumento financeiro de solidariedade entre todos os Estados-Membros (EM) cujo objetivo é minimizar os danos decorrentes das grandes catástrofes naturais que, eventualmente, ocorram na União Europeia ou nos Estados que se encontram em fase de adesão. Passados dez anos de aplicação do fundo, verificamos que há alguns aspetos a melhorar. Desde logo, diminuir o tempo que medeia entre o dia da ocorrência da catástrofe e o momento em que as regiões afetadas recebem os montantes atribuídos. Este período, que em média é de 9 meses, chega a ultrapassar os dois anos. Torna-se, pois, necessário rever este mecanismo e, se possível, antecipar os fundos. Votei favoravelmente o relatório elaborado pela colega Rosa Estaràs Ferragut sobre o FSUE, sua implementação e execução, porque concordo com a necessidade de alterar a metodologia atual de modo a simplificar os procedimentos para que sejam mais transparentes e o fundo mais eficaz. Considerando que 60% das candidaturas apresentadas não foram consideradas por falta de enquadramento como grandes catástrofes, apelo à Comissão para que, na iniciativa legislativa a ser apresentada brevemente, as catástrofes de menor dimensão também possam ser enquadradas neste fundo.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O relatório salienta a importância do Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia enquanto instrumento que permite reagir financeiramente em situações de catástrofe grave nos Estados-Membros ou em futuros países em processo de adesão. Elabora também um conjunto de recomendações para melhorar a operacionalidade e flexibilidade do Fundo, simplificando e aumentando a sua visibilidade e credibilidade, sendo crítico quanto ao longo período que antecede a sua mobilização, e defendendo a eficácia e rapidez dos procedimentos administrativos, bem como a necessidade de redução da burocracia e do tempo entre a ocorrência da catástrofe e a chegada do apoio.

Há muito que criticamos a morosidade associada à mobilização do FSUE - bem patente no caso da catástrofe que afetou a ilha da Madeira a 20 de fevereiro de 2010 - e há muito que vimos apontando a necessidade de alterações ao seu regulamento. Este relatório acolhe a generalidade dessas alterações e por isso o apoiámos. Para além das já referidas, contam-se também as seguintes sugestões: a "possibilidade de efetuar pagamentos antecipados logo que o Estado-Membro afetado tenha solicitado ajuda"; a necessidade de considerar as catástrofes de evolução lenta, como a seca, que afetam particularmente as regiões mediterrânicas; uma outra consideração das catástrofes com um elevado impacto regional e a revisão dos atuais limiares de elegibilidade.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − V európskych regiónoch dochádza k čoraz častejším a závažnejším katastrofám. Na spôsob života a sociálno-ekonomické podmienky v postihnutých regiónoch majú obrovský vplyv. Fond solidarity Európskej únie sa prejavil ako jeden z najúspešnejších a dobre vnímaných nástrojov Únie, pretože je to jeden z mála nástrojov, ktoré máme k dispozícii, pomocou ktorých môžeme prejaviť svoju solidaritu s európskymi občanmi a svoju blízkosť k nim. Od svojho vzniku však neboli v nariadení, ktoré túto problematiku upravuje, vykonané žiadne zmeny. Súčasné pravidlá však nie sú dostatočne jasné. Prevládajú pochybnosti o možnom oprávnení v prípade katastrof, pri ktorých sú žiadosti predkladané, a to najmä regionálneho typu. Súčasné znenie nariadenia je nejednoznačné a vytvára tak falošné nádeje občanov v členských štátoch, ktorí žiadajú o pomoc. Zo strany Únie očakávajú naši občania rozhodné opatrenia, a to plným právom.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), per iscritto. − Essendo questa relazione, a mio parere, pienamente condivisibile e non presentando la stessa alcuna problematica, facilitando inoltre la rapidità di concessione dei fondi in caso di catastrofi naturali, eviterà il ripetersi dei problemi per l'erogazione degli stessi come avvenuto nel caso del terremoto dell'Emilia. Per questi motivi, il mio voto è stato favorevole.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), i scríbhinn. − Vótáil mé i bhfábhar na tuarascála seo agus a bhfuil ann maidir leis an riarachán agus maorlathas atá i gceist le Ciste Dlúthpháirtíochta an Aontais Eorpaigh (CDAE) a shimpliú. Is an príomhionstraim atá ag an AE leis an ndlúthpháirtíocht a chur i bhfeidhm é an CDAE, lena chuirtear chúnamh airgeadais suntasach ar fáil do na Ballstáit nó réigiúin sin a bhíonn buailte ag mórthubhaiste. Mar atá faoi láthair, áfach, tá i bhfad an-iomarca ama ag teastáil leis an gCiste a dháileadh agus níl na spriocanna a leagadh amach i dtosach dó á mbaint amach. Bronnadh cúnamh airgid de 13 milliún euro ar Éirinn ag deireadh na bliana 2010 i ndiaidh tuilte tubaisteacha na bliana 2009. Léiríonn sin go bhfuil fiúntas ag baint leis an gciste agus go gcuireann sé cúnamh airgid ar fáil do na Ballstáit i gcás tubaiste ach ní mór feidhmiú an Chiste a fheabhsú ionas go laghdaítear ar an tréimhse ama a bhíonn ann idir tubaiste agus dáileadh an airgid ar an mBallstát ina dtarlaíonn an tubaiste sin.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport car le Fonds de solidarité, mis en place en 2002 suite aux inondations qui avaient dévasté l'Europe centrale, est un instrument de soutien d'une immense utilité pour les pays frappés par une catastrophe naturelle majeure. Ces derniers peuvent, lorsque nécessaire, bénéficier de la solidarité financière de l'ensemble des Etats membres en complément des financements qu'ils auront eux-mêmes mobilisés. Entre la date de sa création et septembre 2012, ce fonds a été mobilisé pour 49 catastrophes (essentiellement des inondations et des incendies), pour un montant de 3,2 milliards d'euros. Il s'agit aujourd'hui d'apporter des ajustements afin de rendre ce fonds plus souple et plus opérationnel, notamment en simplifiant les critères d'éligibilité et en raccourcissant les procédures administratives d'octroi. Ce texte clarifie les définitions et catégories de catastrophes naturelles, en intégrant éventuellement de nouvelles dimensions telles que la sécheresse, les catastrophes à caractère méditerranéen ou même les catastrophes d'origine non naturelle.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), par écrit. – Le Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne constitue un fonds essentiel pour donner corps au principe de solidarité inscrit dans les traités, en cas de catastrophes naturelles frappant l'un ou l'autre des États membres.

C'est pourquoi il me semble indispensable de mettre tout en œuvre pour réduire les obstacles bureaucratiques s'opposant à son déclenchement et qui ont pu être recensés depuis sa création en 2002. Il doit notamment mieux fonctionner en cas de catastrophes identifiées comme "mineures" et son délai de mise en œuvre doit être raccourci afin d'apporter au plus vite une aide aux victimes de ces catastrophes.

Doté de définitions clarifiées, cet instrument révisé pourra ainsi continuer à traduire dans les faits la solidarité européenne que nos citoyens souhaitent voir s'exprimer davantage dans leur quotidien, en ces temps difficiles de crise.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), par écrit. – Je me réjouis de la position adoptée par le Parlement européen qui appelle au maintien du Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne ce mardi 15 janvier à Strasbourg. Rares, en effet, sont les citoyens qui sont correctement informés des actions de solidarité menées par l'Union européenne en faveur des régions qui ont subi une catastrophe naturelle majeure. Or, le Fonds de solidarité de l'UE qui existe depuis 2002 est un instrument très concret de cette solidarité puisqu'il intervient en soutien des actions des Etats membres à une région ou plusieurs régions frappées par une catastrophe naturelle de grande ampleur. A ce jour, cet outil a été mobilisé dans 49 cas, en faveur de 23 pays, pour un montant de 3,2 milliards d'euros. La France a pu bénéficier de ces financements à plusieurs reprises, notamment à la suite de la tempête Xynthia en 2010 à hauteur de 35,7 millions d'euros mais aussi à la suite des inondations dans le Gard en 2002 pour 21 millions d'euros. Il ne s'agit pas d'augmenter le budget ou de créer les conditions d'un accroissement du budget qui est abondé par les Etats membres mais d'en rationaliser l'utilisation, d'accéler l'octroi des aides et d'en assurer une meilleure publicité.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariau šiam pasiūlymui. Solidarumo fondas svarbus tuo, kad tai kaip pagrindinė priemonė, kurią taikydama ES gali reaguoti į dideles nelaimes, vykstančias Sąjungos teritorijoje arba šalyse, kurios derasi dėl prisijungimo prie ES. Nepaisant to, kad dauguma ES piliečių fondą vertina teigiamai, būtina gerinti jo veikimo būdą, kad jis taptų lankstesnis ir matomesnis. Tokiu būdu būtų didinimas ir ES piliečių pasitikėjimas ES. Dabartinė fondo lėšų mobilizavimo trukmė neleistinai ilga, todėl būtina ją trumpinti. Be to, būtina gerinti fondo lėšoms mobilizuoti reikalingų administracinių procedūrų veiksmingumą ir spartą, nes dalį šių procedūrų sudaro trijų ES institucijų intervencija prieš suteikiant pritarimą, taigi minėtosios procedūros pernelyg užsitęsia ir pailgėja laikas, kol nukentėjusioms valstybėms narėms suteikiama pagalba ir dėl to nepasiekiama lauktų rezultatų.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Głosowałem za przyjęciem sprawozdania pani Rosy Estaras Ferragut. Uważam, że Fundusz Solidarności jest niezwykle ważnym i dobrze odbieranym instrumentem Unii Europejskiej, jednak niezbędne jest poprawienie jego skuteczności. Zgadzam się ze sprawozdawczynią, że konieczne jest usprawnienie procedur administracyjnych oraz wprowadzenie możliwości dokonywania przedpłat po zgłoszeniu wniosku o pomoc przez poszkodowanie państwo. Niezbędne jest też jasne określenie zasięgu działania Funduszu, zdefiniowanie terminu klęski na poziomie regionalnym oraz zasad kwalifikowania katastrof z uwzględnieniem różnicy między katastrofami naturalnymi a tymi wywołanymi przez człowieka. Przede wszystkim jednak zgadzam się ze stwierdzeniem pani Ferragut, że skupienie się na zapobieganiu klęskom żywiołowym jest najtańszym sposobem na zmniejszenie zagrożenia.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), písomne. − Po zničujúcich povodniach v strednej Európe v roku 2002 s cieľom rýchleho poskytnutia pomoci vytvorila Únia nový nastroj – Fond solidarity. Od svojho vzniku do septembra 2012 poskytol Fond solidarity kompenzáciu škody v prípade 49 živelných katastrof. Počas existencie fondu neboli v jeho pravidlách vykonané žiadne zmeny, ktoré by reagovali na konkrétne skúsenosti spojené s jeho uplatňovaním. Počet žiadosti pritom neustále narastá, očakávania sú značné, zdroje fondu nedostatočné a znenie pravidiel sa ukazuje ako nejednoznačné. Je preto potrebné súčasné nariadenie viazané k fondu preskúmať v súvislosti s novým finančným obdobím 2014 – 2020. Cieľom bude zjednodušiť postupy a určiť jasnejšie, presnejšie a transparentnejšie pravidlá. Uvedený zámer som podporil.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Il fondo di solidarietà dell’Unione europea è uno strumento che ha mostrato il suo valore aggiunto europeo e ha dimostrato la sua efficacia sin da quando è stato introdotto per la prima volta. A riguardo, mi preme sottolineare uno degli ultimi casi, in ordine temporale, in cui questo fondo ha giocato un ruolo decisivo per un territorio afflitto dalle disastrose conseguenze di una catastrofe naturale. Faccio riferimento al terremoto che ha colpito le zone dell’Emilia-Romagna e per cui, con non poche difficoltà, siamo riusciti a garantire i fondi necessari alla ricostruzione di quelle zone. In vista di un miglioramento dei criteri di accesso a tale fondo, specialmente in relazione alle catastrofi regionali, credo che le proposte contenute nella relazione vadano nella giusta direzione. Occorre pensare, infatti, a criteri ponderativi che prendano sempre più in considerazione l’entità delle catastrofi e la loro frequenza nelle regioni europee maggiormente colpite.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), în scris. − Fondul de solidaritate al Uniunii Europene şi-a dovedit utilitatea pe parcursul perioadei sale de implementare, fiind unul dintre instrumentele cele mai de succes şi mai apreciate ale Uniunii. Cu toate acestea, din proprie experienţă, vă spun cu regret că actuala durată de mobilizare a fondului este inacceptabil de mare şi, din acest motiv, multe dintre rezultatele ce s-au urmărit a fi obţinute prin utilizarea acestui fond au fost diminuate.

După cum am susţinut şi prin amendamentele mele, consider că avem nevoie de o îmbunătăţire urgentă a cadrului administrativ şi a procedurilor necesare pentru mobilizarea fondului. Acest lucru, coroborat cu fuzionarea deciziilor de subvenţie şi a acordurilor de execuţie la nivelul Comisiei şi al statelor membre şi cu introducerea unor plăţi fixe în avans, imediat ce statul afectat a solicitat asistenţă, va conduce la îmbunătăţirea eficacităţii fondurilor şi va accelera procesul de ajutorare a statelor afectate de o catastrofă majoră.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Following the devastating floods in central Europe in 2002, and given the lack of a tool that would enable it to respond in order to assist the population and Member State affected by a disaster, the Union created a new instrument: the European Union Solidarity Fund. Since then, not even minor changes have been made to the regulation governing the Solidarity Fund to adapt it to the new needs and correct some of the shortcomings that have become apparent in its 10 years of operation. Since its creation and up to September 2012, the Fund has provided financial aid to offset the damage caused by 49 disasters, chiefly fires and floods. In recent years, the Commission has been receiving a growing number of applications, partly because more disasters have occurred and partly because the current rules are not sufficiently clear so as to remove doubts on the possible eligibility of disasters where applications are submitted under the exceptional rules for ‘extraordinary regional disasters’. In many cases, Member States make these applications under pressure from both their citizens and their political rivals, who demand decisive action and responses by the Union and their own national authorities. It is therefore crucial that the current regulation be revised in time for the new financial period 2014-2020.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), per iscritto. − Negli ultimi 20 anni, i disastri naturali hanno ucciso circa 90.000 persone causando più di 200 miliardi di euro di danni. Il Fondo di Solidarietà rappresenta il principale strumento di solidarietà dell'Unione. I tempi necessari per mobilitare il Fondo sono, purtroppo, troppo lunghi con criteri d´intervento poco trasparenti. È necessario, quindi, eseguire pagamenti anticipati per accelerare il tasso di risposta e la visibilità del sostegno dell'Unione. Ritengo fondamentale, infine, modificare il regolamento ridefinendo i criteri per le catastrofi regionali in modo semplice, oggettivo e trasparente.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Le Fonds de Solidarité de l'UE (FSUE) a été créé pour de fournir une aide financière aux Etats et aux Régions sinistrés par des catastrophes naturelles majeures. Ce rapport est favorable à une plus grande souplesse des modalités de mobilisation du FSUE et à une accélération de celles-ci. Il demande avec insistance une prise en compte adaptée des catastrophes à évolution lente comme la sécheresse notamment. Autant de propositions que je soutiens. Je regrette cependant que le rapport ne s'interroge nulle part sur la multiplication des catastrophes naturelles et l'aggravation de leurs conséquences. Il se borne à expliquer l'augmentation du nombre de demande à l'électoralisme supposé des élus locaux ou nationaux. Les coupes budgétaires, les privatisations et la logique productiviste prônées par l'UE actuelle ne sont pourtant pas pour rien dans la multiplication des catastrophes, la gravité accrue de leurs conséquences et la difficulté croissante à y faire face. Je ne vote pour ce texte que pour encourager la prise en compte des catastrophes à évolution lente jusqu'alors ignorées.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − Após as várias catástrofes naturais que ocorreram na Europa central em 2002, e perante a ausência de um instrumento de assistência à população e aos Estados-Membros afetados por essas catástrofes, a União criou um novo instrumento: o Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia. Desde então, o regulamento que o rege não sofreu qualquer modificação para o adaptar às novas necessidades e para corrigir algumas disfunções que têm sido detetadas ao longo dos dez anos de aplicação. Desde a sua criação e até setembro de 2012, o Fundo prestou ajuda financeira para fazer face aos danos causados por 49 catástrofes, principalmente inundações e incêndios. É importante equacionarmos algumas alterações ao regulamento deste Fundo para o tornar ainda mais eficaz. As mudanças na situação económica da União e da maioria dos seus Estados-Membros levaram a Comissão, na nova tentativa de adaptação do instrumento à realidade atual, a propor alterações ao procedimento que sejam capazes de melhorar a operatividade do Fundo, sem gerar custos adicionais. O que se pretende com esta nova proposta de reforma é simplificar os procedimentos e tornar as definições mais claras, precisas e transparentes.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor de este informe que tratar de mejorar el funcionamiento del Fondo de Solidaridad de la Unión Europea (FSUE). Dicho fondo es utilizado para atender a la población afectada por catástrofes naturales ocurridas dentro del territorio de la Unión. El informe recoge propuestas para mejorar su funcionamiento, incluyendo medidas para reducir el tiempo transcurrido entre una catástrofe y la movilización de dicho fondo. El FSUE fue creado en 2002 para atender las graves inundaciones ocurridas en Rumanía ese año, pero desde entonces no ha sido modificado y han sido muchas las diferentes crisis a las que el FSUE ha tenido que asistir. El informe propone solo medidas que pueden mejorar el funcionamiento de este mecanismo financiero en la atención de las víctimas y, por consiguiente, lo valoro positivamente y he votado a favor.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), par écrit. – Le FSUE est le principal instrument de solidarité et de soutien financier de l'Union envers les États membres ou les régions touchées par des catastrophes majeures.

Néanmoins, il est nécessaire d'effectuer des modifications en vue de le rendre le plus optimum possible et de rendre l'aide de l'Union sur le terrain plus visible et effective. Pour ce faire, il est impératif que les procédures de mobilisation du fonds et administratives soient significativement plus rapides. En d'autres termes, le délai entre le moment où la catastrophe se produit et celui où l'État membre (ou la région concernée) reçoit l'aide doit être réduit. Les paiements anticipés, à mon sens, se révèlent une bonne solution.

Toutefois, en raison de la crise financière, la proposition de modification ne doit entraîner aucune charge financière additionnelle pour le budget de l'Union et celui des États membres. De plus, la Commission doit se montrer plus souple quant à l'acceptation des demandes d'aide: elle a rejeté 66 % d'entre elles, car celles-ci sont majoritairement présentées comme des catastrophes régionales. Il est également primordial de clarifier le champ d'application et la couverture du Fonds, en éliminant toute incertitude juridique éventuelle.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), písomne. − Európska únia vytvorila Fond solidarity Európskej únie ako reakciu na devastujúce povodne v strednej Európe v roku 2002, aby mohla poskytnúť obyvateľstvu postihnutému katastrofou potrebnú pomoc. Odvtedy je Fond solidarity Európskej únie hlavným nástrojom na preukázanie spolupatričnosti Únie prostredníctvom poskytnutia významnej finančnej podpory členským štátom alebo regiónom postihnutým vážnou prírodnou katastrofou alebo katastrofou spôsobenou ľudskou činnosťou. Poskytnutá pomoc umožňuje uľahčiť verejné financovanie v núdzových situáciách. Fond solidarity však môže fungovať lepšie a operatívnejšie, a preto súhlasím s návrhom preskúmať existujúce nariadenie o Fonde solidarity. Hraničnú hodnotu škody 1,5 % regionálneho HDP na účel stanovenia oprávnenosti regionálnej katastrofy však považujem za veľmi vysokú a vyzývam k jej prehodnoteniu, aby sa predišlo ťažkým sklamaniam obetí katastrofy, keď by Únia musela necitlivo z administratívnych dôvodov odmietnuť pomoc.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The European Union Solidarity Fund is the Unions’ main instrument for implementing the principle of solidarity enshrined in the Treaties, in cases of significant catastrophes. I was always in favour of this, supporting too any positive measure to minimise the bureaucracy for mobilisation of the Fund. But I think that criteria need to be changed in order that small Members States benefit from the Fund.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. − Der Europäische Solidaritätsfonds ist eine wichtige und sinnvolle Einrichtung. Die Bedeutung unterstreicht auch die Tatsache, dass er seit seiner Einrichtung im Jahr 2002 bereits 89 mal in Anspruch genommen wurde. Oftmals wurden die Hilfszahlungen jedoch zu langsam ausbezahlt, was zu Recht kritisiert wurde. Die Verbesserungsvorschläge gehen zum Teil in die richtige Richtung, unter dem Strich sind sie aber zu wenig ambitioniert, weshalb ich mich bei der Abstimmung der Stimme enthalten habe.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), per iscritto. − Sono più volte intervenuto per segnalare alcune criticità relative alle modalità di accesso a questo fondo: il problema più grosso risiede appunto nel delineare quelle che siano le catastrofi di entità "minore" su base regionale. Spesso i danni causati non sono affatto "minori" e quindi andrebbero stabiliti dei criteri oggettivi su base regionale per valutare se questi siano ammissibili a beneficiare del sostegno europeo. In passato sono capitati episodi di mala-gestione da parte delle autorità preposte, come nel caso dell'emergenza neve dello scorso febbraio, nella quale vollero inserirsi molte regioni meridionali senza averne titolo, compromettendo così l'intera richiesta.

A mio avviso si dovrebbe quindi andare verso un più diretto legame tra le autorità regionali e Bruxelles, per definire le situazioni di reale emergenza, bypassando la dimensione nazionale nella quale spesso cercano di inserirsi furbetti privi dei necessari requisiti, andando così a penalizzare coloro che sono stati realmente colpiti da calamità naturali. In Toscana i soldi per le alluvioni del 2011 in Lunigiana sono arrivati, seppur con un considerevole ritardo: stiamo tuttavia ancora attendendo la decisione per i danni causati nel grossetano dalle massicce piogge dello scorso novembre.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), în scris. − Consider că funcţionarea viitoare a Fondului trebuie să acopere o arie mai largă de dezastre naturale şi consecinţe ale acestora, de exemplu urmările grave în domeniul agriculturii ale fenomenelor meteorologice extreme - vânturi puternice, grindină - sau ale secetei. Astfel de evenimente au avut loc pe parcursul anului trecut în state din Estul Europei, precum România, consecinţele fiind grave în planul securităţii alimentare. Completarea în acest sens a legislaţiei ar veni în întâmpinarea problemelor cu care s-au confruntat producătorii agricoli, fiind o dovadă reală de solidaritate.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), kirjalikult. − Toetasin antud raportit, mis lihtsustab ELi Solidaarsusfondi vahendite kasutuselevõtuks vajalikke bürokraatlikke protsesse, lühendades aega, mis kulub katastroofi toimumisest liikmesriigile või piirkonnale abi andmiseni. Bürokraatia lihtsustamiseks on menetluste ja otsuste ühendamine kindlasti tarvilik, samuti ettemaksete tegemine, et katastroofi tagajärgede likvideerimist kiirendada. Arvestades avalduste suurt hulka, mis on osaliselt tingitud katastroofide arvu suurenemisest, kuid peamiselt asjaolust, et õigusnormid pole piisavalt selged ja tekitavad taotlejates asjatuid lootusi, pean oluliseks ELi Solidaarsusfondi kriteeriumide selgemaks muutmist. Selleks tuleb määratleda täpsemalt katastroofi mõiste, mis võetaks vastavate kriteeriumidega aluseks kahjude raskusastme hindamisel. Selgemad reeglid aitaksid kindlasti vähendada abikõlbmatute taotluste arvu ja vähendada liikmesriikide negatiivset hoiakut Euroopa Liidu suhtes, nagu liit ei sooviks neid aidata.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariu šiam pranešimui. Solidarumo fondas yra viena iš geriausių Europos Sąjungos turimų priemonių. Atsižvelgiant į naujus poreikius šis fondas turėtų tapti lankstesnis ir veiksmingesnis, nuolat gebantis efektyviai reaguoti į naujus iššūkius. Visų pirma, solidarumo fondo lėšos po stichinės nelaimės turėtų būti kuo greičiau mobilizuotos taip pat veiksmingai ir greitai turėtų būti nagrinėjamos paraiškos dėl finansinės paramos. Taigi turėtų būti sutrumpintas laikas, per kurį teikiama pagalba stichinių nelaimių ištiktų regionų gyventojams bei supaprastintos biurokratinės procedūros. Tačiau labai svarbu užtikrinti, kad nauji reglamento pakeitimai nesukurtų papildomos naštos Sąjungos ar valstybių narių biudžetams.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), raštu. − 2002 metais įkurtas Europos Solidarumo fondas yra pagalbos priemonė gaivalinių nelaimių ištiktoms ES valstybėms narėms ar valstybėms kandidatėms. Per pastarąjį dešimtmetį išaiškėjo tam tikri fondo veiklos trūkumai. Dažnai gaivalinės nelaimės atneša daugiau žalos nei padengiama iš Solidarumo fondo lėšų, paramos išmokėjimo procesas yra sudėtingas ir ilgai trunkantis. Tai apsunkina valstybės narės atsigavimo procesą, nes lėšos pasiekia regionus pernelyg vėlai. Balsavau už šį pranešimą, kadangi jame pateikti pasiūlymai suteiks Solidarumo fondui lankstumo ir leis greičiau reaguoti į įvykusias nelaimes. Siūlomi pakeitimai palengvins paramos išmokėjimą nukentėjusioms valstybėms. Tik taip Solidarumo fondas galės išlikti viena iš svarbiausių, veiksmingiausių ir palankiausiai vertinamų Sąjungos priemonių, leidžiančių parodyti solidarumą su jos piliečiais.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE), γραπτώς. – Το Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης, το οποίο έχει ήδη ολοκληρώσει δέκα χρόνια ζωής, αποτελεί ίσως το πιο χαρακτηριστικό πολιτικό και οικονομικό εργαλείο έμπρακτης συνεργασίας και αλληλοβοήθειας των κρατών μελών της Ε.Ε. Έχοντας μέχρι σήμερα παράσχει χρηματοδοτική στήριξη για την αντιστάθμιση ζημιών που προκλήθηκαν από 49 καταστροφές, κυρίως από πλημμύρες και πυρκαγιές (υπενθυμίζεται ότι έχει κινητοποιηθεί και στην Ελλάδα για αυτούς τους λόγους), η επιτυχημένη πορεία του επιβάλλει την διατήρηση του. Ωστόσο, εννοιολογικές διασαφηνίσεις όσον αφορά την επιλεξιμότητα των καταστροφών όπου επεμβαίνει είναι αναγκαίες. Ενόψει της νέας χρηματοδοτικής περιόδου 2014-2020, επομένως, ο κανονισμός του Ταμείου θα πρέπει να επικαιροποιηθεί. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, όμως, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο καθιστά σαφές με την παρούσα έκθεση την οποία και υπερψήφισα, πως οι αλλαγές αυτές δεν θα πρέπει να μειώνουν την αποτελεσματικότητα και την δυνατότητα παρέμβασης του Ταμείου, αλλά αντίθετα να καθιστούν ακόμα πιο σαφές πως η Ευρώπη θα είναι δίπλα στους πολίτες της που έρχονται αντιμέτωποι με μια δύσκολη και έκτακτη κατάσταση.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Após as inundações devastadoras que ocorreram na Europa central em 2002, e perante a ausência de um instrumento de assistência à população e ao Estado-Membro afetado por uma catástrofe, a União criou um novo instrumento: o Fundo de Solidariedade da UE. Desde então, o regulamento que o rege não sofreu qualquer modificação para o adaptar às novas necessidades e para corrigir algumas disfunções detetadas ao longo dos dez anos de aplicação. O Fundo já prestou ajuda financeira para fazer face a danos causados por 49 catástrofes, principalmente inundações e incêndios. Nos últimos anos, a Comissão tem vindo a receber um número crescente de candidaturas, decorrente não só de um maior número de catástrofes, mas também do facto da regulamentação em vigor não ser clara quanto à cobertura possível e à elegibilidade das catástrofes para as quais as candidaturas são apresentadas ao abrigo do regime derrogatório das chamadas "catástrofes regionais extraordinárias". Felicito a relatora pelo seu trabalho e congratulo-me pela atualização da legislação do Fundo de Solidariedade, designadamente no que se refere a uma melhor definição de catástrofe, simplificação de processos e, sobretudo, permitir enquadrar uma seca prolongada no conceito de catástrofe. Esta é uma medida que só perde por tardia.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), por escrito. − O Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia foi acionado ao longo dos últimos 10 anos para prestar ajuda financeira em 49 catástrofes, maioritariamente inundações e incêndios. Apesar de se tratar de um dos instrumentos de maior sucesso e mais apreciado, demonstrativo da solidariedade e proximidade da União para com os cidadãos europeus, o Fundo de Solidariedade da UE, e a respetiva implementação e aplicação, tem sido marcado por algumas falhas, as quais se devem, no essencial, à redação ambígua do regulamento e à morosidade do processo de mobilização do fundo. É, por isso, necessário que se proceda à revisão do regulamento, promovendo a simplificação dos processos burocráticos e clarificando o conceito de catástrofe, para que o Fundo possa operar mais eficazmente.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. We are in favour of a well-functioning Solidarity Fund that contributes to improving sustainability and effectiveness in disaster prevention and response. We tabled a number of amendments aiming to stress the sustainability of interventions and coherence with national mechanisms. We also highlighted that speeding up procedures not only relates to European Institutions (e.g., budget procedure), but also to national or regional authorities. The majority of our amendments have been carried, and we managed to improve language, e.g. when it came to advance payments, as well as the report.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because the Regulation governing the Solidarity Fund needs to be adapted and some shortcomings that have become apparent in its 10 years of operation need to be addressed.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), per iscritto. − La proposta di risoluzione del Parlamento mi trova favorevole in quanto il Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea (FSUE) costituisce il principale strumento di dimostrazione dell'azione di solidarietà dell'Unione, fornendo un importante sostegno finanziario agli Stati membri o alle regioni colpite da gravi calamità, che affrontano una situazione difficile.

Il tempo attualmente necessario per la mobilitazione del Fondo appare tuttavia eccessivamente lungo e prolisso nella sua attuazione, ragion per cui occorrerebbe migliorare l'efficacia e la rapidità delle procedure amministrative previste. La necessità pertanto è quella di semplificare i processi burocratici necessari per mobilitare il suddetto strumento UE, onde abbreviare il tempo – prolungato talvolta fino ad oltre un anno – che intercorre tra il momento in cui si verifica la catastrofe e il momento in cui lo Stato membro o la regione in questione riceve gli aiuti. Le procedure amministrative risultano lente, complicate e farraginose.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), na piśmie. − Europejski Fundusz Solidarności reprezentujący zasadę solidarności w ramach traktatu lizbońskiego to instrument o ogromnym znaczeniu, nie tylko ze względu na konkretne finansowe korzyści dla regionów dotkniętych klęskami żywiołowymi. Instrument ten jest doskonałym przykładem solidarności Unii jako instytucji i wspólnoty z obywatelami znajdującymi się w trudnej sytuacji. Jak w przypadku wszystkich nowo wprowadzonych instrumentów unijnych należy upewnić się, że fundusz funkcjonuje prawidłowo i nie sprawia problemów biurokratycznych. W szczególności mając do czynienia z problemami nieprzewidywalnymi i zmieniającymi się np. pod wpływem zmian klimatu, jak skala i specyfika klęsk żywiołowych, instrumenty powinny być regularnie monitorowane i poprawiane.

W związku z powyższym zgadzam się z poprawkami zaproponowanymi przez sprawozdawczynię. Poprawa skuteczności, zwiększenie elastyczności i usprawnienie działania Funduszu poprzez uproszczenie biurokratycznych procesów są niezmiernie istotne, zwłaszcza w przypadkach wymagających natychmiastowej reakcji. Zgadzam się z pomysłem sprecyzowania definicji i wyjaśnienia zakresu działania Funduszu w celu usprawnienia funkcjonowania Funduszu. Jest to też odpowiedź na bieżącą sytuację gospodarczą i związane z nią obawy wielu państw członkowskich. Proponowana reforma zapewni większą efektywność instrumentu, pozwalając na skuteczniejszą i szybszą pomoc poszkodowanym obywatelom.

  Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Το Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης αποτελεί το κύριο μέσο που διαθέτει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για την εφαρμογή της αρχής της αλληλεγγύης που κατοχυρώνεται από τη Συνθήκη, ενώ η επιτυχία του δεν μπορεί να αμφισβητηθεί. Από το 2002 που δημιουργήθηκε, το Ταμείο έχει κινητοποιηθεί 49 φορές, με 23 Κράτη Μέλη να έχουν ζητήσει την κινητοποίηση του και με το ποσό που έχει διατεθεί να ανέρχεται περίπου στα 3 δις ευρώ. Ωστόσο, έχουν παρατηρηθεί ορισμένα προβλήματα στην εφαρμογή του Ταμείου, ιδίως όσον αφορά τους ορισμούς, το πεδίο εφαρμογής, την ανταπόκριση στα κριτήρια των αιτήσεων και την έγκαιρη παροχή της χρηματοδότησης. Γι αυτό τον λόγο, υποστηρίζω σθεναρά κάθε θετικό μέτρο που αποσκοπεί στην βελτίωση κινητοποίησης και εφαρμογής του Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης, όπως η ελαχιστοποίηση της γραφειοκρατίας. Στόχος μας θα πρέπει είναι ένα πιο ευέλικτο και απλουστευμένο Ταμείο που θα κινητοποιείται εύκολα και γρήγορα και θα επιτρέπει στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να ανταποκρίνεται καλύτερα και αποτελεσματικότερα στις σοβαρές καταστροφές, καθώς και να παρέχει έγκαιρη ανακούφιση για τους πολίτες που έχουν ανάγκη. Αυτή, εξάλλου, οφείλει να είναι η ουσία της αλληλεγγύης που προσφέρει η Ένωσή μας στους πολίτες της.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – Je suis d'accord avec la rapporteure sur le fait que le Fonds doit pouvoir intervenir en cas de circonstances exceptionnelles, même si la catastrophe n'atteint pas le seuil d'éligibilité.

Mais je suis aussi bien conscient qu'au regard des instruments actuellement disponibles, il est très difficile de répondre de manière adéquate aux crises majeures d'origine non naturelle. Après les inondations dévastatrices survenues en 2002 en Europe centrale, l'Union, dépourvue d'outil lui permettant de répondre à la population touchée et d'aider l'État membre concerné par une catastrophe, a créé un nouvel instrument: le Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne.

Depuis lors, le règlement conçu en son temps n'a pas subi la moindre modification visant à l'adapter aux nouveaux besoins et à corriger certaines lacunes observées dans son fonctionnement en dix ans d'existence. Au cours des dernières années, la Commission a reçu un nombre croissant de demandes, situation découlant d'une part de l'augmentation du nombre de catastrophes et, de l'autre, de la réglementation en vigueur dont le manque de clarté empêche d'éliminer les incertitudes quant à l'éventuelle couverture et recevabilité des demandes liées à des catastrophes et présentées au titre des normes exceptionnelles pour celles dites "catastrophes régionales hors du commun."

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − A Região Autónoma da Madeira, região de onde provenho, foi, nos últimos anos, assolada por sérias catástrofes naturais. Na verdade, as características geográficas e naturais desta Região contribuem para um maior risco de ocorrência de catástrofes. Porém, também os seus condicionalismos de ordem económica e estrutural contribuem para uma ampliação da gravidade e da duração dos seus efeitos. Assim é necessário que, no futuro próximo, o Fundo de Solidariedade possa ser ativado de forma célere e que, simultaneamente, seja possível a concessão de pagamentos antecipados. Além disso, seria mais justo que, no caso de ocorrência de catástrofe numa Região Ultraperiférica, os constrangimentos destas pudessem ser tidos em conta na ponderação dos critérios de elegibilidade do Fundo. Pelos motivos descritos, voto a favor do documento que defende uma reforma do Fundo de Solidariedade.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru propunerea de rezoluţie referitoare la Fondul de solidaritate al Uniunii Europene, implementare şi aplicare. Fondul de solidaritate al Uniunii Europene (FSUE) este principalul instrument de care dispune UE pentru a face faţă catastrofelor naturale majore şi pentru a-şi manifesta solidaritatea cu regiunile din Europa afectate de dezastre. Susţin necesitatea simplificării proceselor birocratice necesare pentru mobilizarea acestui instrument al UE, astfel încât să se reducă intervalul de timp dintre momentul producerii catastrofei şi momentul în care statul membru afectat sau regiunea afectată primeşte ajutor. Majoritatea cererilor de asistenţă din Fondul de solidaritate (63%) au fost depuse în cadrul categoriei excepţionale „catastrofă regională”, iar 66% dintre acestea au fost respinse în urma evaluării de către Comisie. Regulamentul prevede acordarea unei atenţii speciale regiunilor îndepărtate şi izolate şi impune ca aceste criterii să fie examinate de către Comisie „cu cea mai mare rigoare”. Având în vedere faptul că atât intensitatea, cât şi frecvenţa catastrofelor naturale în Europa au continuat să crească, consider că este necesar să se definească în mod clar şi simplu catastrofele de la nivel regional, precum şi să se clarifice eligibilitatea acestora.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − Despite the operational shortcomings that have come to light over the years, the Solidarity Fund has proven to be one of the most successful and well-received Union instruments, since it is one of the few instruments available to the Union with which it can demonstrate its solidarity with and closeness to European citizens. The changes in the economic situation of the Union and the majority of its Member States have to be taken into account, the operability of the Fund should be improved without incurring additional costs. Procedures should be clearer, more precise and more transparent. I endorse the need for a clear and precise definition of the concept of disaster, setting a general criterion for assessing the severity of damage caused, and for thresholds to be established geared to the appropriate territorial level. This would help to remove doubts and negative attitudes to the European Union among both Member States and the public, which may otherwise believe that the Union does not offer an appropriate response to their problems. The bureaucracy necessary for the Fund’s mobilisation should be reduced.

  Frank Vanhecke (EFD), schriftelijk. − Ik heb toch wel wat getwijfeld vooraleer dit verslag goed te keuren. Principieel ben ik niet tegen een Europees solidariteitsfonds, en het verslag bevat enkele voorstellen om de werking van het Fonds merkbaar te verbeteren, des te beter. Toch moeten we ons blijven afvragen in hoeverre de doorgedreven Eurobureaucratisering efficiënt is.

Ik blijf erbij: met geld dat van "Europa" komt, wordt per definitie en in de praktijk altijd en overal onzorgvuldiger omgesprongen dan met geld waarvan men de indruk heeft dat het directer van de belastingbetalers afkomstig is. In volle crisis beslissen we hier ook om de middelen van het fonds ook de komende jaren op hetzelfde niveau te houden. Dat is niet verstandig. Ik vrees dat we door de realiteit van de economische crisis snel ingehaald zullen worden.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − This report on the implementation and application of the European Union Solidarity Fund has my support. The EUSF, which grants aid to provide much needed support for a variety of different natural disasters, has proven to be a successful instrument on the whole, although some shortcomings have been identified. I voted for this report because I believe it is a positive step towards addressing some of these shortcomings, hopefully resulting in a clarification of the access criteria, particularly regarding regional disasters, and a reduction in bureaucracy for the mobilisation of the fund.

  Justina Vitkauskaite (ALDE), in writing. − The report speaks of the changes to the Regulation governing the Solidarity Fund (EUSF) that are essential for the operability of the Fund. The importance of the EUSF is well-known. Ever since the creation of the Solidarity Fund and up until now, EUSF has proven to be one of the most successful Union instruments and a useful tool to intervene in the event of a disaster. Many expectations were placed on that Fund but changes in the economic situation of the EU have led to the need to introduce modifications. The Regulation governing the EUSF has to be adapted to new needs and readjusted to current circumstances in the EU. Such changes as mentioned in the report can be very efficient as they will improve the functioning of the Fund by simplifying the EUSF’s procedures and by increasing the transparency of the criteria used for mobilising the EUSF. That is why, after taking into consideration all the aforementioned points, I welcome these changes which will increase the efficiency, transparency and flexibility of the EUSF. And I consider them to be important, as they will improve coherence in the EUSF’s functioning in order to respond properly in the event of a disaster.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR), písemně. − Tato zpráva se zaměřuje na přezkoumání provádění Fondu solidarity. Vyzývá, aby Komise zjednodušila postupy na evropské úrovni a aby se zabránilo zpožděním, protože čas potřebný k uvolnění prostředků z Fondy solidarity postiženým členským státům je nepřijatelně dlouhý. Přestože tento fond není zcela bezrproblémový, má jednoznačnou přidanou hodnotu a hraje významnou roli při obnově infrastruktury v postižených územích. Hlasoval jsem proto pro tuto zprávu.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), schriftlich. − Der Solidaritätsfonds ist ein wichtiges Instrument der Europäischen Union für Zusammenhalt und gegenseitige Unterstützung. Aus diesem Fonds können Länder oder Regionen, die von Katastrophen betroffen sind, finanzielle Unterstützung beziehen. Der EUSF ist somit Ausdruck der europäischen Solidarität. Der abgestimmte Bericht fordert zu Recht eine Überarbeitung der derzeitigen Umsetzung. Die administrativen Verfahren müssen rascher und effizienter werden, um zu lange Wartezeiten zu verhindern. Auch die Zugangskriterien müssen genauer definiert werden, um Klarheit bei allen Beteiligten schaffen zu können. Der Widerstand einiger Mitgliedsstaaten im Rat ist in diesem Punkt wirklich unverständlich.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), schriftlich. − Dieser Bericht handelt vom Europäischen Solidaritätsfonds, der 2002 eingeführt wurde. Bis September 2012 wurden finanzielle Mittel zur Behebung von Schäden aus 49 Katastrophen (Überschwemmungen und Brände) zur Verfügung gestellt. Aufgrund der höheren Zahl an Anträgen und der vermehrten Anzahl an Katastrophen in den letzten Jahren ist eine Überarbeitung der geltenden Verordnung notwendig. Aufgrund der wirtschaftlichen Lage in der EU sollten mit der Anpassung des Instruments an die aktuellen Gegebenheiten keine zusätzlichen Kosten verbunden sein, sie sollte aber auch zu einer verbesserten Arbeitsweise des Fonds führen. Ziel ist, das Verfahren zu vereinfachen und die Definition zu präzisieren. Durch den Solidaritätsfonds wird Nähe zu den Bürgern in Notsituationen demonstriert. Die Effektivität muss verbessert werden, die Verwaltungsverfahren sind langsam und kompliziert. Dies könnte mit kleinen Änderungen erfolgen, die den Kern der bisherigen EU-Verordnung nicht verändern.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), na piśmie. − Fundusz Solidarności powstał po to, by umożliwić w miarę szybkie reagowanie na poważne klęski żywiołowe. Jest także przykładem europejskiej solidarności w stosunku do mieszkańców Wspólnoty, których dotknęły wyżej wspomniane klęski. Bezpośrednim asumptem do stworzenia funduszu były powodzie, które nawiedziły Europę Środkową w 2002 r. Głównym zadaniem Funduszu Solidarności jest naprawa szkód, które nie podlegają ubezpieczeniom. A więc infrastruktura drogowa, wodociągowa, kanalizacyjna czy telekomunikacyjna. Coraz częstsze i gwałtowniejsze załamania pogody pokazują, że Fundusz Solidarności jest jak najbardziej potrzebny. Jak podkreślił sprawozdawca, Fundusz Solidarności jest jednym z najbardziej cenionych instrumentów Unii Europejskiej. Mam nadzieję, że w kolejnej perspektywie Fundusz będzie spełniał swoje zadania, przynajmniej w takim samym stopniu, jak to miało miejsce w przeszłości.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), na piśmie. − Europejski Fundusz Solidarności wielokrotnie sprawdził się jako doskonała dźwignia pomocowa dla regionów dotkniętych klęskami żywiołowymi. W 2009 roku po silnych deszczach Polskę, Czechy oraz Węgry nawiedziła powódź, która spowodowała wielomilionowe straty. W 2010 roku Parlament Europejski przyznał ponad 100 milionów euro na pomoc dotkniętym regionom. Dzięki wspólnotowym środkom oraz dofinansowaniu z budżetu państwa w Polsce udało się rozbudować system zabezpieczeń przed powodzią oraz systemy wczesnego wykrywania zagrożenia. Aby dalej móc aktywnie działać, fundusz ten musi mieć zapewnione stałe finansowanie, wyłączone z niepewnego budżetu UE, które umożliwi mu pewność oraz stabilność działania w każdych, często nieprzewidywalnych warunkach. Powinna również istnieć możliwość akumulacji składek z kolejnych lat.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O relatório salienta a importância do Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia enquanto instrumento que permite reagir financeiramente em situações de catástrofes graves nos Estados-Membros ou em futuros países em processo de adesão. Elabora também um conjunto de recomendações para melhorar a operacionalidade e flexibilidade do fundo, simplificando e aumentando a sua visibilidade e credibilidade, sendo crítico quanto ao longo período que antecede a sua mobilização, e defendendo a eficácia e rapidez dos procedimentos administrativos, bem como a necessidade de redução da burocracia e do tempo entre a ocorrência da catástrofe e a chegada do apoio. Há muito que criticamos a morosidade associada à mobilização do FSUE – bem patente no caso da catástrofe que afetou a ilha da Madeira a 20 de fevereiro de 2010 – e há muito que vimos apontando a necessidade de alterações ao seu regulamento. Este relatório acolhe a generalidade dessas alterações e por isso o apoiámos.

10.4. ES administracinio proceso teisė (A7-0369/2012 - Luigi Berlinguer)

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

  Lara Comi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, ho sostenuto con il mio voto questa risoluzione perché sono favorevole a un'iniziativa legislativa della Commissione, che individui norme adeguate per assicurare la legalità amministrativa e la tutela dei diritti dei cittadini nei confronti delle istituzioni europee.

Negli ultimi decenni la crescita dell'amministrazione dell'Unione, sia per dimensioni, sia per importanza, richiede una legislazione adeguata sui diritti procedurali nell'ambito delle procedure amministrative dell'Unione, Che non possono più essere garantite soltanto nella giurisprudenza interpretativa della Corte di giustizia, sebbene quest'ultima abbia svolto finora un ruolo essenziale in questo contesto.

È vero che in Europa deve esserci una condivisione di Stati con diverse tradizioni giuridiche: ma è pur vero che la soluzione della codificazione appare senza dubbio fondamentale. E questo dobbiamo cercare di ottenerlo e di rafforzarlo attraverso i trattati, ossia il trattato di Lisbona ma anche la Carta europea dei diritti dell'uomo. Ritengo questo un passaggio fondamentale per passare garantire una maggiore Europa.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Mr President, the European citizens have a fundamental right to good administration that is key to good governance. People are entitled to a swift and efficient reply to their request. This right is founded in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

A regulation on a European law of administrative procedure will make clear the principal of good administration that all institutions must respect. Transparency, efficiency, cost efficiency and a unitary practice must be the objectives of this regulation. By giving EU institutions clear guidelines for action, we will improve the Union’s administrative capacity. This regulation will create a unitary code of conduct across different institutions and make possible external monitoring. Citizens must be able to control the work and practices of the European institutions. This would of course increase direct accountability and also the people’s trust.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, d’fhreastail mé ar an díospóireacht anseo aréir agus bhí díospóireacht an-mhaith againn agus bhí a lán daoine ag tabhairt moladh don Uasal Berlinguer agus dá chairde atá ag déanamh an-chuid oibre ag féachaint ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo agus go háirithe ar na moltaí atá curtha aige ós ár gcomhair. Gan dabht ar bith, tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbeadh riarachán éifeachtach againn, ní hamháin san Aontas Eorpach ach freisin sna Ballstáit éagsúla agus go mbeadh siad bunaithe ar chostais réadacha. Ní mar sin a bhíonn sé go hiondúil ina lán áiteanna agus is ceart rud éigin a dheanamh faoi. Tá sé an-tábhachtach freisin go mbeadh an meon ceart ag na daoine atá ag obair i gcursaí riaracháin maidir leis an bpobal i gcoitinne agus freisin maidir le lucht gnó. Is minic a bhíonn siad ag iarraidh iad a sheachaint nó rudaí a dhéanamh níos casta agus níos measa dóibh, agus ní mar sin gur chóir dó a bheith. Dá bhrí sin, fáiltím roimh na moltaí agus tá súil agam go mbeidh riarachán ceart againn ar mhaithe lenár saoránaigh amach anseo.

Dichiarazioni di voto scritte

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente relatório, considerando que uma Lei de Processo Administrativo pode e deve reforçar a legitimidade e transparência da União Europeia, ao mesmo tempo que providencia maior certeza legal para os cidadãos e pessoas legais nas suas relações com a administração da União Europeia. Deste modo, concordo com um conjunto de princípios gerais a serem seguidos para se alcançar uma boa administração e que deve conduzir a ações mais transparentes por parte da União Europeia. A legitimidade de uma administração europeia é essencial, recordando que este é o Ano Europeu dos Cidadãos, sendo por esta razão importante todo e qualquer ato que dê mais legitimidade às instituições da União Europeia.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport d’initiative puisqu’il vise à réformer plusieurs règles administratives de l’Union européenne. Ces règles devraient en particulier promouvoir la transparence et la responsabilité au sein de l’administration et accroître la confiance des citoyens dans l'UE.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Pritariu pasiūlymui parengti teisėkūros iniciatyvą dėl vienos bendros administracinės teisės, kuri būtų privaloma Europos Sąjungos institucijoms, įstaigoms, agentūroms ir biurams, dėmesį skiriant administracinei procedūrai ir suteikiant tam tikras garantijas įmonėms bei piliečiams, bendraujantiems su ES administracija. Šiuo metu dauguma ES institucijų ir įstaigų naudoja skirtingus elgesio kodeksus, bendra administracinio proceso teisė suteiks galimybę sustiprinti ES teisėtumą bei apginti piliečių teises. ES institucijos turi užtikrinti greitą, skaidrų ir veiksmingą klausimo nagrinėjimą, todėl pritariu išdėstytiems siūlymams nauju reglamentu kodifikuoti pagrindinius gero administravimo principus bei nustatyti procedūrą, kurios turės laikytis ES administracija, bendraudama su ES piliečiais ir įmonėmis. Didesnės garantijos didins piliečių pasitikėjimą ES administracija ir kartu visa Europos Sąjunga.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − Nos termos do artigo 298.º do Tratado de Funcionamento da União Europeia (TFUE), o presente relatório solicita à Comissão Europeia que apresente uma proposta de regulamento sobre uma Lei Europeia de Processo Administrativo, com o objetivo de garantir o direito à boa administração através de uma administração aberta, eficaz e independente, baseada na Lei Europeia de Processo administrativo. O regulamento aplicar-se-á às instituições, organismos, serviços e agências ("a administração da União") nas suas relações com o público, limitando-se o seu âmbito à administração direta. Assim, o regulamento deverá codificar os princípios fundamentais da boa administração e regular o procedimento a seguir pela administração da União. A execução de uma Lei de Processo Administrativo ajudaria a União a facilitar a organização interna e a promover os padrões de administração, aumentando a legitimidade deste organismo, e a confiança dos cidadãos, que são cada vez mais confrontados com a administração europeia, sem terem direitos processuais correspondentes como o direito a ser ouvido ou direito de acesso ao seu próprio dossier. O presente Regulamento contribuirá para o reforço das boas práticas administrativas, da imparcialidade e da legalidade, pelo que votei favoravelmente o presente relatório.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho sostenuto con il mio voto favorevole la relazione Berlinguer sul "Diritto dell'Unione Europea in materia di procedimenti amministrativi". Il testo chiede alla Commissione di presentare una proposta di regolamento che definisca la costruzione di una giurisprudenza comunitaria in materia di procedimenti amministrativi da applicarsi per la gestione delle relazioni tra le istituzioni e gli organi dell'UE e i cittadini. Ritengo che questa scelta contribuirebbe ad assicurare alle relazioni tra i cittadini e l'Europa una maggiore certezza e trasparenza.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi turi būti skatinamas skaidrumas ir atskaitomybė, didinamas piliečių pasitikėjimas Europos Sąjungos administracija. Jau nuo 2010 m. kovo 23 d. Teisės reikalų komitetas sudarė ES administracinės teisės darbo grupę, tokiu būdu siekdamas įvertinti ES administracinę teisę. Įvertinimo tikslas – tai daugiau dėmesio skirti administracinei procedūrai ir suteikti būtinąjį garantijų „apsauginį tinklą“ įmonėms bei piliečiams, tiesiogiai sprendžiantiems klausimus su Sąjungos administracija. Verta pažymėti, jog ši ES administracinio proceso teisė suteiktų piliečiams ir juridiniams asmenims daugiau teisinio tikrumo, kitaip tariant, aiškesnes taisykles, bendraujant su Sąjungos administracija. Tai galima būtų pasiekti aiškiai apibrėžiant, kodifikuojant bendruosius administravimo principus, pagrindines taisykles, kurios turėtų pagrįsti Sąjungos administracinę veiklą. Reikėtų atkreipti dėmesį į tai, jog šiomis taisyklėmis, visų pirma, turėtų būti skatinamas skaidrumas ir atskaitomybė, didinamas piliečių pasitikėjimas ES administracija.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), în scris. − Faptul că Uniunea Europeană nu dispune de un set coerent de norme codificate de drept administrativ nu facilitează înţelegerea de către cetăţeni a drepturilor lor în temeiul dreptului administrativ al Uniunii. Consider că legiferarea la nivel european a dreptului procedural administrativ va ajuta administraţia UE să folosească atibuţiile sale de organizare internă, pentru a facilita şi a promova cele mai înalte standarde în administraţie; va spori legitimitatea Uniunii şi încrederea publicului în administrarea Uniunii; va promova cooperarea şi schimbul de bune practici între administraţiile naţionale şi administraţia Uniunii.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While the proposal is for a law governing EU administrative law, one must assume that this will, in time, lead to an overarching EU administrative law, which has primacy over domestic UK administrative law in UK courts. It is for this reason that my delegation voted against the report.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté pour ce rapport sur le droit administratif de l'Union européenne. Je partage l'idée du rapporteur qui voit dans un droit de procédure administrative l'opportunité de renforcer la légitimité de l'Union européenne. En parallèle, j'estime qu'un filet de sécurité minimum présentant des garanties pour les citoyens et les entreprises dans leurs relations directes avec l'administration de l'Union est nécessaire.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − A Lei de Processo Administrativo é uma oportunidade para reforçar a legitimidade da União e, simultaneamente, dar aos cidadãos e às pessoas coletivas direitos mais claros e uma maior certeza jurídica nas suas relações com a administração da União. Esta deverá codificar um conjunto de princípios gerais de boa administração, que deverão orientar a atuação da administração da União, e estabelecer um número mínimo de regras processuais de base a seguir pela administração da União quando se ocupar de casos individuais em que seja parte uma pessoa singular ou coletiva, e outras situações em que uma pessoa tenha um contato direto ou pessoal com a administração da União. Essas regras devem, em especial, promover a transparência e a responsabilidade e aumentar a confiança dos cidadãos na administração da UE.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. − As competências da UE têm vindo a aumentar ao longo dos anos e os cidadãos são crescentemente confrontados com a administração da UE (instituições, organismos, serviços e agências). Em muitos casos, não dispõem de direitos processuais que possam utilizar caso se afigure necessário. Com efeito, a UE não dispõe de um conjunto coerente e completo de regras codificadas de direito administrativo, o que torna difícil que os cidadãos europeus consigam ter uma visão clara e compreensiva sobre os direitos administrativos que lhes assistem ao abrigo do direito da UE. Tendo em conta os novos poderes conferidos pelo Tratado de Lisboa nesta área, apoio este relatório que defende a criação de um Regulamento que permita criar garantias mínimas para os cidadãos e empresas, contribuindo para uma maior transparência, legitimidade, responsabilidade e para aumentar a confiança dos cidadãos na administração da UE. A UE necessita de dar respostas rápidas, claras e visíveis aos seus cidadãos, num esforço que lhe permita ir de encontro às suas expetativas legítimas, o que trará claros benefícios não só para os cidadãos, mas também para a administração em termos de um melhor funcionamento dos serviços e um aumento da eficiência.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), în scris. − Sistemul administrativ direct al UE are nevoie de reglementări comune în ceea ce priveşte procedurile administrative pentru eficientizare, armonie şi transparenţă. Lipsa unui set coerent de legi îngreunează demersurile cetăţenilor în administraţia directă. Sunt necesare răspunsuri mai clare şi mai rapide la solicitările lor, fapt ce ar contribui la sporirea încrederii populaţiei în aparatul administrativ european.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. − Cetăţenii Uniunii Europene trebuie să aibă încredere deplină în instituţiile europene, pentru că nu trebuie să uităm faptul că legitimitatea acestora depinde tocmai de încrederea cetăţenilor UE în structurile comunitare. Consider că elaborarea şi adoptarea unui regulament pentru procedurile administrative va întări sentimentul de securitate pentru cetăţenii Uniunii, pe de o parte, dar şi pentru funcţionarii Uniunii, pe de altă parte.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – Au quotidien, les citoyens sont de plus en plus confrontés à l'Union européenne, dont les compétences ne cessent de s'étendre. Pourtant, les règles et principes de bonne administration de l'Union ne sont encore ni complets, ni cohérents. Les citoyens doivent pouvoir connaître leurs droits, et les exercer de façon claire et simple. C'est une condition nécessaire pour renforcer la confiance des citoyens dans nos institutions. Ce texte a le mérite de comporter un nombre important de propositions détaillées, dont j'espère que la Commission saura s'inspirer pour mettre en place un véritable droit administratif de l'Union européenne, au bénéfice de tous.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório por instar a Comissão a apresentar uma proposta de regulamento que preveja a introdução de uma Lei Europeia de Processo Administrativo, com o objetivo de contribuir para uma administração mais aberta, eficaz e independente e que seja aplicada às instituições, aos organismos e serviços e às agências da União.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report which called on the Commission to produce a proposal for a European Law of Administrative Procedure. One of the complaints that are made by my constituents in Wales is that there is too much bureaucracy in the European Union. Many companies and other organisations are deterred from working with the EU by the prospect of weighty administration. This law would apply to all the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies in their relations with the public and would guarantee more open, efficient and independent administration. I believe it is a necessary reform and crucial to building a better, more open European Union.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Uma Lei de Processo Administrativo é uma oportunidade para reforçar a legitimidade da União e, simultaneamente, dar aos cidadãos e às pessoas coletivas direitos mais claros e uma maior certeza jurídica nas suas relações com a União. Neste sentido, o relator propõe que a Comissão apresente uma proposta de regulamento sobre uma Lei Europeia de Processo Administrativo, a qual deverá limitar-se à administração direta da UE e ser aplicável a todas as instituições da União. Nesta lei, defende o Relator e eu acompanho, deve estar um conjunto de princípios gerais de boa administração, que deverão orientar a atuação da administração da União, as quais devem, em especial, promover a transparência e a responsabilidade e aumentar a confiança dos cidadãos na administração da UE.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − Os europeus são cidadãos bem formados e informados que conhecem os seus direitos e exigem que os mesmos sejam respeitados. As relações entre os cidadãos e as administrações públicas devem orientar-se por normas e princípios que coloquem estas ao serviço daqueles. Na verdade, os serviços públicos existem para servir os cidadãos – que os mantêm com os seus impostos – e não o contrário. O relatório de iniciativa em análise, elaborado por Luigi Berlinguer, contém um conjunto de recomendações à Comissão sobre uma Lei de Processo Administrativo da União Europeia (UE). A UE precisa de uma Lei do Processo Administrativo com regras claras, que defenda os direitos dos cidadãos. Todos sabemos que a ausência de regras só traz problemas. Se queremos mais Europa, necessitamos de uma administração mais eficiente. Votei favoravelmente este relatório, aprovado por unanimidade na Comissão dos Assuntos Jurídicos, porque, tal como o relator, defendo uma administração mais eficiente, aberta e transparente. Todos sabemos que nem sempre as administrações cumprem a legislação, com desvantagens significativas para os cidadãos europeus. Espero que a nova legislação ponha cobro aos desmandos que, por vezes, ainda se verificam na administração pública.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este relatório tem por objetivo solicitar à Comissão que apresente uma proposta de regulamento sobre uma Lei Europeia de Processo Administrativo, constituindo, na opinião do relator, uma oportunidade para reforçar a legitimidade da UE. Por outro lado, perante o que considera ser um problema premente da UE hoje em dia – a falta de confiança dos cidadãos, que pode afetar a sua legitimidade – a UE necessita de dar respostas rápidas, claras e visíveis aos cidadãos, a fim de corresponder aos seus anseios. Significativa esta preocupação com a falta de legitimidade da UE aos olhos dos cidadãos. A constatação do óbvio aconselharia mais uma reflexão séria sobre as suas causas e a subsequente inevitável inversão de políticas e de orientações, do que manobras como a presente, que no fundo traduzem uma fuga em frente – também ela, claro está, ilegítima. O problema deste relatório não está tanto no seu conteúdo mas mais nas censuráveis motivações que lhe estão subjacentes.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − V pracovnom dokumente sa navrhuje možnosť vypracovať na základe článku 298 ZFEÚ legislatívnu iniciatívu na vytvorenie jednotného všeobecného právneho predpisu o správnom práve, ktorý by bol záväzný pre inštitúcie, orgány, agentúry a úrady Únie, zameraný na administratívny postup a poskytoval by minimálny súbor záruk pre občanov a podniky pri ich styku so správou Únie. Ide o príležitosť na posilnenie legitimity Únie a zároveň poskytnutie jasnejších práv a väčšej právnej istoty občanom a právnickým osobám, pokiaľ ide o ich vzťahy s administratívou Únie. Tieto pravidlá by mali predovšetkým podporovať transparentnosť a zodpovednosť a zvyšovať dôveru občanov v administratívu EÚ.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), per iscritto. − La relazione punta a fornire diritti più chiari e certi a cittadini ed imprese nelle loro relazioni con l'amministrazione dell'Unione europea. Essendo la maggior partecipazione dei cittadini al lavoro dell'Unione uno degli obiettivi principali che miriamo a raggiungere, il mio voto è stato favorevole.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), na piśmie. − Po ponad 2 latach od wejścia w życie Traktatu z Lizbony kwestia dobrej administracji z art. 298 jest jedynym nowym artykułem Traktatu, w sprawie którego Komisja nie podjęła żadnych działań. Inicjatywa stworzenia jednolitego prawa administracyjnego obowiązującego w organach i jednostkach organizacyjnych Unii była przedmiotem działań specjalnej grupy roboczej ustanowionej w ramach Komisji Prawnej Parlamentu 23 marca 2010 roku. Uwagę skupiono przede wszystkim na postępowaniu administracyjnym oraz na stworzeniu minimalnej siatki bezpieczeństwa poprzez gwarancje dla obywateli i przedsiębiorców w bezpośrednich kontaktach z administracją. Inicjatywa ta została zatwierdzona 21 listopada br. przez Komisję Prawną dokumentem roboczym. Teraz potrzeba kolejnych kroków, aby projekt ten został prawidłowo wcielony w życie, dlatego apeluję do Komisji Europejskiej o przedstawienie wiążących propozycji legislacyjnych w tym obszarze.

Zgadzam się także, iż prawodawstwo to powinno ograniczyć się jedynie do bezpośredniej administracji unijnej i mieć zastosowanie jako lex generalis do wszystkich instytucji unijnych i wszystkich obszarów działalności Unii. Wprowadzenie praktycznych, ogólnych reguł postępowania przyczyni się do większej przejrzystości i zrozumienia prawa a także zwiększonego zaufania obywateli do administracji unijnej.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I voted in favour of the report. The proposals in this report are important steps forward in the work to reach a high level of transparency in the European Union. It is important that the proposed administrative regulation should apply to all the EU’s institutions, bodies and agencies. I want to emphasise my view: the stronger the regulation for transparency in the European Union, the better it will be for democracy. A good example is the Swedish principle of freedom of information. In Sweden the general public and the mass media have wide access to official records. This affords Swedish citizens a clear insight into the activities of government and the local authorities. Scrutiny is seen as valuable for a democracy, and transparency reduces the risk of power being abused. Access to official records also means that civil servants and others who work for the government are free to inform the media or outsiders.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore della relazione sulle raccomandazioni alla Commissione in materia di diritto amministrativo perché ritengo che il processo di integrazione dell'Unione europea debba comprendere anche un diritto amministrativo unico, limitato all'amministrazione diretta dell'UE e vincolante per le Istituzioni europee. In questo modo si potrebbero definire regole chiare per i cittadini e le persone giuridiche, migliorando così il rapporto tra questi ultimi e l'amministrazione dell'Unione. Per tali ragioni, ritengo necessaria un'iniziativa legislativa della Commissione che possa individuare un nucleo di principi generali de minimis, che fungano da linee guida per disciplinare una buona condotta amministrativa in ambito europeo. Attraverso tali norme procedurali sarebbero assicurati livelli crescenti di trasparenza e responsabilità delle Istituzioni europee, e, nel contempo, di fiducia da parte dei cittadini.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pasiūlymą. Plečiantis ES kompetencijos sričiai piliečiai vis dažniau tiesiogiai susiduria su ES administracija ir jiems ne visada užtikrinamos susijusios procesinės teisės, kurias jie galėtų įgyvendinti administracijos atžvilgiu, jeigu to jiems prireiktų. Administracinio proceso teisė suteikia galimybę sustiprinti Sąjungos teisėtumą ir suteikti piliečiams bei juridiniams asmenims aiškesnes teises ir daugiau teisinio tikrumo jiems bendraujant su Sąjungos administracija. Todėl šis pasiūlytas kodeksas padėtų pašalinti neaiškumus, atsiradusius dėl to, kad šiuo metu dauguma Sąjungos institucijų ir įstaigų tuo pat metu turi ir savus skirtingus kodeksus. Jis užtikrintų, kad institucijos ir įstaigos, bendraudamos su piliečiais, taikytų tuos pačius pagrindinius principus, taip pat tiek piliečiams, tiek pareigūnams pabrėžtų šių principų svarbą.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − The conduct of the European administration is governed by a variety of codes of conduct and lex specialis, resulting in a lack of harmonisation of the basic standards which are applied in respect of good governance. As, more and more often, citizens and businesses are engaging directly with the European Union’s administration in the course of their daily activities, the EU must find new solutions which would improve the legal certainty and clarity for the citizens and businesses concerned when they are dealing with the European administration in its many forms. This extends across a great number of sectors, and particularly applies in areas where European agencies have been given responsibilities covering industrial practices and thus businesses are directly impacted by their activities. I believe that the European administration should be held accountable according to the important principles of good governance and transparency, which is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), písemně. − Podporuji vznik nařízení, které by mělo zaručit právo na řádnou správu prostřednictvím otevřené, účinné a nezávislé správy založené na evropském správním právu procesním. Zdůrazňuji však, že působnost tohoto nařízení by měla být vztažena pouze na jednání před orgány Evropské unie a neměla by v žádném případě zasáhnout do správních řízení před úřady členských států. Věřím, že norma s takto precizně vymezenou působností dokáže občanům a podnikatelům zajistit právní jistotu a předvídatelnost správních rozhodnutí při jednání s orgány EU. Neboť současná situace v řízeních před orgány EU je dále neudržitelná. Proces rozhodování těchto úřadů je roztříštěn do celé řady právních norem různé právní síly, přičemž řada z nich jsou jen metodické pokyny interní povahy, s nimiž běžní občané a podnikatelé nemají možnost se seznámit. To pak znemožňuje předvídatelnost správních rozhodnutí orgánů EU. Co považuji za nevyřešenou otázku ve věci kodifikace správního práva procesního EU je způsob přezkumu správních rozhodnutí nezávislým orgánem, tak abychom nevytvářeli další byrokratické instituce.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this Report. Trust in the administration could be significantly increased by preparing an administrative code which applies to all of the EU’s institutions and which defines the principles and practices of good administration. Article 298 of the Treaty of Lisbon provides for the drafting of such a regulation, stating that: ‘In carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration. In compliance with the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment adopted on the basis of Article 336, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish provisions to that end.’

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − Uma Lei de Processo Administrativo é uma oportunidade para reforçar a legitimidade da União e, simultaneamente, dar aos cidadãos e às pessoas coletivas direitos mais claros e uma maior certeza jurídica nas suas relações com a administração da União. Deve assim a Comissão apresentar uma proposta de regulamento sobre uma Lei Europeia de Processo Administrativo. A Lei deve limitar-se à administração direta da UE e ser aplicável a todas as instituições da União e a todos os domínios de atividade da mesma. É recomendável que se codifique um conjunto de princípios gerais de boa administração, que deverão orientar a atuação da administração da União, e que se estabeleça um número mínimo de regras processuais de base a seguir pela administração da União quando se ocupar de casos individuais em que seja parte uma pessoa singular ou coletiva, e outras situações em que uma pessoa tenha um contato directo ou pessoal com a administração da União. Essas regras devem, em especial, promover a transparência e a responsabilidade e aumentar a confiança dos cidadãos na administração da UE.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor de este informe debido a que propone, a través de una recomendación, establecer un Reglamento sobre la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo de la Unión Europea, que contribuya al buen funcionamiento de las instituciones europeas. El informe propone un Reglamento que recoja los principios fundamentales de la buena administración, desarrollando principios básicos como la no discriminación, imparcialidad, proporcionalidad, etc. El informe propone a la Comisión que desarrolle un Reglamento basándose en el artículo 298 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea. Considero que es un informe acertado al proponer la introducción de los principios de la buena administración y por ello he votado a favor del mismo.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), par écrit. – À l'heure actuelle, l'Union européenne développe de plus en plus ses compétences, qui ont pour effet de confronter ses citoyens à son administration. Pourtant, ils ne bénéficient toujours pas de droits procéduraux pour se défendre contre l'Union.

Constituant un des fers de lance de ma politique, la justice européenne devrait pouvoir être légitimement utilisée par les citoyens des États membres et par leurs régions. Dès lors, j'ai soutenu le vote pour une codification du principe de service et l'octroi du droit européen de procédure administrative. Ce faisant, l'Union et ses citoyens sont tous deux gagnants: elle bénéficiera d'une administration plus efficace; et ils pourront avoir davantage confiance dans cette dernière.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), písomne. − Pravidlá a zásady Európskej únie týkajúce sa dobrej správy sa nachádzajú v rôznych právnych zdrojoch primárneho práva, v judikatúre a sekundárnych právnych predpisoch. Občania Únie sa tak ocitajú v neprehľadnej situácii, ktorá im bráni efektívne a rýchlo uplatňovať svoje práva. Právo na dobrú správu je zakotvené v článku 41 Charty základných práv Európskej únie a ako také nadobudlo právnu záväznosť ako primárny právny predpis. Podporujem preto návrh, aby Komisia zabezpečila dôslednú ochranu tohto práva v návrhu nariadenia o európskom právnom predpise o administratívnych postupoch v súlade s článkom 298 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie. Verím, že toto nariadenie uplatňujúce sa na inštitúcie, orgány, úrady a agentúry Únie vo vzťahu k verejnosti prispeje k zaručeniu práva na dobrú správu prostredníctvom transparentnej, zodpovednej a nezávislej správy na základe európskeho práva administratívnych postupov.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − A Law on Administrative Procedure would reinforce the legitimacy and transparency of the Union, while providing greater legal certainty for citizens and legal persons in their relations with the Union’s administration. Therefore I voted in favour.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), por escrito. − Votei a favor da recomendação para uma lei sobre o procedimento administrativo na União Europeia por duas razões fundamentais: a) O aumento e a diversificação das tarefas administrativas da União, tanto a nível da Comissão Europeia e dos seus serviços como das numerosas agências da União, exigem normas comuns de procedimento administrativo, que deem consistência e previsibilidade à ação administrativa da União, densificando os princípios da legalidade, do interesse público, da igualdade e da proporcionalidade, que são essenciais no uso de poderes discricionários; b) Os cidadãos e as empresas precisam de um quadro normativo comum no que respeita às suas relações com a Administração da União quanto a prazos, direito de audição, etc.

Uma lei de procedimento administrativo é hoje em dia um requisito essencial do Estado de direito tal como sucedeu nos Estados-Membros. Uma lei sobre o procedimento administrativo constitui um passo em frente na estruturação do Direito administrativo da União Europeia. À medida que a integração europeia avança e que a União passa a ter a sua própria administração e deixa de depender exclusivamente da administração dos Estados-Membros para a execução das suas leis, o Direito administrativo deve assumir o lugar que lhe compete no Direito público da União.

  Franz Obermayr (NI),