41. Understands from the hearings that a strict relationship exists between the length of the adjustment programme and the help made available through the dedicated funds such as the ESM, meaning that a longer adjustment period would inevitably have meant substantially larger amounts to be made available and guaranteed by the other euro area countries and the IMF, something which was not considered politically feasible in view of the already very high amounts involved; points out that the length of the adjustment programmes and the r ...[+++]eimbursement periods are distinctly longer than in usual IMF financial assistance programmes;

38. Welcomes the fact that financial assistance achieved in the short run the objective of avoiding a disorderly default on sovereign debt that would have had extremely severe economic and social consequences which would have arguably been worse than the current ones, as well as spillover effects for other countries of an incalculable magnitude, and possibly the forced exit of countries from the euro area; notes, however, that there is no guarantee this will be avoided in the long run; also notes that the financial assistance and adjustment programme in Greece ...[+++] has not prevented either an orderly default or a contagion effect of the crisis on other Member States, and that market confidence was restored and spreads on sovereign debt started to come down only when the ECB supplemented actions already taken with the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) programme in August 2012; deplores the economic and social downturn which became evident when the fiscal and macroeconomic corrections were put in place; notes that the economic and social consequences would have been worse without the EU-IMF financial and technical assistance;

1. A Member State requesting or receiving financial assistance from one or several other States, the IMF, the EFSF, the EFSM or the ESM shall prepare in agreement with the Commission - acting in liaison with the ECB and, where appropriate, with the IMF - a draft macroeconomic adjustment programme which shall build on and substitute any economic partnership programmes under Regulation (EU) No ./2012 [on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area], which shall also include annual budgetary target. The draft macroeconomic adjustm ...[+++]ent programme shall addresses the specific risks emanating from that Member State for the financial stability of the euro area and shall aim at rapidly re-establishing a sound and sustainable economic and financial situation and restoring its capacity to finance itself fully on the financial markets. The draft macroeconomic adjustment programme shall be based on the assessment of the sustainability of the government debt and shall take due account of the recommendations addressed to the Member State concerned under Articles 121, 126, 136 and/or 148 TFEU - and its actions to comply with them - while aiming at broadening, strengthening and deepening the required policy measures. The draft macroeconomic adjustment programme shall respect the practices and institutions for wage formation and industrial relations in the Union and shall, where possible, take into account the national reform programme of the Member State concerned in the context of the Union strategy for growth and jobs. The draft macroeconomic adjustment programme shall fully observe Article 151 TFEU and Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

20. Considers a degree of voluntary, national fine-tuning of the criteria for support for areas with natural handicaps to be necessary in order to be able to respond appropriately to particular geographical situations where natural handicaps have been offset by human intervention; emphasises however that where land quality has been improved, the burden of ongoing associated maintenance costs such as drainage and irrigation must be taken into consideration; proposes that farm data (such as farm income and land productivity) be used inter alia for this purpose; emphasises, however, that the decision on the criteria to be used for fine-t ...[+++]uning must lie with the Member States since many Member States have already developed an appropriate and suitable system of differentiation which should be maintained;

20. Considers a degree of voluntary, national fine-tuning of the criteria for support for areas with natural handicaps to be necessary in order to be able to respond appropriately to particular geographical situations where natural handicaps have been offset by human intervention; emphasises however that where land quality has been improved, the burden of ongoing associated maintenance costs such as drainage and irrigation must be taken into consideration; proposes that farm data (such as farm income and land productivity) be used inter alia for this purpose; emphasises, however, that the decision on the criteria to be used for fine-t ...[+++]uning must lie with the Member States since many Member States have already developed an appropriate and suitable system of differentiation which should be maintained;

Investment in infrastructure which contributes, in regions covered by Objective 1, to development, structural adjustment and creation and maintenance of sustainable jobs, or, in all eligible regions, to diversification, revitalisation, improved access and regeneration of economic sites and industrial areas suffering from decline, depressed urban areas, rural areas and areas dependent on fisheries.