11 Amendments of Andrey NOVAKOV related to 2015/2353(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that one of the main objectives of the European Union is to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States; underlines that cohesion policy set out for the long term is the Union's main tool for reducing disparities between all EU regions, and that it plays an important role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy; looks forward to the Commission's 7th Cohesion report and calls for specific focus on assessment of outcomes, results, performance, synergies and added value;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises the need for effectiveness and result-orientation of cohesion policy; stresses that Cohesion Policy is a good example of how performance based budgeting can be implemented; recalls that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds are at an early stage of implementation in 2016 and that at the time of the MFF review/revision only limited evidence is available as to results; recalls the possibilities that the Common Strategic Framework, annex to the Common Provisions Regulation, offers; regrets that the uptake of the possibilities under the CSF has thus far been limited; calls on the Commission to stimulate and improve the use of the possibilities under the CSF;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls the performance reserve of 6 percent of the allocated funds which is inextricably linked to result-oriented cohesion policy; calls on the Commission to advance the allocation of the performance reserve during the period 2014-2020 to projects which have achieved the set milestones to 2018;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the improved synergies and coordination among the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other EU instruments, which is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of the EU budget; calls on the Commission to further enhance complementarity and synergies between ESI Funds, EFSI and Horizon 2020;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that the territorial disparities have not been reduced in the European Union, partly due to the consequences of the crises that European regions have faced and are still facing; therefore stresses the need to intensify the cohesion policy and a targeted evaluation of the territorial effects of related instruments as EFSI and Horizon 2020 ; stresses therefore that it is essential that synergies between the ESI funds and Horizon 2020 and the uptake of these instruments will be improved;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that pre-allocated national envelopes in line with Article 2 of Council Regulation No 1311/2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for 2014- 2020 cannot be reduced via the MFF review/revision; calls for an upward revision of the MFF ceilings and a revision of the MFF Regulation;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes the European Parliament resolution Towards simplification and performance orientation in cohesion policy, which calls for reduction of administrative burden on beneficiaries of EU funds in the process of application, management and control of projects;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Invites the Commission to take into account the extraordinary efforts made by Member States and regions in providing appropriate reception conditions and integrating asylum seekers and other migrants, and to explore the possibility, in compliance with the expenditure ceilings set out in the MFF, of providing additional conditional assistance to such Member States and regions when reviewing the functioning of the MFF, without decreasing commitment or payment appropriations under Heading 1b;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that avoiding a backlog of payments in future is crucial to ensuring successful implementation of EU cohesion policy; notes that introducing new own resources to the EU budget will positively influence the payments backlog issue; calls for a full-scale discussion on the introduction of new own resources alongside the MFF revision process;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points to the fact that a seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework has proved its worth in the past and that the programming period should not be shorter; Urges therefore that for cohesion policy a programming period of seven years should be ensured or a 5 + 5 programming period with a clear mid-term revision of the policy.
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Urges that in 2018 the negotiations for post 2020 cohesion policy have to be finalized.