17 Amendments of Martina MICHELS related to 2016/2148(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas cohesion policy is the most visible expression of solidarity between Member States and regions in the EU and represents a significant part of the European Union (EU) budget, amounting to approximately one third of its entire expenditure;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, with a budget of EUR 454 billion for the period 2014-2020, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are the EU’s main investment policy tool and a vital source of public investment in many Member States;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the negotiations for PAs and Operational Programmes (OPs) for the period 2014-2020 have been a modernised, strongly adjusted and intensive exercise with a new framework for performance- based budgeting, ex-ante conditionalities and thematic concentration, resulting inadvertently in serious delays in the actual commencement of cohesion policy implementation;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that Europe has beenis going through a difficult phase in both economic and social and political terms, so that a decent investment policy that is close to citizens is needed more than ever;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Observes that the key communication on cohesion policy projects should focus on solidarity, European added value and the visibility of success stories; insists that communication on the subject of the ESI Funds should be modernised and intensified;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the fact that in order to improve communication on, and the visibility of ESI Funds, greater focus couldmust be placed on participation by stakeholders and recipients, and on involving citizens in cohesion policy; additionally, urges the CommissMember States and regions to communicate more about the achievements of cohesion policy;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to have thematic focus, while allowing for some degree ofadequate flexibility in order to take on board the specific needs of each region;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’, transition regions and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps (northernmost regions with very low population density, and cross-border, insular, mountainous or outermost regions); recalls in this context that it is important to support new policy challenges, such as immigration, as well as the broadly understood digital dimension of cohesion policy (including ICT and broadband access issues, which are linked to the completion of the Digital Single Market); points to the Energy Union StrategyU’s commitments under the Paris climate change agreement, as the ESI Funds have an important role to play in itstheir delivery;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points out that an important improvementone innovation has been the introduction of thematic concentration, whereby investments are focused on specific objectives and priorities corresponding to indicators and targets specifically agreed for all the themes;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Favours the establishment of a balanced link between cohesion policy and the European Semester, as both work towards achieving the same aims under the Europe 2020 StrategyNotes with concern the increasing links that have been established between cohesion policy and the wider economic governance framework, including in connection with European Semester rules, since sub-national-level actors are being punished for policy decisions taken at national level, but penalties are adversely affecting development at regional level; underlines the fact that cohesion policy derives its legitimacy from the Treaties;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that the regulatory framework for ESI Funds for the period 2014-2020 supports financial instruments; observes this seriously concerned at there is a focus on a gradualncreasing tendency to shift from grants to loans and guarantees, bringing with it the danger of a paradigm shift in the original nature of EU cohesion policy; notes also that the use of the multi-fund approach still appears to be difficult;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation, and; notes, however, that the agvainst this background asks the Commission to come forward with learning points forlable data do not currently make it possible to agree with the Commission’s entirely positive interim assessment of the EFSI and the proposals for extending its duration and scope; asks the Commission to submit a comprehensive analysis of the projects supported so far, including the SME pillar, in order to assess the usefulness of EFSI support already granted and of potential future EFSI support; calls for any extension of the duration or scope of the EFSI Funds for the new programming period; not to be discussed until after such an analysis is available;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. SupporRejects a further balanced increase in financial instruments; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve thit the expense of grants;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Is convinced that the future performance-oriented cohesion policy must be foundedtake account onf past experience at regional and local level in the area (performance-based budgeting, ex- ante conditionalities and thematic concentration), as, on the one hand, this can provides clear practical guidelines for local and regional authorities – including those who have not so far attempted to apply this approach – on the implementation of its principles and, on the other, flexibility requirements are made clear and can be better incorporated into future rules;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Believes that the spirit of innovation and smart specialisation must remain an important driver of cohesion policcan further complement the core aspiration of cohesion policy: convergence of EU living standards out of solidarity;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Is concerned at the fact that, in the 2017 EU budget, there is again a huge gap in appropriations for heading 1b (economic, social and territorial cohesion) between commitments and payments and that, as a result, there will inevitably be payment backlogs again; calls on the legislative authority and the Commission to guarantee both sufficient overall cohesion policy funding in annual budgets and under the next multiannual financial framework and a sustainable balance between commitments and payments;