6 Amendments of Martina MICHELS related to 2017/2114(INI)
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that EU cohesion policy is the best tool for contributing to both competitiveness and solidarity throughout the EU regions, and it is therefore essential to continue it far beyond 2020, in order to combat the disparities that have increased following the crisis; stresses the importance of cohesion policy also to efforts to combat the disparities that have increased during the crisis, particularly between regions; stresses, however, that, although cohesion policy has alleviated the impact of the latest economic and financial crisis in the EU, as well as that of austerity policy, it cannot fully counteract the impact of austerity policies but that there is a need, inter alia, for policies to boost demand in countries with surpluses, debt restructuring in the Member States hardest hit by the crisis, and an investment policy geared to redistribution;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is convinced that the urban dimension of cohesion policy can play an important role in supporting growth, jobs, inclusion, integration and innovation, not only in major urban areas, but also in all regions with special geographical characteristics;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recognises that the EU needs to address new, serious challenges, and that cohesion policy could be a very important source of financial support for various issues, such as the integration of migrants, education, employment, housing and combating discriminationwhich can be tackled partly by means of cohesion policy, which is indeed to some extent already addressing them; stresses, however, that cohesion policy is already tackling an enormous range of challenges in connection with the objectives laid down in the Treaties and cannot be expected to overcome all the challenges which will face the EU after 2020 using funding of the current level or even lower;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that different sources of financing must be coordinated by strengthening and creating new synergies for a better use of money throughout all existing instruments, such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments and Horizon 2020; synergies and communication between different sources of financing can be increased; observes, however, that the EFSI and other financial instruments should not undermine the strategic coherence, territorial concentration and long-term perspective of cohesion policy programming and should not replace or crowd out the grants nor aim to replace or reduce the ESIF budget for grants; calls for a clear demarcation between the EFSI and cohesion policy and for opportunities to be provided for a combination of the two and easier access to them without mixing them together;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Observes that the annual procedure of adopting country-specific recommendations to the Member States under the European Semester is not compatible with the medium- and long- term programme planning approach required for the ESIF and that in many cases the recommendations are contrary to social, economic and territorial cohesion objectives; rejects, therefore, any attempt to make access to EU funding instruments conditional on compliance with the country-specific recommendations;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Rejects the concept of macroeconomic conditionality, as this type of linkage between the ESIF and economic-policy guidance 'penalises' regional and local authorities for the failures of the national government, over whose performance the local and regional level, as well as other beneficiaries, have no influence of any kind;