53 Amendments of Ivan JAKOVČIĆ related to 2016/2148(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
- having regard to the study by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies (Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies) of September 2016 entitled "Evaluation of the Report under Article 16(3) of the CPR",
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Stresses the importance of Rural Development Programmes supporting agricultural employment particularly in terms of quality jobs creation for young people and women; meanwhile this priority encourages to take up farming as a career enabling generational turnover;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the new EAFRD builds on the previous programming periods by providing flexibility to better address specific territorial needs and broadening the objectives to six EU priorities for rural development divided into 18 focus areas, all of which contribute to the three cross-cutting objectives of innovation and environment/climate change mitigation and adaptation; stresses that fostering technological and social innovation in the coming financial periods is a key to sustainable and competitive European agriculture;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas cohesion policy is confronted in the current period with many political and economic challenges, deriving both from the financial crisis, leading to a decrease in public investment in many Member States, leaving the ESI funds and co-financing by the Member States as the main tool for public investment in many Member States, and from the migration crisis;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds to complement the gaps that exist between completed infrastructure projects, particularly in cross-border regions, where these gaps act as a brake on improving economic and social cohesion;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs, and expects Member States and regional and local authorities to take the right path in order to achieve cohesion policy objectives;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas cohesion policy in the programming period 2014-2020 has gained a more focused policy approach through thematic concentration, supporting the priorities of the Juncker Commission;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that migration has become a structural phenomenon in Europe and calls for further use to be made of ESI Funds in order to promotefor the integration of asylum seekers and refugees into society;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that Europe has been going through a difficult phase in both economic and political terms, so that a decentn effective investment policy that is close to citizens is needed more than ever;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that Europe has been going through a difficult phase in both economic and political terms, so that a decentfully fledged investment policy that is oriented towards economic growth and employment, and close to citizens, is needed more than ever;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has failed to date to systematically address the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, which in several Member States remains at over 40 %; calls for an evaluation of the YEI following a fully fledged assessment of its performance; asks the Commission to take all necessary actions to ensure its continuation and its revision in order to promotesupport the creation of new high-quality jobs and decent social protection for young people;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that cohesion policy 2014- 2020 has been thoroughly reworked, requiring a change in mentality and working methods at all levels of governance, but that it is often perceived as a traditional expenditure policy rather than an development and investment policy;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the current migration crisis poses many challenges for the educational and training systems of the host Member States; calls on the EU institutions to provide, via ESIF and other Union programmes, adequate funding to host countries in order to substantially support the integration of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers into education and training systems; stresses, in this regard, the important role of local and regional authorities;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that funds allocated to financing the 'Connecting Europe' facility were depleted in order to recapitalise the European Fund for Strategic Investments; expresses hope thatcalls for these funds willto be used to finance infrastructure projects;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes thematic concentration, as it has turned out to be a good tool for creating a focused policy and the resulting greater effectiveness for the EU priorities and the EU 2020 strategy;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes that an analysis of thematic concentration should point out how the strategic choices of Member States and allocation of resources across TOs meet the specific needs of the territories; regrets that this aspect is less apparent in the Commission's Article 16 report;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Highlights that the measures of the Rural Development funding directed at fostering innovation and investment in emerging technologies and precision farming should be substantially reinforced in order to enhance the competitiveness of European enterprises in the rural areas;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers that the results and benefits of cohesion policy need to be put across more effectively, not least in order to restore confidence in the European project;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to have thematic focus, while allowing for; notes that the thematic objectives cover a very large scope which provides some degree of flexibility in order to take on board the specific needs of each region;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Stresses the need to support rural areas with a sustainable management of soil, water and biodiversity in order to enhance their contribution to the bioeconomy; in addition, farmers need to have measures adapted to respond to increasing challenges such as food security and climate change;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the need to enhance coordination and to enable and optimise synergies between ESIF and other Union programmes in order to enable and optimise synergies and thereby achieve greater impact and efficiency.;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to have thematic focus, while allowing for some degree of flexibility in order to take on board the specific needs of each region, as well as the specific needs of the least developed regions in less developed Member States;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that the more flexible structure of the EAFRD was not fully taken advantage of by some Members States and regions which perceived a risk of increased complexity and control requirements therefore asks the Commission to ensure that all parties are in due time informed about the renewed EAFRD structure and to actively facilitate the uptake and visibility of these funds;
Amendment 75 #
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’ and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps (northernmost regions with very low population density, and cross-border, insular, mountainous or outermost regions), which without cohesion policy would hardly be able to catch up with developed countries; 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 Strategy, as the ESI Funds have an important role to play in its delivery;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Urges theCalls Member States to efficiently and fully implement EAFRD and avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Supports the shift from a focus on infrastructure-related projects towards aWelcomes an increased focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion in cohesion policy;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Supports the shift from a focus on infrastructure-related projects towards a focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion, taking into account the specific features of less developed regions;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for the broader inclusion of local and regional authorities in the processes of designing national general transport plans and allocating resources for infrastructure projects, particularly in cross-border regions.
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Underlines that there is an urgent need for simplification of the CAP and concrete actions have to be made by the Commission within its mandate without delays; in order to make sure the EAFRD funds are taken up and spent efficiently with a view to meeting the goals of the CAP;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Is concerned that measures to help farmers manage risks and to set up producer groups were not included in many programmes that could support farmers to better react to the increased market volatility;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the factNotes that more than two thirds of the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) that were adopted in 2014 are relevant to cohesion policy investments and welcomes the fact that they have been taken into account in Member States’ programming priorities;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Acknowledges that in the near future CSRs might trigger amendments to ESIF programmes, ensuring support to structural reforms in Member States;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Points out that Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) and National Reform Programmes (NRPs) represent a clear linkage between the ESI Funds and the processes of the European semester;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes that the European Commission's Article 16 Report does not include a lot of information about coordination and synergies among different programmes and with instruments of other policy areas;
Amendment 132 #
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 against this background asks the Commission to come forward with learning pointsRequests the Commission to come forward with learning points on the implementation of the EFSI which can be used for further reflection for the ESI Funds for the new programming period;
Amendment 137 #
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 against this background asks the Commission to come forward with learning points forto enable the ESI Funds forto be put to use more successfully in the new programming period;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses that state aid rules apply to ESI Funds, but not to EFSI and Horizon 2020, causing problems in increasing the level of synergy among the instruments; underlines the fact that if there is an ambition to extend EFSI or any similar types of financial instrument, the question of state aid rules needs to be adapted accordingly;funds, programmes and instruments; asks the European Commission to examine possible adjustments of the state aid rules to enhance synergies:
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. ANotes that one of the main goals of the 2014-2020 programming period is simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds and acknowledges that simplification is an important factor in access to funding;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Acknowledges that simplification is an important factor in better access to funding;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Welcomes the fact that the new modernised regulatory framework of the ESI Funds provides new possibilities for simplification in terms of common eligibility rules, simplified cost options and e-governance; however regrets that the European Commission's Article 16 Report does not include any specific information as regards the use of Simplified Cost Options (SCOs);
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 21 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Underlines that there is a need for further efforts to develop the full potential of SCOs in terms of alleviating administrative burden;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Recommends that standard procedures be established for drawing up operational programmes and for management, especially where the numerous territorial cooperation programmes are concerned;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that the Member States have different administrative cultures, translating into different levels of performancelevels of performance in their policy framework, which the ex-ante conditionalities are helping to overcome;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Highlights the European added value of ETC, which should be reflected in an increased level of appropriations for thisin the new cohesion policy objective, to be introduced as soon as practicableprogramming period;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Highlights – especially from the point of view of reducing disparities between border regions – the European added value of ETC, which should be reflected in an increased level of appropriations for this cohesion policy objective, to be introduced as soon as practicable;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Proposes the establishment of a permanentat a link between RIS3 and interregional cooperation on an EU- wide scale should be encouraged and made possible, preferably in the form of a permanentn element of the INTERREG programme;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Is of the opinion that GDPpopulation size might not be the only legitimate indicator for ensuring a fair distribution of money that takes account of specific territorial needs; is of the opinion that many regions in Europe are facing a situation of demographic change, as well as shrinking population numbers in rural areasthe allocation of sources under ETC; is of the opinion that specific territorial characteristics and socio- economic specificities should also be taken into account;
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Supports the Commission’s new approach of setting up special working groups, that is to say, project teams intended to ensure better management of ESI Funds in Member States, and calls for this approach to be developed further;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Recalls that the ETC, which serves the broader principle of territorial cohesion, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, is not yet properly applicould be improved; therefore encourages all stakeholders involved in negotiations on the future policy to strengthen this dimension of territorial cohesion;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Expresses the need for a further assessment how ESIF funding contributes to the implementation of structural reforms by Member States, in particular to those which were put forward in CSRs;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Points out that in some Member States there are still regions whose development is lagging significantly behind and that their specific needs must be taken into account when preparing for the future programming period;