Activities of Davor ŠKRLEC related to 2017/2114(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the economic policies of the euro area
Amendments (15)
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is aware of the fact that cohesion policy funding, which represents EUR 454 billion at current prices for the 2014-2020 period (32.5 % of the EU budget), is aimed mainly at promoting investment, employment and sustainable growth, and is one of the most important and comprehensive policies for strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion; welcomes the measures introduced in the current programming period to better align cohesion policy with the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
Amendment 24 #
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 beyond 2020, in order to combat the disparities that have increased following the crisis; underlines that the long-term and integrated approach to cohesion policy should be maintained in the future;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls that the timing of the European Semester and of the programming and implementation of ESI Funds is different as they do not have the same objective; warns that a shorter and more cyclical approach to cohesion policy would undermine its objective of overcoming long-standing disparities and structural challenges in EU regions;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls the need to close the gap between the EU and its citizens; emphasises that cohesion policy is a unique tool to make Europe deliver on the ground, by combining main EU objectives with territorial needs and realities through a place-based approach; calls for the EU institutions and all stakeholders to step up their efforts to better communicate the tangible results and added value of this common, solidarity-based EU policy; insists that cohesion policy has an important economic and social impact, as well as constituting an important contribution to European integration;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Opposes macroeconomic conditionalities as they counteract economic and social recovery efforts, and have a negative impact on the local authorities, citizens and SMEs which are the main beneficiaries of cohesion policy, on the basis of economic policies led by their central government; is concerned by the negative impact such arbitrary measures could have on public opinion on the EU;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Underlines that a substantial number of Country-Specific Recommendations cannot be fully implemented without an active role for the local and regional authorities; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to design a process for the proper involvement of local and regional authorities in the European Semester;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is convinced that the urban dimension of cohesion policy can play an important role in supporting growth,sustainable growth, quality jobs and innovation, not only in major urban areas, but also in all regions with special geographical characteristics; emphasises the role of cities and municipalities in investing in climate change mitigation and adaptation; calls for more ambitious earmarking of funding for integrated sustainable urban development in the future;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses the need for 'greening' the European Semester to better integrate environmental sustainability into the wider cycle of economic governance;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that boosting sustainable growth and quality employment requires strengthening support for education, social inclusion and for research and innovation projects, especially new initiatives involving talented young people and start- ups, as well as simplifying access to, and the conditions for obtaining, the necessary resources;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is concerned by the serious repercussions caused by high unemployment levels in various Member States, especially in the case of young people and older people; believes, in this regard, that the European Youth Initiative helps Member States to integrate young people into the labour market; requests, therefore, that this initiative be maintained and its budget substantively increased in the next financial programming period, as it is an essential tool not only for promoting economic growth, but also for reinforcing social cohesion;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Asks for the social scoreboard for the European Pillar of Social Rights to be fully integrated into the European Semester;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Reminds that reducing inequality, promoting inclusion and fighting against poverty is the key driver of cohesion; believes that the ESF share of ESI Funds must be increased to reach 30% of cohesion funding in each Member States, and that its earmarking for poverty and social inclusion should be maintained at least as long as inequalities are not decreasing in the EU;
Amendment 71 #
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 climate change, the integration of migrants, education, employment, housing, environmental degradation and combating discrimination;
Amendment 81 #
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 2020Horizon 2020, CEF, Erasmus+ and Life+; reiterates that grants should remain the main source of cohesion funding; underlines that the European Fund for Strategic Investments and ESI Funds might in some cases complement each other, but that the EFSI should by no means undermine the strategic coherence, territorial concentration and long-term perspective of cohesion policy; calls therefore for clear delimitations between the EFSI and ESI Funds;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is convinced that cohesion policy should become more flexible, use more efficient tools, reduce gold plating, be result-oriented, and become simpler and more efficient in order to ensure effective use of money and better results in the forthcoming post-2020 period; emphasises that the horizontal principles of multi-level governance, a place-based approach, the partnership principle, climate and gender mainstreaming, a performance framework and thematic concentration have demonstrated their importance to better targeting ESI Funds spending and should be therefore maintained and further improved in the future.