429 Amendments of Steeve BRIOIS
Amendment 50 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that cohesion policy investments provide European added value by contributing to European public goods and to the Treaty objective of reducing disparitiesshould supply concrete answers to citizen’s needs, thus contributing to the Treaty objective of reducing disparities; underlines the need to properly evaluate which funds could be better managed at national level, in order to guarantee full respect of the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 123 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Underlines that the austerity measures, the imposition of the single currency and the economic constraints imposed by the European Treaties have had a depressing and destabilizing effect on the economies of the Member States and the euro area;
Amendment 138 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 173 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 193 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that vulnerability to climate change varies widely from one region to another; considers that the ESI Funds should be used as effectively as possible to help the EU meet its commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement; insists that funding under the solidarity instruments for use in the event of natural disasters should be made available as rapidly as possible;
Amendment 196 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls for ESI funds to be used to address demographic challenges (ageing, population loss and demographic pressure) which affect European regions in a variety of specific ways; insists that under no circumstances can the relocation of migrants be considered an acceptable solution to the demographic problems experienced at European level.
Amendment 211 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that the 7th Cohesion Report highlights the need to take account of indicators complementary to per capita GDP for the purpose of allocating funds, in line with the challenges and needs identified, including at sub-regional level; underlines that per capita GDP should remain the main indicator for the purpose of allocating funds; notes the importance of taking as a basis data which are of high quality, reliable and available; supports the use of social criteria, in particular the unemployment rate and the youth unemployment rate;
Amendment 253 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Underlines that the use of financial instruments and of ESI funds should not favour the delocalisation of companies.
Amendment 312 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Underlines the importance of focusing on prevention of errors in the management and implementation of ESI funds; nevertheless considers that continuous efforts should be made in order that any irregularity attracts the obligation to pay or repay the amounts due or wrongly received;
Amendment 328 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Considers that cohesion policy can help to meet new challenges, such as security or the integration of refugees under international protection, with due regard for the sovereignty of the Member States; stresses, however, that cohesion policy cannot be the solution to all crises, and opposes the use of cohesion policy funds to cover short-term financing needs outside its scope;
Amendment 335 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
Amendment 354 #
2017/2279(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
Amendment 18 #
2017/2084(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 35 #
2017/2084(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is concerned about the variety and complexity of the existing financial instruments (Horizon 2020, European Structural and Investment Funds, European Fund for Sustainable Development, European Fund for Strategic Investments, etc.) and insists that efforts be made to simplify and coordinate these so that local authorities and small project promoters have easier access to funding sources; maintains that the coordination of these instruments must not mean that ESI Funds are substituted in favour of the EFSI;
Amendment 47 #
2017/2084(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 11 #
2017/2071(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the EIB to present an additional special chapter in its annual report dedicated to EIB activities aimed at the implementation of cohesion policy by in the Member States, and to include detailed information on the use of loans in cohesion policy projects and programmes;
Amendment 20 #
2017/2071(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the EIB, as an institution through which the EU finances projects aimed at fulfilling EU policies, should contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion; notices however that, according to the geographical breakdown of lending by country in which projects are located, five Member States received 54.11 % of the total loans granted in 2016 should contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion within the European Union;
Amendment 29 #
2017/2071(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that the EIB’s role in cohesion policy is increasing, especially due to the increased use of financial instruments; emphasises that the level of ucalls for procedures to be simplified so that, while not dispensing with grants, they facilitate recourse tof financial instruments is still very low and that Member States point to the complexity of the procedures as one of the reasons for thatn the implementation of cohesion policy;
Amendment 49 #
2017/2071(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the factNotes that, in 2016, more than 50 % of the total approved loans were invested in the transport, energy, industry and water and waste management sectors, which indicates thematic concentration; underlines that; underlines that to reduce regional disparities within the European Union, projects supporting the revitalisation of rural and outlying areas, and other less populated, less accessible and underdeveloped areas, should have priority in all sectors;
Amendment 2 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 8 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas MRS provide a platform for cooperation between EU Member States and among third countries for the purposes of addressing common challenges, and fostering cooperation between and improving the integration of different policy sectors;
Amendment 22 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 27 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 38 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 42 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the fact that MRS must be flexible enough to be adjusted and respond to unforeseen events which may affect the regions involved and the EU in general; highlights the necessity of the Commission’s coordinating role in this regard;
Amendment 53 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 78 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 97 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that the Alpine region is delineated by many borders and that the EUSALP can also provide the opportunity to strengthen cross-border cooperation, to forge links and networks between peopleEUSALP can also provide the opportunity to strengthen cooperation between border regions and to eliminate existing borders and barriers for workers andarriers for economic activities;
Amendment 135 #
2017/2040(INI)
Amendment 145 #
2017/2040(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 – point c
Paragraph 28 – point c
Amendment 27 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Urges that climate change mitigation be considered an urgent priority in EU cohesion policies, in order to meet and indeed exceed the Paris Agreement/COP21 commitments by promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency, without prejudice to the necessary adaptation measures;
Amendment 30 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Approves the approach to tackling climate change put forward in the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations) and the Pact of Amsterdam (Urban Agenda for the EU);
Amendment 34 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 52 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that cities needlocal and regional authorities should be able to play a decisive role in tackling climate change, in coordinated interdependence with their surrounding region;
Amendment 54 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that climate change interacts with factors such as social and gender segregation, migration, the demographic challenge, urbanisation, technological change and energy transition and that this requires an overarching vision, which is more feasible and effective on a local scale;
Amendment 74 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. EmphasiStresses the key role thatconsiderable role cohesion policy has to play in tackling the challenges of climate change at regional and loche fight against climate change; reiterates, nonetheless, that this chal level; reiterates the need tonge should not be used as a pretext for any increase to the post-2020 cohesion policy budget; takes the view that attempts to tackle the challenge solely by throwing public money at it will only waste that money;
Amendment 86 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Believes that cohesion policy should encompass the mitigation and adaptation approaches, differentiating between them and setting clear and measurable targets in each area; takes the view that these targets should be reached through investment plans with the participation of cities and regions (both authorities and civil society), and that this participation should also cover the implementation and evaluation stages;
Amendment 101 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 110 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 117 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Points out that urban policy is an exclusive Member State competence and that the EU should not use climate change as a pretext to increase its own powers in this area and violate the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 120 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recognises the diversity and specific nature of regional vulnerabilities and potential, and points out that the most effective measures may vary in each territory; stresses, therefore, that cities and regions must have the necessary competence and sufficient political, administrative and financial autonomy to plan and implement actions;
Amendment 124 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 131 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the need for cities and regions to implement measures to welcome and integrate climate refugees and migrantsat migrant reception increases demographic pressure on urban centres; stresses that this demographic pressure increases urbanisation, and is therefore not good for environmental policy; calls on the Commission, therefore, not to earmark funds specifically for the reception of migrants in the EU;
Amendment 134 #
2017/2006(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 27 #
2016/2305(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States, local authorities and other partners are able to engage with the complex range of grants, financial instruments and public-private partnerships that are available for connectivity projects; acknowledges the establishment of the Broadband Fund but urges the EIB and the Commission to focus efforts on improving existing programmes that support the IT sector, such as Horizon 2020, rather than creating new ones;
Amendment 47 #
2016/2305(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that the ambitious goals published by the Commission in September 2016 will not be achieved without empowering Member States, and national regulatory authorities and local government; is deeply concerned that the opinion of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on the new electronic communications framework highlights the potential for increased EU-level interference, additional bureaucracy and an undermining of its independence;
Amendment 2 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas cohesion policy has contributed significantly to enhancing growth and jobs, and to reducing disparities among EU regionmakes it possible at best to slow the increase in the regional disparities generated by the policies of austerity implemented by Member States to satisfy the Commission's demands in terms of reducing public deficits;
Amendment 4 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the reprogramming of the European structural and investment funds intended to finance the reception of illegal migrants seriously diminishes their effectiveness and further distances them from the initial aims of cohesion policy;
Amendment 6 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas EU cohesion policy funding hascould have an overall positive impact on both the economy and citizens’ lives, but the results have not always been well communicated and awareness of its positive effects remains rather low if the European structural and investment funds were devoted solely to them;
Amendment 9 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas there should be a clear link between the level of funding available for each European structural and investment funds are funded in their entirety out of the national contributions of the Member States and the level of awareness of local EU-funded programmesit would be helpful to remind our fellow citizens of this fact, misled as they are by Europhile propaganda;
Amendment 12 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 15 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas a permanent dialogue and the engagement of civil society is essential in providing accountability and legitimacy for public policies, creating a sthe European Union is intensifying its contacts with local authorities and civil society in order to limit the influensce of shared responsibility and transparency in the decision-making processthe Member States, assume new powers and sidestep the principles of subsidiarity;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas increasing the visibilityeffectiveness of ESI Funds canould contribute to changing perceptions about the effectiveness of cohesion policy and to regaining citizens’ confidence and interest in the European project;
Amendment 21 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas methodologies for providing information and for the diversification of communication channels should be increasedthe funds set aside for European Union communication projects should be reassigned in their entirety to the structural and investment funds budget with a view to ensuring that these funds make the most effective contribution possible;
Amendment 24 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that cohesion policy is supposed to be one of the main public vehicles of growth that, aiming, through its European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds), to ensures investment in all EU regions and helps, to reduce disparities and to support competitiveness and growth;
Amendment 32 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that ensuring the visibility of cohesion policy investments should remain primarily the responsibility of local and regnational authorities, as they constitute the most effectivinsofar as the Member States fund the ienterface of communication with citizens by bringing Europe closer to themirety of the European Structural and Investment Funds;
Amendment 49 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 55 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points to the increase in Euroscep- fanaticism and in anti-Europeanhile propaganda that distorts information on Union policies; stresses therefore the urgent need to develop communication strategies that are capable of conveying an accurate message to citizens on the added value of the European project for their quality of life and prosperity;
Amendment 64 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 69 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that it is essential to increase ownership of the policy on the ground in order to ensure efficient delivery and communication of the results; appreciates that the partnership principle adds value to the implementation of European public policies, as confirmed by a recent Commission study, but points out that mobilising partners remains rather difficult on account of their diversity and, sometimes, conflicts of interestindispensable to ensure efficient delivery of the action taken on the ground using ESI funds in order to increase ownership of cohesion policy;
Amendment 78 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes the important role of the media in informing citizens on EU affairs; regrets nevertheless the rather limited coverage of EU cohesion policy investments; stresses the need to develop communication strategies that are adapted to the current informational challenges and take account of digital advancements and the mix of different types of media channels;
Amendment 84 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 87 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls on the Committee on Regional Development to focus solely on its primary objectives, namely to use the ESI funds to reduce regional and sub- regional disparities; reiterates, therefore, that the entirety of these funds should be devoted to meeting those sole objectives and that any other superfluous expenditure, and most notably spending on communication, seriously harms the effectiveness of cohesion policy; insists that no budget should be allocated to communication and calls for the public disclosure of any sums that are so that our fellow citizens are made aware of the extent to which the EU wastes money;
Amendment 90 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 93 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 115 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 120 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 122 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Highlights the need to enhance the communication dimension of cross-border and inter-regional cooperation, through the dissemination of good practices and of investment success storiinform the citizens of the threat that macro-regional strategies pose to the sovereignty of the Member States;
Amendment 132 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 141 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
Amendment 146 #
2016/2304(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Further insists on increasing urban-rural cooperation to develop territorial partnerships between cities and rural areas through fully exploiting the potential of synergies between EU funds and building on the expertise of urban areas and their greater capacity in managing fundStresses that sole competence for urban policy shall lie with the Member States and that the European Union should refrain from meddling in domestic affairs;
Amendment 25 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Commission’s reporting exercise, which provides strong evidenceuts at EUR 347.6 billion the total volume of investment under thate European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds through grants and financial instruments resulted in solid impact and visible results by investments in EU regions, which, not including national cofinancing and additional resources mobilised as a result of the leverage effect; points out that almounted to EUR 347.6 billion, excluding national co- financing and additionally leveraged resourcst all EU investments are funded using national contributions from the Member States;
Amendment 31 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the existing European Investment Bank (EIB) Cohesion Policy operations visible in annual reports and sector reports, revealing the impact on SMEs and mid-caps, infrastructure, research and innovation, the environment, energy and agriculture; concludespoints out that EIB lending in support of Cohesion Policy for the period 2007-2013 is estimated at EUR 147 billion, which represents roughly 38 % of all lending in the EU;
Amendment 33 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the factNotes that in 2014- 2020 the EU is expected to invest EUR 454 billion through ESI Funds, and with national co-financing for the investment in the form of grants and financial instruments the sum is expected to rise to EUR 637 billion; points out that these funds cannot prevent the fall in public investment or growing regional disparities in the EU; points out that the Commission had put the lack of public investment in EU Member States at EUR 300 billion;
Amendment 37 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Acknowledges that Stability and Growth Pact rules, which are based on the objective of keeping the public deficit below 3% of GDP, only end up reducing public investment in the Member States and local communities, as is the case in Portugal, where it fell by 19.5% during the first semester of 2016;
Amendment 44 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges that both the volume and the quality of financial instruments (in the form of microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital) under Cohesion Policy’s shared management increased; highlights the two main reasons for this trend – the 2007-2013 period provided valuable experience and lessons regarding ESI Funds implementation through grants and financial instruments, while the 2014-2020 MFF reflects the post-crisis need for more financial instruments owing to fiscal limitationthe austerity policies the Commission is imposing on the Member States;
Amendment 48 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the factStresses that crucial regulatory changes in programming, implementation and management of financial instruments, such as direct links to and coverage of all 11 thematic objectives, compulsory ex-ante assessment, and creation of tailor-made and off-the- shelf solutions and reporting mechanisms, contribute to delays in the implementation of financial instrumentsESIF;
Amendment 69 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes that the chronic overestimation of projected leverage effects can mostly be put down to institutional investors’ disenchantment with projects of public interest which, being such, are less profitable;
Amendment 120 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. WelcomesTakes the view that the Commission’s actions in optimising regulation; emphasises that, despite the improvements,have added to the regulatory burden weighing down beneficiaries and project organisers ; emphasises that complexity still exists and issues such as the long set-up time and the administrative burden for recipients are disincentives to use financial instruments; calls on the Commission to work closely with the EIB and the EIF to make access to ESI Funds microcredit, loans, guarantees, equity and venture capital as easy as using grants;
Amendment 128 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Points out that there are inherent fixed costs associated with the use of financial instruments that certain structures or enterprises cannot afford, given their size;
Amendment 132 #
2016/2302(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 1 #
2016/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 9 #
2016/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for the EU to be included in the Arctic Council with full observer status in order to reinforce the Arctic cooperation and to tackle the common challenges affectingPoints out that foreign policy is conducted exclusively at Member State level; stresses, consequently, that the EU does not have the diplomatic legitimacy to interfere in the internal affairs of the Arctic region and is not in a position to obtain full observer status from the Arctic Council;
Amendment 15 #
2016/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the vital role the European Structural and Investment Funds have in developPoints out that cohesion policy is intended to reduce regional disparities withing the European Union (Arctic and creating growth and jobs; draws attention to the permanent handicaps that need to be offset (Article 174 TFEU)le 174 TFEU) and that no Arctic region is subject to EU law; considers, consequently, that the structural cohesion funds must first and foremost benefit EU Member States;
Amendment 18 #
2016/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 29 #
2016/2228(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 1 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the estimated error rate in Cohesion Policy decreased fromremains high at 5,72 % in 2014 to5, following on from a rate of 5,27 % in 20154; highlights the barely reduced level of error for the 2007-2013 programming period compared to the 2000-2006 period, which is a result of resulting from the strengthened management and control systems of Member States and the corrective measures taken by the Commission;
Amendment 12 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that a simplification of the eligibility rules and public procurement rules would make it possible to significantly reduce the current error rate in cohesion policy; calls on the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible proposals to achieve this goal, which will have to be approved by the national authorities;
Amendment 15 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses that the complexity of procedures relating to eligibility rules seriously undermines the effectiveness of the European Structural Funds, and that it is important to simplify them with a view to increasing the absorption rate in the interest of project beneficiaries and promoters;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges the Commission through the HLG1 to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them; urges the Commission to clarify the notion of recoverable VAT by providing guidance; _________________ 1 High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds
Amendment 31 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that with fixed payment appropriations, extending the increased co-financing rates for Member States which have benefited from financial assistance will automatically lead to an increase in late payments; calls on the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible proposals to reduce these payment delays, which undermine the effectiveness of the Structural Funds to the detriment of beneficiaries such as SMEs and local authorities;
Amendment 32 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes with concern the delayed start-up of the 2014-2020 programming period and that by the end of 2015 fewer than 20 % of the national authorities responsible for ESI funds had been designated; urges Member States to speed up this process and the Commission to provide assistance and clarifications;
Amendment 37 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 1 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is surprised that, instead of the report required by Article 16(3) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), the Communicatission has presented only a communication regarding negotiations of partnership agreements (PAs) and operational programmes (OPs); takes the view that this detracts from what should be the full value of the opinion for consultative purposes;
Amendment 6 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU Cohesion Policy’s main financial instruments; underlines the importance of equal access to education and training in delivering genuine convergence and reducing disparities and socioeconomic inequalities among European regionMember States;
Amendment 8 #
2016/2148(INI)
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 withestablished 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 9 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to boost quality jobs, sustainable growth and shared prosperity across Europe, with a special focus on supportingsupporting all manufacturing sectors, particularly those most vulnerable groups in societyopen to low-skilled and often vulnerable workers;
Amendment 14 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas setting ex-ante criteria is a means of making the allocation of EU structural fund resources in Member States contingent on their implementing the structural reforms recommended by the European Commission;
Amendment 15 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas in moving away from local projects towards large-scale projects located in major cities, the thematic concentration fails to reduce regional disparities within the EU;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas common provisions were established for all five ESI Funds, thereby strengthening the relation between them;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. RegretNotes that the overall level of the MFF 2014-2020 is lower compared with the MFF 2007-2013; stresses that in a period of austerity policies and extreme fiscal adjustments, pressure on Member States’ budgets increases; highlights the fact that such pressure has led to a decrease in public financing for education and has generated high and persistent unemployment, especially among young people; points out that, at the same time, further efforts are being asked of the Member States to finance costly European policies of unproven effectiveness, such as the PNR system, which is estimated to cost EUR 500 million;
Amendment 17 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas cohesion policy is confronted in the current period with many challenges, deriving 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 crisiin Member States that have implemented the budgetary austerity policies imposed by the Commission, cohesion policy aims to create an artificial dependence on EU funds;
Amendment 34 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers it highly unfortunate that some of this amount sum will very probably be earmarked for migrants, who are already receiving funding under a separate budget negotiated outside the ESF;
Amendment 34 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has failed to date to address the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, which in several Member States remains at over 40 %; points out that, in some cases, this initiative has only superficially addressed the problem of young people, such as in France where 'future-oriented jobs' have led to training only in a third of cases, with preference having been given to contracts in the non-profit sector; calls for all youth initiatives not to lead in reality to insecure jobs for young people, which only bring about a fictitious, short- term fall in unemployment; 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 promote the creation of new high-quality jobs and decent social protection for young people;
Amendment 39 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that 6 million unemployed young people are to benefithave not benefited as much as expected from the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) -– which willas to have helped them find jobs or improve their skills and qualifications – now that YEI has been integrated into 34 ESF programmes in the 20 eligible Member States; is concerned, however, about the delayed start to the implementation of the YEI; urges Member States to intensify their efforts to ensure that the results envisaged are achieved successfully;
Amendment 45 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Observes that the keyupdating the communication on cohesion policy projects should focus on European added value and the visibility of success stories; insists that communication on the subject of the ESI Funds should be modernised and intensifiedsupposed European added value will do nothing to remedy the distrust of Europe’s peoples in this supranational institution;
Amendment 49 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 51 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. StresseRecalls that the cEurrent 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 systemopean Structural Funds are primarily intended to reduce regional disparities between Member States and promote sustainable growth; points out that the costs generated by the admission policies for migrants will cut funding for investments in the real economy, which are of vital importance to Member States' citizens who are bearing the brunt of the current economic crisis; calls on the Commission, therefore, to block any reprogramming of structural funds intended for the admission of illegal migrants;
Amendment 54 #
2016/2148(INI)
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 resulting effectiveness for the EU priorities and the EU 2020 strategyRemains sceptical as to the effectiveness of this thematic concentration, which overlooks many local projects in favour of large metropolitan areas, thus aggravating regional disparities;
Amendment 68 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. NotesRegrets and deplores the fact that only rarely do ESF- supported measures generate revenue directly, and that grants are therefore the appropriate tool for their implementation, while financial instruments could be a useful complementary tool for certain ESF interventions with a possible leverage effect;
Amendment 69 #
2016/2148(INI)
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); 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 deliverythe digital dimension of cohesion policy (including ICT);
Amendment 73 #
2016/2148(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes and regrets that it is this very procedural complexity that has necessitated the introduction of flat-rate approximation process;
Amendment 87 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that ex-ante conditionalities, in particular the onalls for ex-ante macroeconomic conditionality criteria to be don Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3), have proved their usefulness, and suggests that they be further improvede away with in the context of the allocation of resources from the Structural Funds;
Amendment 91 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 98 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 107 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. WelcomNotes the fact that more than two thirds of the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) that were adopted in 2014 are relevant to cohesion policy investments and have been taken into account in Member States’ programming priorities;
Amendment 144 #
2016/2148(INI)
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 accordinglyCalls for EFSI to be exempted from state aid rules;
Amendment 182 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 190 #
2016/2148(INI)
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 this cohesion policy objective, to be introduced as soon as practicableCalls for a freeze of the level of appropriations for European territorial cooperation programmes; recalls that these programmes are intended to reduce regional disparities within the European Union and that under no circumstances should they be used to pay for the reception of irregular migrants;
Amendment 210 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. WelcomNotes the code of conduct agreed during the negotiations, which outlines the minimum standards for a well- functioning partnership; observes, however, that while the code has improved the implementation of the partnership principle in most Member States, manyfurther, that most Member States have centralised large parts of the negotiation and implementation of the PAs and OPs;
Amendment 217 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 220 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Emphasises that ESI Funds contribute to GDP in many Member States, an essential element to be considered in the 7th Cohesion Report, to be expected in 2017cohesion policy helps mitigate the harm done by the austerity policies that the European Commission urges Member States to implement;
Amendment 228 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
Amendment 231 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Considers that thematic concentration must be maintained in the future, as it has proved its viability; expects the Commission to come forward with an overview of achievements brought about by thematic concentration in cohesion policy;
Amendment 233 #
2016/2148(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Is convinced that the future performance-oriented cohesion policy must be founded on past experience ion the area (performance-based budgeting, ex- ante conditionalities and thematic concentration), as this 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;
Amendment 243 #
2016/2148(INI)
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 policy;
Amendment 28 #
2016/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 36 #
2016/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 46 #
2016/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 66 #
2016/2147(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission, in drawing up the 9th Framework Programme and the ESI Funds regulations, to ensure that framework conditions are improved so as to boost synergies and complementarity between sector-specific R&I policy, the Structural Funds, and R&I funds and programmes.
Amendment 2 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the signature by the EIB in 2015 of EUR 77.5 billion (of which EUR 69.7 billion within and EUR 7.8 billion outside the Union) in new operations in the areas of innovation, SMEs, infrastructure and environment, as well as support for refugee housing and investment in regions affected by the refugee crisis; also takes note that in 2015, EFSI financed 126 projects amounting to EUR 7.5 billion and mobilising EUR 50 billion of investments;
Amendment 4 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls for European Investment Bank funding to be wholly used in the EU Member States and for it not to be used to finance reception facilities for illegal migrants; recalls that our fellow citizens, and in particular young people, are currently suffering mass unemployment, casualisation of the labour market and rising social inequalities, and that consequently they shall be the sole beneficiaries of EU funds;
Amendment 17 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. AcknowledgNotes that the major EIB shareholders, i.e. Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain, received more than 50 % of financing in 2015, while the new Member States received less than 20 %; asks the EIB and the Commission to provide more technical assistance to those Member States having a lower share in total EIB financing, if they so request;
Amendment 23 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomesTakes note of the level of financing of the objectives of economic and social cohesion (EUR 17 634 billion) and rural and urban regeneration (EUR 5 467 billion);
Amendment 30 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recognises that the quality of the loan portfolio remains high thanks to the prudent risk management policies pursued; requestasks the EIB, however, to increase its risk appetite while maintaining a high loan portfolio level, the sole aim being to help SMEs that, despite having a viable business model, find it difficult to obtain financing;
Amendment 58 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the EIB to increase its share of financing of economic and social cohesion as well as of the urban objectives; calls, moreover, for the development of special financial instruments for macroregional strategies;
Amendment 67 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 74 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to make access to EIB financing simpler for beneficiaries, such as SMEs, that cannot afford the costs involved in complex administrative procedures.
Amendment 1 #
2016/2097(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Annual Report of the Commission and recalls that the goal of enhancing regional cohesion should always be accompanied by the protection of the EU’s financial interests; notes that the fight againstPoints out that the increase in the number of fraudulent or non- fraudulent irregularities also increasesis severely undermining the general effectiveness of EU fund managementthe EU structural funds;
Amendment 11 #
2016/2097(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. RecallEmphasises that the high percentage increase (21 %) in structural and cohesion fundfinalisation of payments for programming periods prior to 2007-2013 must not serve to disguise the EU's share of responsibility for the significant increase (21%) in the number of irregularities reportidentified as fraudulent in 2015 is exclusively due to the fact that payments for programming periods before 2007-2013 are almost finalisedthe structural and cohesion funds in 2015;
Amendment 14 #
2016/2097(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 51 #
2016/2097(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. StressTakes the need to conduct communication campaigns and take awareness-raising measuresview that the sums spent on communication campaigns designed to inform citizens of theabout the supposed effectiveness of the anti- fraud measures put in place so as to avoid misconceptions regarding error rates and the number of frauds committed, also taking into account examples of communication best practices in the Member Stattaken by the EU could be used to provide the authorities responsible for combating fraud with dedicated human and physical resources.
Amendment 29 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the publication of the Commission’s new guidelines of 22 of February 2016 on combining ESIFs and the EFSI; takes note, however, that the number of existing synergies between EFSI and ESIFs funds is still extremely low and calls on the Commission, the EIB, the national promotional banks and institutions (NPBI) and the managing authorities to accelerate the design and implementation of further synergies;
Amendment 44 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the Commission, the EIB, the Committee of the Regions, and the managing authorities should better cooperate to ensure that more integrated ESIF-EFSI projects are put forward to boost territorial development and cohesion policies;
Amendment 52 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that it is essential to ensure a geographical balance of EFSI projects, taking account of the different economic development of the regions and the territorial diversity of the Member States; highlights the importance of also developing cross-border projects that could deliver a high European added value;
Amendment 67 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that there is a need to develop the thematic concentration of EFSI projects related to cohesion policyin neglecting local projects in favour of large-scale projects in major cities, thematic concentration does not make it possible to reduce regional disparities;
Amendment 70 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that the selection of EFSI financing operations and the managing of projects should be more transparent, accountable, based on defined criteria and involve local and regional stakeholders at an early stage; stresses that the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) and the EFSI investment committee should use the expertise of regional authorities in order to promote integrated ESIF-EFSI projects; with a view to this, the EIAH should play an active role in enabling even more local and regional authorities to make the most of the EFSI;
Amendment 85 #
2016/2064(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises the need to strengthen the national and regional platform to support the coordination and synergies between EU funds;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas since being established it has been mobilised in connection with 70 disasters linked to a wide range of natural phenomena, such as flooding, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and, more recently, drought;
Amendment 34 #
2016/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that, since it was established in 2002, the EUSF has been a significant source of funding in the context of natural disasters occurring across Europe, from floods to earthquakes and forest fires, and a means of demonstrating European solidaritythe solidarity of European Union Member States with affected regions;
Amendment 38 #
2016/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that, since the Fund was established natural disasters in the Union have increased significantly in number, severity and intensity as a consequence mainly of climate change; stresses, therefore the added value of a sound and flexible instrument as a means of showing solidarity andinstrument for providing proper, rapid assistance for people affected by major natural disasters;
Amendment 56 #
2016/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 91 #
2016/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Reiterates its call, therefore, that in the near future the eligibility threshold for regional natural disasters should be set at 1 % of regional GDP, in particular for the regions worst affected by the economic crisis and the refugee crisiswhatever the level of economic development of the affected region;
Amendment 98 #
2016/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Recalls that the purpose of the EUSF is to mobilise funds rapidly in order to provide financial assistance to regions of European Union Member States that have been devastated by natural disasters, and that it must, in no case, be diverted from its original purpose; insists that this fund must not be activated for the purposes of managing the current migration crisis or financing the reception of illegal migrants;
Amendment 1 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises the key role of SMEs in generating growth and employment in EU regMember States of the European Unions; notes that in the current climate of economic crisis and fiscal constraint, cohesion policy is a vital source of support forat best mitigates the funding problems faced by SMEs;
Amendment 12 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that the austerity measures imposed by the Commission on Member States have reduced sources of public funding for SMEs;
Amendment 20 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes initiatives designed to diversify sources of funding and reduce the cost of capital for SMEs; stresses the need to improve the way in which capital markets fund the real economy, by developing alternatives to bank loans, and to make EU funding more attractive to SMEs; draws the Commission's attention nevertheless to the importance of ensuring balanced information on the financial markets and protecting SMEs from the risks of speculation by institutional investors;
Amendment 31 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission and Member StatesStresses the need to provide a clear and stable legal environment, and to guarantee coordination, consistency and synergies between instruments and programmes which support SMEs, such as the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI funds), Horizon 2020 and COSME; welcomnotes the Juncker investment plan, and draws SMEs' attention to the opportunities offered by the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI);
Amendment 48 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the complexity of the rules and the amount of red tape involved in obtaining ESI funding, including disproportionate administrative costs and the time lag before payments are actually received, affects SMEs in particular; calls then for a thorough simplification of the process, and urges the Commission to clarify how the rules governing ESI Funds and the rules on State aid fit togetheradministrative procedures for beneficiaries;
Amendment 63 #
2016/2032(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that, setting aside the issue of their size, each SME is different and there are many factors which determine their needs and the ease with which they can obtain funding, such as where they are based, the business sector in which they operate and the stage they have reached in their development; calls on the Commission, and Member States and regional authorities to take these factors into account in coming up with tailor-made financing arrangements which in particular exploit the scope for combining subsidies and funding instruments.
Amendment 22 #
2016/2016(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for the European Union, while still complying with the principles of sustainability and sustainable development established under the CFP, to exploit the exceptional fishing potential of the outermost regions and to remove all the regulatory and administrative obstacles hampering their economic development;
Amendment 32 #
2016/2016(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Takes the view that the EMFF should be used topromote the replacement and moderniseation of small fishing boats that land all their catches in ports in the ORs and contribute to the sustainable local development of fisheries in the outermost regions;
Amendment 36 #
2016/2016(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Considers that the replacement and modernisation of fishing equipment and the transition to environmentally friendly vessels, boats and fishing gear must be carried out on an incentive basis, not by imposing additional regulatory burdens which would threaten the sustainability of fishery activities;
Amendment 27 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Up to 10%All of the funds of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II), the European Neighbourhood Instrument and the financing instrument for development cooperation (DCI) mayust be kept unallocated at the beginning of the financial year to allow additional funding to respond to major unforeseen needs, or new crises situations or significant political shifts in third countries, in addition to the amounts already programmed. These unallocated funds, if not committed during the year, should be carried over by a Decision of the CommissionEuropean Parliament.
Amendment 28 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The rules governing transfers of appropriations should allow for greater flexibility in order to ensure better budget implementation. To that end, it is important for the Commission to have the possibility of deciding on transfers, of up to 10%, of operational appropriations between Titles when they are covered by the same basic act. Transfers from administrative support lines to the corresponding operational lines should also be done autonomously by the Commission.
Amendment 31 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
Amendment 38 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
Amendment 54 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 172
Recital 172
Amendment 58 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 172 a (new)
Recital 172 a (new)
(172a) Given that the primary objective of the European structural funds is to reduce regional disparities and promote sustainable and inclusive growth within the Member States as part of cohesion policy, that irregular migrant reception policies will effectively deprive the real economy of funding and that the migration flood is a source of disruption and destabilisation for the peoples of Europe, European structural funds must not be used to finance the settlement of irregular migrants in the European Union.
Amendment 62 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 176
Recital 176
Amendment 68 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 180
Recital 180
Amendment 78 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 202
Recital 202
(202) With a view to improving the effectiveness and impact of operations implementation of nation-wide operations or operations covering different programme areas should be facilitated and possibilities for expenditure outside the Union for certain investments should be increased . There is also a need to increase the possibilities for investment spending outside the Union in certain cases.
Amendment 79 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 214
Recital 214
(214) Nowadays farmers are exposed to increasing economic risks as a consequence of market developments. However, those economic risks do not affect all agricultural sectors equally. Consequently, Member States should have the possibility, in duly justified cases, to help farmers with sector-specific income stabilisation tools, in particular for sectors affected by a severe income drops, which would have a significant economic impact for a specific rural area, provided that the international obligations of the Union are respected. In addition, in order to monitor the expenditure made in relation to this new tool, the content of the financial plan of the programme should be adapted. Moreover, the specific reporting requirement for the risk management measure in 2018 referred to in Article 36(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 is already covered by the report to the European Parliament and the Council on the monitoring and evaluation of the CAP referred to in Article 110(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. Therefore the second subparagraph of Article 36(5) should be deleted.
Amendment 80 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 218
Recital 218
(218) Pursuant to Article 60(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, in cases of emergency measures due to natural disasters, eligibility of expenditure relating to programme changes may start from the date when the natural disaster occurred. This possibility to make eligible expenditure made before the submission of a programme amendment should be extended to other circumstances, such as catastrophic events or a significant and sudden change in the socio-economic conditions of the Member State or region, including sudden and significant demographic changes resulting from migration or reception of refugees.
Amendment 111 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 264 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 264 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013
Article 5 – paragraph 9 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 9 – point e
Amendment 113 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 264 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 264 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013
Annex I – table on Social infrastructure and Urban Development specific indicators
Annex I – table on Social infrastructure and Urban Development specific indicators
Amendment 118 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 265 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 265 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013
Article 9 – subparagraph 2a
Article 9 – subparagraph 2a
Amendment 264 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 265 – paragraph 1 – point 60
Article 265 – paragraph 1 – point 60
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013
Article 152 – paragraph 3a
Article 152 – paragraph 3a
“Where a call for proposal is launched prior to the entry into force of Regulation XXX/YYY amending the present Regulation tThe managing authority (or monitoring committee for the programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal) may decide not to apply the obligation set out in Article 67(2a) for a maximum of 612 months starting from the date of entry into force of Regulation XXX/YYY. Where the document setting out the cthe managing authority (or monditions for support is provided to the beneficiary within a period of 6 months starting from the date of entry into force of Regulation XXX/YYY the managing authororing committee for the programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal) considers that the obligation under Article 67(2a) creates a disproportionate administrative burden, ity may decide not to apply those amended provisionsto extend the aforementioned period until the end of the programme.”
Amendment 40 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Natural gas (gas) remains an essential component of the energy supply of the Union’s Member States. A large proportion of such gas is imported into the Union’s Member States from third countries.
Amendment 46 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) A major disruption of the gas supply can affect all Member States, the Union as a whole and Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the Energy Community, signed in Athens on 25 October 2005. It can also severely damage the Union economy of the Union’s Member States and can have a major social impact, particularly on vulnerable groups of customers.
Amendment 54 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply has already had a significant positive impact on the Union situation as regards the security of the gas supply, both in terms of preparation and mitigation.ensured that Member States are better prepared to face afor a possible break in supply cr. This is now that theybecause the Member States are required to draw up plans including preventive and emergency measures, and they are better protected now that they have to meet a number of obligations regarding infrastructure capacity and gas supply. However, the implementation report of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of October 2014 highlighted areas in which improvements to that Regulation could further bolster the Union supply security. However, implementation of that regulation has considerably reduced national authorities’ room for manoeuvre in what is a strategic area while yielding only very limited benefits, as the Member States are no better protected against this type of risk than they were before.
Amendment 56 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The Commission’s Communication on the short-term resilience of the European gas system from October 201413 analysed the effects of a partial or complete disruption of gas supplies from Russia and concluded that purely national approacheAlthough a purely national approach would not allow an appropriate response to a partial or complete disruption of gas supplies from one of the Union’s main suppliers, full integration of the European gas mare not very effective in the event of severe disruption, given their scope, which is by definition limited. This stress test showed how a more cooperative approach among Member States could significantly reduce the impact of very seket would not mitigate the effects of a major disruption in the most vulnerable Member States. A more cooperative approach that respects the sovereignty of each Member State is the only way of ensuring that there is an effective re disruption scenarios in the most vulnerable Member States. __________________ 13 COM(2014) 654 finalsponse to a crisis of this kind.
Amendment 57 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) Diversification of Member States’ sources of supply is essential if we are to reduce Member States’ dependence on their energy suppliers. However, this Regulation must not be instrumental in marginalising Russia in trade relations with the Union.
Amendment 59 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
Amendment 62 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) An internal gas market that operates smoothly is the best guarantee of security of energyThe Union’s Member States’ reaction to a supply across the Union and to reduce the exposure of individual Member States to the harmful effects of supply disruptions. Where a Member State’s security of supply is threatened, there is a risk that measures developed unilaterally by that Member State may jeopardise the proper functioning of the internal gas market and damage the gas supply to customers in other Member States. To allow the internal gas market to function even in the face of a shortage of supply, provision must be made for solidarity and coordination in the response to supply crises, as regards both preventive action and the reaction to actualisis needs to be coordinated as regards both preventive action and the reaction to actual disruptions of supply. However, it would be extremely inappropriate to forbid a Member State to take unilateral action to protect itself against disruptions of its gas supplyies.
Amendment 74 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Responsibility for security of gas supply should be shared by natural gas undertakings, and Member States, acting through their competent authorities; and the Commission, within their respective remits. Such shared responsibility requires very close cooperation between these parties. However, customers using gas for electricity generation or industrial purposes may also have an important role to play in security of gas supply, as they can respond to a crisis by taking demand-side measures such as interruptible contracts and fuel switching, which have an immediate impact on the supply/demand balance.
Amendment 77 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The infrastructure standard should obliencourage Member States to maintain a minimum level of infrastructure such as to ensure a degree of redundancy in the system in the event of a disruption of the single largest infrastructure. As an analysis by reference to the N-1 indicator constitutes a purely capacity-based- approach, the results of N-1 should be complemented with a detailed analysis that also captures gas flows.
Amendment 79 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 requires transmission system operators to enable permanent bi-directional capacity on all cross-border interconnections unless an exemption has been granted from this obligation. It aims to ensure that the possible benefits of permanent bi- directional capacity are always taken into account when a new interconnector is planned. However, bi-directional capacity can be used to supply gas both to the neighbouring Member State and to others along the gas supply corridor. The benefits for security of supply of enabling permanent bi-directional capacity thus need to be seen in a broader perspective, in a spirit of solidarity and enhanced cooperation. A cost-benefit analysis that takes account of the whole transportation corridor should therefore be conducted when considering whether to implement bi-directional capacity. The competent authorities should accordingly be required to re-examine the exemptions granted under Regulation (EU) 994/2010 on the basis of the results of the regional risk assessments.
Amendment 84 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) A regional approach to assessing risks and defining and adopting preventive and mitigating measures enables efforts to be coordinated, bringing significant benefits in terms of the effectiveness of measures and optimisation of resources. This applies particularly to measures designed to guarantee a continued supply, under very demanding conditions, to protected customers, and to measures to mitigate the impact of an emergency. Assessing correlated risks at regional level, which is both more comprehensive and more precise, will ensure that Member States are better prepared for any crises. Moreover, in an emergency, a coordinated and pre-agreed approach to security of supply ensures a consistent response and reduces the risk of negative spill-over effects that purely national measures could have in neighbouring Member Statesto this type of risk.
Amendment 88 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In order to make the regional cooperation feasible, Member States should establish a cooperation mechanism within each region. Such mechanism or mechanisms should be developed sufficiently in time to allow for conducting the risk assessment and drawing up meaningful plans at regional level. Member States are free to agree on a cooperation mechanism best suited for a given region. The Commission should have a facilitating role in the overall process and share best practises for arranging regional cooperation such as a rotating coordination role within the region for the preparation of the different documents or establishing dedicated bodies. In absence of an agreement on the cooperation mechanism, the Commission may propose a suitable cooperation mechanism for a given regionces.
Amendment 93 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) To ensure maximum preparedness, so as to avoid a supply disruption and mitigate its effects should it nevertheless occur, the competent authorities of a given region must draw up preventive action plans and emergency, after consulting stakeholders. Regional plans should take account of the specific characteristics of each Member State. They should also clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the natural gas undertakings and the competent authorities. National measures to be designed should take fully account of the regional measures set out in the preventive action plan and emergency plan. They should be so designed as to address national risks in a way that takes full advantage of the opportunities provided by regional cooperation. The plans should be technical and operational in nature, their function being to help prevent the occurrence or escalation of an emergency and to mitigate its effects. The plans should take the security of electricity systems into account and be consistent with the Energy Union’s strategic planning and reporting tools.
Amendment 101 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) DThought should be given to taking demand-side measures, such as fuel switching orand even reducing the gas supply to large industrial consumers in an economically efficient order, may have a valuable role to play in ensuring energy security, if they can be applied quickly and significantly reduce demand in response to a supply disruption. More should be done to promote efficient energy use, particularly where demand- side measures are needed. The environmental impact of any demand and supply-side measures proposed must be taken into account, with preference being given, as far as possible, to measures that have least impact on the environment. At the same time, security of supply and competitiveness aspects must be taken into accountin the event of a supply disruption. Member States have sole responsibility for establishing that order and determining their gas supply priorities.
Amendment 107 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) As demonstrated by the October 2014 stress test, solidarity is needed to ensure security of supply across the Union and to keep overall costs to a minimum. If an emergency is declared in any Member State, a two-step approach should be applied to strengthen solidarity. Firstly, all Member States which have introduced a higher supply standard should reduce it to default values to make the gas market more liquid. Secondly, if the first step fails to provide the necessary supply, further measures by neighbouring Member States, even if not in an emergency situation, should be triggered to ensure the supply to households, essential social services and district heating installations in the Member State experiencing the emergency. Member States should identify and describe the details of these solidarity measures in their emergency plans, ensuring fair and equitable compensation of the natural gas undertakings.
Amendment 109 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36 a (new)
Recital 36 a (new)
(36a) Solidarity mechanisms of this kind make it possible to respond swiftly to a partial or complete disruption of gas supplies. They are not, however, a sustainable means of addressing the difficulties caused by Member States’ heavy dependence on outside energy suppliers. The opportunities provided by alternative fossil fuels, such as coal gas, which does not require the use of hydraulic fracturing, should therefore be explored.
Amendment 132 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 135 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The competent authorities within each region shall agree on a cooperation mechanism to conduct the risk assessment within the deadline provided for in paragraph 5 of this Article. Competent authorities shall report to the Gas Coordination Group on the agreed cooperation mechanism for conducting the risk assessment 18 months before the deadline for the adoption of the risk assessment and the updates of the risk assessment. The Commission may have a facilitating role overall in the preparation of the risk assessment, in particular for the establishment of the cooperation mechanism. If competent authorities within a region do not agree on a cooperation mechanism, the Commission may propose a cooperation mechanism for that region.
Amendment 145 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Competent authorities shall regularly report to the Gas Coordination Group on the progress achieved on the preparation and adoption of the preventive action plans and the emergency plans. In particular competent authorities shall report to the Gas Coordination Group on the agreed cooperation mechanism 18 months before the deadline for the adoption of the plans and the updates of the plans. The Commission may have a facilitating role overall in the preparation of the plans, in particular for the establishment of the cooperation mechanism. If competent authorities within a region do not agree on a cooperation mechanism, the Commission may propose a cooperation mechanism for that region. They shall ensure the regular monitoring of the implementation of such plans.
Amendment 146 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The preventive action plan and the emergency plan shall be developed in accordance with the templates contained in Annex V. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 18 to amend those templates.
Amendment 148 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Amendment 151 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Amendment 154 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The preventive action plan shall be based primarily on market measures and shall not put an undue burden on natural gas undertakings, or negatively impact on the functioning of the internal market in gas.
Amendment 155 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Amendment 159 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Amendment 162 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – point a
Amendment 163 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 6
Article 11 – paragraph 6
Amendment 164 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 168 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
Article 12 – paragraph 6
Amendment 173 #
2016/0030(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. A Gas Coordination Group is established to facilitate the coordination of measures concerning security of gas supply. The Group shall be composed of representatives of the Member States, in particular of their competent authorities, as well as the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (the “Agency”), the ENTSO for Gas and representative bodies of the industry concerned and those of relevant customers. The Commission shall, in consultation with the Member States, decide on the composition of the Group, ensuring it is fully representative. The Commission shall chair the Group. The Group shall adopt its rules of procedure.
Amendment 1 #
2015/2353(INI)
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; uUnderlines that cohesion policy set out for the long term is the Union's main tool for reducing regional disparities between all EU regions, and that it plays an important role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy; notes, nevertheless, that serious doubts remain as to the effectiveness of cohesion policy given the increasing macroeconomic divergences within the European Union in the areas of competitiveness and employment;
Amendment 31 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 41 #
2015/2353(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls for a more simplifiedwarns subscribers, however, about the use of such financial instruments in future, whose complexity and modalities can be particularly risky;
Amendment 51 #
2015/2353(INI)
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, aOpposes any reprogramming of European structural funds to explore the possibility, in compliance with the expenditufinance re ceilings set out in the MFF, of providing additional assistance to such Member States and regionption infrastructure for illegal migrants when reviewing the functioning of the MFFmultiannual financial framework;
Amendment 5 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
Amendment 6 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 15 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 22 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the strong bottom-up approach adopted by the regions of the Alpine area has led to the development of the European Union Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP), aimed at effectively addressing challenges that are common to the entire Alpine region;
Amendment 24 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the macro-strategy for the Alpine region will affectconcerns 80 million people living in 48 regions in sevseven different countries, of which five are EU Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia) and two are non-EU countries (Liechtenstein and Switzerland);
Amendment 28 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas thise 48 region constitutes an interconnected macro-region withs which this strategy concerns face environmental, demographic, transport, tourism and energy-related issues, and whereas coordinated territorial planning could produce better results and added value for territorial cohesion of Alpine and peri-Alpine areas;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the Communication from the Commission concerning the European Union Strategy for the Alpine Region and the accompanying Action Plan; believes this is a step forward for the development of the region in line with the Europe 2020 objective of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
Amendment 50 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomNotes the fact that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) offer potentially significant resources and a wide range of tools and options for the Strategy; notes the availability of other funds and instruments relevant to the Strategy pillars, notably Horizon 2020, the Connecting Europe Facility, the LIFE programme, and the COSME programme for SMEs, for which the Commission should investigate the possible added value of specific calls focused on the particular challenges of the Alpine region;
Amendment 55 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls onObserves that the Member States’ competent authorities tocan adapt their adopted operational programmes in order to ensure thaf they wish to take into account future projects under the EUSALP strategy are promptly implemented and that managing authorities take due account of EUSALP priorities when implementing the operational programmes (e.g. by way of dedicated calls, bonus points or budget earmarking);
Amendment 65 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 69 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 77 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Insists that local and regthe national authorities of the Member States should have a leading role in the political managing bodies and in the operational, technical and implementing bodies of the Strategy, in full respect of the principles of subsidiarity and multi-level governance;
Amendment 88 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the EIB, in cooperation with the CommissionMember States, to examine the possibility of setting up an investment platform for the Alpine regions that would enable mobilisation of funding from public and private sources; stresses the need to use the Union's existing sources of funding, in view of the limited room for manoeuvre in the budgets of the Member States; calls for the creation of a pipeline project for these regions which would attract investors;
Amendment 94 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that innovation and new technologies, driven by smart specialisation strategies and financed by existing EU funding sources (e.g. the ERDF, the ESF, COSME, Horizon 2020 or Erasmus +), could help generate quality jobs and catalyse the establishment, upscaling and clustering of SMEs, which could, in turn, reverse the depopulation trend in Alpine areas;
Amendment 98 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Encourages clustering and cooperation between public and private enterprises, universities, research institutes and other relevant stakeholders with the aim of promoting innovation and making it possible to benefit from synergies between Alpine and peri-Alpine areas; considers that envisaged actions should build on the national and regional Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation with a view to securing more efficient and effective investment;
Amendment 107 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that a macro-regthe European Unional strategy for the Alps shouldine regions absolutely must secure the preservation of forms of traditional economic activity as well as fostering innovation and the development of new initiatives in this field;
Amendment 113 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Underlines that cooperation between regionsthe Member States concerned is dessential forirable in the context of the further development of tourism in the wideralpine regions; encourages the formulation of tourism strategies based on sustainability and innovation;
Amendment 139 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines the importance of connecting transport routes with other parts of Europe and the relevance of interconnections with TEN-T corridors; calls on the participating countries to focus their efforts on implementing projects that are covered by the current TEN-T network;
Amendment 145 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Draws attention to the lack of effective connections within mountain areas; urges the Commission and the Member States to facilitate better connection at local level in order to enhance cohesion and quality of life in these areas and encourage resettlement;
Amendment 165 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses the lack of effective digital connections within mountain areas; encourages the Commission and the Member States to facilitate better connections at local level in order to enhance the quality of life and promote the development of new activities and the creation of job opportunities in these areas, and to encourage resettlement;
Amendment 168 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses the importance of public investment in mountain areas in order to tackle the failure of the market to provide digital connectivity in these areas; calls on the Commission to propose concrete solutions for this issue;
Amendment 193 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses the importance of supporting the development of the most efficient renewable energies in the region, from hydro through solar and wind to the sustainable use of forest wood, taking great care to preserve landscapes;
Amendment 200 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 206 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls onEncourages the participating countries to continue their efforts to diversify energy supply sources and to develop the renewable sources available, such as solar and wind energy, within the energy production mix; underlines the sustainability and competitiveness of hydropower plants; calls on the participating countries to contribute to the setting-up of well-functioning electricity infrastructure networks in the macro- region;
Amendment 213 #
2015/2324(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that diversifying energy supply sources will not only improve the energy security of the macro-alpine regions, but will also bring more competition, with important benefits for the economic development of those regions;
Amendment 1 #
2015/2320(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls onSuggests that Member States to focus on facilitatinge an adequate EU funding mix for SMEs – grants, loans, guarantees, equity, microfinance – in view of the ever- increasing role of financial instruments and synergies between instruments funded by the EU budget through the ERDF and through direct management programmes such as Horizon 2020, the PSCI, COSME and LIFE;
Amendment 10 #
2015/2320(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. UrgesCalls on the Commission and the Member States to focus its efforts on regions with low take-up of financial instruments, including scale-up financing for the transition from start-ups to SMEs, in view of the important role of financial products in operational programmes, the EFSI and the EIB Group operations;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2320(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges both the Member States and the Commission to make significant progress in further simplification of EU funding by 2017 with regard to application, management and monitoring/control of projects by introducing an EU-wide public procurement procedure, complete e- cohesion, a single audit based on risk, the reduction of data and information requirements and the elimination of gold- plating through extensive regulatory optimisation;
Amendment 45 #
2015/2320(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Invites the Commission and the Council to provide further support for COSME, Horizon 2020 and Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs in the context of the MFF review/revision, given their crucial role for SMEs locally and regionally and the important effects of innovation and clustering advantages that those programmes can bring for SMEs;
Amendment 56 #
2015/2320(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 62 #
2015/2320(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses that the austerity measures imposed by the Commission on the Member States have had the effect of increasing fiscal pressure on SMEs;
Amendment 12 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas cohesion policy represents a fundamentalshould be a tool for investmenting in growth and jobs in the EU, with a budget of over EUR 350 billion until 2020; whereas the tangible results of cohesion policy investment can help shapeinvestments using cohesion policy funds should strengthen the current and future growth of regions within Member States;
Amendment 25 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Cohesion Policy in the 2007- 2013 programming period provided € 70 billion of support to SMEs, creating thanks to Member State contributions, helping to create more than 263 000 SME jobs, and helped SMEs modernise through increased use of ICT, access skills, innovation or the modernisation of working practices;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas cohesion policy can, at best, mitigate the harmful effects of EU policies in the areas of employment and investment in SMEs; whereas the objective is not only to inject public money into the economy, but also to tackle the difficulties faced by SMEs, in particular red tape, cash flow, funding and competitiveness;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas the EU does not protect our industries and our SMEs against unfair international competition; whereas the EU fosters social, environmental and fiscal dumping on the single market itself, as demonstrated by the 'posting of workers' directive;
Amendment 29 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)
Recital E c (new)
Ec. whereas the eurozone is not a fully developed monetary zone, and whereas it therefore provides no protection against exogenous asymmetric shocks; whereas the eurozone Member States are deprived of the monetary policy leverage they could use to generate growth, investment and jobs, and whereas the single currency makes the products exported by some SMEs, with the exception of those in Germany, more expensive;
Amendment 30 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E d (new)
Recital E d (new)
Ed. whereas the EU forbids Member States from practising economic patriotism, which involves favouring local businesses, and thus local jobs, when awarding public contracts;
Amendment 34 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the introductionuse of thematic concentration into cohesion policy programming for 2014-2020 providedcould be an effective tool for the design of operational programmes with a better focus on investment priorities if it did not favour the take-up of structural fund support by metropolitan areas to the detriment of rural and peri-urban areas;
Amendment 40 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that, through thematic concentration, should make operational programmes appear to be better targeted towards a limited number of strategic goals, in particular in terms of growth enhancement and high-quality job creation potential for SMEs;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Criticises the fact that the Commission's only means of strengthening the competitiveness of SMEs is to attack the employment rights of EU workers by recommending that the Member States cut wages, since they cannot devalue their currencies, or try to harmonise national social protection systems downwards;
Amendment 76 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is paying increased attention to good governance and high-quality public services; rRecalls the importance for SMEs to have a transparent, consistent and innovative public procurement set-up; stresses the need to continue with the strict application of anti-error and anti-fraud measures without adding to the administrative burden;
Amendment 82 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 94 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure enhanced coordination and consistency among all EU investment policies targeted at SMEs; welcomnotes the plan to ease access to ESI funds through the introduction of a ‘seal of excellence’ for projects which have been evaluated as ‘excellent’ but are not financed by Horizon 2020; urgessuggests that the Member States to provide a one-stop shop at regional level for the various EU financing instruments aimed at SMEs;
Amendment 105 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Urges the CommissionCalls on the Member States to monitor closely the acceleration of implementation, in particular the setting-up of projects with sustainable growth and quality job creation potential;
Amendment 112 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to identify, at the earliest possible stage, obstacles preventing the efficient use of funds for SMEs, and to provide specific recommendations for action and guidancea comprehensive analysis thereof to national governments and, above all, to beneficiaries; emphasises Parliament’s role in the supervision of results-oriented implementation;
Amendment 139 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that smart specialisation strategies, although not formally required as ex ante conditionalities in TO 3, are a crucial tool inintended to guaranteeing innovation and the adaptability of Thematic Objectives; asks the Commission to report to Parliament on the results of smart specialisation strategies devoted to SMEs at national and/or regional level;
Amendment 146 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Asks the Managing Authorities to take into consideration the characteristics and specific competences of individual territories, with a view to promoting both traditional and innovative economic sectors; calls on the Commission to draw up specific programmes which embody all relevant green growth elements for SMEs; stresses the need for youth entrepreneurship potential to be used to the full in the context of green growth, as a way to reconcile economic growth with environmental sustainabilitystresses the need for youth entrepreneurship potential to be used to the full;
Amendment 160 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the future challenges facing SMEs inat adapting and complying with the recent decisions taken at the COP21 conference, and calls on the Commission to help the managing authorities in the Member involves additional constraints on SMEs, which are already affected by the environmental dumping practised by the United States andapt the programmes in order to streamline this adaptation procesemerging countries;
Amendment 162 #
2015/2282(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 6 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas cross-border cooperation should be the responsibility of the Member States and their national authorities;
Amendment 7 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 14 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 18 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas following the principles of shared management, multilevel governance and partnership, ETC programmes have been developed through a collective process bringing together a wide range of European, national and regional bodies to tackle common challenges across borders, but the results are slow in coming;
Amendment 23 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that ETC has become one of the two goals of cohesion policy 2014-2020, with its own regulation; underlines, however, that the ETC budget of EUR 10.1 billion, representing a mere 2.8 % of the cohesion policy budget, does not match the great challenges that ETC has to meet;
Amendment 29 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Acknowledges that cross-border cooperation (CBC) during the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 was marked by a clear orientation to more strategically focused priorities and achieved best practicesproduced extremely disappointing results whether in the fields of better connectivity and, accessibility, knowledge and innovation transfer, strengthening regional identity, tackling environmental challenges, enhancing institutional capacity, health care, education, employment and labour mobility, andtransfer, employment or creating new partnerships;
Amendment 33 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges that transnational cooperation has not helped in supporting innovation and the knowledge economy, adapting to climate change, and promoting sustainable transport and mobility through transnational approaches, and has contributed to enhancing institutional capacity;
Amendment 37 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 43 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that for 2014-2020 about 41 % of the ETC ERDF budget22 will be invested in measures to improve the environment, while 27 % will be invested in strengthening research and innovations and 13 % will go to promote inclusive growth through activities linked to employment, education and training and 33 programmes will be aimed at improving general connectivity across borders; further noteregrets that EUR 790 million will be allocatsquandered ton enhancing institutional capacity through setting up or strengthening cooperation structures and improving the efficiency of public servicesat a time when European citizens are experiencing a rise in poverty and social inequality; __________________ 22 Annexe I (European Territorial Cooperation/Interreg) to the Communication from the Commission Investing in jobs and growth - maximising the contribution of ESI Funds.
Amendment 51 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes with concern the late adoption of ETC programmes, and urges the Commission and the Member States to mobilise their efforts for their successful implementation;
Amendment 62 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 70 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 74 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 77 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Considers that better coordination, synergy and complementarity should be sought between cross-border and transnational strands with a view to improving cooperation and integration over wider strategic territories; calls for better coordination between managing authorities and macro-regional strategies’ actors;
Amendment 82 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 87 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 105 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 108 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Acknowledges all simplifications made in the EGTC Regulation, and calls on Member States to facilitate the creation of EGTCs in their countries; points out, however, that this rUnderlines that the EGTC Regulation is not sufficient to overcome all legal obstacles existing to cross-border cooperation; welcomes, therefore,takes note of the initiative of the Luxembourg Presidency, which proposed a specific legal tool for border regions, giving Member States the opportunity to agree on specific legal provisions;
Amendment 114 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
Amendment 121 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 130 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
Amendment 137 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
Amendment 144 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls onSuggests theat Member States to simplify their national provisions and to, avoid ‘gold- plating’; urges the implementation of e-cohesion and streamlining ofe their administrative procedures;
Amendment 152 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Considers that ETC has proved its ineffectiveness, and regrets that its potential has not been fully deployed owing to insufficientso many financial resources; highlights its potential beyond regional policy, in areas suchave been wasted at as the single market, the digital agenda, employment, mobility, energy, research, education, health and the environment, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to preserve ETC as an important instrument, allocating it a more distinct role within cohesion policy post-2020 and increasing its budgetime when our citizens are wanting direct answers on purchasing power and reducing poverty;
Amendment 161 #
2015/2280(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 7 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas during these timesa period of economic crisis the EU must step up its efforts to create smart and sustainable economic growthMember States have limited budgetary resources to invest in research, development and innovation (RDI);
Amendment 11 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas public investment geared to sustainable and smart growth has been considerably reduced because of the budgetary austerity policies which the Commission is requiring national governments to implement;
Amendment 12 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the stagnation of private investment in R&D is due to the current weakness of growth and the uncertainty as to when demand will recover;
Amendment 14 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas cohesion policy has not made it possible to reduce regional disparities, particularly in terms of RDI;
Amendment 17 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas RIS3 should help make thehas the aim of making European economyies more competitive, create more jobs, take on board new experiences, contributeing to the dissemination of good practices and develop a newpromoting entrepreneurial spiractivity, combined with a functioning digital single market and smart specialisation that could lead toall which could lead to the creation of durable jobs and new skills, knowledge, and innovation and employment in order better to exploit research results and take advantage of all forms of innovation; stresses, however, that the results of these tools are proving disappointing;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that smart specialisation strategies (S3s) support thematic concentration and strategic programming of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and lead to increased performance orientation on the ground, thus contributing to the Europe 2020 objectives; eEmphasises that the aim of these strategies is to create knowledge-based and sustainable growth, not only in well- developed areas, but also in regions in transition as well as in less developed and rural regions;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Requests that the new conditionality provisions for the attribution of ESI Funds are fully respected in order to make smart specialisation strategies workDoes not accept that the allocation of ESI funds should be conditional on compliance with macroeconomic criteria, because local authorities would unjustly suffer the consequences of policies pursued at national level;
Amendment 42 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 56 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. RegretsWelcomes the fact that some Member States have decided to opt for national RIS3 without giving local and regional authorities a chance to develop their own views;
Amendment 63 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights the importance of betterConsiders it important to improve coordination between all levels of governance to foster a bottom-up vision of the regional strategies, including all smart specialisation authorities and stakeholders, as well as experts, civil society and end users, in order to break ‘silo mentalities’; but nonetheless stresses that the formulation and use of RIS3 are matters for Member States, out of respect for the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 83 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Urges regions and Member States to intensify the use ofReminds Member States of the desirability of using the budget available for technical assistance to ensure effective and efficient implementation of the RIS3;
Amendment 96 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines that the integrated use of ESI Funds with Horizon 2020 and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) provides excellent optionsis supposed to boost innovation at regional, national and EU level;
Amendment 101 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 105 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. WelcomNotes the intention of the Dutch EU Presidency to create a bottom-up approach, empowering cities, in coordination with regional authorities, to develop the EU Urban Agenda, and to evolve from smart to excellent cities; supports, in this context, the preparation of the ‘Pact of Amsterdam’, with its focus on growth and job creation, on fostering connections between all parties, citizens and social organisations, and on promoting sustainable and socially inclusive developmentbut stresses nonetheless that urban policies are not among the competences of the European Union, and calls on the Commission to cease constantly assigning itself new prerogatives;
Amendment 109 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that, although most regions have adopted a RIS3, a considerable number of them still need to work on complying with the ex-ante conditionality requirementshave progress to make, the main challenges being the monitoring mechanism, the budgetary framework and the measures to stimulate private research and innovation investments;
Amendment 121 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 127 #
2015/2278(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Points out that RIS3 have to be well implemented if they are to tackle the innovation gap and boost jobs and growth in Europe; stresses that, to this end, it is essential to promote bottom-up strategies and to enhance scrutiny regarding the potential of RIS3 at all governance levels; notes, in this regard, that Member States shouldhave the option of involveing their office(s) for national statistics to help regions in developing their evaluation and monitoring mechanisms;
Amendment 6 #
2015/2233(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Urges the Commission and the Member States to fully respect and pursue the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion as set out in Article 174 of the TFEU in the context of the ongoing negotiations on the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), together with the economic interests of sovereign Member States;
Amendment 14 #
2015/2233(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to investigate and analyse the impact of TiSA on cohesionthe economic and lsocial and regional governance in the EUcohesion of Member States; urges the Commission to collect and make available comprehensive and comparable data and to include territorial impact assessments;
Amendment 21 #
2015/2233(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In the absence of any territorial impact investigations and democratic debate, calls for the ongoing negotiations on the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) to be immediately suspended;
Amendment 24 #
2015/2233(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that the EU’s cohesion policy is its mainonly one of the investment tool not only for achievis, among othe objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, but alsors, used by Member States for addressing urgent socio-economic needs; is of the strong opinion that its underlyingthe principles and standards established by Member States must not be weakened in the context of future trade agreements negotiated by the EU;
Amendment 32 #
2015/2233(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is concerned that the competences of Member States and of local and regional authorities (LRAs), which are responsible for a large share of public investment under the EU’s cohesion policy and are also actively involved in the delivery of key public services across the territory, will be limited by TiSA, thus reducing their ability to foster local and regional development and to protect the general interest of their citizensthreatened by TiSA;
Amendment 42 #
2015/2233(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Opposes any encroachment on the discretionary power of LRAs with regard to services, as laid down in Article 14 of the TFEU and Protocol N°26 of the TFEU, especially through provisions on domestic regulation, standstill and ratchet clauses, as well as provisions on public procurement; calls, therefore, on the Commission to fully exclude public services, both publicly and privately funded, from the TiSA negotiations and to further strengthen flexibilities on the enforcement of commitments at local level, as laid down in GATS Article 1.3Calls on the Commission to fully exclude public services, both publicly and privately funded, from the TiSA negotiations;
Amendment 60 #
2015/2233(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. UrgesCalls on the Commission to involve and consult LRAs – alongside economic and social partners and civil society organisations –send all the necessary information to the national authorities of each Member State, in the context of the TiSA negotiations as they will be the ones most affected.
Amendment 3 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the 2014-2020 generation of cohesion policy is supposed to provides for and encourages the use of integrated and place-based approaches to foster economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 7 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas, in cohesion policy, CLLD and ITI are innovativenew instruments in cohesion policy, whichthat are subject to an overly complex procedure; whereas some Member States will implement them in such form for the first time and which can; whereas their complexity could discourage potential beneficiaries from using them; whereas it is therefore rather unlikely that these instruments will contribute significantly to the achievement of economic, social and territorial cohesion, and in particular the creation of quality local jobs, sustainable urban development and attainment of the Europe 2020 objectives;
Amendment 14 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas CLLD builds on the LEADER approach which has led to an exponential increase in Local Action Groups (LAGs) since its inception in 1991; whereas this approach may weaken the role of national governments in regulating structural funds, and is playing a part in limiting their influence when it comes to devising territorial policies;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas ITI is a tool which can be used to deliver integrated actions for sustainable urban development, as defined in Article 7 of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013); whereas it can also target other types of territory; whereas urban policies remain within the competences of the Member States;
Amendment 22 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas considerable differences exist between the Member States in terms of governance structures and experience in bottom-up development initiatives; whereas the Member States should be guaranteed that they will be able to freely choose their governance structures, and that under no circumstances will a governance model be imposed on them;
Amendment 24 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the capacity and engagement of local actors is dessentialirable for the successimplementation of these tools;
Amendment 35 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that proper delegation of responsibilities to local actors and their ownership of territorial development strategies are crucial for the success of the bottom-up approach; stresses, however, that local actors require technical and financial support from national and EU levels, especially in the early stages of the implementation process;
Amendment 40 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 64 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 70 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 79 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that the integration of multiple funds continues to be a challenge for stakeholders, particularly in the context of CLLD and ITI; considers that comprehensive simplification efforts are necessary in order to create favourable conditions for the implementation of these tools; welcomes, therefore, the establishmenthere appropriate, calls ofn the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds and the Commission’s efforts in the field of Better Regulation; stresses the need to find common ground when making recommendations, as simplification in one Member State might lead to complication in anotherMember States to stop implementing these very complex tools, which will lead to additional administrative costs being incurred by the smallest and least developed towns;
Amendment 86 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights, in particular, the necessity to tackle gold-plating practices at European level, by which additional, and often unnecessary, requirements and hurdles are created at national and regional levels; notes that many audit layers often exist which increase the administrative burden for beneficiaries; recommends that audit activities are streamlined and that monitoring is focused on performance, while maintaining an adequate level of control;
Amendment 89 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Member States to develop and implement targeted training activities focusing on CLLD and ITI for local actors; considers it crucial to ensure the involvement and adequate representation of all relevant sectors of society in such activities; stresses the importance of the efficient and effective use of technical assistance in supporting these instruments;
Amendment 94 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 98 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 104 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. WelcomesTakes note of the creation of the new CLLD instrument, which has gone beyond the previous LEADER initiative to empower local communities and provide specific local solutions, not only via EAFRD, but also the other ESI Funds;
Amendment 113 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. RegretsTakes note of the fact that in a number of Member States CLLD will be instituted through a mono-fund approach which can lead to missed opportunities in creating more effective local development strategies;
Amendment 120 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission, together with the Member States, to eEncourages the sharing of best practices concerning LAGs at European level while using existing instruments and platforms such as TAIEX REGIO PEER 2 PEER, URBACT, and the Urban Development Network;
Amendment 128 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Highlights the fundamental importance of a non-discriminatory and transparent approach and of minimising potential conflicts of interest; welcomes, furthermore, the participation of a wide range of partners in LAGs; emphasises, however, that the provision whereby public authorities cannot hold more than 49% of voting rights in LAGs, as provided for in the current legislative framework, may in certain situations impede the implementation of CLLD since the other interest groups involved might lack the adequate expertise and resources; asks the Commission to closely monitor and assess the implementation of this provision in order to detect regions where these requirements can pose particular problems, and possibly provide future recommendations;
Amendment 136 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that diverse governance approaches are possible in the implementation of ITIs; considers it crucial, nevertheless, that local partners play their role as key actors in preparing the territorial development strategy of the ITI, and are also fully involved in its management, monitoring and audit responsibilities, thereby helping to ensure genuine local ownership of ITI interventions;
Amendment 141 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that the early involvement of local governments in the territorial development strategy, leading from the bottom up, is key is desirable for the future ownership, participation and success of the integrated territorial strategy that will be implemented at the local level;
Amendment 153 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. WelcomesTakes note of the efforts of the Commission, together with the Expert Group on Territorial Cohesion and Urban Matters (TCUM), on preparing ITI scenarios; endorses the view, however, that such guidance was needed earlier in the programming process and that its usability is therefore questionable; considers it necessary to update the guidance with real examples and lessons learned from ITIs once they are implemented;
Amendment 156 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Is of the opinion that CLLD and ITI should play a more prominent role in the future cohesion policy; cCalls on the Commission to prepare a report before the new legislative proposal on the performance of ITI and CLLD and on possible post- 2020 scenarios related to these tools;
Amendment 158 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 163 #
2015/2224(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
Amendment 4 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. NoteRegrets, that the Annual report of the Court of Auditors ("the Court") of 10 November 2015 on the implementation of the 2014 budget of the European Union found the error rate in Cohesion Policy to be estimated at 5,7 %, which represents an increase as compared to 2013 (5,3 %); expresses its concern at this increase, which is especially significant as far as errors with financial implications and serious negative effects on the budget are concerned;
Amendment 11 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considering that non-fraudulent irregularities result mainly from the complexity of the procedures imposed by the Commission; Considering that they also result from weak financial management and control systems, calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that appropriate, efficient and effective financial management and control systems are set up in accordance with the relevant rules of the regulatory framework;
Amendment 23 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 41 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 47 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to propose measures to achieve balance between greater simplification and strict application of rules and sound financial managementnotes with some concern that some preventive and corrective measures could prove detrimental to national budgets, especially in those Member States facing budgetary difficulties; notes that the interruption and suspension of payments in case of irregularities could hinder the implementation of certain projects and programmes, and financially destabilise the primary beneficiaries of those funds, such as small and medium enterprises.
Amendment 2 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with concern the decrease of payment appropriations under heading 1b to EUR 49 billion (-4% as compared to 2015), and questions whether; points out that the other budget lines have been considerably increased, to the detriment of cohesion policy; notes with concern that the amounts proposed in the Draft Budget (DB) 2016 for heading 1b are indeed sufficient to face the current unprecedented level of payments needed under this heading;
Amendment 6 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes with concern that this reduction might exacerbate the backlog of payments situation; points out that the situation is especially worrying, since it threatens proper implementation of the operational programmes and exposes project initiators and management authorities to a considerable financial risk for partner firms of projects financed by EU funds;
Amendment 16 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to review the 2016 draft budget in order to ensure sufficient funds for payment appropriations under heading 1b;
Amendment 20 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Asks the Commission in future to reduce the commitment appropriations for cohesion policy and to review, for the next programming period, the breakdown of cohesion policy funding by Member State so that the EU’s funding capability can be better anticipated;
Amendment 2 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the Annual Report as the first by this Commission; stresses that the protection of the EU’s and Member States’ financial interests is at the core of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Unionessential; notes that through a number of measures the Commission and the Member States have increased their effectiveness in fighting the overall rate of fraudulent or non-fraudulent irregularities in order to ensure that EU funds are protected from fraud; notes a total of 1 649 cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent,; observes with some concern that this beingis 2 % more than in 2013 and representings EUR 538 million in EU funds;
Amendment 8 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that around 28 % of irregularities reported as fraudulent in 2014 were detected by anti-fraud bodies or during criminal investigations or other external controls;
Amendment 9 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Notes with some concern that cases of fraud are, on average, reported twelve months after first being detected, and that irregular practices are, on average, first detected six and a half years after having taken place;
Amendment 11 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes, on th with some cone hand, that once again cohesion policy is not the area with the highest number of irregularities reported as fraudulent, and, on the other hand, thatcern that the number of irregularities in the area of cohesion policy represents the highest proportion of the total number of irregularities reported; observes that while the largest proportion of such irregularities in this policy area concern the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the amounts involved concern, in the main, the Cohesion Fund;
Amendment 23 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that measures to detect irregularities continue to vary between Member States, mainly on account of differing definitions of irregularities; welcomestakes note of the preventive and corrective measures taken by the Commission to avoid fraudulent irregularities, including by interrupting 193 payments under the cohesion policy; notes with some concern that some preventive and corrective measures could prove detrimental to national budgets, especially in those Member States facing budgetary difficulties;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that in 2014 the Commission applied financial corrections totalling more than EUR 2.2 billion, and issued recovery orders for EUR 736 million; notes with some concern that national budgets risk not recovering the amounts that have already been unduly paid to beneficiaries and that are subject to financial corrections;
Amendment 30 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that, pursuant to the Common Provisions Regulation requires, managing authorities musto put in place effective and proportionate anti-fraud measures; calls on the Commission to reinforce preventive action, in particular byand strengthening the its technical and administrative capacities of managing authorities to ensure more robusteffective control systems able to reduce the risks of fraud and increase detection capacity; encourages Member States to reinforce their control systems;
Amendment 41 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. AppreciatesTakes note of the Commission’s decision to carry out a mid-term assessment in 2018 in order to establish whether the new regulatory architecture for the cohesion policy prevents fraud and reduces the risk of irregularities; calls on the Council to endorse the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the EU’s financial interests by means of criminal law.
Amendment 4 #
2015/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Welcomes the fact that the vast majority (90%) of the EIB’s activities are focused on the European continent, but, given the particularly bleak economic and social backdrop, calls on this figure to reach 100%;
Amendment 6 #
2015/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recognises that persistent problems such as financial barriers result in a lack of investment within the EU and the urgent need to mobilise investment in order to boost the real economy; welcomes, in this regard, the proposal for an Investment Plan for Europe and the new European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI); recalls that there is a need to ensure consistency and complementarity between the EFSI and other EU policies and instruments, in particular the ESI Funds;
Amendment 33 #
2015/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers administrative burdens and a lack of administrative capacity a serious obstacle to successfully achieving cohesion policy goals; stresses the importance of the EIB’s advisory role and recognises the efforts undertaken in this context; welcomes the partnership between the Commission and the EIB in setting up the fi-compass advisory platform;
Amendment 41 #
2015/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the EIB to increase its support to projects covered by the EU macro- regional strategy; sStresses the importance of continuing to support the traditional economic sectors in the EU, such as agriculture, shipbuilding and tourism; calls on the EIB to increase its support for SMEs; calls, furthermore, for the establishment of financial and investment platforms in order to enable the bundling of funds from various sources and the mobilisation of investments needed for such macro- regional projects;
Amendment 46 #
2015/2127(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises the results-oriented approach for cohesion policy for the 2014- 2020 programming period; calls for more information, within the context of EIB annual reporting, on the results and the contribution of EIB activities to cohesion policy objectives; calls, in this context, on the Commission and the Member States to make full use of the possibilities afforded by Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 to increase the use of the financial instruments, where appropriate, for the period up to 2020;
Amendment 3 #
2015/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the current migratory challenge needs a holistic and integratedflood needs, first and foremost, a national approach with multilevel cooperation involving the EU, the Member States, and regional and local authorities, including coordination with, and the involvement of, all stakeholder of the EU and all third countries acting as transit points for migrants;
Amendment 13 #
2015/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that such an influx of migrants should not only be considered a humanitarian phenomenon but also an opportunity for the EU to enhance economic and social development; asks the Member States, along with regional and local authorities, to promote a sustainable set of measures, such as access to the labour market; n economic phenomenon that places a heavy burden on the social security systems of the Member States, but also an unprecedented threat to the values and way of life of Europeans; recalls, in this regard, that the serious assaults carried out against hundreds of women in Cologne and other German cities on New Year’s Eve are almost entirely attributable to migrants classified as asylum seekers or irregular immigrants;
Amendment 24 #
2015/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 31 #
2015/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomStrongly denounces the Luxemburg EU Council Presidency’s conclusions of 27 November 2015 on the occasion of the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Territorial Cohesion and Urban Policy which ‘consider providing cities and municipalities with adequatefinancial support to deal with the refugee situationmanage the reception of migrants, in particular by mobilising [...] the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) dedicated to sustainable urban development and [by] accommodating the issue of migration and refugees within the EU Urban Agenda’;
Amendment 36 #
2015/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. SupportCondemns the allocation of the designated amounts from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) during 2014- 2020 programming period to help with the integration of migrants and, in particular, the use of the ERDF for emergency measures concerning their accommodation;
Amendment 43 #
2015/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to be flexible in using existing programmes to address the current additional challenges for cohesion policy; welcomes the Commission’s readiness to examine proposals by the Member States to make use of EU support, and its willingness to examine and rapidly approve amendments to the 2014-2020 Operational Programmes in order to better integrate migrants; urges the Member States acto immediately reconsider the possibility of reprogramming the corndingly to take advantagtions for the use of theEU funding available through the ESI Funds to benefit migrants;
Amendment 51 #
2015/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is of the opinion that the ESI Funds, in synergy with the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), are useful tools for addressEU humanitarian and development aid and subject to the condition that the Member State concerned consents, may be allocated to financing reception facilities for migrants ing the scaleird countries, ofr the migratory challenges in areas such as accommodation, relocation, skills training, and issues relato strengthening capacities in terms of the monitoring, detention and expulsion of migrants ing to povertyhe EU Member States;
Amendment 56 #
2015/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 64 #
2015/2095(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Urges the Commission to make full use of its discretionary powers, under Article 23(9)-(14) of the Common Provisions Regulation, regarding the level and scope of any suspenin order to immediately suspend any decision ofn commitments or payments in cohesion policy, whenever additional public expenditure by individual Member States is needed for the accommodation and integration of large numbers of migrants.
Amendment 18 #
2015/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas economic and financial instability and unpredictability may, as well as the austerity policies pursued by the Commission, have resulted in decreasing levels of public and private investment;
Amendment 35 #
2015/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that an increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms canmust not jeopardise the achievement of the ESI Funds’ policy objectives and goals;
Amendment 54 #
2015/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that cohesion policy has played a vitallimited role and has failed to shown significant responsiveness to macroeconomic and fiscal constraints in the context of the current crisis, through, some of them imposed by the Commission, and that the reprogramming of more than 11 % of the available budget between 2007 and 2012, in order to support the most pressing needs and strengthen certain intervention has not made it possible to respond to all of the most pressing needs;
Amendment 60 #
2015/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to particularly study the macroeconomic impact of the thematic concentration system;
Amendment 67 #
2015/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls the link between the reprogramming decisions and the adoption of an inappropriate operational programme which does not meet the needs of project promoters, on account of their limited engineering capacities, particularly in the least developed regions and transition regions;
Amendment 18 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The economic and financial crisis has led to a lowering of the level of investments within the Union. Investment has fallen by approximately 15% since its peak in 2007. T, impacting all Member States and especially the less developed ones. Member states of the Union suffers in particular from a lack of investment as a consequence of market uncertainty regarding the economic futureausterity policies and the fiscal constraints on Member States. This lack of investmentausterity policy slows economic recovery and negatively affects job creation, long-term growth prospects and competitiveness.
Amendment 24 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Comprehensive action is required to reverse the vicious circle created by a lack of investment. Structural reforms and fiscal responsibility are necessThe stop of austerity policy and implementation of a new monetary policy about relinquishing the Euro as the single currency arye preconditions for stimulating investment. Along with a renewed impetus towards investment financing, these preconditions can contribute to establishing a virtuous circle, where investment projects help support employment and demand and lead to a sustained increase in growth potential.
Amendment 66 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
Amendment 72 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) To partially finance the contribution from the Union budget, the available envelopes of the Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2014-2020, provided by Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , and the Connecting Europe Facility, provided by Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council3 , should be reduced. Those programmes serve purposes that are not replicated by the EFSI. However, the reduction of both programmes to finance the guarantee fund is expected to ensure a greater investment in certain areas of their respective mandates than is possible through the existing programmes. The EFSI should be able to leverage the EU guarantee to multiply the financial effect within those areas of research, development and innovation and transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructure compared to ifnot be reduced. It is, the resources had been spent via grants within the planned Horizon 2020 and Connecting Europe Facility programmes. It is, therefore, not appropriate to redirect part of the funding presently envisaged for those programmes to the benefit of EFSI. __________________ 2 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 104). 3 Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129).
Amendment 84 #
2015/0009(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to support investments in the Union and to ensure increased access to financing for companies having up to 3000 employees, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States by reason of the disparities in their fiscal capacity to act but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,, the Union may not adopt measures.
Amendment 19 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas cohesion policy is aimed at enhancing economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Member States, including the reduction and eradication of poverty and exclusion, which calls for the prevention of segregation and for the promotion of equal access and opportunities for all citizens, in particular for the most marginalised communiti of the Member States;
Amendment 25 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 34 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas heavy cuts to public services as a consequence of the crisis have led to numerous problems, often resulting in severe budgetary problems for municipalities, leading to a lack of options when dealing with marginalised groups and seeking to improve their inclusion and prevent further segregation which make it more difficult for them to provide assistance to marginalised groups;
Amendment 48 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the Roma people are Europe’s largest ethnic minority and its most marginalised communityone of the largest ethnic minorities in Europe and the largest of the so-called ‘marginalised’ groups; whereas the reasons behind the marginalisation of the Roma community include its members’ refusal to become part of the dominant culture in the Member States in which they live and the fact that they often break the laws of those Member States; whereas programmes for the social inclusion of Roma cannot be successful in the absence of a strong commitment on the part of that community to integrating into the mainstream and showing greater respect for the laws and customs of the Member States in which they live;
Amendment 57 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 77 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the horizontal principle of equal opportunities and non- discrimination must be applied, as systemic causes of inequality need to be eradicated; emphasises that understanding and awareness-raising of systemic xenophobia and racism, such as anti-Gypsyism, should be a focal point when analysing the roots of exclusionthe reasons behind the marginalisation of the Roma community include its members’ refusal to become part of the dominant culture in the Member States in which they live and the fact that they often break the laws of those Member States;
Amendment 93 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 99 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that accountable, transparent and democratic structures should be in place to fight corruption and the fraudulent use of funds to ensure the inclusion of Considers it scandalous that corruption and the fraudulent use of funds are making policy for the social inclusion of marginalised communities unworkable; encourages Member States to step up anti-corruption checks and to take extremely firm action against the mafia- type groups involved in such practices, in particular when they are themselves from ‘marginalised’ communities;
Amendment 102 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regards access to public services as one of the major goals in addressing the inclusion of marginalised groups; demands a shift from a demand-driven approach to a welcoming service approach in public administrations;
Amendment 114 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 119 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses that the partnership principle mustshould lead to involvement at all levels and needs to be applied by Member States on an obligatory basis; stresses the importance of the implementation of the code of conduct on partnership to ensure equal participation and representation of marginalised communities; is concerned about the poor compliance with the obligatory involvement of partners in accordance with Article 5 of the CPR; calls on the Commission not to authorise payments for programmes that disregard the involvement of partners, including those most concerned;
Amendment 129 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 140 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers multi-level governance to play an important role; eEmphasises that involvement of local authorities is dessentialirable in order to reach the target group and requires the highest territorial proximity possible;
Amendment 145 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is of the opinion that funds should be used in a more integrated way, including by means of multi-fund programmes, community-led local development, integrated territorial investments and cross- financing as referred to in Article 98(2) of the CPR and achieve synergies with other EU and national funding instruments; calls on the administrations and authorities concerned to seek active cooperation;
Amendment 166 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Points out that EU-funded projects must have a long-term perspective in order to be effective; warns that implementers may satisfy the criteria set for inclusion on paper, while not investing in the actual needs of beneficiaries and not reaching target groups; calls for qualitative evaluation and monitoring mechanisms; calls on the Commission to put in place proactive and participatory monitoring and supervision of Members States’ actions in the planning and evaluation process of funds;
Amendment 179 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 186 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 201 #
2014/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 5 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas cohesion policy for 2014-2020 is the EU’s maian investment policy based on Member States contributions and aligned with the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, with a budget of EUR 350 billion until the end of 2020;
Amendment 15 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas it is crucialdesirable for thate different EU and Member State initiatives for growth and jobs to maintain a coherent approach; whereas the Europe 2020 strategy flagship initiatives play a key role in enhancing coordination at locregional and regnational level as regards the implementation of cohesion policy;
Amendment 21 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas there is a growing need for stronger co-ownership of the strategy by the different levels of governance and for shared responsibility at all levels of project implementation; whereas multi-level governance should be enhancedto enhance the principle of solidarity at all levels of project implementation;
Amendment 29 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the goals of cohesion policy have unquestionably evolved over the time, demonstrating their effectiveness; whereas the European Fund for Strategic Investments brings new elements to the overall EU strategy aimed at creating growth and jobsweak impact on economic development and the fight against social exclusion;
Amendment 40 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy affords an opportunity to improve existing interactions and links betweentake stock of the various EU policies; whereas this stage is essential for shaping futureto avoid repeating the errors made in cohesion policy implementation;
Amendment 65 #
2014/2246(INI)
Amendment 68 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that cohesion policy for 2014-2020, the key EU instrument for investment in the real economy, is fully aligned with the Europe 2020 objectives; stresses in this context that, through thematic concentration, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are oriented towards 11 thematic objectives derived straight from the Europe 2020 objectives, and that preconditions linked directly to these thematic objectives have been established in order to ensure that and that preconditions linked directly to these thematic objectives risk impeding the absorption of structural funds and delaying the launch of investments are made in such a way as to maximise their effectivenesquiring funding under the structural funds;
Amendment 75 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 120 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 131 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Emphasises the need for a truly territorial approach to the Europe 2020 strategy with a view to adjusting public interventions and investments to different territorial characteristics; underlines, in this context, the necessity of tailor-made Europe 2020 regional targets;
Amendment 175 #
2014/2246(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that the review of the Europe 2020 strategy, which will probably precede the launch of the proposal for the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020, will already give an indication of trends for future cohesion policy post-2020, as well as for other MFF instruments; stresses, in this context, the importance of effectively addressing all the concerns raised above, while ensuring the continuity of the strategic approach; recalls, also, the added value of an EU-wide cohesion policy, both in terms of growth and jobs objectives and with a view to ensuring balanced, harmonious development across the EU;
Amendment 6 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the macro-regional strategies represent a new model of multilevel governancemay secondarily represent a cooperation model in which the involvement of stakeholders representing the EU, national, regional and local levels and different policies and programmes is essential for success;
Amendment 19 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the EUSAIR is a new form of regional cooperation and platform for enlargement and an exercise in preparedness prior to EU accession;
Amendment 24 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission communication concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region and the accompanying action plan; believes it is a vital step in the development of this part of Europe; highlights the strategy’s prospects for candidate and potential candidate countries in the region;
Amendment 33 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 41 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 60 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 93 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises that the region faces serious migration problems in the Mediterranean; stresses that controlling these problemsmbating mass immigration is essential for the further development of the southern part of the region;
Amendment 169 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls onEncourages the participating countries to improve their maritime, rail and air transport infrastructure, and to develop motorways of the sea in the macro-region, combining intermodal transport means, especially for connecting the hinterland;
Amendment 185 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. UrEncourages the participating countries to continue their efforts to diversify energy supply sources, a process which will not only improve the energy security of the macro-region but will also increase competition, which will have important benefits for the economic development of the region; underlines the importance of developing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in the macro-region, in particular in Croatia and Albania;
Amendment 193 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the exploitation of available renewable sources such as solar and wind energy within the energy production mix; underlines the sustainability and competitiveness of potential hydropower plants, in particular in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia; calls on the participating countries to contribute to the setting-up of a well- functioning electricity market in the macro-region;
Amendment 212 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
Amendment 227 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Urges the establishment of a regional centre for disaster preparedness in order to create an early warning system to prevent natural disasters and those caused by industrial, transport and other activities, such as floods, fires and exploitation activities in the Adriatic; stresses the importance of preserving the ecosystem and the biodiversity of the region and underlines the importance of fostering support and urgent measures against natural threats such as Xylella fastidiosa, which affects olive trees, the pest Dryocosmus kuriphilus and the fungus Cryphonectria parasitica, which affects chestnut woods;
Amendment 236 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Underlines the crucial importance of tourism for the European economy, especially for the Mediterranean countries and for the region as a whole; urges more support for the financing of tourism projects from the ESIF and other sources;
Amendment 249 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Stresses that cooperation between countries is dessentialirable for the further development of tourism in the region; encourages the formulation of tourism strategies for the Adriatic Sea and for the Ionian Sea which are based on sustainability and enable the countries to benefit from synergies and to address common challenges at the macro-regional level; considers that the establishment of an ‘Adriatic’ and an ‘Ionian’ brand in tourism is necessary in order to streamline marketing activities and increase the visibility of the region’s destinations on the global market;
Amendment 257 #
2014/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. SupportEncourages the development of a diversified tourism offer including thematic tourist parks and routes, and cultural, rural, health, medical, enogastronomic, conference and sport tourism, including cycling, golf, diving, hiking, mountaineering and outdoor sports, in order to prolong the tourist season and to improve the competitiveness of tourist destinations; supports the expansion of tourist activities towards the hinterland;
Amendment 6 #
2014/2155(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that this statistical data still only gives an approximate indication of the impact of irregularities on the EU budget; believes that the inaccuracy stems from different approaches between and withinshortcomings on the part of Member States toregarding the detection and classification of irregularities;
Amendment 31 #
2014/2155(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point b
Paragraph 4 – point b
(b) the Council to support the directive oguarantee the sovereignty of the Member States in the fight against fraud to the EU’s financial interests by means of criminal law; and;
Amendment 37 #
2014/2155(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – point c
Paragraph 4 – point c
(c) the Council to supporreject the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).
Amendment 45 #
2014/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
Amendment 46 #
2014/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The free movement of workers is a key element to the development of a more integrated Union labour market which allows worker mobility from high unprinciple which strengthens unfair competition within a European employment mareas to areas characterised by labour shortages. It also contributes to finding the right skills for vacant posiket marked by very strong disparities in labour costs, social protections and overcoming bottlenecks in the labour marketquality of vocational training.
Amendment 49 #
2014/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to help the workers who enjoy the right to free movement to effectively exercise that right, assistance in accordance with the present Regulation is open to any Union national who has a right to take up an activity as an employed person and their family members, in accordance with Article 45 of the Treaty. Member States shall not, however, give the same access to any third- country national benefiting, as per Union or national law, from equal treatment with their own nationals in this field.
Amendment 65 #
2014/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) One of the EURES network objectives is to support fair intra-Union labour mobility and therefore the minimum common criteria for authorising organisations to join should include the requirement that those organisations commit themselves to fully respect applicable labour standards and legal requirements, which would have the effect of excluding so-called ‘posted’ workers from the network.
Amendment 145 #
2014/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
A Member State shall notmay limit the access to national labour market measures merely for the reason that a worker seeks that assistance in order to find employment in the territory of another Member State.
Amendment 151 #
2014/0002(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33
Article 33