Activities of Michela GIUFFRIDA related to 2016/2148(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Investing in jobs and growth - maximising the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds - Delayed implementation of ESI Funds operational programmes - impact on cohesion policy and the way forward (debate) IT
Amendments (21)
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Maintains that rural areas are more than simply farming areas and that they should accordingly be supported not just under the agriculture funds, but also under every other ESI Fund; points, therefore, to the importance of ensuring additionality among the funds;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points out that the late adoption of the RDPs has inevitably delayed the publication of notices concerning specific measures and sub-measures and that this has caused considerable inconvenience to farmers;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Believes that even after programmes have been approved, the Commission should continue to provide the necessary assistance to RDP support authorities so as to enable plans to be implemented efficiently and without delay;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Maintains that projects financed under RDPs must genuinely meet the need to create growth and employment, and calls on the Commission and managing authorities to draw up ex ante and ex post assessments of the added value and the economic and social impact of the projects and operations financed;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to have thematic focus, while allowing for somthe degree of flexibility that is sufficient in order to take on board the specific needs of each region;
Amendment 74 #
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) and appropriate specific support policies should be drawn up for the development of these areas; recalls in this context that it is important to support new policy challenges, such as immigration, as well as the broadly understood digital dimension of cohesion policy (including ICT and broadband access issues, which are linked to the completion of the Digital Single Market); points to the Energy Union Strategy, as the ESI Funds have an important role to play in its delivery;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Believes that one of the reasons for the delays lies in the fact that RDPs, because they have to encompass several levels and varying degrees of detail, are drafted in an overly fragmented form and that this adds to the work entailed in the practical management of assistance, thus running counter to the desired aims of simplification and clarity in the rules;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Draws attention to the fact that 25 per cent of ex-ante conditionalities have not yet been fulfilled; calls, therefore, for utargented action to counteract this, which should not, however, compromise the optimal take-up of the funds;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Considers the plethora of red tape and the complexity of the procedures to be the main obstacle to full and effective use of the EAFRD; hopes that simplification will be achieved without delay;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Commission to support the efforts of regional authorities to simplify procedures and disburse funding without delay;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by active involvement of the local level and the Local Action Groups and other relevant stakeholders on the ground, for example trade associations and and POs, in ensuring that projects are successfully embedded in their local areas and effectively operated; calls on the Commission and RDP managing authorities to consult stakeholders at every stage from the planning of RDPs to their implementation. .
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Points out that automatic and rigid use of macroeconomic conditionality can compromise the optimal take-up of resources, undermining local government programming; stresses the importance of allowing for the highest degree of flexibility, in particular to facilitate strategic investment and structural reform, also in line with the provisions set out in the CSRs;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Underlines the advisability within the European Semester to explore tools and mechanisms to ensure that the flexibility margins permitted by the Stability and Growth Pact can be used in strategic areas of investment designed to ensure growth and sustainable employment;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Favours the establishment of a balanced linkStresses the importance of consistency between cohesion policy and the European Semester, as both work towards achieving the same aims under the Europe 2020 Strategy, without prejudice to achieving the social, economic and territorial cohesion objectives established by the treaties;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Points out, given that structural reforms can have a negative impact on national budgets, that the discrepancy between the budget-balancing time frame laid down by the Stability and Growth Pact rules and the time needed for those reforms to reach maturity is counterproductive;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15c. Calls on the Commission, given that the output gap is the basic measure by which to assess whether a government is complying with EU budget rules and whether it will incur the measures laid down under Article 23 of the general ESI Funds regulation, to speed up its work on the possible revision of its calculation methodology, by involving Parliament in an appropriate manner, also through the structured dialogue instrument;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation, and against this background asks the Commission to come forward with learning points for the ESI Funds for the new programming periodrroborate this argument by providing data on its impact in terms of growth and employment;
Amendment 146 #
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 similn order to ensure the necessary complementar itypes of financial instrument and synergy between the EFSI and ESI, the question of state aid rules needs to be adapted accordingly;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28a. Stresses the importance of macro- regional strategies, instruments which have proven themselves to be useful for the development of territorial cooperation and the economic development of the areas concerned; highlights the decisive role of the local and regional authorities for the success of the measures included in those strategies;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Points to the need to consider seeking new indicators that go beyond GDP, including for example the Human Development Index and the Regional Social Progress Index;
Amendment 232 #
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; points out at the same time that the diversity of European regions calls for a sufficient level of flexibility, as laid down in the regulations;