Activities of Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ related to 2014/2245(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Investment for jobs and growth: promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU (A8-0173/2015 - Tamás Deutsch) ES
Urban dimension of EU policies - Investment for jobs and growth: promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU (debate) ES
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on ‘Investment for jobs and growth: promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union’ PDF (266 KB) DOC (231 KB)
Amendments (17)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion points out that despite diverse outcomes of the Cohesion policy across Member States, the economic crisis reversed a long trend of converging GDP and unemployment rates within the EU, affecting in particular less developed regions;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas through thematic concentration, cohesion policy resources are targeted at a limited number of strategic goals with growth-enhancing, job creation, social inclusion, environmental and climate change potential;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes are strategic toolsessential to guide investments in Member States and regions, provided for in Articles 14, 16 and 29 of the Common Provisions Regulation with a timeline for their submission and adoption, according to which Partnership Agreements should have been adopted by the end of August 2014, and Operational Programmes by the end of January 2015, at the latest;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that cohesion policy has proven its capacity to react quickly with flexible measures to improve the liquidity gap for Member States and regions, such as reducing national co-financing and providing additional advance payments, as well as redirecting 13 % of total funding (EUR 45 billion) to support economic activity and employment with direct effects; additional measures should be added in order to exclude investments co- financed by the ESIF from the Growth and Stability Pact;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that a stable fiscal and economic – as well as regulatory, administrative and institutional – environment is crucial for the effectiveness of cohesion policy; recalls, in this respect, that suspension of payments provided in the article 23 of the CPR could undermine national, regional and local authorities' capacity to plan effectively and implement the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for the 2014-2020 period; emphasises that, in order to achieve both the cohesion and Europe 2020 objectives, the policy must be aligned closely with sectoral policies and other EU investment schemes;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Points out that although cohesion policy has softened the impact of the crisis, regional disparities remain high. The Cohesion Policy objective to reduce economic, social and territorial disparities, providing special support to less developed regions, has not yet been reached everywhere;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Points out that, despite the crisis and the fact that local finances were put under great pressure, local and regional authorities had to continue to meet the demands of citizens for more accessible public services of higher quality;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Reiterates the original role of cohesion policy to promote economic, social and territorial development and reduce regional disparities; underlines that by its nature and original set up, as stipulated in the Treaty, the policy contributes inherently to the objectives of the Union, in particular to the Europe 2020 goals of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. WelcomesTakes note of the new European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) and its potential leverage effect; underlines that the EFSI's main objective should be the economic, social and territorial cohesion and that it should therefore benefit to all the regions of the EU; advises the parties concerned to build on the experiences gained from the implementation of the European Economic Recovery Plan in 2008, in particular regarding smart investments; calls for the coordination of all EU investment policies – in particular cohesion policy – to ensure complementarity and avoid overlaps; suggests that the implementation of this new EU investment plan build on the experiences of the three joint initiatives JEREMIE, JESSICA and JASMINE, which allowed an increase in the delivery of Structural Funds from EUR 1.2 billion in 2000-2006 to EUR 8.4 billion in 2007- 2012;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises, in this context, European Parliament’'s initial opposition and responsibility to control article 23 of the CPR; demands that the Commission and the Council provide full, transparent and timely information on the criteria for, and on the entire procedure that could trigger, a suspension of commitments or payments of the ESIF in accordance with in Article 23(15) of the Common Provisions Regulation; Recalls that suspensions would have a very negative impact for national, regional, and local authorities;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out that a simplification of management and procedures and a reinforcement of administrative capacity in the less developed regions would also allow for error rates in the implementation of cohesion programmes to be reduced; underlines that these errors stem to a considerable degree from legislation outside of cohesion policy, such as public procurement and state aide rules; is concerned about the low rates of disbursement of financial instruments to beneficiaries, in particular in view of the objective to increase the use of these instruments;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Warns that the alarming rates of youth unemployment threaten to bring about the loss of an entire generation; insists that advancing the integration of young people into the job market must remain a top priority, to the attainment of which the integrated use of the ESF, YEI and the ERDF can make a major contribution; considers that a more results-oriented approach should be taken in this regard to ensure the most effective use of available resources;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Emphasises that cohesion policy needs to be conducted within the spirit of properly functioning multi-level governance, combined with an effective set-up for responding to the requests of the public and businesses, and with transparent and innovative public procurement, all of which is crucial to enhancing the policy’s impact; stresses, in this regard, that, notwithstanding the importance of decisions taken at EU and Member State levels, local and regional authorities often have primary administrative and political responsibility for public investment, and that cohesion policy is a vital tool enabling these authorities to play a key role in the EU; stresses that this level of responsibility should be taken into considerationstrengthened, in keeping with the partnership principle;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Notes with concern the relative lack of a territorial approach, and in particular of references to cross-border co-operation, in the Sixth Cohesion Report, while it is an essential tool to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion; points out that the inclusion of all the cross-border aspects would have had an enriching effect, as far as e.g. infrastructure, labour market and mobility, environment, water use and disposal, waste management, health care, research and development, tourism, public services and governance are concerned, as all of these areas include remarkable cross- border elements and potential; is convinced that in the programming period 2014-2020 the performance of European border and cross- border regions in coming to terms with the crisis, by growing smarter, more inclusive and more sustainable, will improve considerably;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Recalls, in view of all of the above, the necessity for a new dynamic to be given to the EU cohesion policy debate; states that the 2019 European Parliament election year will be decisive, as the then newly- elected Parliament, and new Commission, will have to deal with the termination of the Europe 2020 strategy and an upcoming new MFF, as well as to ensure the future of cohesion policy after 2020 with an adequate budget and prepare new legislation for cohesion policy; notes that the cohesion policy debate has to take into account the serious time constraints and delays experienced at the beginning of the current programming period;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Stresses the crucial importance of administrative capacities; calls on policy makers at all governance levels to favour targeted technical assistance for the implementation of cohesion policies in general, and for the extended use of financial instruments combined with ESIF in particular;