Activities of Notis MARIAS 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) EL
Amendments (49)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is concerned byDeplores the delays in the adoption and implementation of operational programmes and the designation of managing authorities and calls for sufficient payment appropriations to be made available through the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) in order to prevent a new backlog of unpaid bills in the second half of the MFF;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is surprised and concerned that, instead of the report required by Article 16(3) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), the Commission has presented only a communication regarding negotiations of partnership agreements (PAs) and operational programmes (OPs);
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Β
Recital Β
Β. whereas, with a budget of EUR 454 billion for the period 2014-2020, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) arshould be the EU’s main investment policy tool, focusing on aid for southern European Member States such as Greece that have particularly high unemployment;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are crucial investment tools, including for rural areas, and that the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) ishould be the main financing vehicle for boosting rural development in many Member Statesall Member States and principally those in which the agricultural sector has been particularly hard-hit; considers, moreover, that the rural development programme for Greece should be stepped up and funding increased for the period 2014-2020 ;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the efforts made to use the ESI Funds in support of key priorities set in the country-specific recommendationfor the EU Member States; notes the Commission’s proposal on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme; stresses that Article 23 of the Common Provision Regulation must only be used as a last resort and that Parliament must be fully involved from the early stages;
Amendment 7 #
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 ofneed for equal access to education and training in delivering genuine convergence and reducing ever-growing disparities and socioeconomic inequalities among European regions;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the significant contribution made by the European Structural and Investment Funds to the construction of an efficient and safe European transport network; Stresses the importance of synergies between the various funds;
Amendment 9 #
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 withd 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 14 #
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 supporting the most vulnerable and exposed groups in society;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that there ishould be a stronger focus on performance of ESI Funds in the current MFF, as well as procedures for monitoring achievement of goals; believes that any link between performance and the ESI Funds in the future MFF can only be established after a thorough evaluation of the current arrangement;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets 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 southern European 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; notes that Greece's education spending is down 35.6% compared to 2009;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs, and expects Member States and regions to take the right path in order to achieve cohesion policy objectives;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the new EAFRD should builds on the previous programming periods by providing flexibility to better address specific territorial needs and broadening the objectives to six EU priorities for rural development divided into 18 focus areas, all of which contribute to the three cross-cutting objectives of innovation and environment/climate change mitigation and adaptation;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, in the current MFF, financial instruments play a stronger role; believes, however, that they should not substitute grants as the core tool for ESI Funds; stresses that their implementation must be immediate, effective, transparent and always subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, without any prejudice to the unity of the EU budget;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Ζ
Recital Ζ
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expects the Commission to present to Parliament at the earliest opportunity a detailed assessment of the complementarity, additionality and synergies achieved so far between the ESI Funds and the EFSI, and calls for steps to be taken to ensure full coherence and synergies between the ESI Funds and other EU instruments; points out that ESI Funds have been earmarked for the period 2014-2020 for investment of EUR 454 billion in 500 projects aimed at boosting growth, research and innovation and for measures to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises; calls for the immediate implementation of these programmes, particularly in EU Member States with high unemployment rates;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is seriously concerned and disappointed about the late adoption of the European Social Fund (ESF) OPs, and expects the Commission to have learnt from this with a view to preventing similar delays in the future;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Η
Recital Η
Η. whereas the ESI Funds in this period armust be more strongly results- oriented;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas there ismust be a stronger alignment of investment under cohesion policy with the priorities of the EU 2020 strategy and the European Semester;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that migration has become a structural phenomenon in Europe and calls for further use to be made of ESI Funds in order to promote the integration of asylum seekers and refugees into society;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 99.6 billion, which represents a decrease in real terms compared with the previous period, but because of provisions for additional national financing, variable co-financing rates and the possibility of fund-switching between CAP pillars, the final amount shows a slight overall increase at present, which should be used to assist EU Member States such as Greece that are particularly affected by the Russian embargo;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is concerned by the long adoption process of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs); expectsstresses the need for the Commission and the Member States to have drawn lessons from this process with a view to preventing similar delays in the futureadopt these programmes immediately so as to for strengthen the rural sectors of the EU Member States;
Amendment 37 #
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 %; calls for an evaluat revision 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; asks the Commission to take all necessary actions to promote the creation of new high-quality jobs and decent social protection for young people;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. NotesExpects that that 6 million unemployed young people are towill benefit from the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) – which will help 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 and the Commission to intensify their efforts to ensure that the results envisaged are achieved successfully;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that Europe has been going through a difficult phase in both economic and political terms, so that a decent investment policy that is close to citizens is needed more than ever, seeking to tackle unemployment and social inequalities within the Union;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that cohesion policy 2014- 2020 has been thoroughly reworked, requiring a change in mentality and working methods at all levels of governance, but that it is often perceived as a traditional expenditure policy rather than an investment policyso far failed to achieve the desired results, leaving countries such as Greece still in the grip of massive unemployment, poverty and social deprivation;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomNotes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds for environmental measures and for physical investments aimed at boosting competitiveness; stresses the need to increase Union funding for corresponding rural and environmental measures; expects that those measures will have a long-lasting impact and high economic leverage;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Asks the Commission to ensure that the specific objectives of ESF programmes relating to Europe 2020 headline targets are achieved, by closely monitoring the correct implementation of the actions programmed;(Does not affect English version)
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomesPoints out that thematic concentration, as it has turned out toshould be a good tool for creating a focused policy and resulting effectiveness for the EU priorities and the EU 2020 strategy;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. StresseConsiders that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by the active involvement of the social partners and other relevant actors;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that funding under the cohesion policy is exceptionally important for the development of transport infrastructure in the countries of Central and E, Eastern and Southeastern Europe; calls for the necessary resources to be secured and for the level of financing to be maintained in the next multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to haneeds improved thematic focus, while allowing for some degree of flexibility in order to take on board the specific needs of each region;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes 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 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that the more flexible structure of the EAFRD was not fuladequately taken advantage of by some Members States and regions which perceived a risk of increased complexity and control requirements;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines the importance of making ESF investments more attractive to beneficiaries through the use of simplified cost options (SCOs), and welcomes the increase in the SCO-covered amounts envisaged for the 2014-2020 period, from 7 % to 35 %; calls on the Commission to continue these efforts to make wider use of simplified options;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstanceneeds of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’, rural regions suffering from the austerity policies imposed by the Troika on EU Member States such as Greece 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 delivery;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that ex-ante conditionalities, in particular the one on Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3), have proved their usefulness, and suggests that they be further improvedshould aim to strengthen small and medium-sized undertakings in the EU Member States;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Draws attention toeplores the fact that 25 per cent of ex-ante conditionalities have not yet been fulfilled; calls, therefore, for urgent action to counteract this;;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points tout that an important improvement has been the introduction of thematic concentration, whereby investments are focused on specific objectives and priorities corresponding to indicators and targets specifically agreed for all the themes;·
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the Directorate- General for Agriculture and Rural Development has the necessary technical knowledge and overview of rural and agricultural issues and is therefore the natural manager of the RDPs, and; urges the Commission to ensure that staffing levels are in place to ensure proper implementation and auditing of the CAP; stresses the responsibility of the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development to strengthen the primary sector in Member States such as Greece where the agricultural sector has been particularly affected by the policies of the Troika;
Amendment 106 #
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 and regional level and the Llocal Aand regional action Ggroups and other relevant local and regional stakeholders on the ground, in ensuring that projects are successfully embedded in their local areas and effectively operated, while paying due regard to the common good and the social and economic welfare of the people.
Amendment 135 #
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 period despite the fact that it has not yet implemented the 2014-2020 investment programmes it pledged to support;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Supports a further balanced increase in financial instruments; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve this;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that the Member States have different administrative cultures, translating into different levels of performance, whichbut that the ex-ante conditionalities areshould nevertheless helping to overcome the problem;
Amendment 211 #
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, many Member States have centralised large parts of the negotiation and implementation of the PAs and OPs;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Emphasises that ESI Funds have been earmarked for measures to contribute to GDP in many Member States, an essential element to be considered in the 7th Cohesion Report, to be expected in 2017;