26 Amendments of Bronis ROPĖ related to 2016/2148(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)
Citation 13 a (new)
- having regard to the Council conclusions of 12 November 2015 on the shift towards a low-carbon economy: the contribution of Cohesion Policy and more generally of the European Structural and Investment Funds,
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Recalls the important contribution of the EAFRD for climate protection and the target to spend at least 20% of EU budget on climate action;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Recalls the importance of LEADER and the LEADER experience, including the approach that 5% of EAFRD has to be spent on community-led local development (CLLD) or LEADER; Whereas CLLD is only voluntary under the ERDF and no minimum share is defined to be spent on CLLD; Cautions therefore against trends to merge intra-fund development approaches in which CLLD may be lost;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas cohesion policy in the programming period 2014-2020 has gained a more focused policy approach through thematic concentration, supporting the priorities of the Juncker Commissionand objectives of the Union through reaching a critical mass;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the ESI Funds in this period are more strongly results-oriented and built on an investment environment allowing for more effectiveness and better prevention of misuse or misallocation;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas there is a stronger alignment of investment under cohesion policy with the priorities of the EU 2020 strategy and the European Semesterfor smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and increased synergies and complementarities with other EU policies and instruments;
Amendment 43 #
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 including horizontal coordination and involvement of stakeholders, but that it is often perceived as a traditional expenditure policy rather than an investment policy;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the fact that in order to improve communication on, and the visibility of ESI Funds, greater focus could be placed on participation by stakeholders and recipients, and on involving citizens in cohesion policythe design and implementation of cohesion policy in a meaningful way, which should be reflected in the composition of the monitoring committees; additionally, urges the Commission to communicate more about the achievements of cohesion policy;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds for environmental measures and for physical investments aimed at boosting competitiveness; expects that those measures will have a long-lasting impact and high economic leverage; notes furthermore that ensuring productivity and therefore competitiveness in the long term depends very much on investing in environmental aspects of farming such as soil erosion prevention, efficient nutrient cycling, optimal pollination, topsoil creation and integrating agroforestry to build resilience to climate change; farmers are less able to invest in these kinds of measures themselves while their incomes are being squeezed in the current economic situation, which makes EU and Member State funding vital for future productivity, food security and prosperity;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Notes that some Member States or regions, sometimes those with the most need of rural development, do not promote participation in schemes, nor in some cases even offer schemes which are needed in their territories;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. notes that rural development income for some Member States was effectively cut as a result of the intergovernmental deals that decided the current EU rural development budget "envelopes", with the result that rural development has suffered in some regions and is patchy across the EU;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7 c. Given the continued heavy loss of small farms from EU landscapes and rural economies, the loss of young people and outmigration from rural areas, it is important that firstly schemes appropriate for smaller farmers are offered as options in the Member State's Rural Development Plans, with the Commission ensuring that this is the case; the arbitrary use of restrictive area limits barring entry of farmers to certain RD schemes should be screened for by the Commission and discontinued by the Member States; Secondly uptake and participation of small farmers should be maximised by administrations adopting procedures that are simple and easy to understand for the farmers or communities wishing to participate; Small farmers should be enabled and empowered in each Member State to work together on joint or community projects;
Amendment 77 #
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); considers that more attention should be given to sub-regional areas with considerable accumulation of challenges often found in pockets of poverty, segregated communities and deprived neighbourhoods with an overrepresentation of marginalised groups such as Roma; 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 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Supports the shift from a focus on infrastructure-related projects towards a focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion and on capacity building and empowering of actors including from civil society;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Underlines that the overall climate change rate for the ESI Funds hides considerable differences between the funds and between the Member States with some of them below the 20% spending target and the potential of ESF for green jobs particularly untapped; calls on the Commission to improve monitoring and evaluation on the integration and mainstreaming of horizontal principles during implementation, in particular the methodology for tracking of climate- related expenditure;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Recognises that, although rural development is by its very nature more complex than direct payments because it produces more results for society, rural development schemes should be as simple and as straightforward as possible without the objectives of the schemes being compromised, so that participation can be high where it is needed;
Amendment 90 #
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 improved; underlines that effective monitoring of ex-ante conditionalities is necessary to record efforts and achievements, particularly in case ex-ante conditionalities have not been met at the moment of adoption of programmes and therefore required actions to be taken by Member States;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Emphasises that the regulatory framework for the period 2014-2020 and the PAs have led to a strongly results- oriented focus in cohesion programmes; welcomes the introduction of common indicators which should allow measuring and benchmarking results; considers that work on indicators has to continue in order to improve evidence on ESIF spending and also to contribute to optimize project selection;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the factTakes note 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 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Favours the establishment of a balanced link between cohesion policy and the European Semester, as both work towards achieving the same aims under the Europe 2020 Strategywhile acknowledging the Treaty based objective of cohesion policy to reduce disparities;
Amendment 139 #
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, despite a considerable shortcomings such as lack of additionality and loose link to overarching Union priorities; and against this background asks the Commission to come forward with learning points for the ESI Funds for the new programming period;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Supports a further balanced increause inof financial instruments based on ex-ante assessments; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve this;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Underlines the importance of capacity building of stakeholders and partners in cohesion policy to allow them fulfilling their role and contributing to transparency, ownership and monitoring of cohesion policy measures;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Welcomes 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, whereas it remains essential to ensure the active involvement of regional and local authorities and other stakeholders at all stages;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Is convinced that the future performance-oriented cohesion policy must be founded on data and indicators appropriate for measuring efforts, outcomes and impacts achieved; underlines that past experience in the area (performance-based budgeting, ex-ante conditionalities and thematic concentration), as this will 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 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Believes that the spirit of innovation and smart specialisation as well as sustainable development must remain an important driver of cohesion policy;