8 Amendments of Marian HARKIN related to 2015/2052(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
A. whereas the principle of EU solidarity which is partly expressed through the mechanism of the share out of EU funding should remain a central tenet of EU policy;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission's criteria, highlighting the fact that multiannual programmes and the long-term nature of the challenges facing Member States require certainty and permanence, and that frequent reprogramming should therefore be avoided and stability preferred in order to reinforce the predictability and credibility of ESI fund programmes; trust that the European Commission and the Council will be very cautious when applying the reprogramming or the suspension of funds for the programmes as foreseen by the regulation of the Common Provisions;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Highlights the fact that investment supported by ESI (European Structural and Investment Funds) should take place in a sound macroeconomic framework to maximised the impact on growth, development, cohesion and jobs creation in Europe, particularly in very depressed areas;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. HighlightsPoints out the fact that reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) could undermine social and economic convergence between regions and jeopardise goals pursued by ESI fundshave serious consequences for the respective programmes and regions severely hit by the crisis, as well as for the achievements of cohesion goal as a whole, especially in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently failed to take effective action to address its requests to reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment rate or the impact on the economies of the Member States concerned; when reprograming funds the Commission and Member States should take in to account the potential of job creation of the new programmes and its contribution to achieve Country Specific Recommendations.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers it counterproductive that EU funds supporting education, training and employment creation might be suspended if such funds are achieving their objectives;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Given the long term and result oriented nature of the ESI funds and the annual cycle of the European Semester, believes that the shorter term focus of the CSRs should not jeopardise the long term goals of ESI funds;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to avoidmitigate the effects of any suspension of commitments or payments provided for in the second strand of Article 23 of the CPR where Member States are involved in any of the situations described in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 of Annex III to the CPR. The European Commission should assess the impact on unemployment and try to compensate undesirable effects on weaker population; if reprogramming were to be frequently needed, the European Commission could even design some systems of compensation for depressed an deprived areas;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Commission to avoid arbitrariness in applying Article 23 of the CPR, to devise a transparent and democratic decision- making process, in line with Article 23(15) of the CPR, and to allow Parliament, on the basis of a formalised process, to be informed at all stages of the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments.