23 Amendments of Lambert van NISTELROOIJ related to 2017/2052(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the multiannual financial framework (MFF) needs to be agreed quickly so that decisions can be taken on the future of cohesion policy before the end of the current programming period, so as to prevent delays in programming for the new period;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the new challenges and global instability that the EU is facing today should be properly addressed, and it is essential that economic, social and territorial cohesion should remain a high priority for the EU;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. States that cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main investment and development policy, but that more needs to be done to highlight the major role of cohesion policy in achieving the EU’s political objectives; considers, therefore, that a strong focus is needed on employment, skills, innovation, SMEs, social inclusion, and specific EU goals such as digitalisation and reindustrialisation, as well as on a reinforced social dimension, territorial cooperation and the urban dimension;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. States that cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main investment policy, but that more needs to be done to highlight the major role of cohesion policy in achieving the EU’s political objectives; stresses that cohesion policy should remain an investment policy for all European regions;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls, therefore, for the MFF to provide for sufficient funds for cohesion policy post-2020, striking a good balance between investments in citizens and investments for citizens and ensuring that the EU’s political goals can be reached; recognises the important contribution of cohesion policy in facilitating structural reforms through incentives, such as ex ante conditionalities, rather than sanctions, and calls on the Commission to explore other positive means of supporting national and regional efforts;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers that to increase the impact of the next MFF, further links should be established between EU funds such as the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Structural Funds, the European social fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and Creative Europe.
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that regional funding should be protected and should continue to predominantly take the form of grants rather than financial instruments, which do, however, have an important role to play in certain cases; stresses that in the event of a reduction in the EU’s budgets, greater focus on the EU’s core goals is required; considers that the role of the Member States should be emphasised through appropriate co-financing rates which ensure the commitment of the Member States;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that regional funding should be protected and should continue to predominantly take the form of grants rather ththat a balance between grants and financial instruments, which do, however, have an important role to play in certain cases should be found; stresses that in the event of a reduction in the EU’s budgets, greater focus on the EU’s core goals and EU added value is required;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point a (new)
Paragraph 3 – point a (new)
(a) Notes that synergies between funds are crucial to make investments more effective; stresses that smart specialisation strategies are an important tool to foster synergies as it sets national and regional priorities for R&I investments; regrets the presence of important barriers to achieve synergies; calls on the Commission to revise the EU State Aid rules and align them with FP rules; emphasises that an “equal treatment” approach in relation to procedures, e.g. concerning the state aid rules, should become the leading principle.
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that a 5+5 year MFF period might be preferable, provided that the Commission ensures a smooth transition between programming periods, which would require stricter de- commitment rules, shorter procedures for closing programmes, and faster processes for the setup and start-up of programmes;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for the priorities of regional development programmes to be updated in order to take changing conditions into account and to benefit from new technology; also considers that more flexibility is required in the MFF to meet unforeseen challenges and that these new opportunities and challenges should be reflected in the specific indicators in order to measure EU's response to them;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for the priorities of regional development programmes to be updated in order to take changing conditions into account and to benefit from new technology; is of the opinion that cohesion policy should aim in particular at enhancing the knowledge economy and stimulating innovation; also considers that more flexibility is required in the MFF to meet unforeseen challenges;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Stresses that the significant level of growth needed for job creation and development cannot be achieved without joint efforts for the implementation of a good economic policy mix, which consists of investment, structural reforms and fiscal consolidation;considers, therefore, that funding for structural reforms linked to the European Semester should be guaranteed in the national budgets, and Member States should be free to choose to use ESI Funds as an additional source for financing structural reforms;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of regional cross-border initiatives in promoting economic growth; is of the opinion that these cross-border initiatives in particular show the added value of the European Union;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. CNotes that combining grants and financial instruments has an unexplored potential owing to administrative burdens; calls for the Commission to look into the possibilities for greater synergies between the different EU funds, including cohesion policy, Horizon 2020 and EFSI; notes that the take-up of financial instruments and synergies with grants can be improved by encouraging investment partnerships and public-private partnerships locally;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the Commission to look into the possibilities forimplement greater synergies between the different EU funds, including cohesion policy, Horizon 2020 and EFSI; highlights, in this context, that special attention should be paid to state aid rules;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that it is essential, in the context of the new MFF, to ensure that budgetary rules, and rules on cohesion policy spending, are at last simplified.;calls for the set-up of a simplification bonus for the Member States for effective measures cutting red tape and improving management of EU funding;calls for a level playing field for state aid rules concerning all financial instruments so as to avoid preferential treatment of certain sources of funding over others, especially in the field of SME support;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that it is essential, in the context of the new MFF, to ensure that budgetary rules, and rules on cohesion policy spending, are at last simplified. in order to positively impact the sustainability of the next MFF, as well as to reduce the burden on beneficiaries; underlines that, in the context of maximising the performance of the MFF as regards conditionality, it is important to find the right balance so as not to jeopardise investments;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that it is essential, in the context of the new MFF, to ensure that budgetary rules, and rules on cohesion policy spending, are at last simplified., as well as to potentially adopt the "single rule book" approach in order to encourage more beneficiaries to apply for EU funding;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Underlines that, in the context of maximising the performance of the MFF as regards conditionality, it is important to find the right balance so as not to jeopardise investments; requests that the Commission build upon the positive elements of the ex-ante conditionality system, while reducing the corresponding administrative burden as regards assessment and procedure;
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Recalls its request to the Commission to identify EU policy areas where grants could be combined with financial instruments and to reflect on a proper balance between the two; is convinced that subsidies should remain the predominant way of funding the EU project in the next MFF; notes that the take-up of financial instruments and synergies with grants can be improved; highlights, in this context, that special attention should be paid to state aid rules, so as to provide a level playing field for grants and financial instruments; underlines that loans, guarantees, risk- sharing and equity financing should be used with caution, based on appropriate ex- ante assessments and only when their use can demonstrate a clear added value and a leverage effect;
Amendment 489 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
Paragraph 81
81. Stresses that cohesion policy post- 2020 should remain the main investment policy of the European Union covering all EU regions while concentrating the majority of the resources on the most vulnerable ones; believes that, beyond the goal of reducing the disparities between levels of development and enhancing convergence as enshrined in the Treaty, it should focus on the achievement of the broad EU political objectives and proposes, therefore, that under the next MFF, the three cohesion policy funds – the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund –should all remain an integral part of cohesion policy and should concentrate mainly on providing support for innovation, digitalisation, reindustrialisation, SMEs, transport, climate change adaptation, employment and social inclusion; calls, moreover, for a reinforced territorial cooperation, cross- border component and an urban dimension for the policy;
Amendment 506 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
82. Considers maintaining the financing of cohesion policy post-2020 for the EU-27 at least at the level of the 2014- 2020 budget to be of the utmost importance; stresses that GDP should remain one of the parameters for the allocation of cohesion policy funds, but believes that it should be complemented by an additional set of social, environmental and demographic indicators to better take into account new types of inequalities between EU regions; supports, in addition, the continuation under the new programming period of the elements that rendered cohesion policy more modern and performance-oriented under the current MFF i.e. the thematic concentration, the ex-ante conditionalities, the performance framework and the link to economic governance;