41 Amendments of Lambert van NISTELROOIJ related to 2017/2279(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
– having regard to the Pact of Amsterdam establishing the Urban Agenda for the EU, agreed at the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers Responsible for Urban Matters on 30 May 2016 in Amsterdam,
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas one of the key pieces of new information provided by the 7th Cohesion Report concerns the identification of certain areagions described as being caught in the ‘middle-income trap’, which risk being left behind;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph –1 (new)
Paragraph –1 (new)
-1. Stresses that EU-15 financial contribution to cohesion policy is offset by direct and indirect export benefits, direct capital benefits as well as positive externalities;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph –1 a (new)
Paragraph –1 a (new)
-1a. Emphasises that cohesion policy brings economic benefits both to its recipients and to its main contributors across EU member states
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph –1 b (new)
Paragraph –1 b (new)
-1b. Believes that cohesion policy is the glue that holds Europe together;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph –1 c (new)
Paragraph –1 c (new)
-1c. Notes that the 7th Cohesion report clearly presents the outcome of cohesion policy in terms of growth, jobs, transport, energy, environment, education and training;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph –1 d (new)
Paragraph –1 d (new)
-1d. Notes that both cohesion policy and Horizon 2020 are equally important and complementary in supporting research and innovation;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph –1 e (new)
Paragraph –1 e (new)
-1e. Notes that cohesion policy played a substantial role in recovery of EU economy by mobilising economic activities during the crisis and therefore enabling all UE regions to meet difficult targets in all cross cutting policies;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that cohesion policy investments provide European added value by contributing to European public goods and to the Treaty objective of reducing disparities; emphasises the notable spill- over effects of ESI Funds investments across the Single Market;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that cohesion policy investments provides European added value by contributing to European public goods, to public and private investments and to the Treaty objective of reducing disparities;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses the importance of supporting rural areas in all their diversity, by valuing their potential, encouraging investments in improving transport connectivity and very high-speed broadband and providing support to help them meet the challenges they face: rural desertification, the destruction of city- centre communities, areas without health care, depopulation etc.;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
The ‘middle-income trap’: fostering resilience and preventing vulnerable territories from falling behindregions
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Commission’s launch of a pilot projects such as the Vanguard Initiative to provide tailored support geared to the specific challenges facing regions in industrial transition; calls on the Commission to draw lessons from the pilot project as soon as possible, and believes that smart specialisation strategies have the potential to offer betterwill support to these regions in their development strategies and, more generally, promotewith a differentiated implementation at regional level;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that social and fiscal convergence help to foster cohesion while improving the functioning of the single market; takes the view that divergent practices in this area may run counter to the objective of cohesion and are liable to cause further problems for territories which are lagging behind or are the most vulnerable to globalisation; considers that cohesion policy could contributes to the promotion of social and fiscal convergence by providing incentives; calls on the Commission to take betterthe social dimension into account ofin this aspect ine framework of the European Semester;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Stresses that employment, innovation, support for SMEs, climate change and the circular economy should be further strengthened as priority areas for cohesion policy in future;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Regrets that the Commission did not come with more integrated evaluation of cross-cutting policies, and synergies between different European policies are not reported;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Supports a strCalls ong thematic concentration on a limited number of priorities linked to major European political objectives, leaving managing authorities the task of drawing up their territorial strategies on the basis of their needs; stresses that employment, innovation, support for SMEs, climate change and the circular economy should constitute priority areas for cohesion policy in future Commission for more flexibility in selection of priorities by Member States and the European region, advocates for bilateral partnership agreements with the Commission what will better respond to the territorial strategies and geographic specifies and needs;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Supports a strong thematic concentration on a limited number of priorities linked to major European political objectives, leaving managing authorities the task of drawing up their territorial strategies on the basis of their needs after inclusive consultation at local and regional levels; stresses that employment, innovation, support for SMEs, climate change and the circular economy should constitute priority areas for cohesion policy in future;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Supports a strong thematic concentration on a limited number of priorities linked to major European political objectives, leaving managing authorities the task of drawing up their territorial strategies on the basis of their needs; stresses that employment, innovation, support for SMEs, climate change, the demographic challenge and the circular economy should constitute priority areas for cohesion policy in future;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Welcomes the adoption of the European Pillar for Social Rights, which represents a step forward in building a social Europe; reiterates its commitment to the ESF as a strong integrated part of the ESI funds, the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative in view of their role in meeting the challenges of employment, social inclusion, learning and vocational training;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 16 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Strongly opposes any attempt at separating European Social Fund from cohesion policy;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises that future cohesion policy should focus more on protecting and supporting communities and territories adversely affected by globalisation (plant relocations, job losses); calls for the scope for coordination between the Structural Funds and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to be exploredin the special cases;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Calls on the Commission and the Council to facilitate a timely start of the next programming period in order to prevent late payments and decommitments which hamper positive results of cohesion policy;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Emphasises the importance of keeping same categories of regions, namely less developed, transition and more developed regions in the future programming framework to enable comparative studies on the impact of cohesion policy post 2020;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 c (new)
Paragraph 19 c (new)
19c. Regrets that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) has been not used to its limits; calls to explore of new opportunities to better support coastal areas;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that the 7th Cohesion Report highlights the need to take account of indicators complementary to per capita GDP for the purpose of allocating funds, in line with the challenges and needs identified, including at sub-regional level; considers that a non-exhaustive set of complementary indicators such as social progress index, poverty, demography and infrastructure quality are suitable in the process of programming the funding and for indicating the share of EU funding in order to adequately reflect the needs of the EU regions; notes the importance of taking as a basis data which are of high quality, reliable and available; supports the use of social criteria, in particular the regional unemployment rate and the youth unemployment rate; invites the Commission to assess the possibility that the set of eligibility criteria are to be considered at the NUTS levels;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that the 7th Cohesion Report highlights the need to take account of indicators complementary to per capita GDP, which should remain the main indicator, for the purpose of allocating funds, in line with the challenges and needs identified, including at sub-regional level; notes the importance of taking as a basis data which are of high quality, reliable and available; supports the use of social criteria, in particular the unemployment rate and the youth unemployment ratea complementary set of social, environmental and demographic indicators;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Advocates stepping upronger integrated approaches, and stresses that the ESF must remain an integral component of European regional policy, by virtue of its essential territorial dimension; in this respect stresses the importance of the second pillar of CAP in contribution to the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy by promoting sustainable rural development and rural municipalities;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Emphasises that financial instruments canhave been proven to be an effective lever and that they should be promoted if they generate added value; stresses, however, that their effectiveness hinges on many factors (nature of the project, of the territory or of the risk) and that all regions, regardless of their level of development, must be free to determine the most appropriate method of financing; calls however on the Commission to increase the administrative capacity of regions and facilitate the deployment of financial instruments; opposes any binding targets for the use of financial instruments;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls for the smart specialisation strategies to be continuintensified, and acknowledges the importance of ex-ante conditionalities, which have proved their worth, but stresses that they have been a source of complexity and delays in the development and launching of programming; calls on the Commission to reduce the number of ex ante conditionalities and, in this field, to improve compliance with the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, making maximum use of existing strategic documents;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Notes that the quality of public administration is a decisive factor in regional growth and the effectiveness of ESI funds; emphasises the need to increase administrative capacities as well as to improve advisory assistance to authorities locally and capacity building at project level;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the future JASPERS programme and to take into account recommendations of the European Court of Auditors by a) specifying the main objectives b) focus technical assistance on sectors and member states where administrative capacity is insufficient c) concentration on the substance rather than on project documentation d) providing the advisory services to the major projects e) mitigating the high risk of a lack of impartiality clarifying the roles of the main stakeholders;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls for a genuine single set of rules to be introduced for the various fundsESI Funds, including establishment of common rules for instruments that contribute to the same thematic objective; considers it necessary to streamline ESI Funds procurement through a standardised pipeline and to accelerate state aid procedure for the projects where compliance is required; supports consistent treatment of European funds under direct management and cohesion funds where State aid is concerned and, more generally, harmonised rules for European instruments aimed at the same beneficiaries; stresses the importance of greater complementarity between cohesion policy and the future EU research programme, in order to cover the full cycle from basic research to commercial applications;
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls for a genuine single set of rules to be introduced for the various funds; supports consistent treatment of European funds under direct management and cohesion funds where State aid is concerned and, more generally, harmonised rules for European instruments aimed at the same beneficiaries; stresses the importance of greater complementarity between cohesion policy and the future EU research programme, in order to cover the full cycle from basic research to commercial applications; considers that thematic concentration should be preserved in order to enable synergies between different funding sources at project level;
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Calls on the Commission to facilitate simplified, timely and flexible procedure for transferability of resources between regions, operational programmes and programme axes in order to adequately meet changing global reality and regional demand;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Reiterates importance of smart specialisation, both as an economic concept and a policy framework providing a novel avenue to pursue investment in longer-term growth potential in a context of rapid technological change and globalisation; stresses that technologies play an essential role in strengthening existing specialisations and revealing new economic opportunities in high-tech sectors, but also in traditional industries;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Is concerned at the Commission’s recent statements concerning the cuts to the cohesion policy budget that might be made under the next MFF and which would exclude certain regions from the scope of cohesion policy; wishes to see a budget commensurate with the challenges facing the regions, and calls for cohesion policy not to be made an adjustment variable; points out that the coverage of all EU regions is a ‘red line’ for the European Parliament; stresses that the theory of ‘economic development clubs’ confirms the importance of differentiated support for all European regions, including regions with a very high income, which must remain competitive with their global competitors;
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Reiterates its commitment to long- term programming; considers that the only viable alternative to the current period of seven years is an MFF period of 5+5 years, with a mid-term reviewnext MFF should be set for a span of seven years (2021-2027), after which a transition to a 5 + 5 cycle with a mandatory mid-term revision is a viable option;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Reiterates its commitment to long- term programming; considers that the only viable alternative to the current period of seven years is an MFF perCalls on the Commission to elaborate a clear proposal setting out the methods for the practical implementatiodn of a 5+5 years, with a mid-term reviewfinancial framework;