24 Amendments of Mercedes BRESSO related to 2016/2326(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14 a (new)
Citation 14 a (new)
– having regard to the European Parliament resolution on 'A European Strategy for the Danube Region' of 21 January 2010, P7_TA (2010) 0008, the European Parliament resolution on 'A European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the role of macro-regions in the future cohesion policy' of 6 July 2010, P7_TA (2010) 0254, the European Parliament resolution on 'an EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region' of 28 October 2015, P8_TA (2015) 0383, and the European Parliament resolution on 'An EU Strategy for the Alpine Region' of 13 September 2016, P8_TA (2016) 0336,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20
Citation 20
– having regard to the conclusions and recommendations of the ‘Hhigh Llevel Ggroup monitoringfor the simplification forof access by beneficiaries tof ESI funds’,
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas neither the increasing constraints on both the EU and the national budgets norand the consequences of Brexit should not lead to EU cohesion policy being weakened;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that cohesion policy is unique in that it allows a place-based approach able to identify territorial specificities, sets clear objectives and obtains measurable results, promotes a multi-level governance strategy and supports the integration of EU, national and regional instruments and policies;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that although cohesion policy hasrepresents an effective form of investment which plays a useful role in mitigateding the impact of the crisis, regional disparities, disparities in competitiveness and social inequalities remain high; calls for continuous action to reduce disparities, particularly in less developed regions and the regions referred to in Articles 174 and 349 TFEU, while maintaining support for transition and for more developed regions so as to facilitate ownership of the policy in all regions;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the current categorisation of regions, the thematic objectives and the performance framework have demonstrated the value of cohesion policy and should be consolidated; asks the Commission to present ideas for greater flexibility, such as an unallocated reserve at national level or a simplification of re- programming, in order to adapt ESIF investments to unforeseen events and to the specific needs of each region;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Underlines that thematic concentration and the performance framework have demonstrated the value of cohesion policy and should be consolidated; calls on the Commission to strengthen the necessary correspondence between diagnoses of local needs and choices of intervention, in the wake of the positive experience of the smart specialisation strategy, and to propose ideas for greater flexibility, such as a simplification of reprogramming, in order to adapt investments of ESI funds to unforeseen events and the specific needs of each region;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recognises the value of ex ante conditionalities, which enable the ESIF to support the Europe post-2020 objectives effectively without prejudice to the cohesion objectives stipulated in the Treaty; in the light of experience with the current programming period, calls for a more flexible and dynamic application of ex ante conditionality, for example by extending it to cover the entire programming cycle, and connecting it to incentive mechanisms in place of the existing sanctions in the event of unsatisfactory results;
Amendment 137 #
10a. Highlights the fact that cohesion policy can reinforce the administrative capacity of the owners of programmes cofunded by ESI funds and bring about convergence towards higher standards;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Calls for regional / national co- funding to be separated from the calculation of the Stability and Growth Pact so that they respect the same rules as those governing Structural Fund resources, since they have the same objective;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights the need to simplify the cohesion policy’s management system at all governance levels in order to make it more accessible and effective; supports the conclusions and recommendations hitherto adopted by the ‘Hhigh Llevel Ggroup monitoringfor the simplification forof access by beneficiaries ofto ESI Ffunds’;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Asks the Commission to reflect on solutions based on proportionality and differentiation on the basis of objective criteria and positive incentives for the programmes, especially with regard to the multiple layers of audit and the number of controls, to a greater harmonisation between cohesion policy and competition policy, in particular state aid rules, as well as with regard to the possibility of a single set of rules for all ESI Funds;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls on the Commission, with a view to real simplification, and in agreement with the managing authorities of national and regional programmes, to draw up a feasible plan to extend the simplified cost regime to the ERDF, also in keeping with the provisions of the proposal for a regulation to amend the financial rules applicable to the budget - the so-called Omnibus regulation;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that state aid rules are fully harmonised with Union policies, including the economic and financial instruments relating thereto;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Believes that grants should remain the basis of the financing of cohesion policy; notes, however, the gradual shift from grants to financial instrumentsstresses that the shift, even if partial, from grants to financial instruments may under no circumstances call into question the policy's main financing mechanism; points out that the replacement of grants by loans, equity or guarantees must be carried out with cautaken into consideration where such financial instruments demonstrate an added value, taking into account regional disparities and the diversity of practices and experiences; stresses the importance of assistance to local and regional authorities on the innovative financial instruments through platforms such as fi-compass;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to ensure better synergies between the ESI Funds and other Union funds and programmes and to facilitate multi-fund options; warns that the EFSI should not undermine the strategic coherence, territorial concentration and long-term perspective of cohesion policy programming and insists on the additionality of its resources;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Stresses that because the coordination of macro-regional strategies with existing development tools is still insufficient in terms of policy priorities, budgetary guidance, organisation and administration, these strategies are as yet unable to demonstrate their great potential; calls on the Commission to propose tools that can help bring about a substantial integration of operational programmes with the action plans set out in the macro-regional strategies;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Invites the Commission to reflect on the development of alternative indicators toindicators that complement the GDP indicator, which remains thea legitimate method for allocating ESI Funds fairly; such alternativecomplementary indicators may include a demographicterritorial indicators or dynamic indicators based on social and employment aspects; stresses, furthermore, the relevance of outcome indicators to strengthen the result and performance orientation of the policy;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Notes, in addition, the positive impact in terms of the social and employment-related added value of investments in education, training and culture; hopes that cohesion policy will continue to invest appropriately in those sectors;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Highlights the fact that in order to improve the visibility of ESI Funds, greater focus must be placed on participation by stakeholders, who can act as an effective channel through which to disseminate cohesion policy achievements, and recipients; urges, furthermore, the Commission, Member States, regions and cities to communicate in a more efficient way on both the achievements of cohesion policy and the lessons to be learnedo convey a careful message to citizens regarding the added value of the European project for their quality of life and well-being;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Reiterates that it is high time to prepare the post-2020 EU cohesion policy in order to launch it effectively at the very start of the new programming period; maintains, to that end, that an interinstitutional agreement needs to be reached by autumn 2019 at the very latest;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Notes that the core of the current cohesion policy legislative framework should be maintained after 2020 with a refined, strengthened, easily accessible and result- orientated policy and with an added value of the policy which is better communicated to citizens;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Is convinced of the need for an adequate budget for cohesion policy after 2020 which takes into account, on a par with current levels, if not higher, in the light of the complex internal and external challenges that the policy will have to address; considers it useful to launch a debate on the introduction of new cohesion budget support mechanisms, such as new forms of own resources, to neutralise the possible cuts resulting from the exit of the United Kingdom;