19 Amendments of Victor BOŞTINARU related to 2016/2326(INI)
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas cohesion policy remains the main and most successful EU-wide investment policy forsupporting growth, development and sustainable job creation after 2020, especially against the backdrop of a sharp decline in public and private investments in many Member States and the implications of globalisation;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the late adoption of the legislative package for the current programming period led to delays in the start of its effective implementation; whereas this should serve as a lesson, and the new legislative framework should be adopted in due time so as to allow a swift and effective start of the next programming period;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas cohesion policy already addresses a very wide range of challenges and cannot be expected to tackle all new challenges the EU may face with the same – or an even smaller – budgetout a budgetary increase;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
–1. Strongly opposes any scenario for the EU27 by 2025, as contained in the White Paper on the Future of Europe, which would scale down the EU's efforts in relation to cohesion policy. On the contrary, invites the Commission to present a comprehensive legislative proposal for a strong and effective Cohesion Policy post-2020;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that although cohesion policy has mitigated the impact of the crisis, regional disparities and social inequalities remain high; calls for continuousstrengthened action to reduce disparities, particularly in less developed regions, while maintaining support for transition and for more developed regions so as to facilitate ownership of the policy in all regions;
Amendment 99 #
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 or a simplification of re-programming, in order to adapt ESIF investments to unforeseen events and to the specific needs of each region; in addition, it considers useful to create a reserve for unforeseen events that may arise during the programming period;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Believes that Cohesion Policy should remain stable and predictable in order to avoid a negative impact on the strategic orientation and on the stability of multiannual operational programmes;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. OStrongly opposes macro-economic conditionalities and highlights that the link between cohesion policy and economic governance processes should be reciprocal and that a greater recognition of the territorial dimension would be beneficial for the European Semester;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that increasing the administrative and institutional capacities for programming, implementation and evaluation of operational programmes in the Member States and regions is crucial for timely and successful cohesion policy performance;
Amendment 142 #
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; in this context, emphasizes the importance of combatting the so-called phenomenon of gold-plating in the Member States, and supports the conclusions and recommendations hitherto adopted by the ‘High Level Group monitoring simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds’;
Amendment 175 #
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, especially in less developed regions; notes, however, the importance of financial instruments; points out that the replacement of grants by loans, equity or guarantees must be carried out with caution, and only wheren 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 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. InviNotes the Commission to reflect on the development of alternative indicators to the GDP indicator, which remains the legitimate method for allocating ESI Funds fairly; such alternative indicatorsat GDP remains the only reliable and legitimate method for allocating ESI Funds fairly; believes, however, that alternative indicators should be evaluated, which may include a demographic indicator or dynamic indicators based on social and employment aspects, to be used in the future whenever their reliability will be ensured; stresses, furthermore, the relevance of outcome indicators to strengthen the result and performance orientation of the policy;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Points out that purely statistical effects, such as those which would arise from the United Kingdom leaving the EU, should not lead to any EU27 region losing its classification as a less -developed or transition region, as the socio-economic situation in these regions remains unchanged in reality. The European Commission should therefore include adequate "safety net" proposals in its regulations governing ESIF post 2020;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Endorses the EU’s commitments under the Paris climate change agreement, and underlines that the ESI Funds shouldplay a key role in this direction and should continue to be used as effectively as possible for climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as for green economies and renewable energies;
Amendment 258 #
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 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 learned; underlines the need of a better cooperation of all actors in order to strengthen the trust between the Commission, other EU Institutions and Member States on the one hand, and between the citizens and EU Institutions on the other;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Highlights the need for appropriate and effective communication of the results and socio-economic impact of Cohesion Policy in the Member States and in the regions;
Amendment 272 #
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 periodadopt the new legislative framework in due time, and avoid delays at the beginning of the new programming period, such as those which occurred in the current one; in this respect, underlines the importance that national, regional, and local authorities are able to prepare a project pipeline already before the beginning of the new programming period, in order to launch the implementation phase timely and effectively;
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Is convinced ofUnderlines the need for an adequately increased budget for cohesion policy after 2020, which takes into account the complex internal and external challenges that the policy will have to address;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Calls on the UK and the EU to agree that UK regions and local authorities be allowed to continue to participate in European Territorial Cooperation and other EU-wide programmes in a similar way that non-EU Member States such as Norway or Iceland do;