9 Amendments of Victor NEGRESCU related to 2016/2302(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that the ultimate purpose of financial instruments (FIs) is to act in situations of market failure or suboptimal investment as a catalyst making it possible to mobilise funding for projects which cannot secure adequate support from the market; insists that in order to successfully achieve Europe 2020 Strategy objectives the funding channelled through the EU-supported FIs should also play a social role and not be limited to satisfying private interests only;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that, according to estimations, allocations in FIs from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) would almost double between 2007-2013, when they amounted to EUR 11.7 billion, and 2014- 2020, when they would amount to EUR 20.9 billion; notes that the FIs would therefore represent 6 % of the overall cohesion policy allocation in 2014-2020 of 351,8billion, compared with 3.4 % of the allocated 347 billion in 2007-2013;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes that the allocations from the Cohesion Fund amounts to approximately 75 billion euros, representing 11,8% of the total FI's allocations in the 2014-2020 period; welcomes the allocation increase from 70 billion euros in the 2007-2013 period to 75 billion in the 2014-2020 period; highlights that allocation to the Cohesion Fund should not be diminished taking into consideration that approximately 34% of the EU's population live in a region that receives aid from the Cohesion Fund;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Calls on the Commission to study new ways of debureaucratization of the funds accessing procedure in order to increase the absorbption rates and further provide easier and transparent access of Member States to the EU's financial instruments;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Notes that the Commission is working closesly with it's Member States to improve how the funds are invested and managed; calls on the Commission to further engage local authorities in consultations regarding the evolution of financial instruments;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Welcomes that approximately 90% of the EIB available funding promotes sustainable growth and job creation in Member States; criticizes the EIB's treatment differences towards certain under developed regions taking into consideration that in 2015 Spain, Italy, France, UK, Germany and Poland were in the lead with approximately 365 EIB signed operations while the rest of the Member States, together, only amount to approximately 170 EIB signed operations;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Invites the Commission to continue and present annual reports containing concrete information regarding the financing and implementing of financial instruments for the programming period 2014-2020, highlighting the areas that need improvement and offering recommendations in a timely fashion based on the evolutions of the programme;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Stresses the need for more information sessions to be provided to the managing authorities by the Commissions Expert Groups such as EGESIF to ensure better data coverage in reporting requirements, provide advice on tackling the issues causing significant delays in implementation of programmes, an exchange of experience and encourage good practice in the implementation of the programme thus avoiding a high backlog of unpaid bills in the second part of the 2014-2020 MFF;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Calls on the Commission to introduce the equal pay for equal work mechanism by amending the existing framework in order to eliminate the regional wage gap for European experts accordingly to their country of residence; deplores the existing differences that go up to 10 times in the payment schemes of researchers in Horizon 2020 and calls for a fair treatment;