9 Amendments of Tamás DEUTSCH related to 2014/2245(INI)
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. Whereas according to Art. 175 TFEU Member States shall conduct their economic policies and shall coordinate them in such a way as to attain the objectives of overall harmonious development and strengthening of economic, social and territorial cohesion. The Investment Plan shall therefore also contribute to these objectives.
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that a stable fiscal and economic – as well as regulatory, administrative and institutional – environment is crucial for the effectiveness of cohesion policy; emphasises that, in order to achieve both the cohesion and Europe 2020 objectives, the policy must be aligned closely with sectoral policies and other EU investment schemes; recalls however that in line with Article 175 TFEU all economic policies shall pursue the attainment of the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses its serious concern about the significant delay in the implementation of cohesion policy 2014-2020, including the delay in adoption of Operational Programmes, with only just over 100 Operational Programmes adop; although the situation in the cohesion area is better than in rural development and fisheries, a concern remains that for some Member Stateds at the end of 2014, as well as a significant number of their programmes are yet to be adopted; is equally concerned by the backlog in payments amounting to ca EUR 25 billion for the 2007-2013 programming period; stresses that these delays are undermining the credibility of cohesion policy, effectiveness and sustainability, challenging national, regional and local authorities’ capacity to plan effectively and implement the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for the 2014- 2020 period;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Suggests that it can be considered for the preparation of the next programming period that regulatory provisions concerning programming are introduced separately and in advance of budgetary proposals thus decoupling debates about content and money and leaving enough time for thorough preparations of programmes; reminds that despite the fact that the regulatory provisions are very extensive, this does not lead to complete assurance to Member States and regions, and may be a source of differing interpretations; there is still room for simplifying regulatory provisions;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes the new European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) and its potential leverage effect; while remaining fully separate, advises the parties concerned to build on the experiences gained from the implementation of the European Economic Recovery Plan in 2008, in particular regarding smart investments; calls for the coordination of all EU investment policies – in particular cohesion policy – to ensure complementarity and avoid overlaps; suggests that the implementation of this new EU investment plan build on the experiences of the three joint initiatives JEREMIE, JESSICA and JASMINE, which allowed an increase in the delivery of Structural Funds from EUR 1.2 billion in 2000-2006 to EUR 8.4 billion in 2007- 2012;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Warns, however, that the EFSI should not undermine the strategic coherence and long-term perspective of cohesion policy programming; stresses that a re-direction of Structural Funds would be counterproductive, putting their effectiveness – and the development of the regions – at risk; points out that the financial allocations to Member States agreed on under Heading 1b in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014- 2020 cannot be modified in response to potential needfor the purposes of the EFSI; emphasises that the replacement of grants by loans, equity or guarantees, while having certain advantages, must be carried out with caution, taking into account regional disparities; points out that the regions most in need of investment stimuli have low administrative and absorption capacities;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Highlights the importance of all measures aimed at increasing the effectiveness, simplification, efficiency and result orientation of cohesion policy; suggests in this respect to come forward with technical adjustments of the ESIF regulations concerned;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Warns that the alarming rates of youth unemployment threaten to bring about the loss of an entire generation; insists that advancing the integration of young people into the job market must remain a top priority, to the attainment of which the integrated use of the ESF and the ERDF can make a major contribution; considers that a more results-oriented approach should be taken in this regard to ensure the most effective use of available resources; underlines in this context the vital role of the Youth Guarantee in helping young people under 25 to either find a good quality job or acquire the education, skills and experience needed in order to find employment;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Welcomes the introduction of new tools to integrate coordination of stakeholders and EU policies, and to focus investments on the real needs on the ground, such as the Integrated Territorial Investments and the Community-Led Local Development instruments, seeking balanced territorial development; points to the importance of adopting instruments for assessing the territorial impact of policies, the main objective of which is to consider the territorial impact of EU policies on local and regional authorities and to draw greater attention to that impact in the legislative process, while noting the existing challenges to implement integrated territorial approaches given the remaining regulatory differences across the EU funds and the greatly varying degree of empowerment of regional and local communities that is experienced across Member States and Managing Authorities; calls for an overall integrated EU investment strategy, and a strengthening of the EU Territorial Agenda 2020 that was adopted under the Hungarian Presidency 2011 and that is scheduled to be evaluated by the presidencies of 2015 which includes the EU Urban Agenda as part of it; is of the opinion that particular attention should be paid to strengthening the role of small- and medium-sized urban areas in the framework of an EU Urban Agenda;