2015/2052(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas cohesion policy is first and foremost a Treaty-based policy and an expression of European solidarity, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union, and in particular at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions;

Amendment 100 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Asks the Commission to apply Article 23 CPR in line with the principle of proportionality, ~~by properly taking into account the real situation of those Member States and regions which are facing socio-economic difficulties and where ESI Funds represent a significant share of investment;~~

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Asks the Commission to ~~apply Article 23 CPR in line with the principle of proportionality, by~~ properly tak~~ing~~e into account the real situation of those Member States and regions which are facing socio- economic difficulties and where ESI Funds represent a significant share of investment;

Amendment 102 #

Victor BOŞTINARU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Asks the Commission to ~~apply~~interpret Article 23 CPR in line with the principle of proportionality, by properly taking into account the real situation of those Member States and regions which are facing socio- economic difficulties and where ESI Funds represent a significant share of investment;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Asks the Commission to apply Article 23 CPR in line with the principle of proportionality, by properly taking into account the real situation of those Member States and regions which are facing socio- economic difficulties, particularly in the context of the economic and financial crisis of recent years, and where ESI Funds represent a significant share of investment, in order to avoid aggravating these difficulties;

Amendment 104 #

Younous OMARJEE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Asks the Commission to apply Article 23 CPR in line with the principle of proportionality, by properly taking into account the real situation of those Member States and regions which are facing socio- economic difficulties and where ESI Funds represent a significant share of investment; stresses that the least developed regions must not be destabilised, either socially or economically, by reprogramming of ESI funds linked to the application of Article 23 CPR;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for an adequate flow of information between the Commission, the Council and Parliament and for the holding of a debate at the appropriate political level, followed by a corresponding report in real time to the local, regional and national authorities on the conclusions reached, to ensure a common understanding as regards the interpretation of the conditions of application of Article 23 CPR; considers that decisions under Article 23 CPR should be considered by the Council under a configuration especially dedicated to cohesion policy;

Amendment 106 #

Martina ANDERSON, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Considers it essential to ensure transparency and accountability by giving Parliament democratic oversight of the system of governance in the context of Article 23 CPR, which introduces ~~important~~a number of necessary limitations in the bottom-up approach which is ~~an important feature~~essential for the overall coordination of cohesion policy;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls that suspension of payments is a matter decided by the Council on the basis of a proposal that the Commission may adopt in the event that the Member State concerned fails to take effective action;deleted

Amendment 108 #

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Martina ANDERSON, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Recalls that suspension of payments is a matter decided by the Council on the~~Stresses that it is important for the Member States to take effective action to avoid consequences such as suspension of payments, following a Council decision basised ofn a proposal that the Commission may adopt in the event that th~~e Member State concerned fails to take effective action~~is action is not carried out;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Expresses its disapproval for the institutionalisation of the principle of macroeconomic conditionality and the link between cohesion policy and Structural Funds on the one hand and Stability and Growth Pact, package of economic governance and any economic agreement of Member States, on the other; the assumptions underlying them are undeniably different and their objectives diametrically opposed; emphasises that the purpose of cohesion policy should not be to impose stringent macroeconomic and financial conditions necessitating austerity measures or to penalise Member States and regions; stresses that cohesion policy is designed to ensure balanced growth and eliminate inequalities with a view to achieving genuine convergence; indicates that funding for European regions cannot be suspended for non-compliance by Member States with macroeconomic conditions and suspending funding for Member States in difficulties will make the situation worse;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the current legislative framework for cohesion policy, while establishing links with the EU strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the European Semester and the Europe 2020 Guidelines, as well as with the relevant country specific recommendations (CSRs) and Council recommendations, is nevertheless subject to very specific missions, objectives and horizontal principles and follows its specific systemic rationale;

Amendment 110 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Isabelle THOMAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Asks the Commission how programmes or priorities concerned will be defined in the proposal for suspension under Article 23(6);

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Doubts the effectiveness of a sanction that would do nothing more than penalise the same infringement twice and underlines the substantial legal safeguards contained in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation with a view to ensuring the exceptional nature of the suspension mechanism;

Amendment 112 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Emphasises the penalising nature of any suspension of payments, and asks the Commission to use its discretionary power to propose the suspension of payments with utmost caution and strictly in line with Article 23(6) CPR, after due consideration of all relevant information and elements arising from and opinions expressed through the structured dialogue;

Amendment 113 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Ivan JAKOVČIĆ, Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Warns against the risk of failure of projects which are implemented under financial instruments affected by the reprogramming, as the private sector and financial institutions might withdraw their engagement in case of suspension of the contribution of the funds;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Points out that the decision on the suspension of payments should be taken as a last resort, because suspending payments could have serious consequences for the respective programmes and regions severely hit by crisis, as well as for the achievement of cohesion policy goals as a whole;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Welcomes, in the context of the criteria for determining the programmes to be suspended and the level of suspension under the first strand, the cautious approach adopted in the guidelines whereby account will be taken of the economic and social circumstances of Member States by considering mitigating factors similar to those envisaged in the suspensions under Article 23(9) CPR; regrets that the suspension of payments creates a gap and leads to the decommitment of funds, and calls on the Commission to review the criteria and avoid suspensions where minor infringements are detected;

Amendment 116 #

Victor BOŞTINARU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Considers that the involvement of Parliament in line with Article 23(15) CPR should be formalised, by way of a clear procedure allowing Parliament to be ~~inform~~consulted at all stages as regards the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Considers that the involvement of Parliament, as the principal democratic guarantor for the correct application of the provisions in line with Article 23(15) CPR , should be formalised, by way of a clear procedure allowing Parliament to be informed at all stages as regards the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – introductory part

26. CStresses the need for constant, clear and transparent collaboration at interinstitutional level and considers that such a procedure should include, at least, the following steps:

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 2

– the Commission should immediately inform Parliament of any reprogramming request under Article 23(1) CPR or of a proposal for a decision suspending payments under Article 23(6) CPR, allowing Parliament to state its position in due time; the Commission should not take any further step until the Parliament has expressed its position;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the current legal framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) aims ~~also~~ to reinforce coordination, complementarity and synergies with other EU policies and instruments;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 2 a (new)

– the Parliament should adopt its position by vote;

Amendment 121 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Stanislav POLČÁK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 – indent 3

– the Commission should, as well as consulting the Committee of the Regions, take into account the position expressed by Parliament and any elements arising from or opinions expressed through the structured dialogue under Article 23(15) CPR;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Calls for the inclusion of the EP Committee on Regional Affairs in structural dialogue in the framework of the European Semester on matters possibly affecting the implementation of the ESI funds;

Amendment 123 #

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Martina ANDERSON, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Calls on the Parliament to submit a proposal concerning the review of the implementation of Article 23 CPR as defined in paragraph 17 of this Article

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the current legal framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) aims also to reinforce coordination, complementarity and synergies with other EU policies and instruments; whereas the sustainability of Cohesion Policy effects is enhanced when interventions are implemented in accordance with an overall strategic vision;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the bureaucratic burden and lack of administrative capacity are the main factors that create a gap between commitments and payments;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas there is evidence that good governance and efficient public institutions are basic conditions for ~~strong~~ economic ~~and social development, although less attention has been paid to the impact of macroeconomic factors on the framework in which cohesion policy operates~~growth and job creation;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas there is evidence that good governance and efficient institutions are basic conditions for strong economic ~~and soc~~, social and territorial development, although less attention has been paid to the impact of macroeconomic factors on the framework in which cohesion policy operates;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas there is evidence that good governance and efficient institutions are basic conditions for strong economic and social development, although less attention has been paid to the impact of macroeconomic factors on the framework in which cohesion policy operates; whereas in a stable environment, which is an essential precondition for long-term economic success, business will remain active and continue to contribute to sustainable growth only if there is confidence in the government and its continuous and reliable policy;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas economic and financial instability and unpredictability ~~may~~, as well as the austerity policies pursued by the Commission, have resulted in decreasing levels of public and private investment;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas economic and financial instability and unpredictability ~~may~~ result in decreasing levels of public and private investment;

Amendment 2 #

Younous OMARJEE

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in particular Articles 4, 162 ~~and~~, 174 to 178 and 349 thereof,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas economic and financial instability and unpredictability may ~~result in~~bring in their wake decreasing levels of public and private investment;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas economic and financial instability and unpredictability may result in decreasing levels of public and private investment; putting at risk the goals of cohesion and, in presence of such a threat, require timely countercyclical response;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas economic and financial instability and unpredictability of regulatory framework may result in decreasing levels of public and private investment;

Amendment 23 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the Member States' track record of implementing the CSRs is low, on the evidence of the Commission's assessments of implementation progress concerning the 279 CSRs issued in 2012 and 2013, showing that 28 CSRs had been fully addressed or showed substantial progress (10 %) and 136 (48.7 %) had achieved some progress, but for 115 (41.2 %) limited progress or no progress was recorded; whereas the implementation was weaker for the 2013 set of recommendations than for the 2012, it appears to vary with the electoral cycle in Member States and is stronger in policy areas where market pressure requires an imminent policy response;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas there are evidences that CSRs are a total failure in the achievement of growth and jobs and imply measures against the objectives of the cohesion policy;

Amendment 25 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas the Committee of the Regions, through the Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform, has analysed the country-specific recommendations for 2015, arriving at the worrying conclusion that LDCs and countries in which regional differences are more pronounced are those in which CSR implementation at sub-national level is lowest;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

~~Linking e~~Effectiveness of the ESI Funds ~~to sound~~in the context of economic governance

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Considers that a sound economic governance is the basis for an efficient, effective and result-oriented cohesion policy which could contribute to economic growth and jobs creation;

Amendment 28 #

Louis-Joseph MANSCOUR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Considers that the application of the new arrangements introduced by Article 23 CPR would impose an unfair double penalty on local and regional authorities, which are not responsible for excessive national public deficits, most of them being constitutionally required to balance their budgets;

Amendment 29 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the importance of ~~cohesion policy instruments and resource~~ESI Funds in maintaining the level of European added- value investment in Member States and regions; when national and regional public and private investments fell significantly due to negative effects of economic and financial crisis.

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)

– having regard to the study for the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament entitled 'The impact of the crisis on fundamental rights across Member States of the EU'.

Amendment 30 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the importance of cohesion policy instruments and resources in maintaining the level of European added- value investment in Member States and regions; and in terms of improvement of administrative capacity and triggering modernisation processes within territorial administration across the Member States by diffusion of standards of good governance and policy practices such as partnership, multi-annual programming, place-based approach to development policy, evaluation and cross- border cooperation;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises the importance of cohesion policy instruments and resources in maintaining the level of European added- value investment and boosting demand, growth, jobs and social inclusion in Member States and regions;

Amendment 32 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Believes that an increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms cannot jeopardise the achievement of the ESI Funds' policy objectives and goals~~Is strongly opposed to the principle of applying macroeconomic conditionality to the implementation of cohesion policy, and more specifically, to any links between the ESIF and economic governance;

Amendment 33 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Isabelle THOMAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that a~~n increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms can~~chievement of the ESI Funds’ policy objectives and goals will not be jeopardise ~~the achievement of the ESI Funds’ policy objectives and goal~~d by an increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that an increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms can~~not jeopardise~~ support the achievement of the ESI Funds' policy objectives and goals;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that an increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms ~~can~~must not jeopardise the achievement of the ESI Funds’ policy objectives and goals;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that an increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms cannot jeopardise the achievement of the ESI Funds' policy objectives and goals; stresses that stable fiscal and economic environment is basic precondition for the effectiveness and successful implementation of Cohesion policy;

Amendment 37 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that an increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms cannot in any way jeopardise the achievement of the ESI Funds’ policy objectives and goals;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls for the investment clause to be reviewed so as to enable regional and national investments co-financed through ESI Funds to be excluded from the calculation of national deficits in the framework of the European Semester;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Expresses serious doubts about the effectiveness of penalties in the form of the suspension of structural fund payments, which in practice would amount to a second punishment for the same offence;

Amendment 4 #

Martina ANDERSON, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas cohesion policy is first and foremost a Treaty-based policy, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union, and in particular at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regshall provide support, through multi-annual programmes, which complements national, regional and local intervention, to deliver the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as the Fund-specific missions pursuant to their Treaty-based objectives, including economic, social and territorial cohesion taking account of the relevant Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines and the relevant country-specific recommendations;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

~~3. Considers that macroeconomic conditionality must only be used to contribute to a more focused and result- driven implementation of the ESI Funds;~~deleted

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

~~3. Considers that macroeconomic conditionality must only be used to contribute to a more focused and result- driven implementation of the ESI Funds;~~deleted

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that macroeconomic conditionality must only be used ~~to contribute to a more focused and result- driven implementation of the ESI Funds~~as a measure of last resort;

Amendment 43 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that ~~macroeconomic conditionality~~Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation must only be used to contribute to a more focused and result- driven implementation of the ESI Funds;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that macroeconomic conditionality must ~~only be used to contribute to a~~support more focused and result- driven implementation of the ESI Funds;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that macroeconomic conditionality must ~~only~~also be used to contribute to a more focused and result- driven implementation of the ESI Funds;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that macroeconomic conditionality must only be used to contribute to a more focused and result- driven implementation of the ESI Funds and facilitate the rationalisation of regional policy in such a way as not to prevent the achievement of national macroeconomic objectives;

Amendment 47 #

Victor BOŞTINARU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that macroeconomic conditionality must only be used to contribute to a more focused and result- driven implementation of the ESI Funds and that it should not jeopardize their proper use;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls for the investment clause to be reviewed so as to enable regional and national investments co-financed through EU funds (ESI or CEF funding) to be excluded from the calculation of national deficits in the framework of the European Semester;

Amendment 49 #

Louis-Joseph MANSCOUR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that public expenditure incurred by Member States by way of co-financing of programmes co-financed by the Structural Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is not included in the public or equivalent structural expenditure taken into account under the partnership agreement for the purpose of ascertaining that the Stability and Growth Pact is being complied with, given that the latter expenditure constitutes an obligation deriving directly from the observance of additionality; calls, therefore, for public expenditure related to the implementation of programmes co-financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds and EFSI to be completely excluded from the definition of SGP structural deficits because this is expenditure devoted to achieving the goals of Europe 2020 and supporting competitiveness, growth and job creation, especially where youth employment is concerned;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas cohesion policy is first and foremost a Treaty-based policy, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union, and in particular at reducing structural disparities between the ~~levels of development of the various regions;~~ regions of the Union and achieving balanced development within its territory and real gender equality;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Recall~~Emphasises the multiannual and long- term nature of programmes and objectives under the ESI Funds, as well as their strong result-driven nature, ~~as opposed to the annual cycle of the European semester and the rather weak implementation of the semester recommen~~which should be aligned with national strategies and sectorial policies; therefore underlines the need for coordination with European semester as an annual cycle of economic policy coordination involving Member States' plans for structural reforms, investments and fiscal consolidations;.

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls the multiannual and long-term nature of programmes and objectives under the ESI Funds, as well as their strong result-driven nature, as opposed to the annual cycle of the European semester ~~and the rather weak implementation of the semester recommendations~~;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines the importance of a cautious approach by the Commission towards the application of the macroeconomic conditionality, taking into consideration that the reprogramming mechanism may be triggered by an unfavourable combination of economic cycles and unfavourable external conditions in a Member State concerned;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses the need for the European Commission to present a white paper setting out a typology for the quality public investments on the basis of their long-term effects, with a view to protecting those that produce good results in this respect;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that cohesion policy has played a ~~vital~~limited role and has failed to shown significant responsiveness to macroeconomic and fiscal constraints ~~in the context of the current crisis, through~~, some of them imposed by the Commission, and that the reprogramming of ~~more than~~ 11 % of the available budget between 2007 and 2012~~, in order to support the most pressing needs and strengthen certain intervention~~ has not made it possible to respond to all of the most pressing needs;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that cohesion policy has played a vital role and has shown significant responsiveness to macroeconomic and fiscal constraints in the context of the current crisis, through the reprogramming of more than 11 % of the available budget between 2007 and 2012, in order to support the most pressing needs and strengthen certain interventions; highlights therefore that in several Member States the Cohesion policy represented more than 80 of public investments over the period 2007-2013;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Asks the Commission to provide further analytical data on the impact of the macroeconomic mechanisms on regional development and on the interaction between the European economic governance framework and cohesion policy, as well as to provide specific information on how cohesion policy contributes to the relevant CSRs and Council recommendationEuropean economic governance framework and applied macroeconomic mechanisms, including those applied under CSRs and Council recommendations, on the results of regional development operations and achievement of Cohesion Policy goals;

Amendment 57 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Asks the Commission to provide further analytical data on the impact and significance of the macroeconomic mechanisms on regional development, on the effectiveness of cohesion policy and on the interaction between the European economic governance framework and cohesion policy, a~~s well as~~nd to provide specific information on how cohesion policy contributes to the relevant CSRs and Council recommendations;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that local and regional authorities must not, under any circumstances, be burdened with harsh penalties when governments fail to comply with macroeconomic stability rules;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for the investment clause to be revised to allow regional and national investments made as cofinancing for EU funding (ESI funds and the Connecting European Facility) not to be included in the calculation of national public deficits;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas cohesion policy is ~~first and foremost a Treaty-based~~the most significant Treaty-based EU investment policy, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union, and in particular at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions;

Amendment 60 #

Martina ANDERSON, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the Commission to particularly study the macroeconomic impact of the thematic concentration system;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recalls that any decision regarding reprogramming or suspension under Article 23 CPR ~~must be exceptional, well- weighed, thoroughly justif~~would unfairly penalise local, regional and national authoritieds and ~~implemented in a swift way, in order to ensure transparency and allow for verification and review~~all beneficiaries; believes that such reprogramming or suspension are likely to happen to less developed regions and to Member States already suffering the most from the economic and social crisis and would thus exacerbate the effects of the crisis;

Amendment 62 #

Younous OMARJEE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recalls that any decision regarding reprogramming orand suspension under Article 23 CPR must be exceptional, well- weighed, thoroughly justified and implemented in a ~~swift way~~s precautionary a manner as possible, in order to ensure transparency and allow for verification and review; stresses that the outermost regions must be excluded, under Article 349 TFEU, from any decision to suspend ESI funds that might be taken under Article 23 CPR;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recalls that any decision regarding reprogramming or suspension under Article 23 CPR must be exceptional, well- weighed, thoroughly justified and has to indicate the programmes or priorities concerned and the nature of the amendments expected, needs to follow within a limited timeframe in order to avoid collision with potential subsequent recommendations, implemented in a swift way, in order to ensure transparency and allow for verification and review;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

reprogramming or suspension under Article 23 CPR must be exceptional, well- weighed, thoroughly justified and implemented in a swift way, in order to ensure transparency and allow for verification and review;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that it remains to be seen what will be the practical implications of reprogramming on the performance framework and the performance review;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Doubts that the content of reprogramming and associated arrangements will systematically deliver positive outcomes, contribute to improving a country's long-term competitiveness or redirect its economic development towards sectors with future growth potential, given that analysis of emergency measures taken by the Commission and Member States since 2009 has shown that they have given preference to ongoing projects to ensure a more rapid take-up of appropriations and generate cash flows;

Amendment 67 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Recalls the link between the reprogramming decisions and the adoption of an inappropriate operational programme which does not meet the needs of project promoters, on account of their limited engineering capacities, particularly in the least developed regions and transition regions;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the partnership agreements and programmes adopted in the current programming period have taken account of ~~the relevant CSRs and the relevant~~CSRs and Council recommendations, thus making any reprogramming unnecessary ~~in the medium term~~;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the partnership agreements and programmes adopted in the current programming period have taken account of the relevant CSRs and the relevant Council recommendations~~, thus making any reprogramming unnecessary in the medium term~~;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas cohesion policy is first and foremost a Treaty-based policy, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union, and in particular at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions; while the objective of the new Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 is to promote the achievements of Europe 2020 goals and allocate financing to underlying priorities - innovations, business support, employment and modern public administration;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the partnership agreements and programmes adopted in the current programming period have taken account of the relevant CSRs and the relevant Council recommendations, ~~thus making any~~with the result that reprogramming ~~unnecessary~~ in the medium term will be the exception;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the partnership agreements and programmes adopted in the current programming period have taken account of the relevant CSRs and the relevant Council recommendations, thus ~~mak~~avoiding any reprogramming ~~unnecessary~~ in the medium term;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the partnership agreements and programmes adopted in the current programming period have taken account of the relevant CSRs and the relevant Council recommendations, thus making any reprogramming unnecessary in the medium term, unless the conditions are changed and strong need for new economic policy's approach is required;

Amendment 73 #

Martina ANDERSON, Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Asks the Commission to provide more information on how the partnership principle will be applied in a reprogramming exercise under Article 23;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the view that reprogramming should be avoided ~~to the greatest extent possible~~ in order not to disrupt fund management or undermine the stability and predictability of the multiannual investment strategy; welcomes the cautious approach of the Commission in this regard and its intention to keep any reprogramming requests to a minimum; believes that reprogramming or suspensions could have serious consequences on absorption of ESI funds;

Amendment 75 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Isabelle THOMAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the view that reprogramming should be avoided ~~to the greatest extent~~, when possible, in order not to disrupt fund management or undermine the stability and predictability of the multiannual investment strategy; welcomes the cautious approach of the Commission in this regard and its intention to keep any reprogramming requests to a minimum;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the view that reprogramming should be avoided to the greatest extent possible in order not to disrupt fund management or undermine the stability and predictability of the multiannual investment strategy; welcomes the cautious approach of the Commission in this regard and its intention to keep any reprogramming requests to a strict minimum; asks the Commission to elaborate in the greater detail what the strict minimum might mean in practice;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Is of the view that reprogramming should be avoided to the greatest extent possible in order not to disrupt fund management or undermine the stability and predictability of the multiannual investment strategy; welcomes the cautious approach of the Commission in this regard and its intention to keep any reprogramming requests to a minimum and emphasizes the need to accompany each such request with a relevant impact assessment;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Stresses that any reprogramming would entail significant bureaucratic and administrative burdens for the national, regional and local authorities concerned;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas cohesion policy is first and foremost a Treaty-based policy, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union, and in particular at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions, and whereas the macroconditionality principle is liable to jeopardise achievement of those objectives;

Amendment 80 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Asks the Commission to facilitate effective prioritisation regarding the use of ESI funds so as to avoid application of the provisions of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation; accordingly calls for close coordination between the main bodies responsible for economic governance and those responsible for implementation of the ESI funds;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Asks the Commission to carry out, in close cooperation with the Member State~~s, an~~ concerned, a comprehensive analysis of all available options other than the application of Article 23 CPR to address issues that may trigger a reprogramming request;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Asks the Commission to carry out, in cooperation with the Member States, an analysis of all and possible available options other than the application of Article 23 CPR to address issues that may trigger a reprogramming request;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 84 #

Krzysztof HETMAN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deplores any disproportionate increase of the administrative burden for all levels of administration, given the tight deadlines and the complexity of the reprogramming procedure under Article 23 CPR; warns against any overlapping of reprogramming procedures under Article 23 CPR with subsequent European semester cycles; calls therefore the Commission to apply the early warning approach and inform the country concerned about the possibility of launching the reprogramming procedure under Article 23 of CPR immediately after publication of country-specific recommendations;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Deplores any disproportionate increase of the administrative burden for all levels of administration, given the tight deadlines and the complexity of the reprogramming procedure under Article 23 CPR and therefore demands at least a triple increase in timeframes, indicated therein; warns against any overlapping of reprogramming procedures under Article 23 CPR with subsequent European semester cycles;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Recalls that the interpretation and application of Article 23 CPR must ~~comply with~~take account of the horizontal principles provided for in the CPR, in particular with the principles of partnership and multilevel governance, and with the Regulation and the Common Strategic Framework as a whole;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Recalls that the interpretation and application of Article 23 CPR must comply with the horizontal principles provided for in the CPR, in particular with the principles of partnership and multilevel governance, and with the Regulation and the Common Strategic Framework as a whole; takes the view that local and regional authorities should play a more visible part in cooperation on horizontal principles;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Insists that a proposal for reprogramming submitted in accordance with Article 23(4) CPR requires the prior consultation of the monitoring committee concerned provided for in Article 49(3) of the same regulation;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Asks the Commission to clarify how the horizontal principles will be specifically taken into account in the application of the provisions of Article 23 CPR; notes that Article 23 does not make explicit reference to general and horizontal principles which nevertheless remain applicable;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas cohesion policy is ~~first and foremost~~predominantly a Treaty-based policy, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union, and in particular at reducing disparities between the levels of economic development of the various regions;

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

~~14. Does not accept that the inability to properly address macroeconomic issues at national level may penalise subnational authorities or call in question the territorial approach of cohesion policy;~~deleted

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Does not accept~~Is concerned that the inability ~~to properly address macroeconomic issues at national level may penalise subnational authorities or call in question the territorial approach of cohesion policy~~of national governments to follow a sound economic policy may penalise beneficiaries and applicants in case of payment suspensions triggered by the second stand of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Does not accept that the inability to properly address macroeconomic issues at national level may penalise ~~subnation~~regional and local authorities or call into question the territorial approach of cohesion policy, considering also that the increase in public debt principally stems from central government activities, as was recognised, moreover, in the Sixth Report on Cohesion (Chapter 4.3.6);

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Does not accept that the inability to properly address macroeconomic issues at national level may penalise subnational authorities or call in question the territorial approach of cohesion policy; emphasizes that the increase in the public debt stems mainly from the activities of the central authorities:

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Considers that, since European Structural and Investment Funds are closely linked to good economic governance, the European Semester must be given a truly territorial dimension, involving local and regional authorities in the preparation and implementation of national reform programmes under the Europe 2020 Strategy;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Recalls that it is for Member States and regions to select the thematic objectives in function of their needs, and notes that the application of Article 23 CPR may restrict the flexibility of Member States in setting their priorities; recalls in this regard the principle of subsidiarity provided for in Article 4(3) CPR;deleted

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Recalls that it is ~~for~~a competence of the Member States and regions to select the thematic objectives in function of their needs, and notes that the application of Article 23 CPR may restrict the flexibility of Member States in setting their priorities; recalls in this regard the principle of subsidiarity provided for in Article 4(3) CPR;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Asks the Commission to evaluate, beforehand and in close cooperation with the Member States, the impact at regional and local levels of any measures adopted under Article 23 CPR taking also into account whether reprogramming would be of less harm than its absence;

Amendment 99 #

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Marisa MATIAS, Fabio DE MASI, Miguel VIEGAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Matt CARTHY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Asks the Commission to evaluate, beforehand and in close cooperation with the Member States, the impact at regional and local levels of any measures adopted under Article 23 CPR; stresses, in this context, the significant contribution made by the private sector and civil society through public consultations;

source: 557.243

2015/05/26 ECON 62 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the importance of the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in providing urgently needed investment ~~for jobs~~, boosting jobs, reducing unemployment and gpro~~wth~~moting sustainable development for regions in the EU, ~~also~~particularly including those which are suffering most from the financial, economic and social crisis; welcomes the objective of making the use of these funds more effective ~~and efficient by strengthening their link with the EU's economic governance framework~~;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Expresses concerns that the Commission's guidelines about the application of a macro-economic conditionality to the provision of ESI funding is incompatible with the aims of the cohesion policy, as it may unreasonably impair its effectiveness; believes moreover that a sanctions-based system will very unlikely increase the level of compliance of Member States with the economic governance framework; highlights that, on the contrary, a Member State who is unable to meet its fiscal obligations has an even stronger need for ESIF support in the interest of its regions and citizens; warns that suspending this form of funding under macro-economic conditionality will unfairly affect the provision of public services at the local and regional level, which has no direct responsibility in the implementation of the country's specific recommendations;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that the ultimate beneficiary of ESI Funds is the EU citizen and not the Member State; hence an increased emphasis on economic governance mechanisms cannot jeopardise the achievement of the ESI Fund's policy objectives and goals.

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Draws attention to the contradiction between the coercive nature of certain aspects of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation and the flexibility envisaged under certain circumstances for implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact;

Amendment 13 #

Sven GIEGOLD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls the European Parliament position against the macro- conditionalities attached to the cohesion funds; deems that such conditionality risks being counterproductive by affecting sustainable and socially inclusive investments required in regions which bear no or very limited responsibility on the fiscal stance of the general government of their Member States;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Recalls that the EU payments under ESIF programmes are based on specific eligibility criteria linked to the level of development of EU regions; believes therefore that decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of payments based on other criteria related to deficit and debt levels contradict the principles of proportionality and equal treatment as well as the rationale behind these funds;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Considers that the requirements of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation have contributed to the significant delay in concluding partnership agreements and operating programmes;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Emphasises the importance of cohesion policy instruments and resources in maintaining the level of European added-value investment in Member States and regions, including islands;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Recalls that the frequent budgetary cuts decided by Member States in a context of widespread fiscal consolidation have significantly impaired the capability of local and regional authorities to autonomously provide the basic public services and have led to a drop in public investment at the subnational level; believes that making the provision of ESI funding conditional on Member State's compliance with the SGP rules will inevitably result in imposing an additional penalty on regional authorities and EU citizens, which have already been largely affected by the austerity measures adopted at the central level;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Calls on the Commission to consider the impact on public opinion of a penalty such as those provided for in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation and the opposition to European integration this could engender;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Stresses that using ESI funds as a threat to achieve a better enforcement of the economic governance framework by Member States may unreasonably jeopardise the achievement of the EU goals for regional development and social cohesion, especially in times of economic crisis; believes that the decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of ESI funds may worsen the economic and social situation in those countries who are already facing difficulties, by hindering the capability of the local and regional authorities to provide public services and raise investment for jobs and growth;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the importance of the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in providing urgently needed investment for jobs and growth for regions in the EU, also including those which are suffering most from the financial, economic and social crisis; recalls their crucial role in strengthening the economic, social and territorial cohesion as well as in reducing the economic and social disparities within EU countries; welcomes the objective of making the use of these funds more effective and efficient by strengthening their link with the E~~U's economic governance framework;~~ urope 2020 strategy's goals;

Amendment 20 #

Hugues BAYET, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Is of the opinion that implementation of the mechanism provided for in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation will not contribute in general to better economic governance of the Member State concerned, nor to an improved rate of economic growth;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the need ~~for a stable and predictable investment environment, not least with a view to attracting private investment; underlines the role of sound economic governance in the creation of this kind of favourabl~~to create a climate which will promote the development of public and private investment ~~environment;~~and emphasises the need for an overall investment framework in the EU;

Amendment 22 #

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Marisa MATIAS, Fabio DE MASI, Miguel VIEGAS, Matt CARTHY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the need for a stable and predictable investment environment, not least with a view to attracting private investment; underlines the role of ~~sound economic governance~~a proper incentives-based mechanism in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment~~; emphasises the need for an overall investment f~~ and the need to encourage effective actions to stimulate aggregate demand as well as to fight unemployment and inequalities; emphasises the need for a EU governance framework favourable to investment; calls on the Commission to introduce a broader investment clause with the aim to exempt co-financing under ESIF programme~~work in the EU~~s as well as public productive investments from the deficit and debt calculations;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the need for a stable and predictable investment environment, not least with a view to attracting private investment; ~~underlines the role of sound economic governance in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment; emphasises the need for an overall investment framework in the EU~~expresses its concerns about the negative impact that reprogramming might have on the aforementioned but also on the undermining of the effectiveness of cohesion policy; underlines the role of strengthening aggregate demand in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment; emphasises the need for an investment framework in the EU that supports public and productive investment in order to contribute to social progress, to create full employment, reducing unemployment, strengthening quality public services and ecological sustainability;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the need for a stable and predictable investment environment, not least with a view to attracting private investment; underlines the ~~rol~~importance of sound economic governance in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment; emphasises the need for an overall investment framework in the EU;

Amendment 25 #

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the need for a stable and predictable investment environment, not least with a view to attracting private investment; underlines the role of sound economic governance in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment; emphasises the need for an overall investment framework in the EU; highlights that underlying structural challenges in Member States still impede growth;

Amendment 26 #

Alfred SANT, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Costas MAVRIDES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the need for a stable and predictable investment environment, not least with a view to attracting private investment; underlines the role of sound economic governance in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment and calls on the Commission to monitor the practices of individual Member States and, where necessary, make proposals aimed at improving their predictability and stability; emphasises the need for an overall investment framework in the EU;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the need for a stable and predictable investment environment, not least with a view to attracting private investment; underlines the role of sound economic governance in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment; emphasises the need for an overall investment framework in the EU, while taking into full account the special situation of peripheral islands and regions and avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches;

Amendment 28 #

Stanisław OŻÓG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses not only the importance of sound economic governance, but also the fundamental role cohesion policy has to play in attracting investment to regions in the EU and in tackling economic, social and territorial disparities; urges that the application of Article 23 should not, under any circumstances, lead to economic instability or aggravate the situation in regions which are already experiencing difficulties;

Amendment 29 #

Hugues BAYET, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Maria ARENA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls for neutralisation in the calculation of debt and deficit in public investment carried out by Member States’ public operators, particularly with regard to the impact of the new ESA 2010 system of accounts, which prevents Member States from paying their co-financing share to the structural funds (in particular the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative) and thus using these funds to escape from the economic crisis and re- launch growth and employment;

Amendment 3 #

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Marisa MATIAS, Fabio DE MASI, Miguel VIEGAS, Matt CARTHY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the importance of the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in providing urgently needed investments for jobs and growth for regions in the EU, ~~also including~~particularly those which are suffering most from the financial, economic and social crisis; welcomes the objective of making the use of these funds more effective and efficient by strengthening their link with the EU’s economic governance framework;

Amendment 30 #

Stanisław OŻÓG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls on the Commission always to take each Member State’s individual economic and social situation into careful consideration when applying the provisions of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation; urges that macroeconomic failings at other levels of government should not automatically create financial instability for local and regional authorities;

Amendment 31 #

Emmanuel MAUREL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcomes~~Calls on the Commission~~’s intention to use its reprogramming powers carefully, preferring stability over too frequent reprogramming~~ to prioritise stability and, given the constant delay in budget implementation of the structural funds, the facilitation, simplification and predictability of payments; stresses the need for a well-founded and detailed justification for reprogramming, with a detailed assessment of why it delivers more effective and efficient results;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the Commission's intention to use its reprogramming powers carefully, preferring stability over ~~too frequent~~ reprogramming; expresses its concerns that the application of Article 23 CPR may lead to economic instability and uncertainty, deteriorating the situation in Member States and regions which confront problems and have been most affected by the crisis; stresses the need for a well-founded and detailed justification for reprogramming, with a detailed assessment of why it delivers more effective and efficient results and to ensure all the other possible available options;

Amendment 33 #

Stanisław OŻÓG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to use its reprogramming powers carefully, preferring stability over too frequent reprogramming; stresses the need for a well-founded and detailed justification for reprogramming, w~~ith~~hich must be used only when strictly necessary and should be accompanied by a detailed assessment of why it clearly delivers more effective and efficient results; in the area of cohesion policy; emphasises the importance of avoiding situations in which instability and local and regional governments’ inability to act aggravate the situation in their regions;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to use its reprogramming powers carefully, preferring stability over too frequent reprogramming; stresses the need for a well-founded and detailed justification for reprogramming, together with a detailed assessment of why it delivers more effective and efficient results;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to use its reprogramming powers carefully, avoiding this step insofar as is possible, preferring stability over too frequent reprogramming; stresses the need for a well-founded and detailed justification for reprogramming, with a detailed assessment of why it delivers more effective and efficient results;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the Commission's intention to use its reprogramming powers carefully, preferring stability over too frequent reprogramming; stresses the need for a well-founded and detailed justification for reprogramming, with a detailed assessment of why it delivers more effective and efficient results; therefore calls on Commission, while taking decision on reprogramming, to focus more on efficiency and implementation of CSRs than on indicators if influenced by trends outside the Member State;

Amendment 38 #

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Marisa MATIAS, Fabio DE MASI, Miguel VIEGAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Matt CARTHY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that macroeconomic conditionality cannot be used to exclude from cohesion policy those public administrations in greater need of ESI Funds on account of their socioeconomic circumstances;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Expresses its disapproval for the institutionalisation of the principle of macroeconomic conditionality and the link between cohesion policy and Structural Funds on the one hand and Stability and Growth Pact, package of economic governance and any economic agreement of Member States, on the other; the assumptions underlying them are undeniably different and their objectives diametrically opposed; emphasises that the purpose of cohesion policy should not be to impose stringent macroeconomic and financial conditions necessitating austerity measures or to penalise Member States and regions; stresses that cohesion policy is designed to ensure balanced growth and eliminate inequalities with a view to achieving genuine convergence; indicates that funding for European regions cannot be suspended for non-compliance by Member States with macroeconomic conditions and suspending funding for Member States in difficulties will make the situation worse;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that suspension of payments is a last resort mechanism; it is a matter decided by the Council on the basis of a proposal that the Commission may adopt in the event that the Member State concerned fails to take effective action; hence asks the Commission to, in the event, use its discretionary power to propose the suspension of payments with utmost caution and strictly in line with Article 23(6) CPR, after due consideration of all relevant information and elements arising from and opinions expressed through the structured dialogue. In this regard, welcomes the cautious approach adopted in the guidelines whereby account will be taken of the economic and social circumstances of Member States by considering mitigating factors similar to those envisaged in the suspensions under Article 23(9) CPR;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Asks the Commission to present a white paper on cohesion policy to relaunch the debate on measuring economic growth, establishing in the former a typology for quality of public investment in terms of its long-term effects;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Calls on the Commission to encourage the setting of sound priorities in the use of ESI Funds to avoid Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation being applied, and asks therefore for a high degree of coordination to be ensured between the main bodies responsible for the economic governance process and those responsible for implementation of ESI Funds;

Amendment 43 #

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Marisa MATIAS, Fabio DE MASI, Miguel VIEGAS, Matt CARTHY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Considers that the Commission ought to focus its efforts on preventing fraudulent or inefficient use of the ESI Funds rather than on linking their use to shortcomings in economic governance, as EU citizens, the end beneficiaries of cohension policy, ought not to be penalised for these shortcomings;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to give careful consideration to the economic and social effects on the regions affected by a suspension of payments~~; underlines the importance of the principles of proportionality and effectiveness when the Commission proposes such a suspension of payment~~ but also the social and economic conditions prevailing in the Member State concerned before taking any decision; underlines that decisions to suspend payment should not be linked to the economic policies of Member States but only to the detection of serious infringements of the system of project management, control and monitoring and spending irregularities concerning Member States which have failed to take corrective measures;

Amendment 45 #

Cora van NIEUWENHUIZEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to give careful consideration to the economic and social effects on the regions affected by a suspension of payments, as well as the Member State´s overall implementation record with respect to country-specific recommendations, recommendations to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances under Regulation No. 1176/2011, provisions of a macroeconomic adjustment programme under Regulation No. 472/2013, measures and guidelines set following a decision by the Council in accordance with Article 136(1) of TFEU, and any conditions attached to financial assistance provided to a Member State under Council Regulation No. 407/201 or Council Regulation No. 332/2002, as considered over an appropriate period of time; underlines the importance of the principles of proportionality and effectiveness when the Commission proposes such a suspension of payments;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to take into due account the disproportionate administrative burden and financial costs of reprogramming for the local and regional authorities; insists on the need to give careful consideration to the economic and social effects on the regions affected by a suspension of payments; underlines the importance of the principles of proportionality and effectiveness when the Commission proposes such a suspension of payments except if there is a clear evidence of fraud, corruption, criminal infiltration and terrorism financing;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to give careful consideration to the economic and social effects on the regions affected by a suspension of payments; underlines the importance of the principles of proportionality and effectiveness when the Commission proposes such a suspension of payments, while making the suspension of payments the ultimate sanction measure imposed on Member States of the EU;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to give careful consideration to the economic and social effects on the regions affected by a suspension of payments; underlines the importance of the principles of proportionality and effectiveness when the Commission proposes such a suspension of payments, as well as possible other exceptional circumstances such as natural disasters or emergencies;

Amendment 49 #

Emmanuel MAUREL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Asks the Commission to integrate fully regions into the reprogramming procedure if they have been designated as new authorities responsible for managing structural funds for the 2014-2020 programming period;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Insists on the need to keep ESI funding clearly separated from the economic governance framework; stresses that local and regional authorities shall not be punished for the mistakes made at the national level of administration;

Amendment 51 #

Hugues BAYET, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Asks the Commission to draw up some guidelines on application of the second part of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls for the continued investment of structural funds in transition regions to ensure continuity in their effects and in the efforts made so far;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Highlights that important part of good economic governance is sound financial management and timely payments; therefore calls on the Commission to solve problems with backlog and to take into account negative effects of late payments and caused liquidity problems in the Member States when assessing link between ESI Funds and good economic governance;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that ~~Parliament will carefully~~the number of concerns posed by the Commission's guidelines cannot be properly solved solely by granting the Parliament the right to apply its scrutiny ~~rights i~~on the decision~~- mak~~s regarding repro~~cess via the structural dialogue.~~gramming or the suspension of payments; calls on the Commission to urgently reconsider the proposal to link the effectiveness of ESI Funds to sound economic governance under Article 23 CPR, in light of the negative impact that these sanctions on the investment and cohesion policies goals;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that Parliament will carefully apply its scrutiny rights in the decision- making process via the structuraled dialogue.

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that Parliament will ~~carefully~~ apply its scrutiny rights in the decision- making process via the structural dialogue.

Amendment 57 #

Sven GIEGOLD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that Parliament will carefully apply its scrutiny rights in the decision- making process via the structural dialogue.; asks in particular the Commission to provide details regarding the process which will deliver the assessment foreseen in the Common Provisions Regulation regarding the macro-conditionalities attached to the cohesion funds and in particular the involvement of all concerned stakeholders in such assessment;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that Parliament will carefully apply its scrutiny rights in the decision- making process via the structural dialogue, thereby ensuring how power should be exercised at European level, particularly as regards transparency, participation, control, effectiveness and consistency.

Amendment 59 #

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Marisa MATIAS, Fabio DE MASI, Miguel VIEGAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Matt CARTHY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that Parliament will carefully apply its scrutiny rights in the decision- making process via the structural dialogue.; therefore asks the Commission to formalise in the guidelines the involvement of the Parliament in line with CPR;

Amendment 6 #

Siôn SIMON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the importance of the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in providing urgently needed investment for quality jobs and growth for regions in the EU, also including those which are suffering most from the financial, economic and social crisis; welcomes the objective of making the use of these funds more effective and efficient by strengthening their link with the EU's economic governance framework;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Parliament to submit a proposal concerning the review of the implementation of Article 23 CPR as defined in paragraph 17 of this Article;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Regrets that the guidelines do not make any reference to the role of Parliament, despite the fact that the CPR was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure and despite the consistent calls of Parliament to reinforce democratic accountability and control in the context of economic governance;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Considers that the involvement of Parliament in line with Article 23 (15) CPR should formalised, by way of a clear procedure allowing Parliament to be informed at all stages as regards the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and, in the event, decisions on suspension of commitments of payments;

Amendment 7 #

Alfred SANT, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Costas MAVRIDES

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the importance of the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in providing urgently needed investment for jobs and growth for regions in the EU, also including those which are suffering most from the financial, economic and social crisis; welcomes the objective of making the use of these funds more effective and efficient by strengthening their link with the EU's economic governance framework; underlines that good economic governance is basic precondition for effective Cohesion policy and linkage between these two is crucial for reaching development potential of ESI Funds.

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the importance of the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in providing urgently needed investment for jobs and growth for regions in the EU, also including those which are suffering most from the financial, economic and social crisis; welcomes the objective of making the use of these funds more effective and efficient by strengthening their link with the EU's economic governance framework; regrets the ongoing erosion of the European social model; stresses the need to prioritise on smart, sustainable, long- term and inclusive growth; points out that projects funded by the ESI should as a precondition have a high societal and economic value, particularly a positive impact on quality job creation and EU added value, like spending in healthcare and education services as investment;

Amendment 9 #

Emmanuel MAUREL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that cohesion policy represents, through the structural funds, one of the most tangible, positive embodiments of EU action for European citizens;

source: 557.228

2015/06/02 EMPL 43 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Marian HARKIN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

A. whereas the principle of EU solidarity which is partly expressed through the mechanism of the share out of EU funding should remain a central tenet of EU policy;

Amendment 10 #

Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Marco ZANNI, Marco VALLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Believes that the decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of ESI funds may worsen the economic and social situation in those countries who are already facing difficulties, by hindering the capability of the local and regional authorities to provide public services and raise investment for jobs and growth;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Highlights the fact that~~Calls on the Commission to use the mechanism of reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) could undermine social and economic convergence between regions and jeopardise goals pursued by ESI funds, especially in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently failed to take effective action to address its requests to reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment rate or the impact on the economies of the Member States concernedonly in cases where there is strong evidence that reprogramming could have a considerable direct impact on the correction of the challenges identified in the relevant Council recommendations;

Amendment 12 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) ~~could undermine~~poses a threat to social and economic convergence between regions and thereby jeopardises goals pursued by ESI funds, ~~especial~~not only in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances~~; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently failed to take effective action to address its reques~~, but also in those countries, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, which rely on the funds to compete on the single market on an equal basis; calls on the Commission, when taking decisions on using these instruments, to ~~reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment rate or the impact on the economies of the Member Stat~~carry out an assessment of their impact on the unemployment rate and economic development in the countries concerned;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Highlights~~Points out the fact that reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) could ~~undermine social and economic convergence between regions and jeopardise goals pursued by ESI funds~~have serious consequences for the respective programmes and regions severely hit by the crisis, as well as for the achievements of cohesion goal as a whole, especially in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently failed to take effective action to address its requests to reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment rate or the impact on the economies of the Member States concerned; when reprograming funds the Commission and Member States should take in to account the potential of job creation of the new programmes and its contribution to achieve Country Specific Recommendations.

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Highlights the fact~~Considers that reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) could undermine social and economic convergence between regions and jeopardise goals pursued by ESI funds, especially in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently failed to tmake ~~effective action to address~~hard and fast commitments in respect of its requests to reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment rate or the impact on the economies of the Member States concerned;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) could undermine social and economic convergence between regions and jeopardise goals pursued by ESI funds~~, especially in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances~~; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently, and in a manner attributable solely and unequivocally to themselves, failed to take effective action to address its requests to reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment and inactivity rate or the impact on the economies of the Member States concerned, in conjunction with Paragraph 7 of this document;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) ~~could undermine~~not only casts doubt on social and economic convergence between regions ~~and~~, but also serves to aggravate inequalities from one region to another, jeopardiseing goals pursued by ESI funds, especially in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently failed to take effective action to address its requests to reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment rate or the impact on the economies of the Member States concerned;

Amendment 17 #

Javi LÓPEZ, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) could undermine social and economic convergence between regions and jeopardise goals pursued by ESI funds, especially in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances, something that might possibly have a greater impact on economically vulnerable Member States where public investments are more dependent on fund support; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently failed to take effective action to address its requests to reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment rate or the impact on the economies of the Member States concerned;

Amendment 18 #

Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Marco ZANNI, Marco VALLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) could undermine social and economic convergence between regions and jeopardise goals pursued by ESI funds, especially in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently failed to take effective action to address its requests to reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment rate or the impact on the economies of the Member States concerned; stresses that local and regional authorities shall not be punished for the mistakes made at the national level of administration;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Asks the Commission to consider the impact on public opinion of a penalty like those provided for in Article 23 CPR and the rejection that can generate towards the European project and calls to prioritize effectively using the ESI Funds and to avoid macroeconomic conditionality;

Amendment 2 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s criteria, ~~highlighting~~and calls for further consideration to be given to whether the current Cohesion Fund rules should be applied to the other structural and investment funds; highlights the fact that multiannual programmes and the long-term nature of the challenges facing Member States require certainty and permanence, and that frequent reprogramming should therefore be avoided and stability preferred in order to reinforce the predictability and credibility of ESI fund programmes;

Amendment 20 #

Marian HARKIN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Considers it counterproductive that EU funds supporting education, training and employment creation might be suspended if such funds are achieving their objectives;

Amendment 21 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Dominique MARTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission, however, not to forget that every last cent of taxpayers’ money is precious;

Amendment 22 #

Joëlle MÉLIN, Dominique MARTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Points out that prolonging the agony of a desperate situation is clearly bad practice, and is not only ineffective but is above all exacerbating the situation, thereby delaying the right solution;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to ~~be extremely cautious in applying the first strand of~~cease applying Article 23 of the CPR to all programmes coming under any of the thematic objectives of the ESI Funds~~, in particular thematic objectives (8), (9) or (10), or the employment and social targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy, to ensure that social cohesion is not undermined~~; asks the Commission to be strictly committed to applying the ESF minimum share provided for in Article 92(4) of the CPR;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to be ~~extremely cautious~~careful in applying the first strand of Article 23 of the CPR to all programmes coming under any of the thematic objectives of the ESI Funds, in particular thematic objectives (8), (9) or (10), or the employment and social targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy, ~~to ensure that social cohesion is not undermined;~~ asks the Commission to be strictly committed to applying the ESF minimum share provided for in Article 92(4) of the CPR;

Amendment 25 #

Javi LÓPEZ, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to be extremely cautious, accompanying such action with the appropriate guarantees, in applying the first strand of Article 238 of the CPR to all programmes coming under any of the thematic objectives of the ESI Funds, in particular thematic objectives (8), (9) or (10), or the employment and social targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy, to ensure that social cohesion is not undermined; asks the Commission to be strictly committed to applying the ESF minimum share provided for in Article 92(4) of the CPR;

Amendment 26 #

Diane DODDS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to be extremely cautious in applying the first strand of Article 23 of the CPR to all programmes coming under any of the thematic objectives of the ESI Funds, in particular thematic objectives (8), (9) or (10), or the employment and social targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy, to ensure that social cohesion is not undermined; asks the Commission to be strictly committed to applying the ESF minimum share provided for in Article 92(4) of the CPR; highlights in this context the plight of many ESF project recipients in Northern Ireland, from whom significant preallocated sums of money have been withheld under the 2007-2013 programme, and through no fault of their own;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Before a decision of reprogramming, the Commission must provide to Member States and the European Institutions an assessment which shows that new operational programs and/or objectives will have a substantially relevant impact against those are intended to replace; the Commission must demonstrate that the new programmes don't have negative effects regarding targets of employment and social affairs foreseen by Member States; therefore, every programme with long-term positive effects linked to social investment will remain untouched;

Amendment 28 #

Marian HARKIN, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Given the long term and result oriented nature of the ESI funds and the annual cycle of the European Semester, believes that the shorter term focus of the CSRs should not jeopardise the long term goals of ESI funds;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission ~~to avoid any suspension of~~not to suspend commitments or payments provided for in the second strand of Article 23 of the ~~CPR where Member States are involved in any of the situations described in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 of Annex III to the~~ CPR;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission's criteria, highlighting the fact that ~~multiannual programmes and the~~the challenges Member States face are of long- term nature ~~of the challenges facing Member Stat~~and that the multiannual programmes financed by ESI funds meant to address these challenges require certainty and permanence, and that frequent reprogramming should therefore be avoided and stability preferred in order to reinforce the predictability and credibility of ESI fund programmes;

Amendment 30 #

Krzysztof HETMAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to ~~avoid any suspension of commitments or payments provided for in the second strand of Article 23 of~~take into account situations described in sub- paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 of Annex III to the CPR ~~wher~~in the Member States ~~are involved~~ concerned when considering any ~~of the situations described in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 of Annex III to~~suspension of commitments or payments provided for in the second strand of Article 23 of the CPR;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission t~~o avoid any suspension of commitments or~~hat when making recourse to the suspension of payments provided for in the second strand of Article 23 of the CPR ~~where~~, it should take proportionate measures and consider the economic and social circumstances of the Member State concerned and should exercise caution in cases when Member States are involved in any of the situations described in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 of Annex III to the CPR;

Amendment 32 #

Maria ARENA, Hugues BAYET, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to ~~avoid~~mitigate the effects of any suspension of commitments or payments provided for in the second strand of Article 23 of the CPR where Member States are involved in any of the situations described in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 of Annex III to the CPR. The European Commission should assess the impact on unemployment and try to compensate undesirable effects on weaker population; if reprogramming were to be frequently needed, the European Commission could even design some systems of compensation for depressed an deprived areas;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to avoid any suspension of commitments or payments provided for in the second strand of Article 23 of the CPR where Member States are involved in any of the situations described in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 of Annex III to the CPR; calls for neutralisation in the calculation of debt and deficit in public investment carried out by Member States’ public operators, particularly with regard to the impact of the new ESA 2010 system of accounts, which prevents Member States from paying their co-financing share to the Structural Funds (in particular the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative) and thus using these funds to escape from the economic crisis and re-launch growth and employment;

Amendment 34 #

Javi LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Asks the Commission to ~~avoid arbitrariness in~~cease applying Article 23 of the CPR, to devise a transparent and democratic decision-making process, in line with Article 23(15) of the CPR, and to allow Parliament, on the basis of a formalised process, to be informed at all stages of the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments.

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Asks the Commission ~~to avoid arbitrariness in applying Article 23 of the CPR,~~ to devise a transparent and democratic decision- making process, in line with Article 23(15) of the CPR, and to allow Parliament, on the basis of a formalised process, to be informed at all stages of the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments.

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Asks the Commission ~~to avoid arbitrariness~~ in applying Article 23 of the CPR, to devise a transparent and democratic decision- making process, in line with Article 23(15) of the CPR, and to allow Parliament, on the basis of a formalised process, to be informed at all stages of the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments.;

Amendment 38 #

Krzysztof HETMAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Asks the Commission to avoid arbitrariness in applying Article 23 of the CPR, to devise a transparent and democratic decision-making process, in line with Article 23(15) of the CPR, ~~and to allow~~which would include introducing an early warning approach to inform the country concerned about the possibility of launching the reprogramming procedure immediately after publication of country- specific recommendations; and to inform Parliament, on the basis of a formalised process, ~~to be informed~~ at all stages of the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments.

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Asks the Commission to avoid arbitrariness in applying Article 23 of the CPR, to devise a transparent and democratic decision-making process, in line with Article 23(15) of the CPR~~, and~~; regrets that Parliament is not involved in decisions regarding the reprogramming or suspension of disbursements; urges the Commission to allow Parliament, on the basis of a formalised process, to be informed at all stages of the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments.

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s criteria, highlighting the fact that multiannual programmes and the long-term nature of the challenges facing Member States require certainty and permanence, and that frequent reprogramming should therefore be avoided and stability – solutions based on existing institutional capacities – preferred in order to reinforce the predictability and credibility of ESI fund programmes;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Asks the Commission to avoid arbitrariness in applying Article 23 of the CPR, to devise a transparent, effective and democratic decision-making process, in line with Article 23(15) of the CPR, and to allow Parliament, on the basis of a formalised process, to be informed at all stages of the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments.

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Asks the Commission to avoid arbitrariness in applying Article 23 of the CPR, to devise a transparent and democratic decision-making process, in line with Article 23(15) of the CPR, and to allow Parliament, on the basis of a formalised process, to be informed at all stages of the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments, at the same time providing appropriate support for them without adverse discrimination.

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission, not to apply suspension to such programmes that should be strengthened in the course of adaptation.

Amendment 43 #

Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Marco ZANNI, Marco VALLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission to establish a timescale for the lifting of the suspension under Article 23(8) of the CPR;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s criteria, highlighting the fact that multiannual programmes and the long-term nature of the challenges facing Member States require certainty and permanence, and that frequent reprogramming should therefore be avoided and stability preferred in order to reinforce the predictability and credibility of ESI fund programmes; stresses the need for the Commission to ensure that these programmes are drawn up on the basis of specific recommendations for each country;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission's criteria, highlighting the fact that multiannual programmes and the long-term nature of the challenges facing Member States require certainty and permanence, and that frequent reprogramming should therefore be avoided and stability preferred in order to reinforce the predictability and credibility of ESI fund programmes; trust that the European Commission and the Council will be very cautious when applying the reprogramming or the suspension of funds for the programmes as foreseen by the regulation of the Common Provisions;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Highlights the need for EU ESI fund financing to be supported by sound economic policies that can efficiently address new social and economic challenges when they emerge;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Highlights the fact that investment supported by ESI (European Structural and Investment Funds) should take place in a sound macroeconomic framework to maximised the impact on growth, development, cohesion and jobs creation in Europe, particularly in very depressed areas;

Amendment 9 #

Laura AGEA, Tiziana BEGHIN, Marco ZANNI, Marco VALLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that the EU payments under ESIF programmes are based on specific eligibility criteria linked to the level of development of EU regions; believes therefore that the decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of payments based on other criteria related to the deficit and debt levels contradicted the principles of proportionality and equal treatment as well as the rationale behind this funds;

source: 557.417

2015/06/05 BUDG 25 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes the clarification of the application of specific~~Expresses concerns that the Commission's guidelines about the application of macro-economic conditionality to the provisions of ~~paragraphs 1 and 6 of Ar~~ESI funding is incompaticble ~~23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013~~with the aims of cohesion policy, as it may unreasonably impair its effectiveness;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) are instrumental for delivering on the Europe 2020 Strategy ~~at Member State level and that they should be taken into account before requesting a Member State to review and amend its Partnership Agreement and relevant programmes~~; points out that it is up to Member States and regions to choose their thematic objectives according to their needs and their smart strategy;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) are instrumental for delivering on the Europe 2020 Strategy at Member State level and that they should be taken into account before requesting a ~~Member State~~community partner to review and amend its Partnership Agreement and relevant programmes;;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that reprogramming is anything but easy and quick to do and that it would be very expensive and difficult to manage for national administrations and local and regional authorities, judging from the experience of the past five years as described in the Sixth Report on cohesion, which refers to the substantial outlay of human resources entailed for the eight Member States concerned and for the Commission;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Considers that the two-month time- frame allowed for Member States to submit their reprogramming proposals will rule out the necessary involvement of regional authorities and the partners specified in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013; believes, therefore, that a reprogramming procedure would amount to recentralisation of cohesion policy, returning it to central government control and to that extent negating not only the decisions taken by some Member States to regionalise ESI Fund management, but also the subsidiarity and partnership principles at the heart of cohesion policy;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Thinks it highly unlikely that partnership agreements and operational programmes will need to be reprogrammed before 2019, given that they have just been adopted in agreement with the Commission according to the letter and the spirit of the EU 2020 strategy; believes that any decision entailing reprogramming, which would be burdensome and costly from the administrative point of view, would indirectly call into question the quality of the work done by the Commission departments responsible for the relevant policy;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Points out that the regions, on average, implement a third of public spending in the EU and play a key role in providing public services and expenditure leading to growth; considers it particularly counter-productive to suspend payments to Member States whose finances are already in deficit; believes that such a measure would only worsen the economic situation in those countries and cause macroeconomic instability within the wider area;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)

4e. Maintains that if the EU were to suspend payments to Member States already facing economic difficulties, its image would be further marred;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to use the procedure under the first strand of Article 23 as a last resort and only in exceptional situations where the benefits of the proposed changes clearly outweigh their costsStresses that using ESI funds as a threat to achieve a better enforcement of the economic governance framework by Member States may unreasonably jeopardise the achievement of the EU goals for regional development and social cohesion, especially in times of economic crisis; believes that the decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of ESI funds may worsen the economic and social situation in those countries who are already facing difficulties, by hindering the capability of the local and regional authorities to provide public services and raise investment for jobs and growth;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 19 #

Isabelle THOMAS, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to use the procedure under the first strand of Article 23 as a last resort and only in exceptional situations where the benefits of the proposed changes clearly outweigh their costs; considers that support measures and measures enabling regions to invest, as proposed in Article 24 of the regulation, are more credible and effective ways to bring about a return to growth in Member States experiencing economic difficulties;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the clarification ofs regarding the application of specific provisions of paragraphs 1 and 6 of Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. WMaintains that the suspension of payments severely penalises initiators of projects as well as Member States as such; warns, in particular, that any suspension of payment appropriations could disrupt financial planning at programme level and, more generally, undermine the predictability and planning of investments, with a potentially greater impact on economically vulnerable Member States, whose public investment relies more heavily on ESI funding;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Warns, in particular, that any suspension of payment appropriations could disrupt financial planning at programme level and, more generally, undermine the predictability and planning of investments, with a potentially greater impact on economically vulnerable Member States, whose public investment relies more heavily on ESI funding; believes, as a matter of principle, that when the Member States concerned are economically vulnerable, suspension of payments should not be enforced;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Warns, in particular, that any suspension of payment appropriations could substantially disrupt financial planning at programme level and, more generally, undermine the predictability and planning of investments, with a potentially greater impact on economically vulnerable Member States, whose public investment relies more heavily on ESI funding;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Insists on the need to keep ESI funding clearly separated from the economic governance framework; stresses that local and regional authorities shall not be punished for the mistakes made at the national level of administration;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Considers it regrettable that Parliament is not involved in the decision-making process regarding the reprogramming or suspension of funds; requests that the budgetary aspects of any reprogramming and suspension cases be also part of the structured dialogue with the Commission on the application of Article 23 and that this dialogue take place before the Commission adopts a proposal to suspend fundingcalls on the Commission to urgently reconsider the proposal to link the effectiveness of ESI Funds to sound economic governance under Article 23 CPR, in light of the negative impact that these sanctions may have on the investment and cohesion policies goals;

Amendment 25 #

Victor NEGRESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 d (new)

8d. Recalls the need to preserve social and environmental standards, to support cohesion and development across the Union and to carry out an assessment of compliance with its political goals and values and with social and environmental standards.

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Agre~~Believes that a s~~table macroeconomic environment, inclu~~anctions-based system will very unlikely increase the level of compliance of Member States with the economic governance framework; highlights that, on the contrary, a Member State that is unable to meet its fiscal obligations has an even stronger need for ESIF support in the interest of its regions and citizens; warns that suspending thi~~gh-quality governan~~s form of funding under macro-economic conditionality will unfairly affect the provision of public services at the local and regionall levels, ~~is conducive to the successful implementation of the ESI Fund~~which has no direct responsibility in the implementation of the country's specific recommendations;

Amendment 4 #

Isabelle THOMAS, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Jean-Paul DENANOT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Agrees that a stable macroeconomic environment, including high-quality governance at all levels, is conducive to the successful implementation of the ESI Funds; considers in addition that overlong and badly managed time lags between commitments and payments under the European budget could discourage project leaders; points to the importance of cohesion policy instruments and resources in maintaining the level of European added-value investment in Member States and regions, especially those with natural handicaps;

Amendment 5 #

Victor NEGRESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Agrees that a stable macroeconomic environment, including high-quality governance at all levels, is conducive to the successful implementation of the EFSI Ffunds in line with European principles and values regarding social and environmental standards and territorial cohesion;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that objective criteria must be used for assessing what constitutes ‘effective action’ on the part of a Member State; underlines the importance of respecting the principles of proportionality and equality of treatment when applying the provisions of Article 23, as well as the need for a timely and comprehensive dialogue with the Member State concerned;deleted

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Stresses that objective criteria must be used for assessing what constitutes ‘effective action' on the part of a Member State; underlines the importance of respecting~~Recalls that the EU payments under ESIF programmes are based on specific eligibility criteria linked to the level of development of EU regions; believes therefore that decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of payments based on other criteria related to deficit and debt levels contradict the principles of proportionality and equal~~ity of~~ treatment ~~when applying the provisions of Article 23, as well as the need for a timely and comprehensive dialogue with the Member State concerned~~as well as the rationale behind these funds;

Amendment 8 #

Victor NEGRESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that objective criteria must be used for assessing what constitutes ‘effective action’ on the part of a Member State; underlines the importance of respecting European principles and values regarding social and environmental standards and territorial cohesion, as well as the principles of proportionality and equality of treatment when applying the provisions of Article 23, as well as the need for a timely and comprehensive dialogue with the Member State concerned;

Amendment 9 #