Awaiting committee decision
2016/2148(INI) Investing in jobs and growth - maximising the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds: an evaluation of the report under Article 16(3) of the CPR
Lead committee dossier: REGI/8/07019
Legal Basis RoP 052
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | AGRI | DĂNCILĂ Viorica (S&D) | |
| Opinion | BUDG | VIOTTI Daniele (S&D) | |
| Opinion | CONT | ||
| Opinion | CULT | CHOUNTIS Nikolaos (GUE/NGL) | |
| Opinion | EMPL | PIRINSKI Georgi (S&D) | |
| Opinion | ENVI | ||
| Opinion | ITRE | ||
| Lead | REGI | VAN NISTELROOIJ Lambert (EPP) | WESTPHAL Kerstin (S&D), PORĘBA Tomasz Piotr (ECR), VAN MILTENBURG Matthijs (ALDE), MICHELS Martina (GUE/NGL), ROPĖ Bronis (Verts/ALE), D'AMATO Rosa (EFD) |
| Opinion | TRAN | ZŁOTOWSKI Kosma (ECR) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Subjects
Activites
-
2016/09/15
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2015/12/14
Non-legislative basic document published
- COM(2015)0639
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/economy_finance/index_en.htm', 'title': 'Economic and Financial Affairs'}, KATAINEN Jyrki
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2015)0639
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 636 |
2016/2148(INI)
2016/09/05
EMPL
76 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is surprised that, instead of the report required by Article 16(3) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), the Comm
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to boost skills and adaptability of the EU workforce, quality jobs, sustainable growth and shared prosperity across Europe, with a special focus on supporting the most vulnerable groups in society;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to boost quality jobs, sustainable growth and shared prosperity a
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to boost
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to boost quality jobs, sustainable growth and shared prosperity across Europe, with a special focus on supporting the most vulnerable and exposed groups in society;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls for debt and deficit calculations not to factor in public investment carried out by Member States’ public operators, as is the case with the Juncker Plan, particularly in view of the impact of the new ESA 2010 system of accounts, which is preventing Member States from putting up co-financing for projects eligible for structural funding (in particular under the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative) and thus from using this important source of funding to help find a way out of the economic crisis and kick- start growth and employment;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Insists that the European Structural and Investment Funds offer a great opportunity for the European Union to fund more R&D projects, an area where we lag far behind and that would have an impact on the creation of quality and sustainable jobs, and considers that more attention should be given to this matter;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission to carry out a thorough analysis of the effectiveness of investments in human capital co-financed through European funds; stresses that in spite of the expectation of economic growth, the employment level in Europe is expected to remain lower than in 2008;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Believes it is necessary, in making use of ESIFs, to separate cofunding from the Stability and Growth Pact;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is surprised that, instead of the report required by Article 16(3) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), the Commission has presented only a communication regarding negotiations of partnership agreements (PAs) and operational programmes (OPs), which lacks an analysis and does not fulfil Article 16(3) requirements;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs,
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs, and expects Member States and regions to take the right path
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs, and expects Member States and regions to take the right path in order to achieve cohesion policy objectives; calls on the European Commission to offer full assistance to Member States in order to speed up the process; urges the Member States to diligently submit projects only based on the clear priorities set for the ESIFs;
Amendment 23 #
3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs, and expects Member States and regions to take the right path in order to achieve cohesion policy objectives; calls for continued structural fund investment in transition regions so as not to detract from what has been achieved by the resources and efforts already deployed;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs, and expects Member States
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs, and
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes note of the results envisaged in PAs and OPs, and expects Member States and regional and local authorities to take the right path in order to achieve cohesion policy objectives;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Ask the Commission to be more assertive in monitoring the implementation of recommendations and investments under the ESIF;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is seriously concerned about the late adoption of the European Social Fund (ESF) OPs,
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is surprised that, instead of the report required by Article 16(3) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), the Commission has presented only a communication, which therefore has no binding effect, regarding negotiations of partnership agreements (PAs) and operational programmes (OPs);
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is seriously concerned and disappointed about the late adoption of the European Social Fund (ESF) OPs, and expects the Commission to have learnt from this with a view to preventing similar delays in the future;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines the priority nature of the challenges that the ESF is charged with tackling, this being reflected in the sum of EUR 86.4 billion dedicated to ESF measures under the relevant thematic objectives, giving priority to measures seeking to promote economic restructuring and greater competitiveness, the upgrading of human resources, measures to promote employment and social cohesion, environmental protection and the efficient use of resources;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines the priority nature of the challenges that the ESF is charged with tackling, this being reflected in the sum of EUR 86.4 billion dedicated to ESF measures under the relevant thematic objectives in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to improve simplification for beneficiaries, and for more precise targeting to meet their objectives bearing in mind the specific needs and particularities of Member States; Moreover, calls on the Member States to also make an effort in this area;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers it highly unfortunate that some of this amount sum will very probably be earmarked for migrants, who are already receiving funding under a separate budget negotiated outside the ESF;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes that 6 million unemployed young people are to benefit from the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) – which will help them find jobs or improve their skills and qualifications – now that YEI has been integrated into 34 ESF programmes in the 20 eligible Member States; is concerned, however, about the delayed start to the implementation of the YEI and at the way in which the Youth Guarantee is being implemented in certain regions; urges Member States to intensify their efforts to ensure that the results envisaged are achieved successfully and that the initiative is implemented correctly and with no covert exploitation of young workers; calls in particular for account to be taken of the real needs of the business community in using ESIFs to meet training requirements, so as to create real employment opportunities;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes that
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes that 6 million unemployed young people are to benefit from the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) – which
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes that 6 million unemployed young people
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is surprised and concerned that, instead of the report required by Article 16(3) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), the Commission has presented only a communication regarding negotiations of partnership agreements (PAs) and operational programmes (OPs);
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes that 6 million unemployed young people are to benefit from the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) – which will help them find jobs or improve their skills and qualifications – now that YEI has been integrated into 34 ESF programmes in the
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes that 6 million unemployed young people are to benefit from the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) which will help them find jobs or improve their skills and qualifications now that YEI has been integrated into 34 ESF programmes in the 20 eligible Member States; is concerned, however, about the delayed start to the implementation of the YEI; urges Member States to
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Expresses serious concern that in the case of the Youth Guarantee scheme, which in 2014-2020 will receive a total of EUR 12.7 billion from the European Social Fund and the special Youth Employment Initiative, and which, on the basis of this funding, is already seen as the driving force behind efforts to boost youth employment, the Commission has not carried out a cost-benefit analysis, which is standard procedure for all major Commission initiatives. Consequently, there is a lack of information on the potential overall cost of implementing the guarantee throughout the EU and, as the European Court of Auditors has stressed, a risk that the total amount of funding may be insufficient.
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to analyse carefully the real impact of investing EU funds during the previous programming period and to draw conclusions regarding the positive and negative outcomes of the PAs and OPs. The same should be done for future programming period; A portal summarising statistics on projects already approved is necessary to avoid fragmented information;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Regrets that that progress towards the Europe 2020 employment and anti- poverty goals have not been met; expresses particular concern that the worst results are being obtained from less developed regions or regions in transition;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to simplify procedures for the use of youth employment funds, so that they can take help create new structures and thus benefit as many people as possible;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Stresses the importance of communication, particularly digital communication, through which information on potential assistance in finding training, a traineeship or work co- financed through EU funds can reach the greatest number of young people; calls for more communication to promote such portals as DROP’PIN and EURES and increase young people’s opportunities for mobility in the internal market, which is considered the biggest untapped potential in the fight against unemployment in the EU;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Calls for a continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative beyond 2016, so as to sustain efforts to combat youth unemployment, while subjecting it to a thorough operational analysis designed to achieve the corrections necessary to make it more effective;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 c (new) 6c. Noting the initial promising assessments of activities under the Youth Employment Initiative, draws attention to the conclusions of Parliament’s analysis highlighting the need for integration with the structural reforms in the Member States in order to achieve substantial and tangible effects from the funds invested, otherwise the Initiative will merely be an ordinary means of budget assistance;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Asks the Commission to ensure that the specific objectives of ESF programmes relating to Europe 2020 headline targets a
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Underlines that the EU funds should not be only used to achieve the targets of Europe 2020 but also for more structural improvements and investments in the real economy; A quantified evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of funds already invested must be implemented, especially assessing the effects in job creation;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Urges the Commission to seek constant monitoring of the use of ESIFs so as to ensure their effectiveness and transparency;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Asks the Commission to support the role of ESIFs in the promotion of research and innovation in micro, small and medium-sized enterprises;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Recommends that the Commission actively commit to ESIFs for job creation in a low carbon economic environment with reduced pollutant emissions;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by the active involvement of the social partners and
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by the active involvement of the social partners and other relevant actors as a means of helping national authorities and for the purposes of cooperation at cross-border, transnational and interregional level;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by the active involvement of the social partners and other relevant
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Stresses that the s
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to boost quality jobs, sustainable an inclusive growth and shared prosperity across Europe, with a special focus on supporting the most vulnerable groups in society, taking account of all relevant opinions in identifying priorities for funding, planning and implementing the most effective investment strategies;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Underlines the need for greater attention to be given to employment, social, training and public administration issues in country-specific- recommendations and urges Member States to better target ESF and other ESIF investments in addressing these issues;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Recommends that the Commission develop and establish a user-friendly portal that provides a brief description of all funding options at EU level and links to the webpage of each individual programme.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Is satisfied that PAs outline coordination and synergies between ESF and other ESI funds, other EU programmes (EaSI, FEAD, EGF and Erasmus+ ) and national instruments; notes that ESF alone cannot solve the complex problems affecting the labour market, the education and social policies and insists that the Commission and Member States ensure true coordination and complementarity between different instruments in order to avoid overlapping and to achieve effective and efficient investments and better results;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Notes that only rarely do ESF- supported measures generate revenue directly, and that grants are therefore the appropriate tool for their implementation
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Notes that only rarely do ESF- supported measures generate revenue directly, and that grants are therefore the appropriate tool for their implementation, while financial instruments could be a useful complementary tool for certain ESF interventions with a possible leverage effect; Underlines that scarce investment resources can be better targeted by forging links and synergies with other EU funding instruments, notably Erasmus+, Life+, the EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation and Horizon 2020 with a holistic coordination;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Notes that only rarely do ESF- supported measures generate revenue directly, and that grants are therefore the appropriate tool for their implementation,
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Underlines the importance of making ESF investments more attractive to beneficiaries through the use of simplified cost options (SCOs), and welcomes the increase in the SCO-covered amounts envisaged for the 2014-2020 period, from 7 % to 35 %; calls on the Commission to continue these efforts to make wider use of simplified options;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to boost quality jobs, sustainable growth and development and shared prosperity across Europe, with a special focus on supporting the most vulnerable groups in society and promoting greater employment through a circular economy and renewable energies;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Underlines the importance of making ESF investments more attractive to beneficiaries through the use of simplified cost options (SCOs), and welcomes the increase in the SCO-covered amounts envisaged for the 2014-2020 period, from 7 % to 35 %; calls on the Member States to reduce the bureaucratic obstacles in order to achieve more effective implementation of the ESF;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Stresses the importance of tackling the wastage of EU funds to help improve the worsening image of the EU in Europe; looks forward to the results of the reform of the structural and investment funds, in particular of the ex ante conditionality, and suggests introducing indicators to assess the effectiveness of ongoing programmes;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Underlines the need to guarantee sufficient administrative capacity before investments are made, taking the fact that more EU funds do not mean more growth; A point is reached where returns begin to decline and additional funds do not lead to higher growth;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Notes and regrets that it is this very procedural complexity that has necessitated the introduction of flat-rate approximation process;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that resources dedicated to technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission are focused
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that resources dedicated to technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission are focused exclusively on support for overcoming the various obstacles to ESF/YEI implementation, and on the successful
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Calls on the Commission also to seek to harmonise definitions and rules so to achieve greater coherence between the various funds and instruments.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to boost quality jobs, sustainable growth and shared prosperity across Europe, with a special focus on supporting the most vulnerable groups in society, in particular young people from rural areas and those with fewest qualifications;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) must be used to boost quality jobs, sustainable growth and shared prosperity across Europe,
source: 589.104
2016/09/06
AGRI
112 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Takes note of the Commission communication regarding negotiations of partnership agreements (PAs) and operational programmes (OPs) as required by Article 16(3) of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) and considers it disappointing that the Commission, instead of producing a report, as was originally intended, has merely submitted a communication;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Considers that the ESI Funds should be used to promote high-quality jobs, totally free of abuse and exploitation, and to support sustainable development, focusing in particular on the circular economy and renewable energy sources in a low-carbon context serving also to reduce pollutant emissions;
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Considers that the Directorate- General for Agriculture and Rural Development has the necessary technical knowledge and overview of rural and agricultural issues and is therefore the natural manager of the RDPs
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Takes the view that where rural and agricultural issues are concerned, it is for the State to coordinate the implementation and harmonisation of RDPs; takes the view that the EAFRD, under the programming period for 2014- 2020, is bypassing the role of the State in this case by making the Commission responsible for allocating RDPs and the regions responsible for managing them; deplores the fact that the national level is increasingly being left out although it is vital in order to ensure overall cohesion of this policy;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls on the Commission to support the efforts of regional authorities to simplify procedures and disburse funding without delay;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by active involvement of the local level
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by active involvement of the local level and the Local Action Groups (LAGs) and other relevant stakeholders on the ground, in ensuring that projects are successfully embedded in their local areas and effectively operated; welcomes the success of Community-led local development (CLLD) instruments and the expertise of LAGs in project management at local level, and calls on the Commission to award more comprehensive financing and to extend its scope to include LAGs.
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by active involvement of the local level and the Local Action Groups and other relevant stakeholders on the ground, for example trade associations and and POs, in ensuring that projects are successfully embedded in their local areas and effectively operated; calls on the Commission and RDP managing authorities to consult stakeholders at every stage from the planning of RDPs to their implementation. .
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by active involvement of the local and regional level and the
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Stresses that the successful achievement of PA and OP objectives is greatly facilitated by active involvement of the local and regional level and the Local Action Groups and other relevant stakeholders on the ground, in ensuring that projects are successfully embedded in their local areas and effectively operated.
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Draws Member States' attention to the fact that, particularly in rural areas, women and young people are among the groups whose situation is most precarious, with a high rate of unemployment; calls on Member States fully to incorporate the gender dimension into the implementation of rural development programmes and for particular attention to be paid to projects aimed at integrating young people.
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission to adopt a set of guidelines in order to show the agri-food industry the funding options available under the European Structural and Investment Funds, in combination with the new European Fund for Strategic Investments.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Stresses the importance of Rural Development Programmes supporting agricultural employment particularly in terms of quality jobs creation for young people and women; meanwhile this priority encourages to take up farming as a career enabling generational turnover;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission, in addition, to seek to harmonise definitions and rules in order to provide greater coherence among the funds and instruments.
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls for action to improve awareness among the Member States of the need to boost mechanisms for initial and further training in agriculture, with European Social Fund resources, also using programmes such as the Youth Guarantee, for example;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Urges the Member States to take the necessary steps to ensure that civil society organisations can actually take part in the processes of adopting and developing programmes.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Maintains that rural areas are more than simply farming areas and that they should accordingly be supported not just under the agriculture funds, but also under every other ESI Fund; points, therefore, to the importance of ensuring additionality among the funds;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises how important it is that the development needs of rural areas are adequately taken into account in partnership agreements, and that the provisions of partnership agreements in this area are transposed into the various cohesion policy operating programmes;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises how important it is that the development needs of rural areas are adequately taken into account in partnership agreements, and that the provisions of partnership agreements in this area are transposed into the various cohesion policy operating programmes;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Emphasises the role of agriculture in providing jobs and in preserving the countryside;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Rejects any freezing or cutting of aid from the European Structural and Investment Funds as enforcement action for failing to comply with the excessive deficit targets, as has been announced in the case of Spain and Portugal;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Takes the view that rural areas, particularly the least developed areas, can make a significant contribution to increasing employment and reducing poverty by boosting investment in innovation and education to help modernise rural areas, make them more competitive and thereby guarantee generational renewal;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Takes the view, therefore, that in order to guarantee economic growth in rural areas, all cutting or freezing of the funding allocated to those areas must be avoided;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Underlines that the new EAFRD should build
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Welcomes the establishment by the Commission of a high-level group with the aim of reducing the administrative burden for beneficiaries of the five European Structural and Investment Funds, including the EAFRD; hopes that the group’s report will make it possible to identify practical ways of further simplifying European funds and making them easier to access;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Underlines that the new EAFRD builds on the previous programming periods by providing flexibility to better address specific territorial needs and broadening the objectives to six EU priorities for rural development divided into 18 focus areas, all of which contribute to the three cross-cutting objectives of innovation and environment/climate change mitigation and adaptation; stresses that fostering technological and social innovation in the coming financial periods is a key to sustainable and competitive European agriculture;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Underlines that the new EAFRD builds on the previous programming periods by providing flexibility to better address specific territorial needs and broadening the objectives to six EU priorities for rural development divided into 18 focus areas, all of which contribute to the three cross-cutting objectives of innovation and environment/climate change mitigation and adaptation; also stresses that the ESIF should first and foremost target investments that are likely to boost the business cycles;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Recalls the important contribution of the EAFRD for climate protection and the target to spend at least 20% of EU budget on climate action;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3α. Points to the importance of the EAFRD for micro, small, and medium- sized enterprises;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Recalls the importance of LEADER and the LEADER experience, including the approach that 5% of EAFRD has to be spent on community-led local development (CLLD) or LEADER; Whereas CLLD is only voluntary under the ERDF and no minimum share is defined to be spent on CLLD; Cautions therefore against trends to merge intra-fund development approaches in which CLLD may be lost;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 99.6 billion, which represents a decrease in real terms compared with the previous period,
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 99.6 billion, which represents a decrease in real terms compared with the previous period
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 9
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 9
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds)
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 99.6 billion, which represents a decrease in real terms compared with the previous period,
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 99.6 billion,
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 99.6 billion, which represents a decrease in real terms compared with the previous period of more than the EUR 95.6 billion announced one year ago because of transfers from the 1st pillar, but because of provisions for additional national financing, variable co-financing rates and the possibility of fund-switching between CAP pillars, the final amount shows a slight overall increase at present;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 99.6 billion, which represents a decrease in real terms compared with the previous period, but because of provisions for additional national financing, variable co-financing rates and the possibility of fund-switching between CAP pillars, the final amount shows a slight overall increase at present, which should be used to assist EU Member States such as Greece that are particularly affected by the Russian embargo;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 99.6 billion, which represents a decrease in real terms compared with the previous period, but because of provisions for additional national financing, variable co-financing rates and the possibility of fund-switching between CAP pillars, the final amount shows a slight overall increase at present; stresses the added value of multi-fund financing and insists on the need to harmonise the rules on the synergy of funds;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Rejects any attempt to freeze European Structural and Investment Funds as a way of using pressure and blackmail to force Member States to comply with budgetary adjustments that have been imposed, and without taking into account the impact that the crisis is having in terms of wiping out jobs and increasing poverty and social exclusion, or the increased suffering that this measure will cause people, especially those in the most disadvantaged classes;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Is concerned by the long adoption process of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs);
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Is concerned by the long adoption process of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs);
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Is concerned by the long adoption process of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs); expects the Commission and the Member States to have drawn lessons from this process with a view to preventing similar delays in the future; points out that the delays in adopting the RDPs and in awarding payments to farmers are contributing to the worsening crisis in the agricultural sector, and calls on the Commission and Member States to introduce transitional measures to safeguard farmers' access to financing;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Is concerned by the long adoption process of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs), which is due to the lengthy bureaucratic practices and time- consuming systematic consultation between the partners and the Commission for preparation of draft national RDPs; expects the Commission and the Member States to have drawn lessons from this process with a view to preventing similar delays in the future;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are crucial investment tools, including for rural areas, and that the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is the main financing vehicle for boosting rural development in many Member States; points out that complementarity between those two funds is essential for job creation and growth in rural areas;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Is concerned by the long adoption process of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs); expects the Commission and the Member States and regions to have drawn lessons from this process with a view to preventing similar delays in the future;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Believes that priority should be given in the RDP to proposed projects that have a direct impact on agricultural development, taking care to ensure that this programme does not include projects that, while they are intended for rural areas, could be included in other European programmes;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Points out that the late adoption of the RDPs has inevitably delayed the publication of notices concerning specific measures and sub-measures and that this has caused considerable inconvenience to farmers;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Stresses that the socioeconomic inequalities in the EU are constantly increasing, especially the gap between rural and urban areas, thus leaving rural areas subordinated to poverty and stagnation;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Emphasises once again the important role played by young people and women in rural areas and urges the Member States to give them a leading role in their programmes;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. Recalls that rural areas in the EU are facing a whole range of long-lasting problems -depopulation, aging of remaining population, lack of social services and other socio-economic problems- that should be taken as a core priority in European cohesion policies funded with ESIF;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Believes that even after programmes have been approved, the Commission should continue to provide the necessary assistance to RDP support authorities so as to enable plans to be implemented efficiently and without delay;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds for environmental measures
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are crucial investment tools, including for rural areas,
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds for environmental measures and for physical investments aimed at
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds for environmental measures and for physical investments aimed at boosting competitiveness; expects that those measures will have a long-lasting impact
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds for environmental measures and for physical investments aimed at boosting competitiveness; expects that those measures will have a long-lasting impact and high economic leverage, fostering efficient additionality between the various funds;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds for environmental measures and for physical investments aimed at boosting competitiveness; expects that those measures will have a long-lasting impact and high economic leverage; highlights the importance of introducing the risk- management instrument as part of the EAFRD, and calls on the Member States to support the setting-up of mutual funds and insurance premiums with a view to removing vulnerabilities in the agricultural sector;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds for environmental measures and for physical investments aimed at boosting competitiveness; expects that those measures will have a long-lasting impact and high economic leverage; notes furthermore that ensuring productivity and therefore competitiveness in the long term depends very much on investing in environmental aspects of farming such as soil erosion prevention, efficient nutrient cycling, optimal pollination, topsoil creation and integrating agroforestry to build resilience to climate change; farmers are less able to invest in these kinds of measures themselves while their incomes are being squeezed in the current economic situation, which makes EU and Member State funding vital for future productivity, food security and prosperity;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States and regions of funds for environmental measures and for physical investments aimed at boosting competitiveness; expects that those measures will have a long-lasting impact and high economic leverage;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to guarantee easier and geographically balanced access to funding, according particular priority to undertakings and cooperatives in rural and structurally disadvantaged areas, and to projects seeking to promote territorial cohesion and the networking of rural areas;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Maintains that projects financed under RDPs must genuinely meet the need to create growth and employment, and calls on the Commission and managing authorities to draw up ex ante and ex post assessments of the added value and the economic and social impact of the projects and operations financed;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Highlights that the measures of the Rural Development funding directed at fostering innovation and investment in emerging technologies and precision farming should be substantially reinforced in order to enhance the competitiveness of European enterprises in the rural areas;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are crucial investment tools, including for rural areas, and that the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that mechanisms are in place to correlate production and sales prices and thus ensure that the main beneficiaries of CAP financing are agricultural producers;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Believes that it is necessary, when making use of ESIFs, to separate co- financing from the Stability and Growth Pact;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. Stresses the need to support rural areas with a sustainable management of soil, water and biodiversity in order to enhance their contribution to the bioeconomy; in addition, farmers need to have measures adapted to respond to increasing challenges such as food security and climate change;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Considers that the
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Considers that the more flexible structure of the EAFRD
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Considers that the more flexible structure of the EAFRD was not fully taken advantage of by some Members States and regions which perceived a risk of increased complexity and control requirements therefore asks the Commission to ensure that all parties are in due time informed about the renewed EAFRD structure and to actively facilitate the uptake and visibility of these funds;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Considers that the more flexible structure of the EAFRD was not fully taken advantage of by some Members States and regions which perceived a risk of increased complexity and control requirements; urges the implementation of the simplification proposals brought forward by the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Considers that the more flexible structure of the EAFRD was not fully taken advantage of by some Members States and regions which perceived a risk of increased complexity and control requirements; expresses disquiet at the results for less developed regions and regions in transition, which are the worst recorded to date;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Considers that the more flexible structure of the EAFRD was not
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Regrets that on average only 28% of farms in Europe are run by women, while female entrepreneurship represents an important pillar in social, economic and environmental terms for sustainable development in rural areas; therefore calls on the Commission to support and encourage access for women in rural areas to the labour market as a priority in their future development policies;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are crucial investment tools, including for rural areas, and that the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is the main financing vehicle for boosting rural development in many Member States in addition to ad hoc payments from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF);
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses the importance of adjustments to the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) that will enhance their applicability to the outermost regions, boosting the economy and local employment in these areas that are characterised by distance, remoteness, dispersion and small size, and that consequently require particular attention in relation to creating and preserving jobs;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Notes that some Member States or regions, sometimes those with the most need of rural development, do not promote participation in schemes, nor in some cases even offer schemes which are needed in their territories;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Commission to strengthen its role for the purpose of exchanging and disseminating best practice among Member States and regions regarding the use of the EAFRD;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. notes that rural development income for some Member States was effectively cut as a result of the intergovernmental deals that decided the current EU rural development budget "envelopes", with the result that rural development has suffered in some regions and is patchy across the EU;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c. Given the continued heavy loss of small farms from EU landscapes and rural economies, the loss of young people and outmigration from rural areas, it is important that firstly schemes appropriate for smaller farmers are offered as options in the Member State's Rural Development Plans, with the Commission ensuring that this is the case; the arbitrary use of restrictive area limits barring entry of farmers to certain RD schemes should be screened for by the Commission and discontinued by the Member States; Secondly uptake and participation of small farmers should be maximised by administrations adopting procedures that are simple and easy to understand for the farmers or communities wishing to participate; Small farmers should be enabled and empowered in each Member State to work together on joint or community projects;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Commission and the Member States to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are crucial investment tools, including for rural areas, and that the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is one of the main financing vehicles for boosting rural development in many Member States;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Member States to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect so as to allow for quick and easy access to European funding; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Member States to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities; is concerned that excessive bureaucracy and complex rules are making CAP-based financing less attractive;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Member States to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect; regrets that discussion on simplification of the CAP has centered on "greening" in pillar I, while ignoring the situation alluded to in the study prepared for the CONT Committee in 2014 titled, " "Gold- plating" in the EAFRD: To what extent do national rules unnecessarily add to complexity and, as a result increase the risk of errors? ", which has highlighted the problems in pillar II; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Member States to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; stresses in particular the need for vigilance and good organisation on the part of the regions and willingness on the part of the municipalities (first- level local government) also, as potential beneficiaries, to assume responsibility for the preparation of files and project implementation; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Member States to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; underlines that oriented advisory services are essential in the operational programmes to support farmers and forest holders for efficiently implementation; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Member States and the Commission to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Member States and the Commission to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Urges the Member States and regions to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Believes that one of the reasons for the delays lies in the fact that RDPs, because they have to encompass several levels and varying degrees of detail, are drafted in an overly fragmented form and that this adds to the work entailed in the practical management of assistance, thus running counter to the desired aims of simplification and clarity in the rules;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Recognises that, although rural development is by its very nature more complex than direct payments because it produces more results for society, rural development schemes should be as simple and as straightforward as possible without the objectives of the schemes being compromised, so that participation can be high where it is needed;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that the European Structural and Investment Funds should contribute to the development of infrastructure in rural areas, and in particular to promoting the expansion of broadband, developing and modernising the agri-food sector, and improving access to funding for SMEs in this sector; takes the view that many of the current CAP instruments should be used to implement targeted investments successfully and efficiently;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Underlines that there is an urgent need for simplification of the CAP and concrete actions have to be made by the Commission within its mandate without delays; in order to make sure the EAFRD funds are taken up and spent efficiently with a view to meeting the goals of the CAP;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Commission to simplify the rules applying to ESI Funds, and the EAFRD in particular, in order to make the Funds more accessible, especially to small farms;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Is concerned that measures to help farmers manage risks and to set up producer groups were not included in many programmes that could support farmers to better react to the increased market volatility;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Stresses that, in order to improve the environment for investment in the EU, the necessary structural reforms must be carried out and bureaucracy reduced;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Urges the Commission to work towards continuous monitoring of the use of ESIFs in order to make them effective and transparent;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Urges the Commission to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and red tape, make procedures clear and transparent, and help recipients put financing and ESI Funds to use more rapidly;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Considers the plethora of red tape and the complexity of the procedures to be the main obstacle to full and effective use of the EAFRD; hopes that simplification will be achieved without delay;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Considers that the Directorate- General for Agriculture and Rural Development has the necessary technical knowledge and overview of rural and agricultural issues and is therefore the natural manager of the RDPs, and urges the Commission to ensure that staffing levels are in place to ensure proper implementation and auditing of the CAP; however notes the principle of subsidiarity and that the existing RDP structure designed and managed by DG-AGRI is failing to meet the needs of rural businesses; notes also that such poorly designed schemes have contributed to voter antipathy towards the EU;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Considers that the Directorate- General for Agriculture and Rural Development has the necessary technical knowledge and overview of rural and agricultural issues and is therefore the natural manager of the RDPs, and urges the Commission to ensure that staffing levels are in place to ensure proper implementation and auditing of the CAP; believes however that as the CAP has evolved, while it is still centrally about farmers and food production, it has been allocated the extra tasks of care for the environment and a broader rural development beyond the farm gate, failure to understand this and engage fully with these additional concept and external issues undermines the claim to be the sole manager of the RDP as it is implemented under the broader aims of the ESI Fund;
source: 587.710
2016/09/08
BUDG
42 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is concerned by delays in the adoption of operational programmes and the designation of managing, paying and certifying authorities
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that there
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that there is a stronger focus on performance of ESI Funds in the current MFF; believes that any link between performance and the ESI Funds in the
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Concludes that significant EU budget performance and efficiency gains can be achieved through simplification of ESI Funds for both beneficiaries and managing authorities, including application (public procurement), implementation (project management) and control (audits during and after the project); calls on the Commission to encourage the High Level Expert Group to work in the spirit of exploration and non-conventional solutions, instead of operating under limitations;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is concerned by delays in the adoption of operational programmes and the designation of managing authorities and calls for sufficient payment appropriations to be made available through the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) in order to
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, in the current MFF, financial instruments play a
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, in the current MFF, financial instruments play a
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes that, in the current MFF, financial instruments play a stronger role; believes, however, that they should not substitute grants as the core tool for ESI Funds; stresses that their implementation must be immediate, effective, transparent and always subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, without any prejudice to the unity of the EU budget;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point a (new) (a) national parliamentary scrutiny so as to ensure control of the use of public funds by the peoples of Europe;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – point b (new) (b) control by national governments to ensure the sovereignty of each Member State of the European Union;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Expects the Commission to present to Parliament at the earliest opportunity a detailed assessment of the complementarity, additionality and synergies achieved so far between the ESI Funds and the EFSI
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Expects the Commission to present to Parliament and to the governments of the EU Member States at the earliest opportunity a
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Expects the Commission to present to Parliament at the earliest opportunity a detailed assessment of the complementarity, additionality and synergies achieved so far between the ESI Funds and the EFSI, and calls for steps to be taken to ensure full coherence and synergies between the ESI Funds and other EU instruments; points out that ESI Funds have been earmarked for the period 2014-2020 for investment of EUR 454 billion in 500 projects aimed at boosting growth, research and innovation and for measures to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises; calls for the immediate implementation of these programmes, particularly in EU Member States with high unemployment rates;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Welcomes significant progress and results by existing EFSI operations; calls on the Commission and the EIB to enable even better EFSI performance through: enabling non-participating regions through on-the-ground technical assistance to induce regionally balanced demand and project operations; comprehensive guidance to managing authorities on combining EFSI with shared and direct management instruments; accelerate creation of investment platforms in the member states - meeting point for public funds and private financing; rebalance sector investment especially in view of the largest investment shortfalls - innovation and digital infrastructure; higher risk profile of approved investment projects; full-scale data and information on the progress of the SME window, including utilisation of financial products by SMEs;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that the adequate response to the migration crisis has become
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that immigration has become a
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that the flood of migra
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that migration has become a structural phenomenon in Europe and calls for further use to be made of ESI Funds in order to promote the integration of
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that migration has become a structural phenomenon in Europe and calls for further use to be made of ESI
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that migration has become a structural phenomenon in Europe and calls for further use to be made of ESI Funds, especially in order to
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – point a (new) (a) encourage the return to their countries of origin of clandestine migrants arriving in EU Member States;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – point b (new) (b) enable EU Member States to resume systematic national border controls so as to turn back clandestine migrants arriving in Europe;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Deplores the fact that, despite growing unemployment in Europe, the institutions are more concerned with the integration of migrants and asylum- seekers and have failed to adopt the necessary legislative provisions beforehand for action to ensure employment for European citizens;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to keep the budgetary authority and the governments of the EU Member States informed about the budgetary consequences of Brexit for the ESI Funds in the EU-27
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Underlines the high risk of the accumulation of payment claims under Heading 1b in the second half of the current MFF and calls for a sufficient level of payment appropriations to be made available on a yearly basis until the end of the current perspective in order to prevent a new backlog of unpaid bills; stresses, for this purpose, the need for the three EU institutions to develop and agree upon a new joint payment plan for 2016- 2020, which should provide for a clear strategy to meet all payment needs until the end of the current MFF;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to keep the budgetary authority informed about the possible budgetary consequences of Brexit for the ESI Funds in the EU-27 in the current programming period.
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – point a (new) (a) clarify the situation regarding Brexit and the positive political and economic consequences thereof for United Kingdom;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – point b (new) (b) encourage the fragmentation of the European Union and a return to freedom and sovereignty within its Member States.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes the
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes the efforts made to use the ESI Funds in support of key priorities
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes the efforts made to use the ESI Funds in support of key priorities set in the country-specific recommendations; notes the limitations of Commission’s proposal on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme; stresses that Article 23 of the Common Provision Regulation must only be used as a last resort and that Parliament must be fully involved from the early stages;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes the efforts made to use the ESI Funds in support of key priorities set in the country-specific recommendations; notes the Commission’s proposal on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme; stresses that Article 23 of the Common Provision Regulation must only be used as a last resort and that
source: 589.176
2016/09/12
TRAN
90 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the significant contribution made by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI funds) to the construction of an efficient and safe European transport network; Stresses the
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Regrets the proportion of jobs attributed to workers from outside Europe in the construction or improvement of road or rail routes financed by the ESI Funds, to the detriment of European workers;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Underlines that co-funding transport infrastructure projects should be oriented towards reduction of climate change, accidents and minimising external costs;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Regrets the proportion of jobs in western Europe allocated to workers posted there for the construction or improvement of roads or railways financed by the ESI Funds, to the detriment of local workers;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the importance of citizens' participation, transparency and sustainability of national general and master transport plans for the effective spending of funds;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the importance of national general transport plans and their coordination at supranational and EU level for the effective spending of funds;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the importance of national
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses the importance of national general transport plans as well as sustainable urban mobility plans for the effective spending of funds;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses the importance of the European Structural and Investment Funds, which focus chiefly on boosting jobs and investment and will help the Member States to eliminate certain transport infrastructure disparities at regional and national level, creating a European Union with smaller dissimilarities;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that ESI funds should focus on sustainable transport infrastructures. Underlines that Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans play a significant role in implementing ESI funds and achieving objective 4 of the Common Strategic Framework (CSC), "Supporting the shıft towards a low- carbon economy in all sectors".
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Calls on the Commission to earmark appropriate funding for sustainable urban mobility under the European Regional and Development Fund.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the significant contribution made by the European Structural and Investment Funds to the construction of an efficient and safe European transport network;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds to complement the gaps that exist between completed infrastructure projects, particularly in cross-border regions; recalls that ESI Funds can be used for investments in smart mobility and intelligent transport systems (ITS), and in particular sustainable public transport in cities and regions;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds in synergy with the Connecting Europe Facility and the European Fund for Strategic Investments to complement the gaps that exist between completed infrastructure projects, particularly in cross-border regions;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds to complement the gaps that exist between completed infrastructure projects, particularly in cross-border regions, including dismantled and abandoned cross-border regional rail connections (missing links);
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds to complement the gaps that exist between
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds to complement the gaps that exist between completed infrastructure projects, particularly in cross-border regions and in the outermost regions set out in Article 349 TFEU;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds to complement the gaps and remove the bottlenecks that exist between completed infrastructure projects, particularly in cross-border regions;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the need to use European Structural and Investment Funds to comple
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the significant contribution made by the European Structural and Investment Funds to the construction of an efficient and safe European transport network; Stresses the importance of synergies and complementarity between the various funds, programmes and instruments, in order to obtain the maximum added value of the investments effected;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Points out that there is a particular need to maximise the contribution of the structural funds when it comes to achieving the objectives of the EU Urban Agenda; emphasises that integrated territorial investment is important in order to build a comprehensive, energy-efficient and passenger-friendly public transport network;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Regrets that the construction of 7 500 km of new railway lines has been decided without any serious utility study being conducted at a time when rail freight is collapsing everywhere in the Union;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that in order to complete the missing cross-border sections, transport master plans need to be coordinated between neighbouring Member States;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Stresses the need to fund projects for sustainable, accessible, safe and intermodal public transport and transport terminals;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the need to provide professional support to Member States during planning and implementation of the most capital-intensive infrastructure projects. observes that knowledge of the EU’s funding instruments and of the associated application procedures in the Member States ought to be improved with the Commission’s assistance in order that funding can be distributed on an equal footing and effectively;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the need to provide professional support to Member States during planning and implementation of the most essential and capital-intensive infrastructure projects; appreciates the impact of the Jaspers facility and reiterates that poor investment planning results in major delays in the completion of projects and in the inefficient use of funding;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the need to provide
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the need to provide professional support to Member States during planning and implementation of the most capital-intensive infrastructure projects, in order to guarantee optimum quality and costs;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the need to provide professional, technical and/or technological support to Member States during planning and implementation of the most capital-intensive infrastructure projects.
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Notes the need to provide
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the significant contribution made by the European Structural and Investment Funds to the construction of an efficient and safe European transport network;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new) Points out that the ESI Funds play an important role in facilitating the shift towards a low-carbon economy and combating climate change;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Urges the Commission to publish annually lists of EU structural and investment co-funded transport infrastructure projects and corresponding amounts, as happens with the CEF co- funded transport projects;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that completion of the core TEN-T network is a European transport policy priority and that structural and investment funds are
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that completion of the core TEN-T network is a European transport policy priority and that structural and investment funds are an important tool in the implementation of this project; recognizes the importance of the Cohesion Fund for improvement of infrastructure and connectivity in Europe and insists that this fund be preserved in the new financial framework post 2020;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that completion of the core TEN-T network is a European transport policy priority and that structural and investment funds are an important tool in the implementation of this project; Notes the importance of interconnecting projects between the secondary network and the core network;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that completion of the core TEN-T network is a European transport infrastructure policy priority and that structural and investment funds must correspond to the criteria of TEN-T and CEF as they are an important tool in the implementation of this project;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that completion of the core TEN-T network is a European transport policy priority and that structural and investment funds are an important tool in the implementation of this p
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls that completion of the core TEN-T network is a European transport policy priority and that structural and investment funds are an
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission to take into account the main features of long- term investments in transport infrastructures. Underlines that investments in sustainable transport infrastructures require a substantial public intervention and might be less attractive for the private sector as they yield too low or uncertain return on investment.
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Recalls that the leverage effect of the EU financial instruments is very low, or non-existent in the transport sector. Therefore, stresses that grants are the most appropriate instruments for supporting transport infrastructures under ESI funds.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the significant contribution made by the European Structural and Investment Funds to the construction of an efficient and safe European transport network; Stresses the importance of synergies between the various funds; notes their importance for the development of tourism in the Union's regions;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that funds allocated to financing the 'Connecting Europe' facility were depleted in order to recapitalise the European Fund for Strategic Investments; expresses hope that these funds will be used to finance infrastructure projects; strongly requests that the cuts in CEF to finance the EFSI programme are restored within the framework of the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that funds allocated to financing the 'Connecting Europe' facility were depleted in order to recapitalise the European Fund for Strategic Investments;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that funds allocated to financing the 'Connecting Europe' facility were depleted in order to recapitalise the European Fund for Strategic Investments; expresses hope that these funds will be used to finance infrastructure projects, with the aim of improving connectivity;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that funds allocated to financing the ‘Connecting Europe’ facility were depleted in order to recapitalise the
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that funds allocated to financing the 'Connecting Europe' facility were depleted in order to recapitalise the European Fund for Strategic Investments; expresses hope that these funds will be used to finance sustainable transport infrastructure projects;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that funds allocated to financing the 'Connecting Europe' facility were heavily depleted in order to recapitalise the European Fund for Strategic Investments; expresses hope that these funds will be used to finance infrastructure projects;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Recalls that funds allocated to financing the 'Connecting Europe' facility were depleted in order to recapitalise the European Fund for Strategic Investments;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Emphasises that the multimodality of transport should be a vital factor in the assessment of infrastructure projects financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds, but that it should not be the only criterion used to assess proposed projects, especially in the case of Member States with major investment needs in the area of transport infrastructure;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that funding under the cohesion policy is exceptionally important for the development of transport infrastructure in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; calls for the necessary resources to be secured and for the level of financing to be maintained in the next multiannual financial framework, and also for support to be maintained for the interconnection and investment projects in the construction and modernisation of roads, railways and navigable waterways;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that funding under the cohesion policy, job creation, sustainable development and the implementation of innovative technologies is exceptionally important for the development of transport infrastructure in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; calls for the necessary resources to be secured and for the level of financing to be maintained in the next multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the significant contribution made by the European Structural and Investment Funds to the construction of an efficient and safe European transport network; Stresses the importance of synergies between the various funds and networks;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that funding under the cohesion policy is exceptionally important for the development of transport infrastructure, in particular in Europe's less developed regions in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; calls for the necessary resources to be secured and for the level of financing to be maintained in the next multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that funding under the cohesion policy is exceptionally important for the development of transport infrastructure in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in other countries; calls for the necessary resources to be secured and for the level of financing to be maintained in the next multiannual financial framework for the entire EU;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that funding under the cohesion policy is exceptionally important
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that funding under the cohesion policy is exceptionally important for the development of transport infrastructure in
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that funding under the cohesion policy is exceptionally important for the development of transport infrastructure in
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 1 (new) - Recalls the allocation within the Connecting Europe Facility for the Cohesion countries and the importance of technical support for these countries, and the arrangement whereby, if the amount is not fully used, it is reallocated to the same Cohesion countries;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 – indent 2 (new) - Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds and the Connecting Europe Facility are central to the development of maritime region transport infrastructure, particularly in the outermost regions, in order to offset the lack of maritime links between the island regions and the Internal Market; Notes therefore the importance of ensuring resources for the development of the motorways of the sea and maritime infrastructure;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Reiterates the fact that road transport is still the most important mode of transport for people and goods in the EU, and that therefore the need for investment under the European Structural and Investment Funds is greatest in the area of road transport infrastructure;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Calls for increased efforts to be made with regard to cutting down on wastage and spending European Structural and Investment funding more effectively when it comes to airport infrastructure;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the significant contribution made by the European Structural and Investment Funds to the construction of an up-to-date, efficient and safe European transport network; Stresses the importance of synergies between the various funds;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Notes that there are major disparities in the level of development and use of inland waterway transport in the Member States; emphasises the need for the European Structural and Investment Funds to be used to bridge this gap;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Notes that major administrative barriers to accessing European Structural and Investment Funds exist, particularly for SMEs; stresses that the Structural and Investment Funds are of particularly great importance for the purpose of facilitating small and medium-sized local and regional infrastructure investments which are important for people’s everyday lives;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Notes that major administrative barriers to accessing European Structural and Investment Funds exist, particularly for SMEs; Underlines that excluding ESI funds from the state aid rules will significantly facilitate the access to ESI funds for SMEs and local entrepreneurships which are facing major administrative barriers.
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Notes that major administrative barriers to accessing European Structural and Investment Funds exist
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Notes that major administrative barriers to accessing European Structural and Investment Funds exist, particularly for SMEs; Stresses that specific measures must be put in place to simplify the administrative formalities;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Notes that major administrative barriers to accessing European Structural and Investment Funds exist, particularly for SMEs; calls for simple and effective implementation tools
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Notes that major administrative and bureaucratic barriers to accessing European Structural and Investment Funds exist, particularly for SMEs;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 – indent 1 (new) - Stresses the need for support for the digitisation of the transport system; and in this context underlines the importance of ensuring funds for SMEs;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Underlines that the thematic concentration establishing ESI funds' investments priorities might limit the capacity of local authorities to invest in transport infrastructures, especially in the more developed regions where at least 80 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) resources at national level shall be allocated to two or more of the thematic objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Common Strategic Framework. Therefore calls on the Commission to allow more flexibilities for regions to decide on which priorities they want to focus. Stresses that objective 7 of the CSC, "Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures", should be taken into account as key action of the ERDF.
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Takes the view that countries with economic problems find it very hard to cofinance European projects owing to the strict manner in which the Stability and Growth Pact is applied when calculating the government deficit; urges the Commission to be more flexible in assessing national investment for the cofinancing of European TEN-T transport project commitments when it comes to calculating the government deficit;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Notes the need to improve access conditions in strategic areas such as transport by simplifying the procedures;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Calls for better information and cooperation with the Member States with a view to strengthening the administrative capacity of the European Structural and Investment Funds so as to ensure that the local and national authorities managing these funds are as efficient as possible;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls for the broader inclusion of local and regional authorities in the processes of designing national general transport plans and allocating resources for infrastructure projects, particularly in cross-border regions.
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls for the broader inclusion of local and regional authorities and active participation of transport unions in the processes of designing national general transport plans and allocating resources for infrastructure projects.
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls for the broader inclusion of local and regional authorities in the processes of designing national general and master transport plans and allocating resources for infrastructure projects.
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls for neutralisation in the calculation of debt and deficit in public investment carried out by Member States' public operators under the ESI funds, particularly with regard to the impact of the new ESA 2010 system of accounts, which prevents Member States from excluding their co-financing share to the ESI Funds in the calculation of their budgetary deficit and thus using these funds to escape from the economic crisis and re-launch growth and employment;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls on the Member States to improve coordination between their national transport plans and the TEN-T targets and deadlines; urges the Commission to bring in a specific mechanism to step up the coordination between EU planning and the national plans; suggests the inclusion in the European Semester of a chapter to monitor coherence between national investment in transport infrastructure and the TEN-T objectives;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls for cross-border transport plans to be improved through the involvement of the national authorities.
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Takes the view that indicators should be found that will guarantee the fair distribution of European funds while also taking account of specific territorial needs.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Emphasises that the European Structural and Investment Funds have become the main – and, in countries hit hard by the crisis, practically the only – source of investment, and that they are becoming not only a key instrument for social and territorial cohesion, but also a vital lever when it comes to maintaining business and jobs;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 c (new) 9c. Points out that more efficient transport development can be achieved only through European territorial cooperation and the smart distribution of funds.
source: 589.177
2016/09/13
CULT
67 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU Cohesion Policy
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Considers that economic, social and territorial cohesion must continue to be at the core of the EU's efforts towards a more prosperous, balanced and solidary Union; welcomes in this regard the increased flexibility and results orientation of the EU's Cohesion Policy for 2014-2020, with a view to maximise and optimise its contribution to the achievement of Europe 2020 strategy headline targets for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses the importance of the Structural and Investment Funds for improving pre-school, educational and university infrastructure with a view to improving the quality of training and modernising education and training systems so as to offer young people the skills and qualifications that will enable them to find a job and to help workers improve their skills and qualifications;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Emphasizes the huge innovation and employment potential of renewable energy sources, search for greater resource efficiency and energy efficiencies; calls on the Commission to integrate a specific energy and environmental strategy for regional development with a view also to education and employment;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that it would be a mistake to reduce education and its promotion simply to considerations of economic utility; stresses, also, that culture and its contribution to the forging and creating of identity and the development of creative potentials are essential aspects of education;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1 b. Stresses that, according to 2015 Education and Training Monitor's findings, there is an urgent need to improve inclusiveness, quality and relevance of education in the EU in order to ensure sustainable growth, boost productivity, address structural and long- term unemployment, promote fair mobility and foster social inclusion; calls in this regard on Member States to promote and support projects targeting education systems, teachers and trainers, learners of all ages, in particular those from vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, by making efficient use of the resources available under the ESIFs, especially the ESF, in conjunction with other EU tools such as Erasmus+ and European Territorial Cooperation programmes;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Regrets that the overall level of the MFF 2014-2020 is lower compared with the MFF 2007-2013; is deeply worried that such reduction shall deliver to the European citizens the clear message that in times of crisis, the European Union is less keen on solidarity among its Member States; stresses that in a period
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Regrets that the overall level of the MFF 2014-2020 is lower compared with the MFF 2007-2013; stresses that in a period of austerity policies and extreme fiscal adjustments, pressure on Member States’ budgets increases; highlights the fact that such pressure has led to a decrease in public financing for education, has affected the right to education and has generated high and persistent unemployment, especially among young people with poor qualifications, NEET's and those with disadvantaged background; recalls that the level of education funding across Member States remains low in comparison to the pre- crisis situation;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Regrets that the overall level of the MFF 2014-2020 is lower compared with the MFF 2007-2013; stresses that in a period of austerity policies and extreme fiscal adjustments, pressure on southern European Member States’ budgets increases; highlights the fact that such pressure has led to a decrease in public financing for education and has generated high and persistent unemployment, especially among young people; notes that Greece's education spending is down 35.6% compared to 2009;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU Cohesion Policy
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Regrets that the overall level of the MFF 2014-2020 is lower compared with the MFF 2007-2013; stresses that in a period of austerity policies and extreme fiscal adjustments, pressure on Member States’ budgets increases; highlights the fact that such pressure has led to a decrease in public financing for education and the development of innovative technologies and has generated high and persistent unemployment, especially among young people;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Regrets that the overall level of the MFF 2014-2020 is lower compared with the MFF 2007-2013; stresses that in a period of austerity policies and extreme fiscal adjustments, pressure on Member States
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Deplores the institutionalisation of the principle of macroeconomic conditionality and the correlation between cohesion policy, its objectives and funds on the one hand and the stability and growth pact, economic governance and any economic and financial convergence between Member States on the other; notes that the imposition of strict macroeconomic and financial conditions and austerity measures undermines the role of cohesion policy and the support it can give to action for culture, education and sport with a view to ensuring balanced growth, creating jobs and eliminating inequalities in order to achieve genuine convergence;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Is of the opinion that a broader investment strategy is needed that should cover the full cycle of education and training, encompassing all sectors of lifelong learning, work-based learning and formal and non-formal learning; as 'Better education' is one of the main priorities of the European Social Fund, encourages Member States to make full use of it by channelling investments into inclusive education which responds to societal challenges with regards to ensure equal access and opportunities for all;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Highlights the potential of CCIs regarding youth employment; stresses that further promotion of and investment in the cultural and creative sector may contribute substantially to investment, growth, innovation and employment; calls on the Commission to consider therefore the special opportunities offered by the whole CCS, comprising NGOs and small associations, in the framework for example of the Youth Employment Initiative;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Calls on the Member States to use the ESIFs to their full potential by enhancing the added value and result- orientation of their projects and by providing sufficient and adequate information to potential beneficiaries, including those from education, culture and sport sectors;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2 a. Notes that the ESIF targets areas which foster an environment for job creation such as the areas of education, training, cultural and creative industries, by supplementing national budgets and compensating for decreasing investment levels;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Expresses its concern at the process of suspending the funding which is about to be activated for the first time in Spain and Portugal; considers that funding for European regions should not depend on compliance with macroeconomic conditions imposed by EU economic policies; believes that penalising Member States will not improve the effectiveness of cohesion policy and that suspending payments will be a severe blow to Member States facing difficulties and would only worsen unemployment and poverty and weaken the vulnerable sectors of education and culture;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Recognises the increasing importance of micro-enterprises and SMEs in the cultural and creative sector for investment, growth, innovation and employment, but also in their key role, together with cultural NGOs, networks and platforms, in preserving and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity and a wide range of traditional arts and crafts; recognises that culture and innovation are crucial factors in helping regions to attract investment, support creative talent, and foster social cohesion, and thereby contribute to local development which local and regional authorities are well-placed to support;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Calls for more investment in the area of education and social inclusion, vocational training and life-long learning to improve both the relevance of education and training systems and the transition from education to work and life-long learning; stresses the need for concentrated funding to prevent early school leaving and for equal access to quality education;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU Cohesion Policy
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2 b. Encourages the Member States to make best use of the enhanced flexibility under the current cohesion policy in order to better respond to local and regional needs and specificities, also in the fields of education, culture and sport;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Stresses the need to adopt measures to make the best possible use of funding under the Structural and Investment Funds by supporting action to promote solidarity, job creation and preservation, education and culture, the provision of high-quality public services, environmental justice and a reduction in poverty and social exclusion; calls on Parliament to submit a proposal to review the application of Article 23 of the Regulation laying down common provisions on macroeconomic conditionality, in accordance with paragraph 17 thereof;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2 c. Reiterates that investments in education and culture reinforce employability and contribute to sustainable growth and job creation in the EU; regrets that austerity policies pushed by the European Semester did trigger heavy cuts in education and culture in those countries where education and lifelong learning are key to exit the crisis; underlines the need for structural reforms of the education and training systems in the Member States and the need to foster better interaction between the EU and the Member States and to facilitate the exchange of best practices among the Member States;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2 c. Highlights the importance of a wider holistic approach to culture that takes into account its significant contribution to education and training, innovative social and economic development and social inclusion; therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase awareness of culture's potential to foster smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and to encourage cultural projects in this regard, including cross-border projects that can contribute to strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has failed to date to address the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, which in several Member States remains at over 40 %; points out that, in some cases, this initiative has only superficially addressed the problem of young people, such as in France where 'future-oriented jobs' have led to training only in a third of cases, with preference having been given to contracts in the non-profit sector; calls for all youth initiatives not to lead in reality to insecure jobs for young people, which only bring about a fictitious, short- term fall in unemployment; calls for an evaluation of the YEI following a fully fledged assessment of its performance; asks the Commission to take all necessary actions to ensure its continuation and its revision in order to promote the creation of new high-quality jobs and decent social protection for young people;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has failed to date to address the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, which in several Member States remains at over 40 %; calls for an evaluation of the YEI following a fully fledged assessment of its performance; asks the Commission to take all necessary actions to ensure its continuation and its revision in order to promote the creation of new high-quality jobs and decent social protection for young people; urges the Member States to implement fully the Youth Guarantee, based on a strong cooperation between employment services and the education system;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes th
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has failed to date to address the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, which in several Member States remains at over 40 %; calls for a
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has failed to date to address the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, which in several Member States remains at over 40 %; calls for an evaluation of the YEI following a fully fledged assessment of its performance; asks the Commission to take
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has failed to date to address the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, which in several Member States remains at over 40 %, particularly in the south of Europe; calls for an evaluation of the YEI following a fully fledged assessment of its performance; asks the Commission to take all necessary actions to ensure its continuation and its revision in order to promote the creation of new high-quality jobs and decent social protection for young people;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU Cohesion Policy’s main financial instruments; underlines the importance of equal access to quality education and training, both formal and non-formal, in delivering genuine convergence and reducing disparities and socioeconomic inequalities among European regions; stresses the importance of the European Social Fund in creating high quality internships and traineeships as well as sustainable and quality jobs for young people;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has failed to date to systematically address the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, which in several Member States remains at over 40 %; calls for an evaluation of the YEI following a fully fledged assessment of its performance; asks the Commission to take all necessary actions to ensure its continuation and its revision in order to
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has failed to
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls for debt and deficit calculations not to factor in public investment carried out by Member States’ public operators, particularly in view of the impact of the new ESA 2010 system of accounts, which is preventing Member States from putting up co-financing for projects eligible for structural funding (in particular under the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative) and thus from using this important source of funding to help find a way out of the economic crisis and kick- start growth and employment;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Notes that there appear to be increased difficulties in filling vacancies due to skills mismatch in the labour market, stresses that the problems of mismatched skills, limited geographic mobility and precarious practices of work need to be addressed through ESIF and calls for a closer cooperation between higher education institutions, training bodies and SMEs in the field of access to ESIF;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3 b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States comply with the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities when implementing projects supported by the ESIF;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3 c. Positively notes that the objectives of the European Structural and Investment Fund legislative package for 2014-2020 includes the aim to foster a shift from institutional to community living for persons with disabilities and calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States respect the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities when implementing the ESIF in this regard;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 d (new) 3 d. Underlines the importance of the Smart Specialisation Strategies that are helping the shift from a classic ICT sector approach to a comprehensive one, empowering regions to identify ICT investment priorities relevant for their territory; calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States and regions develop the necessary infrastructures and strategies before making any digital investments using ESIF, in order to optimise their impact;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 e (new) 3 e. Recalls, that EUR 2.2 billion from the European Social Fund (ESF) will be accessible to support human capital development in ICT focusing on ICT skills, support for business creation and e- justice, and that this should be supported by funds that improve simplification of procedures and processes as well as transparency;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 f (new) 3 f. Emphasises the need to maintain the traditional trades, including the craft tradition and associated skills, and to establish strategies to foster growth for traditional trade entrepreneurship in order to maintain the cultural identity of the traditional trade sectors; draws attention to the importance of supporting work linked to professional training and the mobility of young craftsmen and women;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU Cohesion Policy’s main financial instruments; underlines the importance of equal access to education and training in delivering genuine convergence and reducing disparities and socioeconomic inequalities within Member States and among European regions;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the current migration crisis poses many challenges for the educational and training systems of the host Member States; calls on the EU institutions to provide, via ESIF and other Union programmes, adequate funding to host countries in order to substantially support the integration of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers into education and training systems; believes that access to lifelong learning, including non-formal and informal learning and professional training, has the potential to be an effective tool for active inclusion of refugees and migrants as well as their integration into the European labour market and societies;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the current migration crisis poses many challenges for the educational and training systems of the host Member States; calls on the EU institutions to provide, via ESIF and other Union programmes, adequate funding to host countries in order to
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the current migration crisis
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the current migration crisis poses many challenges for the educational and training systems of the host Member States; calls on the EU institutions to provide, via ESIF and other Union programmes, adequate funding to host countries in order to substantially support the legal and potential integration of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers into education and training systems;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the current migration crisis poses many challenges for the educational and training systems of the host Member States; calls on the EU institutions to provide
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that the current migration crisis poses many challenges for the educational and training systems of the host Member States; calls on the EU institutions to provide, via ESIF and other Union programmes, adequate funding to host
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that Member States are committed to providing better access to high-quality broadband, which is of vital importance for rural and sparsely populated areas; calls for the promotion of public wi-fi networks in the interests of sociocultural development, and of modern education systems and computer systems;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU Cohesion Policy’s main financial instruments; underlines the importance of equal access to education and training in delivering genuine convergence and reducing disparities and socioeconomic inequalities among
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Emphasises the need to improve the EU's overall capacity to create and sustain quality jobs and to tackle high unemployment; also recognises the need to take migration into account in terms of integration into the education system and labour market in order to find the best solution for all of society;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines the need to enhance coordination and to enable and optimise synergies between ESIF and other Union programmes in order to achieve greater impact and efficiency
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines the need to enhance coordination and to enable and optimise synergies between ESIF and other Union programmes in order to achieve greater impact and efficiency
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines the need to enhance coordination
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines the need to
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Underlines the need to enhance coordination and to enable and optimise synergies between ESIFs and other Union Funds and programmes in order to achieve greater impact and efficiency
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5 a. Highlights that cultural infrastructure has a significant impact on the economic and social development and cohesion at local, regional and national level; calls on the Commission to revise the 5 million euros limit for cultural infrastructure on the occasion of the adoption of the "Omnibus Regulation", including the ERDF Regulation, in order to remove the reference to "small scale" or, as a minimum, raise the maximum cost of cultural projects to EUR 10 million for all projects (not only for UNESCO sites) and to consider the eligible costs of projects, rather than the total costs;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses that the amount of future investments should represent a certain percentage of the GDP of the various Member States, in order to take account of rises or falls in the cost of living in the countries concerned and ensure a fair distribution.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU Cohesion Policy’s main financial instruments; underlines the
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU Cohesion Policy’s main financial instruments;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1 a. Recalls that two million companies will be directly supported by the ESI Funds, to boost their competitiveness and increase their research and innovation capacity; welcomes that almost 15 million households will have access to high-speed broadband thanks to European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) support, while almost 20 million people in rural areas will have new or improved ICT services or infrastructure with the support of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);
source: 589.247
2016/09/19
REGI
249 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 12 a (new) - having regard to its resolution of 26 November 2015 entitled ‘Towards simplification and performance orientation in cohesion policy 2014-2020’,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the negotiations for PAs and Operational Programmes (OPs) for the period 2014-2020 have been a modernised, strongly adjusted and intensive exercise with a new framework for performance- based budgeting, ex-ante conditionalities
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Points out that
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Points out that an important improvement has been the introduction of thematic concentration, whereby investments are focused on specific objectives and priorities corresponding to performance indicators and targets specifically agreed for all the themes;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Recommends to the Commission that it pay more attention to the impact of cohesion policy on promoting employment and reducing unemployment, with the aim of assessing whether and to what extent the funds invested have had a real impact on the labour market;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that - contrary to what Parliament initially wanted - a performance reserve was introduced for each Member State consisting of 6 per cent of the resources allocated to the ESI Funds; recalls that, on
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that a performance reserve was introduced for each Member State consisting of 6 per cent of the resources allocated to the ESI Funds; recalls that, on the basis of the national reports from 2017 and the performance review in 2019, the reserve is to be allocated only to the programmes and priorities which have achieved their milestones; calls for more flexibility in the launch of new commitments from the performance reserve when the programmes have attained their targets and milestones in the coming years;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Welcomes the fact that Member States in the course of the programming process have found more than two thirds of the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) that were adopted in 2014
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14.
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the negotiations for PAs and Operational Programmes (OPs) for the period 2014-2020 have been a modernised, strongly adjusted and intensive exercise with a new framework for performance- based budgeting, ex-ante conditionalities and thematic concentration, resulting inadvertently, also because of clear shortcomings in the administrative capacity of several regions and Member States, in serious delays in the actual commencement of cohesion policy implementation;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Points out that automatic and rigid use of macroeconomic conditionality can compromise the optimal take-up of resources, undermining local government programming; stresses the importance of allowing for the highest degree of flexibility, in particular to facilitate strategic investment and structural reform, also in line with the provisions set out in the CSRs;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Underlines the advisability within the European Semester to explore tools and mechanisms to ensure that the flexibility margins permitted by the Stability and Growth Pact can be used in strategic areas of investment designed to ensure growth and sustainable employment;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Acknowledges that in the near future CSRs might trigger amendments to ESIF programmes, ensuring support to structural reforms in Member States;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. Points out that Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) and National Reform Programmes (NRPs) represent a clear linkage between the ESI Funds and the processes of the European semester;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Favours the establishment of a balanced link between cohesion policy and the European Semester,
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Favours the establishment of a balanced link between cohesion policy and
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the negotiations for PAs and Operational Programmes (OPs) for the period 2014-2020 have been a modernised, strongly adjusted and intensive exercise with a new framework for performance- based budgeting, ex-ante conditionalities
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Favours the establishment of a balanced link between cohesion policy and the European Semester, as both work towards achieving the same aims under the Europe 2020 Strategy; is of the opinion that we should think over the convenience of freezing the EFSI funds in case of the deviation of the objectives aimed by the European Semester, as this could be counterproductive for boosting growth and jobs;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Points out that it is important to rebalance the economic asymmetries generated by the different monetary policies between the euro area and the non-euro area in order to use ESI Funds properly and to achieve territorial cohesion goals;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) 15b. Points out, given that structural reforms can have a negative impact on national budgets, that the discrepancy between the budget-balancing time frame laid down by the Stability and Growth Pact rules and the time needed for those reforms to reach maturity is counterproductive;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 c (new) 15c. Calls on the Commission, given that the output gap is the basic measure by which to assess whether a government is complying with EU budget rules and whether it will incur the measures laid down under Article 23 of the general ESI Funds regulation, to speed up its work on the possible revision of its calculation methodology, by involving Parliament in an appropriate manner, also through the structured dialogue instrument;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the regulatory framework for ESI Funds for the period 2014-2020 supports financial instruments;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the regulatory framework for ESI Funds for the period 2014-2020 supports financial instruments; observes that there is a focus on
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the regulatory framework for ESI Funds for the period 2014-2020 supports financial instruments; observes that there
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the regulatory framework for ESI Funds for the period 2014-2020 supports financial instruments; observes that there is a focus on a gradual shift from grants to loans and guarantees, underlines, however, that the use of grants is still indispensable; notes also that the use of the multi-fund approach still appears to be difficult;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the regulatory framework for ESI Funds for the period 2014-2020 supports financial instruments; observes that there is a focus on a gradual shift from grants to loans and guarantees; emphasizes that this trend has been strengthened by the Investment Plan for Europe and the newly established European Fund for Strategic Investments; notes also that the use of the multi-fund approach still appears to be difficult;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Notes that the regulatory framework for ESI Funds for the period 2014-2020 supports financial instruments; observes that there is a focus on a gradual shift from grants to loans and guarantees; notes also that the use of the multi-fund approach still appears to be difficult; stresses, given the complexity of these instruments, the vital importance of providing appropriate support to local and regional institutions in the training of the officials responsible for managing them;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas it is undisputed that due to the late adoption of the regulatory framework at the end of 2013 as a consequence of the long negotiations and late agreement on the MFF, operational programmes could not be adopted on time; whereas consequently the implementation of operational programmes had a slow start, thereby impacting the take up of the policy on the ground;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Points out that financial instruments offer solutions for the more efficient use of the EU budget, contributing alongside grants to bringing about investment to stimulate economic growth and create sustainable jobs;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Notes that the European Commission's Article 16 Report does not include a lot of information about coordination and synergies among different programmes and with instruments of other policy areas;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that a separate agenda is being pursued with the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation, and against this background asks the Commission to co
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation, and against this background asks the Commission to come forward with learning points
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas setting ex-ante criteria is a means of making the allocation of EU structural fund resources in Member States contingent on their implementing the structural reforms recommended by the European Commission;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation, and against this background asks the Commission to come forward with learning points for the ESI Funds for the new programming period, as well as an analysis to its contributions to the objectives aimed by the ESIF funds;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that the European Fund
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Points out that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is presented as a success story when it comes to fast implementation, and against this background asks the Commission to come forward with learning points for the ESI Funds for the new programming period; underlines, however, that a detailed analysis of the results of EFSI is essential in order to take stock of what has been achieved on the ground;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Believes that the Commission and the EIB can deliver even better EFSI performance through on-the-ground technical assistance to induce regionally balanced demand and project operations, creation of investment platforms in the Member States - a meeting point for EU funds and private financing, rebalancing sector investment especially in view of the largest investment shortfalls - innovation and digital infrastructure, higher risk profile of approved investment projects, full-scale data and information on the progress of the SME window including utilisation of financial products by SMEs;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Stresses that state aid rules apply to ESI Funds, but not to EFSI and Horizon 2020, causing problems in increasing the level of synergy among the
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Stresses that state aid rules apply to ESI Funds, but not to EFSI and Horizon 2020, causing problems in increasing the level of synergy among the instruments; underlines the fact that i
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Stresses that state aid rules apply to ESI Funds, but not to EFSI and Horizon 2020, causing problems in increasing the level of synergy among the instruments; underlines the fact that if there is an ambition to extend EFSI or any similar types of financial instrument, the question of state aid rules needs to be
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Stresses that state aid rules apply to ESI Funds, but not to EFSI and Horizon 2020, causing problems in increasing the level of synergy among the instruments; underlines the fact that if there is an ambition to extend EFSI or any similar types of financial instrument, the question of state aid rules needs to be adapted
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D b (new) Db. whereas in moving away from local projects towards large-scale projects located in major cities, the thematic concentration fails to reduce regional disparities within the EU;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Stresses that state aid rules apply to ESI Funds, but not to EFSI and Horizon 2020, causing problems in increasing the level of synergy among the instruments; underlines the fact that if there is an ambition to extend EFSI or any similar types of financial instrument, the question of state aid rules needs to be adapted accordingly; calls for a thoroughgoing simplification of state aid rules and clarification of the relationship between these rules and the rules governing ESI Funds;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Supports a further balanced
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Supports a further
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Supports a further balanced increase in financial instruments which will not be in prejudice of the traditional support from cohesion policy; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas common provisions were established for all five ESI Funds
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Supports a further balanced increase in financial instruments where they have an added value; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve this;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Supports a further balanced increase in financial instruments; emphasizes however that this should only take place after having carefully assessed the contribution of financial instruments to cohesion policy objectives and in areas where financial instruments represent added value in terms of results and effectiveness; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve this;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Supports a further balanced increase in financial instruments; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve this; stresses that clear, consistent and focused rules on Financial Instruments to help simplify the preparation and implementation process for fund managers and recipients, which recognise the different development levels of financial markets across the EU's Member States, are key to improving their effective implementation;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Supports a further balanced increase in financial instruments; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve this; stresses that financial instruments must be promoted if they present added value, but that all regions must have a diversified range of sources of financing; subsidies remain the most suitable instruments in many cases and for many projects;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Supports a further balanced increase in financial instruments; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve this; refers to the upcoming INI report entitled "The right funding mix for Europe's regions: balancing financial instruments and grants in EU cohesion policy" where this topic will be elaborated on further;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Supports a further balanced increase in financial instruments; asks the Commission, therefore, to come forward with incentives for managing authorities to achieve this and to analyse the management costs of grants and of repayable assistance implemented in shared and centrally managed programmes;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Calls for debt and deficit calculations not to factor in public investment carried out by Member States’ public operators, as is the case with the Juncker Plan, particularly in view of the impact of the new ESA 2010 system of accounts, which is preventing Member States from putting up co-financing for projects eligible for structural funding (in particular under the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative) and thus from using this important source of funding to help find a way out of the economic crisis and kick- start growth and employment;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Notes, however, the lack of evidence on the outcomes and results achieved by financial instruments and the loose link between those financial instruments and the overarching objectives and priorities of the EU;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Acknowledges that simplification is
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20.
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Acknowledges that simplification is an important factor in better access to funding;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Welcomes the fact that the new modernised regulatory framework of the ESI Funds provides new possibilities for simplification in terms of common eligibility rules, simplified cost options and e-governance; notes, however that significant simplification measures are still needed for both beneficiaries and managing authorities, focusing on public procurement, project management, and audits during and after the operations;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Welcomes the fact that the new modernised regulatory framework of the ESI Funds provides new possibilities for simplification in terms of common eligibility rules, simplified cost options and e-governance; however regrets that the European Commission's Article 16 Report does not include any specific information as regards the use of Simplified Cost Options (SCOs);
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 – subparagraph 1 (new) Underlines that there is a need for further efforts to develop the full potential of SCOs in terms of alleviating administrative burden;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Regrets that an assessment of administrative burden, including in particular components such as time, cost and paperwork, has not yet been
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Regrets that an assessment of administrative burden, including in particular components such as time, cost and paperwork, has not yet been undertaken; calls on the Commission in consequence to produce a fully fledged study of the cost of administrative burden in EU funding based on evidence from the 2007-2013 period and the start of the new period as from 2014;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Recommends for the
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Recommends for the new programming period that all levels of governance work towards a system of single audit, by eliminating pointless duplicate checks among the various tiers of government; reiterates that there is a need for further steps in the area of simplification;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Recommends for the new programming period that all levels of governance work towards a system of single audit; urges the Commission to clarify the range and legal status of existing Guidance across the ESI Funds, as well as to develop, in close collaboration with Managing Authorities and all relevant audit authority tiers, a joint interpretation of audit issues; reiterates that there is a need for further steps in the area of simplification;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Recommends for the new programming period that all levels of governance work towards a system of single audit; reiterates that there is a need for further steps in the area of simplification, particularly by introducing greater proportionality in inspections;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Recommends that standard procedures be established for drawing up operational programmes and for management, especially where the numerous territorial cooperation programmes are concerned;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Notes that the Member States have different
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Notes that the Member States have different administrative cultures, translating into different levels of performance,
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 25. Notes that the Member States have different administrative cultures, translating into different levels of performance, which the ex-ante conditionalities are sometimes helping to overcome;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Stresses the need to strengthen administrative capacity as a priority in the context of cohesion policy and the European semester exercise, particularly in Member States with low absorption of funds;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Regards it as essential to identify and simplify the unnecessarily complex processes and procedures in the shared management that
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Points out that administrative capacity has to be constantly increased; therefore, is of the opinion, that in this regard functional and flexible e- government solutions have to be exploited; additionally, underlines, the need to increase the focus on training of the administration;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Underlines the importance of capacity building of stakeholders and partners in cohesion policy to allow them fulfilling their role and contributing to transparency, ownership and monitoring of cohesion policy measures;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas cohesion policy is confronted in the current period with many challenges, deriving from the financial crisis, austerity policies and the management of the migration issue, leading to a decrease in public
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28.
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Highlights the potential European added value of
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Highlights the European added value of ETC, which should be reflected in an increased level of appropriations
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Highlights – especially from the point of view of reducing disparities between border regions – the European added value of ETC, which should be reflected in an increased level of appropriations for this cohesion policy objective, to be introduced as soon as practicable;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Highlights the European added value of ETC, which should be reflected in an increased level of appropriations for this cohesion policy objective, to be introduced as soon as practicable; underlines the need to preserve this instrument as one of the core elements of the cohesion policy after 2020;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Highlights the European added value of ETC, which should be reflected in an increased level of appropriations for this cohesion policy objective, to be introduced as soon as practicable; calls at the same time on Member States to provide the necessary cofunding;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Stresses the importance of macro- regional strategies, instruments which have proven themselves to be useful for the development of territorial cooperation and the economic development of the areas concerned; highlights the decisive role of the local and regional authorities for the success of the measures included in those strategies;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Recommends that more intensive use be made of the modified and expanded EGTC legal instrument as the legal basis for territorial cooperation;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Proposes th
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Is of the opinion that
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 13 a (new) - having regard to the Council conclusions of 12 November 2015 on the shift towards a low-carbon economy: the contribution of Cohesion Policy and more generally of the European Structural and Investment Funds,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas cohesion policy is confronted in the current period with many challenges, deriving from the financial crisis, leading to a decrease in public investment in many Member States, leaving the ESI funds and co-financing by the Member States as the main tool for public investment in many Member States
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Is of the opinion that GDP
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Is of the opinion that GDP might not be the only legitimate indicator for ensuring a fair distribution of money
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Is of the opinion that GDP might not be the only legitimate indicator for ensuring a fair distribution of money that takes account of specific territorial needs; is of the opinion that many regions in Europe are facing
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Is of the opinion that GDP
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Is of the opinion that GDP might not be the only legitimate indicator for ensuring a fair distribution of money that takes account of specific territorial needs; considers it important that, in future, consideration be given to introducing new dynamic indicators, in addition to GDP; is of the opinion that many regions in Europe are facing a situation of demographic change, as well as shrinking population numbers in rural areas;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. Is of the opinion that GDP might not be the only legitimate indicator for ensuring a fair distribution of money that takes account of specific territorial needs; is of the opinion, for example, that many regions in Europe are facing high rates of unemployment and a situation of demographic change, as well as shrinking population numbers in rural areas;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 a (new) 30a. Points out that the slow start of some programmes, the lack of management capacity for complex projects, the delays recorded in finalising projects, the administrative burden in the Member States, overregulation and errors in public procurement procedures are the main obstacles to the cohesion policy’s implementation;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 a (new) 30a. Underlines that the concept of results orientation requires that Interreg programmes ensure high-quality project- level cooperation and the adaptation of evaluation methods and criteria to take into account the specific nature of each programme; calls on the Commission, the Member States and the managing authorities to work together and exchange information and good practices in order to ensure that results orientation is implemented and targeted as effectively as possible, considering ETC specificities;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 b (new) 30b. Stresses the potential of using financial instruments in Interreg programmes that, through complementing grants, help to support SMEs and develop research and innovation, by increasing investment, creating new jobs, allowing better results to be achieved and boosting the effectiveness of projects;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 c (new) 30c. Deplores the low public awareness and insufficient visibility of ETC programmes, and calls for more effective communication of the achievements of completed projects; calls on the Commission, the Member States and the managing authorities to establish mechanisms and broad institutionalised platforms for cooperation in order to ensure better visibility and awareness- raising; calls on the Commission to map the achievements of the ETC programmes and projects so far;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas cohesion policy is confronted in the current period with many political and economic challenges, deriving both from the financial crisis, leading to a decrease in public investment in many Member States, leaving the ESI funds and co-financing by the Member States as the main tool for public investment in many Member States,
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31.
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31.
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Welcomes the code of conduct agreed during the negotiations on the current funding period, which outlines the minimum standards for a well-
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Welcomes the code of conduct agreed during the negotiations, which outlines the minimum standards for a well- functioning partnership; observes, however, that
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Welcomes the code of conduct agreed during the negotiations, which outlines the minimum standards for a well- functioning partnership; observes, however, that while the code has improved the implementation of the partnership principle in most Member States, many Member States have centralised large parts of the negotiation and implementation of the PAs and OPs, whereas it remains essential to ensure the active involvement of regional and local authorities and other stakeholders at all stages;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Welcomes the code of conduct agreed during the negotiations, which outlines the minimum standards for a well- functioning partnership; observes, however, that while the code has improved the implementation of the partnership principle in most Member States, many Member States have centralised large parts of the negotiation and implementation of the PAs and OPs; believes that over- centralisation and lack of trust can also play a role in delaying the implementation of ESI Funds, with some Member States and Managing Authorities less keen to place greater responsibility for management of EU funds in the hands of local and regional authorities;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Welcomes the code of conduct agreed during the negotiations, which outlines the minimum standards for a well- functioning partnership; observes, however, that while the code has improved the implementation of the partnership principle in most Member States, many Member States have centralised large parts of the negotiation and implementation of the PAs and OPs; therefore, calls to guarantee in the future a real involvement of local and regional authorities in the negotiation and implementation process in respect of countries specific structures;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. Supports the Commission’s new approach of setting up special working groups, that is to say, project teams intended to ensure better management of ESI Funds in Member States, and calls for this approach to be developed further;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Subheading 32 a (new) 32a. Stresses that future cohesion policy must incorporate supporting measures to help refugees integrate successfully into the EU’s labour market, thus promoting economic growth and helping to ensure general safety in the EU;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas unemployment - in particular youth unemployment - remains very high in many Member States, despite all efforts, and cohesion policy must provide answers to this too;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Emphasises that
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Emphasises that ESI Funds contribute to GDP in
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Emphasises that ESI Funds have been earmarked for measures to contribute to GDP in many Member States, an essential element to be considered in the 7th Cohesion Report, to be expected in 2017;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Emphasises that ESI Funds contribute to GDP, jobs and growth in many Member States, an essential element to be considered in the 7th Cohesion Report, to be expected in 2017;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Emphasises that ESI Funds contribute to GDP in many Member States, an essential element to be considered in the 7th Cohesion Report, to be expected in 2017; is of the opinion that the 7th Cohesion Report should also take account of the possible impact of ‘Brexit’ on structural policy;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 a (new) 33a. Recalls that a substantial amount of public investment is made at local and regional level; stresses that the European System of Accounts (ESA) must not limit local and regional authorities' ability to undertake necessary investments, which would consequently prevent them from providing the co-financing needed for ESIF projects, ultimately leading to a decline of public investment; strongly encourages the Commission to reassess the ESA's strictly annual approach so that public expenditure is considered as capital investment and not merely as debt or operating expenses;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 a (new) 33a. Considers that the fight against youth unemployment, social inclusion and the future demographic challenges that Europe is facing nowadays and in the mid-term future should be the main areas where cohesion policy should be focused;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 a (new) 33a. Points to the need to consider seeking new indicators that go beyond GDP, including for example the Human Development Index and the Regional Social Progress Index;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Recalls that the ETC, which serves the broader principle of territorial cohesion, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty,
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Ζ Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. Recalls that the ETC, which serves the broader principle of territorial cohesion, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, is not yet properly applied; therefore encourages all stakeholders involved in negotiations on the future policy to strengthen territorial cohesion; calls on the Commission to give ETC, the opportunities it provides and its legal instruments the focus they deserve in the 7th Cohesion Report;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35.
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. Considers that thematic concentration must be maintained in the future
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Is convinced that the future
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Is convinced that the future
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 36. Is convinced that the future performance-oriented cohesion policy must be founded on data and indicators appropriate for measuring efforts, outcomes and impacts achieved; underlines that past experience in the area (performance-based budgeting, ex-ante conditionalities and thematic concentration)
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Underlines that faster take-up of the available funds is
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Underlines that faster take-up of the available funds is needed in future; takes the view that after adoption of the
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37. Underlines that faster take-up of the available funds is needed
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37a. Insists that the legislative process to adopt the next MFF should be concluded by the end of 2018 so that the regulatory framework for future cohesion policy can be adopted swiftly after that and start without delay on 1 January 2021;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37a. Takes the view that the cohesion policy should continue to cover all Member States and all of Europe’s regions, and that simplifying arrangements for access to EU funds is an essential prerequisite for the future success of the cohesion policy;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37a. Expresses the need for a further assessment how ESIF funding contributes to the implementation of structural reforms by Member States, in particular to those which were put forward in CSRs;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Believes that the spirit of innovation and smart specialisation
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Believes that the spirit of innovation
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Believes that the spirit of innovation and smart specialisation as well as sustainable development must remain an important driver of cohesion policy;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. Believes that the spirit of innovation and smart specialisation must remain an important driver of cohesion policy;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 a (new) 38a. Is concerned at the fact that, in the 2017 EU budget, there is again a huge gap in appropriations for heading 1b (economic, social and territorial cohesion) between commitments and payments and that, as a result, there will inevitably be payment backlogs again; calls on the legislative authority and the Commission to guarantee both sufficient overall cohesion policy funding in annual budgets and under the next multiannual financial framework and a sustainable balance between commitments and payments;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 a (new) 38a. Recommends to the Commission that it analyse the real impact of ESI fund investment during the previous programming period and the extent to which European objectives have been achieved through the funds invested, and that it draw conclusions in relation to positive and negative experiences as a starting point in order to add value to the investment process;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 a (new) 38a. Points out that in some Member States there are still regions whose development is lagging significantly behind and that their specific needs must be taken into account when preparing for the future programming period;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas cohesion policy in the programming period 2014-2020 has gained a more focused policy approach through thematic concentration, supporting the priorities
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas cohesion policy in the programming period 2014-2020 has gained a more focused policy approach through thematic concentration
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas cohesion policy in the programming period 2014-2020 has gained a more focused policy approach through thematic concentration
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the ESI Funds in th
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the ESI Funds in this period are more strongly results-oriented and built on an investment environment allowing for more effectiveness and better prevention of misuse or misallocation;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 17 a (new) - having regard to the study by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies (Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies) of September 2016 entitled "Evaluation of the Report under Article 16(3) of the CPR",
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Η Η. whereas the ESI Funds in this period
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas there is a stronger alignment of investment under cohesion policy with the priorities of the EU 2020 strategy
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas there
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas the purpose of assistance must be to improve social well-being by helping to increase employment rates, combating exclusion and poverty and promoting high levels of social protection and high-quality health and education services.
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas the Task Force for Better Implementation has helped to ease bottlenecks and backlogs in the allocation of funds;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Notes that Europe has been going through a difficult phase in
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Notes that Europe
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Notes that Europe has been going through a difficult phase in both economic and political terms, so that a
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Notes that Europe has been going through a difficult phase in both economic and political terms, so that a decent investment policy that is close to citizens is needed more than ever, seeking to tackle unemployment and social inequalities within the Union;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Notes that Europe has been going through a difficult phase in both economic and political terms, so that a decent investment policy that is close to citizens and more commensurate with the real needs and vocations of local areas is needed now more than ever;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas cohesion policy is the most visible expression of solidarity between Member States and regions in the EU and represents a significant part of the European Union (EU) budget, amounting to approximately one third of its entire expenditure;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Notes that Europe has been going through a difficult phase in both economic and political terms, so that a decent investment policy that is close to citizens is needed more than ever; to regain the trust of its citizens, the EU must initiate adjustment processes whilst meeting the requirements laid down in Article 9 TFEU. In particular, that should involve a proactive public investment policy.
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Notes that cohesion policy 2014- 2020 has
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Notes that cohesion policy 2014- 2020 has been thoroughly reworked, requiring a change in mentality and
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Notes that cohesion policy 2014- 2020 has been thoroughly reworked, requiring a change in mentality and working methods at all levels of governance including horizontal coordination and involvement of stakeholders, but that it is often perceived as a traditional expenditure policy rather than an investment policy;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Notes that cohesion policy 2014- 2020 has been thoroughly reworked, requiring a change in mentality and working methods at all levels of governance, but that it is often perceived as a traditional expenditure policy rather than a
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Observes that
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Observes that the key communication on cohesion policy projects should focus on solidarity, European added value and the visibility of success stories; insists that communication on the subject of the ESI Funds should be modernised and intensified;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Observes that the key communication on cohesion policy projects should focus on European added value and the visibility of success stories, whilst underlining the importance of learning from projects that fail to achieve their objectives; insists that communication on the subject of the ESI Funds should be modernised and intensified;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Observes that the key communication on cohesion policy projects should focus on European added value and the visibility of success stories; insists that communication on the subject of the ESI Funds should be modernised and intensified; considers it necessary, in order to make cohesion policy genuinely more credible again, to highlight sufficiently both 'good' and 'bad' practices, through databases that go beyond providing a scant description of the project and the expenditure incurred, thus enabling citizens to check effectively both the added value and value of most of the projects implemented and, in certain cases, their lack of usefulness in relation to a given local area;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Observes that the key communication on cohesion policy projects should focus on European added value and the visibility of success stories; insists that communication on the subject of the ESI Funds should be modernised and intensified; stresses the need to identify and implement new tools for communicating the results of cohesion policy;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Β Β. whereas, with a budget of EUR 454 billion for the period 2014-2020, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds)
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the fact that in order to improve communication on, and the visibility of ESI Funds, greater focus
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the fact that in order to improve communication on, and the visibility of ESI Funds, greater focus could be placed on participation by stakeholders and recipients, and on involving citizens in
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the fact that in order to improve communication on, and the visibility of ESI Funds, greater focus could be placed on participation by stakeholders and recipients, and on involving citizens in cohesion policy; additionally, urges the Commission, Member States, regions and cities to communicate more about the achievements of cohesion policy and to come forward with a targeted action plan;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Highlights the fact that in order to improve communication on, and the visibility of ESI Funds, greater focus could be placed on participation by stakeholders and recipients, and on involving citizens in cohesion policy; additionally, urges the Commission to communicate more about both the achievements of cohesion policy and where lessons can be learned;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Welcomes thematic concentration, as it has
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Welcomes thematic concentration, as it has turned out to be a good tool for creating a focused policy and resulting effectiveness for the EU priorities and the EU 2020 strategy, enhancing the process of converting knowledge into innovation, jobs and growth;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Welcomes thematic concentration, as it has turned out to be a good tool for creating a focused policy and the resulting greater effectiveness for the EU priorities and the EU 2020 strategy;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that an analysis of thematic concentration should point out how the strategic choices of Member States and allocation of resources across TOs meet the specific needs of the territories; regrets that this aspect is less apparent in the Commission's Article 16 report;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas, with a budget of EUR 454 billion for the period 2014-2020, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are the EU’s main investment policy tool and a vital source of public investment in many Member States;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that the results and benefits of cohesion policy need to be put across more effectively, not least in order to restore confidence in the European project;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Insists that cohesion policy should
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to have thematic focus
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Insists that cohesion policy
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to have thematic focus, while allowing for
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to have thematic focus, while allowing for some degree of flexibility in order to take on board the specific needs of each region, as well as the specific needs of the least developed regions in less developed Member States;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Insists that cohesion policy should continue to have thematic focus, while allowing for some degree of flexibility in order to take on board the specific needs of each region; calls for continued structural fund investment in transition regions so as not to undermine what has been achieved by the resources and efforts already deployed;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’ and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas, with a budget of EUR 454 billion for the period 2014-2020, the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are the EU’s main investment policy tool, targeting more jobs, growth and investment across the EU;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’ and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps (northernmost regions with very low population density, and cross-border, insular, mountainous or outermost regions); recalls in this context that it is important to support new policy challenges
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’, transition regions and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps (northernmost regions with very low population density, and cross-border, insular, mountainous or outermost regions); recalls in this context that it is important to support new policy challenges, such as immigration, as well as the broadly understood digital dimension of cohesion policy (including ICT and broadband access issues, which are linked to the completion of the Digital Single Market); points to the E
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’ and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps (northernmost regions with very low population density, and cross-border, insular, mountainous or outermost regions) and appropriate specific support policies should be drawn up for the development of these areas; recalls in this context that it is important to support new policy challenges, such as immigration, as well as the broadly understood digital dimension of cohesion policy (including ICT and broadband access issues, which are linked to the completion of the Digital Single Market); points to the Energy Union Strategy, as the ESI Funds have an important role to play in its delivery;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’ and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps (northernmost regions with very low population density, and cross-border, insular, mountainous or outermost regions), which without cohesion policy would hardly be able to catch up with developed countries; recalls in this context that it is important to support new policy challenges, such as immigration, as well as the broadly understood digital dimension of cohesion policy (including ICT and broadband access issues, which are linked to the completion of the Digital Single Market); points to the Energy Union Strategy, as the ESI Funds have an important role to play in its delivery;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’ and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps (northernmost regions with very low population density, and cross-border, insular, mountainous or outermost regions); considers that more attention should be given to sub-regional areas with considerable accumulation of challenges often found in pockets of poverty, segregated communities and deprived neighbourhoods with an overrepresentation of marginalised groups such as Roma; recalls in this context that it is important to support new policy challenges, such as immigration, as well as the broadly understood digital dimension of cohesion policy (including ICT and broadband access issues, which are linked to the completion of the Digital Single Market); points to the Energy Union Strategy, as the ESI Funds have an important role to play in its delivery;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Underlines, in particular, that consideration should be given to the circumstances of the distinctively urban or rural regions, the so-called ‘lagging regions’ and regions with permanent natural or geographical handicaps (northernmost regions with very low population density, and cross-border, insular, mountainous or outermost regions); calls on the Commission to pursue and expand strategies to implement an urban agenda together with local authorities and metropolitan regions as EU growth centres; recalls in this context that it is important to support new policy challenges, such as immigration, as well as the broadly understood digital dimension of cohesion policy (including ICT and broadband access issues, which are linked to the completion of the Digital Single Market); points to the Energy Union Strategy, as the ESI Funds have an important role to play in its delivery;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the negotiations for PAs and Operational Programmes (OPs) for the period 2014-2020 have
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Supports the gradual shift from a focus on infrastructure-related projects towards a focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion while respecting the specific needs of regions as the development of infrastructure is still necessary in many regions (sometimes even in the most developed ones) and market-based solutions are not always feasible;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Supports the shift from a focus on infrastructure-related projects towards a focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion and on capacity building and empowering of actors including from civil society;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Supports the shift from a focus on infrastructure-related projects towards a focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion, taking into account the specific features of less developed regions;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Supports the shift from a focus on major infrastructure-related projects towards a focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Supports the shift from a focus on infrastructure-related projects towards a focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion; although considers that there should be flexibility in order that each Member state will make the investments according to their priorities to promote its economic, social and territorial development;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Supports the shift from a focus on infrastructure-related projects towards a focus on stimulating the knowledge economy, innovation and social inclusion; taking into consideration the regions that still need support in the field of infrastructural development;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Underlines that the overall climate change rate for the ESI Funds hides considerable differences between the funds and between the Member States with some of them below the 20% spending target and the potential of ESF for green jobs particularly untapped; calls on the Commission to improve monitoring and evaluation on the integration and mainstreaming of horizontal principles during implementation, in particular the methodology for tracking of climate- related expenditure;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. C
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Considers that ex-ante conditionalities, in particular the one on Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3),
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Considers
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the negotiations for PAs and Operational Programmes (OPs) for the period 2014-2020 ha
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Considers that ex-ante conditionalities, in particular the one on Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3), have proved their usefulness, and suggests that they be further improved; underlines that effective monitoring of ex-ante conditionalities is necessary to record efforts and achievements, particularly in case ex-ante conditionalities have not been met at the moment of adoption of programmes and therefore required actions to be taken by Member States;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. D
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Draws attention to the fact that 25 per cent of ex-ante conditionalities have not yet been fulfilled; calls, therefore
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Draws attention to the fact that 25 per cent of ex-ante conditionalities have not yet been fulfilled; calls, therefore, for
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Emphasises that the regulatory framework for the period 2014-2020 and the PAs have led to a
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Emphasises that the regulatory
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Emphasises that the regulatory framework for the period 2014-2020 and the PAs have led to a strongly results- oriented focus in cohesion programmes; welcomes the introduction of common indicators which should allow measuring and benchmarking results; considers that work on indicators has to continue in order to improve evidence on ESIF spending and also to contribute to optimize project selection;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Points to
source: 589.248
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2016-09-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
2016-09-22Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
REGI/8/07019
|
2016-09-17Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|