11 Amendments of Ruža TOMAŠIĆ related to 2015/2353(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises the need for effectiveness and result-orientation of cohesion policy; recalls that due to late agreement on the MFF, the starts of its implementation was delayed; therefore, stresses that the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds are at an early stage of implementation in 2016 and that at the time of the MFF review/revision only limited evidence is available as to results;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Highlights that the implementation of the 2014-2020 MFF has already proven to be challenging in the first two years and the budgetary authority has already had to resort to almost all the special levers and flexibility instruments provided for in the MFF Regulation;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Reminds that full policy lessons learned from a previous programming period are not yet available when the current period is at an early stage of implementation and reflections on future proposals and positions need to start;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Calls on the Commission to draw concrete lessons on how the EU budget is being spent and whether is delivering on key policy priorities and to present mid- term evaluation reports in the course of 2017;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Stresses that the findings of the MFF review-revision should serve as the basis for the legislative revision of the MFF Regulation;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the improvedReminds that in order to encourage better performance in the current period, synergies and coordination among the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other EU instruments, which is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of the EU budget still need to be emphasised and improved;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Reminds that in the context of the MFF review-revision simplification is highlighted as a crucial issue because administrative burden is a cross-cutting issue, raising important questions about the future of cohesion policy, the model of shared management and also the concepts linked to performance and result orientations;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future, however, stresses that grants should not be side-lined in favour of financial instruments; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future because there is a risk that the opportunities are lost due to poorly designed financial instruments, leading to little use and impact;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that avoidStresses that the reduced MFF had to absorb the abnormal backlog of payments that had built up since 2011; therefore, points that preventing a backlog of payments in future is crucial to ensuring successful implementation of EU cohesion policy;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses that a well-funded Cohesion Policy to support regional development and cohesion in the EU will continue to be in demand and that, according to the recent ESPON study modelling future territorial development scenarios across the EU, growing disparities are predicted between the core and periphery (southern and eastern) countries and regions as well as large labour migration and depopulation in many Central and Eastern European regions;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Emphasises that the MFF review/revision should be concluded promptly to allow enough time to prepare the Commission proposals for the post- 2020 MFF;