11 Amendments of Victor BOŞTINARU related to 2014/2245(INI)
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that cohesion policy investments have cushioned, while pursuing their institutional objectives of reducing development gaps and promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion, have also significantly cushioned the negative effects of the economic and financial crisis and hasve given stability to regions by ensuring the flow of funding when national and regional public and private investments fell sharply;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses its serious concern about the significant delay in the implementation of cohesion policy 2014-2020, including the delay in adoption of Operational Programmes, with only just over 100 Operational Programmes adopted at the end of 2014 and a small number adopted in 2015 through the carry-over procedure, as well as a backlog in payments amounting to ca EUR 25 billion for the 2007-2013 programming period; stresses that these delays are undermining the credibility of cohesion policy, effectiveness and sustainability, challenging national, regional and local authorities’ capacity to plan effectively and implement the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) for the 2014- 2020 period; calls on the Commission to make use of all its resources, to make sure that all remaining Operational Programmes are adopted with no further delay once the MFF revision necessary to use unallocated 2014 resources, and the accompanying Draft Amending Budget are adopted;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the aforementioned backlog under Heading 1b of the EU budget is in fact the most important immediate factor endangering the implementation of cohesion policy, both in the previous and, prospectively, in the current 2014-2020 programming period; reiterates that the impact of this backlog is felt forcefully by the cohesion policy actors on the ground, sometimes to the extreme; calls, therefore, on the Commission to elaborate a roadmap, envisaging a specific timeline of concrete, step-by-step policy actions, backed up by singled-out budgetary means, in order to reduce, and then eliminate, the backlog; hopes the Council will finally realize the seriousness and unsustainability of the situation, and be ready to actively contribute to a stable solution of the problem; is convinced that the first objective of these actions ought to be making 2015 the year in which this backlog reduction is felt in a tangible manner;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that it is imperative to start the implementation of the Operational Programmes as soon as they are adopted, in order to maximise the results of the investments, boost job creation and raise productivity growth, and that the Commission and the Member States should do their utmost to speed up their adoption; demands that the Commission – while keeping a high focus on quality and the need to keep up the fight against fraud – analyses all possible ways of streamlining its internal procedures in order to ensure that Operational Programmes resubmitted after the deadline of 24 November 2014 are also taken into consideration; is awarespeed up procedures based on thate two scenarios are envisaged for the adoption of Operational Programmes, both implyingto avoid any further delays as regardsin the start of implementation;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Warns, however, that the EFSI should not undermine the strategic coherence and long-term perspective of cohesion policy programming; stresses that a re-direction of Structural Funds would be counterproductive, putting and can therefore not be accepted, as it would put their effectiveness – and the development of the regions – at risk; points out that the financial allocations to Member States agreed on under Heading 1b in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014- 2020 cannot be modified in response to potential needs of the EFSI; emphasises that the replacement of grants by loans, equity or guarantees, while having certain advantages, must be carried out with caution, taking into account regional disparities; points out that the regions most in need of investment stimuli often have low administrative and absorption capacities;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises, in this context, Parliament’s responsibility to controlbe fully involved and to control and scrutinize; demands that the Commission and the Council provide full, transparent and timely information on the criteria for, and on the entire procedure that could trigger, a suspension of commitments or payments of the ESIF in accordance with in Article 23(15) of the Common Provisions Regulation;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Warns that the alarming rates of youth unemployment threaten to bring about the loss of an entire generation; insists that advancing the integration of young people into the job market must remain a top priority, to the attainment of which the integrated use of the ESF, ERDF and the ERDFCohesion Fund can make a major contribution; considers that a more results- oriented approach should be taken in this regard to ensure the most effective use of available resources;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Stresses the importance of the European Social Fund with the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative, which must sustain as many viable job-creation projects as possible, in the form of business initiatives for example;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Emphasises that cohesion policy needs to be conducted within the spirit of properly functioning multi-level governance, combined with an effective set-up for responding to the requests of the public and businesses, and with transparent and innovative public procurement, all of which is crucial to enhancing the policy’s impact; stresses, in this regard, that, notwithstanding the importance of decisions taken at EU and Member State levels, local and regional authorities often have primary administrative responsibility for public investment, and that cohesion policy is a vital tool enabling these authorities to boost development in their territories, and therefore play a key role in the EU; stresses that this level of responsibility should be taken into consideration, in keeping with the partnership principle;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Is convinced that the Code of Conduct on Partnership will strengthen participation in programming in the regions, in form and substance, and must be fully implemented as it has a fundamental role to play in boosting the effects of cohesion policy and consolidating its impact;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Stresses the importance of macroregional strategies, which allow regions facing a common issue to address them in a more strategic and coordinated way, favouring the achievement of Cohesion Policy objectives in the most appropriate and targeted way; points out on the important results already achieved by macroregional strategies, and encourages increased attention and support towards them;