7 Amendments of Jean-Paul DENANOT related to 2017/2279(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the crucial role cohesion policy has played in the achievement of economic and social convergence in the EU; stresses its potential for creating a European standard on social rights within the Union and its mission of providing support in the restructuring of European economies, to help them adapt to the technological revolution and cope with population aging and the opening up of European and world markets; stresses, in this regard, that it is a beacon of European solidarity, something that it must continue to embody; expresses concern, however, that inequalities persist between rich and poor regions and between the salaries of the social categories of citizens, and that many regions classed as ‘intermediate’ have suffered general impoverishment; stresses that neither the objectives nor the EU funding of cohesion policy should be watered down; questions whether cohesion policy funding should be conditional on respect for the rule of law, which could penalise final contributors while reinforcing measures taken at national level;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the shortcomings of the financial planning and implementation system, which have led to the accumulation of unpaid bills and to a form of fraudulent budgeting that runs counter to the spirit of the Treaties; expresses concern at the significant delays in the adoption of operational programmes and in the designation of management, payment and certification authorities for cohesion policy, which have led to extremely low absorption rates of cohesion policy in the current programming period with the project organisers themselves bearing the brunt of the effects; calls in this connection for the simplification begun as part of the review of the Financial Regulation in force since 1 January 2016 to be enhanced, in particular by placing greater emphasis on ex-post checks and harmonising procedures at the level of each fund and introducing greater flexibility in the next multiannual financial framework; stresses that the level of payment appropriations should at least match past commitments, with a view to continuing to support the creativity of our regions;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that financial instruments in EU cohesion policy should not replace direct grants and aid, but should be treated as complementary tools; emphasises in this connection that the ESI funds and EFSI are managed according to different approaches, and that cooperation between these two funds could be beneficial for large-scale projects, but that such links must in no way undermine the strategic coherence, territorial concentration and long-term prospects of cohesion policy programmes;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the legislative proposals for the next MFF should be submitted as soon as possible to avoid delays in the programming for the next period; Takes the view that cohesion policy ceilings should be raised so that the EU can finally have all the funds it needs to meet its objectives and priorities, as set out under the Treaties; points out that cohesion policy is supposed to protect the public from the negative effects of globalisation and provide financial assistance to SMEs, support research and cooperation projects, promote participation in initiatives to develop human capital, and that it must therefore remain strong, effective and visible for citizens;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that cohesion policy should benefit all regions, in particular those with the greatest development delays and the Outermost Regions, and that in the most developed regions it should be directed towards the peripheral areas, which are most affected by poverty and are the least attractive in terms of development., providing in particular aid for infrastructure with a view to putting an end to their isolation; takes the view in this regard that co-financing for investments made as part of regional policy must be removed for the purposes of calculating Member States’ deficits under the Stability and Growth Pact;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Emphasises that financial instruments can be an effective lever and that they should be promoted if they generate added value; stresses, however, that their effectiveness hinges on many factors (nature of the project, of the territory or of the risk) and that all regions, regardless of their level of development, must be free to determuture cohesion policy must establish the right balance between grants and financial instruments, bearing complementarity, efficiency and local circumstances in mind; takes the view, in particular, that logical conclusions should be drawn from the Commission report entitled ‘Financial instruments under the European Structural and Investment Funds’, published in December 2017, and that financial instruments should in future be less widely used for the programmes upon which they have the least impact, i.e. the ESF and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development; opposes any bindineg the most appropriate method of financing; opposes any binding targets for the use of financial instruments; argets for the use of financial instruments and points out that grants, which have been shown to be most effective in a number public policy areas, must be maintained as the main instrument of cohesion policy;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Believes that it is both legitimate and necessary to establish a link between cohesion policy and the guarantee of an environment conducive to investment, effectiveness and the proper use of funds, while stressing that cohesion policy is not meant to be reduced to an instrument for serving priorities without reference to its objectivesAcknowledges the value of coordinating cohesion policy and the EU’s macroeconomic policies, while stressing that cohesion policy is not meant merely to be a European Semester instrument; expresses its support for a balanced link with economic governance where this helps to maximise the impact of ESI Funds; calls on the Commission to overhaul the European Semester and to ensure they are used correctly; calls on the Commission to strengthen itsthe territorial dimension and take account of other factors which contribute to the achievement of cohesion objectives,of the European Semester by making it more flexible and taking into account factors such as real convergence;