2013/2042(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)

– having regard to the IMF’s October 2012 World Economic Outlook,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital N

N. whereas ~~the~~national public co-financing of the programmes supported by Cohesion Policy can be jeopardised by lack of flexibility in the application of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), with the result that Cohesion Policy cannot be brought to bear to such useful effect to improve competitiveness and overcome the current crisis;

Amendment 11 #

Oldřich VLASÁK, Tomasz Piotr PORĘBA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes with great concern the clear pattern of rising regional inequality in the EU today, with relatively poor regions in the New Member States and Southern Europe and rich regions in Central and Northern Europe, as well as rising inequalities within Member States and regions;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Notes with great concern the clear pattern of rising regional inequality in the EU today, with many relatively poor regions in the New Member States and Southern Europe and majority of rich regions in Central and Northern Europe;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Believes Cohesion Policy, as the main tool for investment aimed at convergence and sustainable development in the European Union, to constitute one of the EU’s main channels of support for its regions;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Reiterates the importance of Cohesion Policy as the main investment instrument, playing a central role in fighting the crisis and engaging the EU and its regions on a path of sustainable growth; hence underlines the importance of securing sufficient budgetary provisions in the context of the MFF negotiations to the Structural and Investment Funds, noting in particular their key share of investment in a range of areas such as employment, innovation, sustainable development, eco- innovation, the promotion of renewable energies and support to SMEs;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Reiterates the importance of Cohesion Policy as the Community’s main investment instrument, playing a central role in fighting the crisis and engaging the EU and its regions on a path of sustainable growth; hence underlines the importance of securing sufficient budgetary provisions in the context of the MFF negotiations to the Structural and Investment Funds, noting in particular their key share of investment in a range of areas such as employment, innovation, sustainable development and support to SMEs;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Reiterates the importance of Cohesion Policy as the main investment instrument, playing a central role in fighting the crisis, reducing imbalances and engaging the EU and its regions on a path of sustainable growth; hence underlines the importance of securing sufficient budgetary provisions in the context of the MFF negotiations to the Structural and Investment Funds, noting in particular their key share of investment in a range of areas such as employment, innovation, sustainable development and support to SMEs;

Amendment 17 #

Dimitar STOYANOV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Reiterates the importance of Cohesion Policy as the main investment instrument, playing a central role in fighting the crisis and engaging the EU and its regions on a path of sustainable growth; hence underlines the importance of securing sufficient budgetary provisions in the context of the MFF negotiations to the Structural and Investment Funds, noting in particular their key share of investment in ~~a range of~~specific areas such as employment, training, the application of existing innovations, sustainable development and support to SMEs, aimed at avoiding the unnecessary outlaying of limited financial resources,;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that Cohesion Policy proved resilient to the crisis, adapting its programmes and funding instruments and thus providing greater flexibility and making a crucial contribution in areas where investment is needed for economic modernisation and improved competitiveness and for reducing disparities due to geographic handicaps;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that Cohesion Policy proved resilient to the crisis, adapting its programmes and funding instruments and thus providing greater flexibility and making a crucial contribution in areas where investment is needed for economic modernisation and improved competitiveness; recognises the fact that Cohesion Policy instruments can be used in fields which the national authorities are not able to deal with;

Amendment 2 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA, José Manuel FERNANDES

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the timing and severity of the crisis has varied to a great extent throughout the EU’s regions, emphasising pre-existing structural weaknesses and bringing a serious decline in GDP growth, record unemployment rates, major impoverishment of the most vulnerable in society and a deteriorated business climate and lowered consumer confidence;

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Maintains that regions with specific characteristics, such as the outermost regions, as referred to in Article 349 TFEU, and rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and island, cross- border, and mountain regions, as referred to in Article 174 TFEU, have to be given special attention as regards economic, social, and – above all – territorial cohesion objectives;

Amendment 21 #

Tomasz Piotr PORĘBA, Oldřich VLASÁK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the role played by several sub- national authorities in rebalancing the budget by keeping up the level of public investment and co-financing new projects and providing a leverage effect, especially when private investment is low; underlines the fact that at a time of recession and weak growth, sustainable public procurement and the capacity to finance/co- finance and incur commitments for investment isare crucial in order to maintain growth potential;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses that as regards the regulations for the European Structural and Investment Funds the VAT qualification, an adequate rate of the European co-financing as well as the level of initial pre-financing amount increased at least to the level of 2,5% compared to the original proposal of the European Commission would in future contribute significantly to the financial capacity of regional and local authorities to invest in their development and struggle with budgetary constrains;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Is concerned that the prolonged austerity measures and the strict economic governance carried out in 2011 and 2012, implying increased pressure and cuts on public budgets, risks reducing the scope for attaining quality of life standards for local communities and the scope for local policies targeted at fulfilling Europe 2020;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Believes that austerity measures, along with other adverse effects of the economic and financial crisis, constitute a serious impediment to implementing the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to the development of Europe’s regions, and for that precise reason should be avoided;

Amendment 25 #

Radvilė MORKŪNAITĖ-MIKULĖNIENĖ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the need to restore and improve financial capacity at sub-national level to secure public investment for programmes and projects aimed at boosting ~~growth~~sustainable growth, combating social exclusion and restoring the social fabric, providing adequate health and social services and securing jobs, especially at regional and local level;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the need to pinpoint technical assistance and financial support packages for local authority groupings, based on joint projects, in order to restore and improve financial capacity, at sub-national level, to secure public investment for programmes and projects aimed at boosting growth and securing jobs, especially at regional and local level;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the need to restore and improve financial capacity at sub-national level to secure public investment for programmes and projects aimed at boosting sustainable growth and securing jobs, especially at regional and local level;

Amendment 28 #

Nuno TEIXEIRA, José Manuel FERNANDES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the need to restore and improve financial capacity at sub-national level to secure public investment for programmes and projects aimed at boosting growth and securing jobs, especially at regional and local level; maintains that if the outermost regions and other regions with specific characteristics were to be to any extent deprived of their existing support, and if there were any moves to undermine the schemes compensating for the additional costs which they incur on account of their remoteness, or because they are islands, or to whittle away the specific measures relating to agriculture, fisheries, State aid, customs and trade, taxation, and free zones, the structural economic and social situation in these regions might worsen still further and their integration into the European internal market could consequently be held up, a fact which would make itself felt in terms of development, economic growth, and employment at regional level;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Insists on further strengthening of the administrative capacity of regional and local authorities, and on further efforts for reducing the red tape which also affects negatively these authorities in their role of beneficiaries, and additionally restricts their capacity to implement EU funded projects;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the fiscal compact has been shown to be inappropriate in facing the challenges of the crisis and a growth compact enabling significant investment across the Community is envisaged as the most viable solution, as there is a consensus today that fiscal austerity and budgetary cuts without investments do not revitalise the economy and will not create favourable conditions for job creation and economic growth;

Amendment 30 #

Oldřich VLASÁK

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Underlines the need to carry out an impact assessment of all legislative proposals proposed by the Commission which would include assessment of financial impact of the proposed act on the sub-national structures;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Highlights the need for greater synergies between national, sub-national and European public spending budgets through clear establishment of the roles and responsibilities of the different budgetary authorities at EU, Member State and sub- state level, including being clear about the role and rationale for EU policy and funding intervention, respecting the periods for payment fixed in the Late Payment Directive 2011/7/EU, respecting subsidiarity and the budgetary rights of local and regional authorities (their role in decision making and scrutiny), i.e. their democratic accountability to the communities that elect them, and ensuring the autonomy of each level of governance in determining priorities and ~~spend~~result and performance orientated spending as well as green accounting;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Reiterates the importance of the partnership between the central authorities and the regional and local authorities in setting priorities and providing the necessary co-financing for programs' implementation as a prerequisite for achieving maximum effect with limited resources;

Amendment 33 #

Alain CADEC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Emphasises the key role played by European Investment Bank (EIB) loan schemes in financing projects of European interest, and calls for greater synergy to be established between such schemes and the Structural Funds;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Strongly supports increased transparency inand simplification of budgetary processes at all levels of governance (including identifying sources of EU funding explicitly within national and sub-state budgets), as well as ensuring the availability of data at EU level on the spending profiles of EU funding programmes at regional level (where this is possible) but also clarifying how priorities and funding are aligned at EU, Member State and sub-state level towards agreed EU-level priorities;

Amendment 35 #

Alain CADEC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Asks the Commission to come up with a thorough analysis and assessment of the potential of the new means and sources of financing to support investment for growth, such as the bond market, the risk-sharing instrument and the use of innovative financial instruments;Linguistic amendment not affecting the English version

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Asks the Commission to come up with a thorough analysis and assessment of the potential of the new means and sources of financing to support investment for growth, such as the bond market, the risk-sharing instrument and the use of innovative financial instruments; calls on the Commission and EIB to consider finding and suggesting innovative ways to finance long-term investments of local and regional authorities;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Asks the Commission to come up with a thorough analysis and assessment of the potential of the new means and sources of financing to support investment for growth, such as the bond market, the risk-sharing instrument and the use of innovative financial instruments; stresses the need to attract private capital in order for investments to take the most responsible form possible;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Underlines the significance of JESSICA to support sustainable urban development and regeneration of urban areas through financial engineering mechanisms and calls for its wider use in the future programming period;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that further involving local authorities in the new European economic governance framework is crucial to improving coordination and achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; emphasises the importance of local and regional authority participation in the context of partnership contracts;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the EU-wide collapse in public finance triggered by the sovereign debt crisis caused austerity policies to become widespread; whereas their effects on local finances have been devastating, causing several budget lines to be reduced or moderated and heavily jeopardising the financing/co- financing capacities for productive investment of national, regional and local authorities;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Stresses the role that local and regional authorities could play in enhancing sustainable growth and job creation, restoring the social fabric and promoting renewable energy sources, smart grids and sustainable mobility;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Believes that urban and regional authorities should play a more prominent role in assessing local employment markets and in adjusting programmes to ensure increased employment;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Strongly reiterates its opposition to the introduction of a macroeconomic conditionality in the Cohesion Policy 2014- 2020 which would penalise regions and social groups already weakened by the crisis, with a suspension of payments possibly having disproportionate effects in some Member States and especially in regions, despite their full participation in the efforts to equilibrate public budgets; is particularly opposed to the pro-cyclical nature of such a measure, which would only serve to weaken states in financial difficulty and totally undermine any form of solidarity inherent to preserving macroeconomic balance within the Union;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Strongly reiterates its opposition to the introduction of a macroeconomic conditionality in the Cohesion Policy 2014- 2020 which would penalise regions and social groups already weakened by the crisis, with a suspension of payments possibly having disproportionate effects in some Member States and especially in regions, despite their full participation in the efforts to equilibrate public budgets; is of the opinion, moreover, that a punitive approach of that kind might not be understood by the public at large and could add to public distrust at a time when people are already being hit hard by the crisis and the effects of austerity policies;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Believes that in a period of retrenchment in public financing, there has to be a rethink regarding the principle of additionality, which should be implemented in line with the European economic governance framework, and hopes that this point will be discussed in the negotiations on Cohesion Policy after 2013;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Notes the IMF’s recent comments that austerity weakens countries in which it is applied unthinkingly, the reason being that when the global economic outlook is poor, precipitate government deficit reduction hampers recovery in the short term by lowering tax receipts and hence further exacerbating the deficit; agrees with the IMF that the emphasis, instead of being confined to fiscal consolidation, should be broadened with a view to balancing consolidation with growth;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)

12c. Welcomes the proposal from some Member States that the MFF negotiations should cover the subject of a ‘review clause’ for the years 2015 and 2016, whereby budgets could be increased while they were being implemented, in order to promote youth employment, SMEs, and other key sectors;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 48 #

Dimitar STOYANOV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Invites the Commission and the Member States to exploit all margins of flexibility to exploit the possibilities inherent in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) to balance productive public investment needs with fiscal discipline objectives, for example by excluding the aggregate volumes of national co-financing under the European Structural and Investment Funds from the limits imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact, or by basing calculations for the purposes of the Pact on a Member State’s net cash requirements, as opposed to gross requirements, that is to say, net of the taxes payable on real expenditure (most importantly VAT), or by phasing the two sources of programme financing (European and national) according to different timetables, so that the funding would be wholly European during the first years of a programme and come entirely from the national source during the final years, on the assumption that the individual Member State concerned would, by that point, have managed to achieve definite results in the policy of containing the debt-to-GDP ratio;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas major budget cuts in important fields and sectors are one of the biggest problems facing local and regional authorities in the current period;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Is of the opinion that public expenditure related to the implementation of programmes co-financed by the Structural and Investment Funds should be excluded from the SPGP limitations because they are expenditures devoted to supporting competitiveness, growth and job creation, and to meeting EU targets in respect of combating climate change;

Amendment 51 #

Salvatore CARONNA, Andrea COZZOLINO, Francesca BARRACCIU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Is of the opinion that public expenditure related to the implementation of programmes co-financed by the Structural and Investment Funds should be excluded from the ~~SPG limitation~~definition of SGP structural deficits because they are expenditures devoted to supporting competitiveness, growth and job creation;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ICalls ofn the ~~opinion~~Commission to ensure that public expenditure ~~related to the implementation of programmes co-financed by the Structural and Investment Funds should~~incurred by Member States by way of co-financing of programmes co-financed by the Structural Funds is not included in the public or equivalent structural expenditure taken into account under partnership agreements for the purpose of ascertaining that the Stability and Growth Pact is being complied with, given that the latter expenditure constitutes an obligation deriving directly from the observance of additionality, a principle central to Cohesion Policy; considers, therefore, that public expenditure incurred by Member States in the form of co- financing of programmes co-financed by the Structural Funds must be excluded from the SGP limitations because th~~ey are~~is is expenditures devoted to supporting competitiveness, growth and job creation, especially where youth employment is concerned;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Is of the opinion that~~Calls for public expenditure related to the implementation of programmes co- financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds ~~should be~~to be completely excluded from the SPGP limitations because they are expenditures devoted to supporting competitiveness, growth and job creation;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Urges the Commission and the Member States to take into consideration in the context of the current negotiations on the future Economic and Monetary Union, all margins of flexibility in the macro- economic governance framework in order to allow for productive and sustainable investment, in particular by rethinking the relationship between the Stability and Growth Pact and productive and sustainable public investment and excluding public expenditure related to the implementation of programmes co- financed by the Structural and Investment Funds in the framework of growth-friendly policies from the budgetary surveillance rules under the Stability and Growth Pact;

Amendment 6 #

Oldřich VLASÁK

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas in the EU, investment has acted as an adjustment variable in two out of three countries, partly owing to efforts made in 2009 to combat the crises; whereas direct investment dropped in 2011 compared to 2010 in 17 Member States, of which by more than 10% in ~~eight~~ten countries, in~~cluding Greece, Portugal Spain, Italy and Ireland~~ 2011 (Austria, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Greece, Hungary and Spain); whereas the drop in investment which began in 2010 (investment grants by central governments plunged by - 8.7%) is continuing and seems to be entering a negative spiral;

Amendment 7 #

Oldřich VLASÁK

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas the level of indebtedness of sub-national governments is well below the level of indebtedness of national actors;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)

Ma. whereas the EU Structural Fund uptake arrangements are such that the Commission can reimburse interim payments only on the basis of declarations of expenditure paid out in Member States;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital M b (new)

Mb. whereas national public co-financing under the Structural Funds in EU-27 for the 2007-2013 programming period amounts to approximately EUR 132 billion, and whereas that figure constitutes a sine qua non for proper take- up of the Funds and for investment of a high quality serving to strengthen ownership and accountability in the use of EU funding;

source: PE-513.144

2013/06/07 BUDG 46 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Points out that there can be no cohesion policy if the so-called austerity is maintained and intensified and production capacity is destroyed in the Member States being bailed out by the Troika (the Commission, the ECB, and the IMF), given that the end effect will be to increase unemployment and poverty, strip them of resources, and exacerbate their dependence;

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that, in a time of increasing demand for social services as a result of the crisis, financial pressure on regional and local authorities due to financial constraints ~~may~~is haveing a negative effect on social cohesion, education and employment, therefore preventing the achievement of the Europe 2020 goals;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses the belief that ~~thematic concentration on a small number of priorities is n~~greater support needs to be provided to Member States, especially those being pushed into economic recess~~ary~~ion; stresses~~, however, that flexibil~~ that ity is ~~required~~necessary to allow ~~Member States and regions to respond~~ for the specific features and needs of the Member States, supporting the ~~most effective way to common targets, while also respecting territorial, economic and social specific~~ir regional and local authorities and their economic, social, environmental, and territorial development priorities. ;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Believes that cohesion spending should provide appropriate flexibility to allow Member States address their own specific policy bottle necks in order to achieve the EU 2020 targets;

Amendment 11 #

László SURJÁN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 1 (new)

- Urges that open questions during MFF negotiations should be solved as soon as possible, because any further delay can increase Euro-scepticism and provides an image of failure on the functioning of the European Union’s institutions. It also brings a bad message before next year’s European elections.

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines the special role of the ESF in implementing the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular by contributing to high levels of ~~employment, productivity and~~sustainable employment, combating poverty and social exclusion and increasing social cohesion;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines the special role of the ESF in supporting social investment and in implementing the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular by contributing to high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Highlights that at the end of 2012, EUR 4,2 billion payment claims could not be honoured for the European Social Fund and are being paid using the 2013 envelope; stresses the negative impact of such rolling over on the implementation on the treasury situation of local and regional authorities and of beneficiaries; stresses further that the EUR 3 253 million foreseen for the ESF in the draft amending budget No 2/2013 is a bare minimum and therefore demands a political engagement from the Council that all legal obligations due in 2013 will be paid out by the end of this year;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls ~~for~~on the ~~reduction of the overall level of~~Council to take the appropriate steps necessary to address the ongoing situation with reste à liquider (RAL), which constitutes a serious threat to the effective use of cohesion policy ~~resources and therefo~~, which will hinder future hin~~ders their job creation potential~~vestments in growth and employment;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls for the reduction of the overall level of reste à liquider (RAL), which constitutes a serious threat to the effective use of cohesion policy resources and therefore hinders their job creation potential; calls on Member States in this regard to support regional and local authorities in making the best possible use of available Cohesion and Structural Funds resources, through sound planning of projects and applications, and ensuring that co-financing is properly supported;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that cohesion policy is an important factor boosting public and private investment~~, thus contributing to economic growth in the Union as a whole and not only in the regions directly benefitting from it~~ for sustainable development and social cohesion; calls on Member States to ensure that local actors are, even in times of crisis, still provided with the necessary financial resources in order to be able to use EU Structural Funds;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that cohesion policy is an important factor boosting public and private investment, thus contributing simultaneously to economic growth in the Union as a whole and ~~not only in~~to the catching up of the regions directly benefitting from it;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that cohesion policy is an important factor boosting public and private investment and demand, thus contributing to economic growth and employment in the Union as a whole and not only in the regions directly benefitting from it;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that cohesion policy is an important factor boosting public and private investment, with the potential to develop good governance and public participation at all levels, thus contributing to economic growth in the Union as a whole and not only in the regions directly benefitting from it;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that cohesion policy could plays a crucial role in promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion, boosting jobs and growth and reducing macroeconomic imbalances and inequalities between countries;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that, in a time of increasing demand for social services, financial pressure on regional and local authorities due to financial constrains ~~may~~is haveing a negative effect on social cohesion and employment, therefore preventing the achievement of the Europe 2020 goals;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that cohesion policy is an important factor boosting public and private investment, thus contributing to economic growth in the Union as a whole and not only in the regions directly benefitting from it, thereby ensuring solidarity between peoples and territories;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Strongly supports a shift in spending priorities to ensure Member States invest in long term growth, including an investment in small, medium and micro sized enterprises who can play an important role in developing Member States competitiveness;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Stresses that local economy is a key factor for recovery for communities, which is important in the current situation of crisis; highlights in this context particularly the economic and social effects of the social economy for improving the social cohesion at local level; calls upon Member States to provide funding opportunities for the social economy in the Structural Funds for the period 2014-2020;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Stresses the role that local and regional authorities could play in enhancing sustainable growth and job creation, restoring the social fabric and promoting renewable energy sources, smart grids and sustainable mobility;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that EU economic governance should be flexible enough to allow for ~~the pro-~~sustainable growth and job- creating investments supported by cohesion policy, in order to tackle the enormous rate of youth unemployment and fight poverty and social exclusion;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that EU economic governance should be flexible enough to ~~allow~~maximise the potential for the pro-growth and job-creating investments supported by cohesion policy, leading to sustainable productive investment;

Amendment 26 #

Sari ESSAYAH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that EU economic governance should be flexible enough to allow for the pro-growth and job-creating investments supported by cohesion policy, when these do not cause exceeding the debt and deficit levels agreed in the renewed the Stability and Growth Pact;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Underlines that EU economic governance should be flexible enough to allow for the pro-growth and job-creating investments supported by cohesion policy; is of the opinion that public expenditure related to the implementation of programmes co-financed by the Structural and Investment Funds should be excluded from the Stability and Growth Pact limitations because they are expenditures devoted to supporting competitiveness, growth and job creation, particularly with regard to young people;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the necessity of increasing the participation of local and regional authorities and other partners in programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Funds, which would guarantee a better link between EU, national and regional strategies;

Amendment 29 #

Kinga GÖNCZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the necessity of increasing the participation of local and regional authorities and social partners in programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Funds, which would guarantee a better link between EU, national and regional strategies;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Maintains that budget cuts for regional and local authorities regarding EU Structural Fund expenditure in the Member States being bailed out by the Troika will lead to a sharp drop in local public investment, especially in cohesion countries, amplifying the economic and social effects of the policies which are destroying their investment and production capacity, with the result that many regions and localities will be depopulated and deprived of qualified personnel, emigration will be directed towards richer countries and populations concentrated in towns and cities, and these further environmental, territorial, and social problems will be added to the problems now occurring;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that, in a time of increasing demand for quality social services, financial pressure on regional and local authorities due to financial constrains may have a negative effect on social cohesion and employment, therefore preventing the achievement of the Europe 2020 goals;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses the necessity of increasing the participation of local and regional authorities in programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Funds, which would guarantee a better link between EU, national and regional strategies; encourages these local and regional authorities, wherever possible, to develop civil society participation in order to ensure that projects receive the necessary support and financing to deliver their objectives;

Amendment 31 #

Sari ESSAYAH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Calls for more transparency in the use of funds so that citizens could follow their use on an open web page nationally and/or EU-wide, which should lead to more general ownership, appreciation and control on the use of funds;

Amendment 32 #

Daniël van der STOEP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for further simplification of rules and increased flexibility in Structural Funds programming and management, which would allow for better implementation of projects as well as quicker and more adequate responses to social challenges and threats.deleted

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for further simplification of rules and increased ~~flexibilit~~transparency in Structural Funds programming and management, which would allow for better implementation of projects as well as quicker and more adequate responses to social challenges and threats.

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Stresses that there is no direct relation between the regional policy performance and the macroeconomic performance of a Member State, and that the regions should not be punished for the failure of the national level to comply with procedures related to economic governance; believes that imposing additional penalties could thus exacerbate the problems of Member States already facing macroeconomic difficulties, and, therefore, that macroeconomic conditionalities are not acceptable;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Calls for options to be explored vis-à- vis exemptions for Member State contributions to Structural Funds from the Stability and Growth Pact limitations; is also interested in examining the possibility of excluding Member State participation in co-financing of EU funds from the calculation of structural deficit or even Member State contributions to the EU budget.

Amendment 4 #

Alda SOUSA, Jürgen KLUTE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Insists that in a period of deep economic crisis and increased divergence in the EU it is necessary to provide an adequate level of resources in the EU budget with particular emphasis on the programmes and projects aimed at boosting growth and decent employment, eradicating poverty, investing in programmes aimed at smart, sustainable, green development; underlines that it is extremely important to increase support to Member States, especially those already facing economic recession;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that, in a time of increasing demand for social services, financial pressure on regional and local authorities due to financial constrains may have a negative effect on social cohesion and ~~employment,~~sustainable employment, making it harder for regional and local authorities to tackle problems like poverty and social exclusion and therefore preventing the achievement of the Europe 2020 goals;

Amendment 5 #

Derek VAUGHAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for priority to be given to creating synergies between EU, Member State and local and regional budgets; asks the Commission to provide clear factual data on how the EU budget could enhance its role in leveraging investments at different levels; calls on Member States to make full use of the additional financing opportunities provided for by the European Investment Bank and the new instrument of project bonds at all levels; furthermore welcomes the fact that the application of financial instruments is being extended under the cohesion policy to all thematic objectives and all CSF funds;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses the importance of adapting to ongoing budgetary constraints across Europe, whilst continuing to invest in the future; reminds Member States that the challenge is not to spend more, but to spend less more efficiently;

Amendment 6 #

Daniël van der STOEP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Is concerned about the enormous lack of transparency in cohesion policy funding on national and regional level and urges Member States to increase transparency through easily accessible websites;

Amendment 6 #

Daniël van der STOEP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcom~~Deplores the simplification of procedures and increased accessibility of the European Social Fund~~, which allows for a better and faster response to the challenges posed by the current economic situation~~;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is concerned that cuts in cohesion policy funding in the next MFF will reduce the capacity of national, regional and local authorities to invest in smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; stresses that cohesion policy funding should be ~~at least maintained at the current level~~increased to at least double the current amounts and national co-financing reduced;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the simplification of procedures and increased accessibility of the European Social Fund, which allows for a better and faster response to the challenges posed by the current economic ~~situation~~and social crisis;

Amendment 8 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Asks the institutions to improve the existing provisions for regions of certain Member States which are particularly suffering from the financial crisis, in order to further improve their capacity to absorb structural and cohesion funds and prevent the anticipated huge decommitments;

Amendment 8 #