Activities of Benedek JÁVOR related to 2018/0166R(APP)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the Interim report on MFF 2021-2027 – Parliament’s position in view of an agreement
Amendments (15)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that 2021-27 MFF shall not decrease in volume from 2020 levels, even in case of Brexit and that new EU initiatives must be matched with new and adequate financial resources and be treated under the co-decision procedure;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Emphasises that full respect for the rule of law is an essential precondition for sound financial management and effective EU funding. Therefore supports the new mechanism that would allow the European Commission to dispose of effective and appropriate measures in cases of risk of financial loss caused by generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in a Member State with special regard to tackling grand corruption.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls that the Paris Agreement requires all financial flows to be aligned with the agreed long-term climate objective and stresses the need for greater coherence between the EU´s commitment under the Paris Agreement and its funding policies; underlines the significant, yet untapped, potential of the MFF to catalyse the transition towards a net-zero carbon European economy; subsequently calls for a comprehensive earmarking of at least 50% of the MFF funds towards climate-related spending and making support for fossil fuels ineligible in the next MFF;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates Parliament’s call for an increased overall budget of at least EUR 120 billion for Horizon Europe; welcomes the possibility of transferring financial allocations for programmes from one fund to another introduced by the Common Provisions Regulation; believes that appropriate conditions and mechanisms for such transfers should bunderlines the necessity of Horizon Europe’s investments to focus on researching, developing and bringing to society the technological and non-technological solutions that address pressing societal challenges, such as fighting climate change, the transition to sustainable and renewable energy, an energy- and resource-efficient, toxic-free circular economy, sustainable food and farming practices, and affordable health care and medicine. Welcomes a far reaching harmonisation of the rules of different funds while further elaborated to ensure compatibility with the structural funds; ging that each fund be governed under its own rules, taking account of sector-specific characteristics, diverse territorial needs and different target groups, in order to provide for a funding environment tailored to specific circumstances
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that EUR 3.5 billion of the Horizon Europe budget is dedicated to InvestEU; believes that the InvestEU research, innovation and digitisation window should use the same rules as the successful InnovFin instrument, apply all underlying criteria and cover the highest risk tranche;;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the amount allocated to the energy and digital components of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF); believes that CEF should be more ambitious on the issue of synergies, as indicated in its mid-term reviewfully in line with the long-term EU energy and climate objectives, hence excluding fossil gas infrastructure projects, and focus on cross-border connections for sustainable modes of transports, including renovation, missing links, intermodality and net-zero GHG emissions solutions; electricity infrastructure; cross-border renewable projects , smart grids and energy efficiency projects to foster the energy transition; high-speed broadband in the ICT sector as well as synergies between sectors such as the modernisation of infrastructure related to the new digitisation;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is cConcerneds about the proposed 5 % decrease in financial resources for the decentralised agencies under the remit of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ECHA, ECDC, EEA, EFSA,EMA); calls for the decentralised agencies to be allocated more financial and human resources, at least at the level of 2014-2020 in real terms, where appropriate and based on their individual needs, in particular if new tasks are allocated, such as in the case of ECHA;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that in the energy sector, emphasis should be placed on energy security and a functioning single market; considers it essential to reach the 15 % interconnectivity target by 2030;finalising the Energy Union in accordance with the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainability Goals; urges the Commission to provide the necessary funding for the five mutually supportive dimensions of the Energy Union: energy security, solidarity and trust; the internal energy market; energy efficiency as a contribution to the moderation of energy demand; decarbonisation of the economy; and research, innovation and competitiveness; recalls in this context the adopted ‘energy efficiency first’ principle as well as the need for targeted investment in renewables and energy efficiency based technologies that have the potential to address climate change and environmental concerns, ensure security of supply and maintain the EU's competitive advantage.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regrets that its call for the creation of an energy transition fund for coal- intensive regions under the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) was not reflected in the new MFF proposal; reiterates its appeal for additionaldedicated funds to be provided exclusively to support energy transition in these regionsthese regions in the development of inclusive, local and just transition strategies and in addressing societal, socio-economic and environmental impacts along with the reconversion of sites and the replacement of the electricity generation capacity with renewables or energy efficiency solutions;;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Regrets the proposal for European Defence Fund which draws away funds from important investment and innovation programmes under Heading 1a such as investments in the energy transition and tackling climate change. Believes that large efficiency gains can be made instead in the defence sector by dramatically improving Member States coordination and through the enforcement of the Defence Procurement Directive
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Underlines that even if the ITER project would one day deliver, it would be too late to comply with the Paris Agreement commitment to maintain climate change well below 2 degrees and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees; therefore calls for the next MFF to redirect nuclear fusion funding towards areas, such as renewables or energy- efficiency based technologies and other non-technical solutions, which help to accelerate the transition to a net-zero GHG emission economy, contribute to the EU innovation leadership and competitiveness in combination with sustainability;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Recalls that the UK will have to leave Euratom which will have negative consequences on Member States’ contribution to the related research programmes, in particular ITER; underlines that leaving Euratom leads the UK to finance alone the Joint European Torus (JET) experiment in Culham Centre for Fusion Energy; reminds that the departure of the UK could open the possibility to amend Euratom in order to fully equip the EU’s energy market for the challenges of the 21stcentury;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7d. Underlines that nuclear safety is of primary importance for the population of the whole EU and emphasizes the need to increase the amount allocated to the Nuclear decommissioning assistance programme of the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania to 780 million euros in order to adequately assist Lithuania in meeting the technological challenge of Chernobyl-type graphite reactor core dismantling;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for a timely adoption of the MFF and the related legal bases to ensure a frictionless transition from one programme to another and to avoid implementation delays; yet insists on quality over speed providing for adequate time for thorough consultation and deliberation, in order to ensure diligent policy-making and not to undermine the powers of the European Parliament as co-legislator;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that the EU budget should reflect the majority vote of the EU citizens; therefore considers that the MFF should be adopted by a Qualified Majority in the Council as provided for in Article 312(2) of the TFEU and by a Qualified Majority in the EP; is convinced of the necessity to maintain Underlines the need for a legally binding and compulsory MFF mid-term revispost-electoral revision enshrined in the new MFF Regulation; believes that Parliament’s involvement should be ensured in any revision of the MFF.