72 Amendments of Marco VALLI related to 2017/2052(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that a substantial and accessible fisheries fund is necessary in order to implement the common fisheries policy (CFP), to ensure the sustainability of European aquaculture and fisheries, including through implementation of the discard ban and landing obligation and achieving the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) objective, and to help the sector carry out the necessary restructuring process by using sustainable gear and replacing ‘dirty’ old engines;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls Parliament’s view that the duration of the MFF should be reduced from seven to five years so that it is aligned with the political mandate periods of Parliament and the Commission1, whilst providing for a long-term programme strategy of five years plus five, with a mandatory mid-term review; points out that in 2020 there will be an opportunity to bring the long-term strategy cycle in line with the budgetary cycle, and strongly recommends that this opportunity be taken; considers that the Commission should also examine the possibility of introducing a rolling programme in which each MFF, while having the same duration as now, would partially cover the previous one, on the premise that overlapping could help mitigate naturally existing peaks and troughs; __________________ 1 See paragraph 73 of its resolution of 6 July 2016 on the preparation of the post electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309) and paragraph 5 of its resolution of 27 April 2017 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309).
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
urges the Commission to propose a larger financial allocation for the next EMFF programming period, higher funding percentages, and different rules on co- financing and the allowances paid to fishermen during the closed season, in order to provide means of meeting the needs of small-scale non-industrial fisheries, which are often hampered by administrative delays caused by Member States;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) was agreed in 2013 and entailed, for the first time, a reduction in real terms of both commitment and payment appropriations compared to the previous financial programming period in spite of growing EU competences and ambitions as set out in the Lisbon Treaty and the Europe 2020 strategy respectively; whereas it also involved a significant gap between the level of commitment and payment appropriations, which contributed to a backlog in unpaid bills in the two first years of the MFF; whereas the late adoption of the MFF and the related legal bases contributed to implementation delays, the repercussions of which are still felt today and which might lead to an accumulation of payment claims at the end of the current MFF, spilling over into the next period; whereas, at Parliament’s insistence, new provisions were included in the MFF in order to use its global ceilings to the fullest possible extent and to provide for flexibility mechanisms;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the MFF 2014-2020 quickly proved its inadequacy in meeting actual needs and political ambitions, as, from the outset, it was called upon to address a series of crises and new challenges in the areas of investment, migration and refugees, youth employment, security, agriculture and the environment, which had not been anticipated at the time of its adoption; whereas, as a result, the current MFF had already been pushed to its limits after only two years of implementation as available margins had been exhausted, flexibility provisions and special instruments had been mobilised to a substantial extent, existing policies and programmes had been put under pressure or even reduced, and some off-budget mechanisms had been created as a way of compensating for the insufficient level of the EU budgetexceptional crisis;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas those shortcomings had already become evident, at the time of the mid- term review and revision of the MFF launched at the end of 2016, and ought to have merited immediate actions, as demonstrated by Parliament in its resolution of 6 July 2016; whereas the agreed mid-term revision succeedsuccess was achieved in broadening the potential of the existing flexibility provisions to a moderate extent, but fell short ofwithout its having been felt appropriate to revisinge the MFF ceilings;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 4 – indent 2 a (new)
- certain programmes have not proven to be at all effective or have any added value, so that provision can be made for abandoning them in order to promote programmes that have proven to have real added value;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the opinion that steps need to be taken in order to ensure that the post- 2020 EU fisheries fund is implemented in a swifter and more flexible manner, without the delays that continue to plague the 2014- 2020 EMFF; points out that the weight of regulation imposed on European businesses has no equivalent in countries outside the EU, near neighbours and otherwise;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new)
(1) considers that a greater effort needs to be made to create a level playing field for fishery products and that imports should be checked more thoroughly, whether EU or non-EU producers are concerned;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)
(1) Calls on the Commission to revise the investment clause so as to enable regional and national investment co- financed under the EMFF to be excluded from national deficit calculation for the purposes of the European Semester;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 6 – point 1 (new)
(1) Given the delays in implementing the Fund, due primarily to administrative reasons, calls on the Commission and the Member States to submit a tentative schedule setting out the stages following the approval of a programme and specifying the maximum period allowed between approval and publication of the individual notices;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls Parliament’s concern that the financial complexity resulting from the interactions of more than a thousand financial engineering instruments, and of numerous financial mechanisms supporting Union policies that are not recorded in the union balance sheet, constitutes a major reason why democratic accountability of the galaxies of budgets may be impossible; underlines that EFSI has hitherto proven to be ineffective in reducing the investment gap in the Union and that the results achieved have been insignificant, without delivering any additionality or added value in comparison with the existing EIB programmes; highlights the fact that the growing use of financial instruments reduces Parliament’s democratic power in the annual budget adoption procedure and raises a significant issue of democratic scrutiny over the use of EU funds;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Criticises the fact that, under EMFF procedures, if an infringement is committed in the five years after financial support has been granted, the support has to be paid back; also notes that the system rules out access to EMFF financial support when infringements have already been committed;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that, even though the EU remains a net seafood importer, European fisheries continue to be a very important source of healthy food for the European market; underlines that the EU should continue to prevent substandard products from non-EU countries from entering the EU market;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that European added value in fisheries management has to date been largely associated with a reduction in the capacity of fishing fleets; is of the opinion that in the post-2020 MFF a balance between the fisheries resources available and fleet capacity will have to be taken into account; highlights, however, that other elements with a non-quantifiable added value should be considered as well, such as the role the fishing sector plays in communities highly dependent on this activity in terms of direct and indirect employment and local growth; underlines, therefore, that fisheries must remain independent in order to support these communities and guarantee greater territorial cohesion;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the discussion about the next MFF as an opportunity to prepare the ground for a strongermore effective Europe through one of its most tangible instruments, the Union budget; believes that the next MFF should be embedded in a broader strategy and narrative for the future of Europe;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Encourages the Commission to examine the possibility of changing the structure of the EU expenditure in the Cohesion Policy since a majority of the original Union objectives can be considered achieved, and since more efficient results could be gained with emphasis on natural competition on development and modernisation, instead of sustaining the current framework for, and practices of, mere redistributive financial support; is, however, of the opinion that the economic, social and territorial Cohesion Policies of the Union could still provide support for the less developed regions, and for better cross-border cooperation, but should focus even more on growth, innovation, mobility, climate change, making the land safe to protect it from man-made and natural disasters, energy and environmental transition, while applying the same criteria to the whole of the EU;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that a new balance is needed between, on the one hand, the CAP and Cohesion Policies, and, on the other hand, the other EU internal policies and a reinforced external capacity of the Union, including the elements of security and defence; encourages the Commission to emphasise cooperation in security and defence when preparing its proposal for MFF post-2020, and when reforming and implementingphasing out financial instruments of the EU such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (ESIF); supports the idea of further European integration and concrete initiatives in the field of security and defence, which would allow savings to be made in the national military spending of the Member States;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls the need to improve the gathering of scientific data and ensure better access to it, and to foster cooperation between the maritime and fisheries sector on the one hand and the scientific community, NGOs and other entities on the otherstakeholders on the other; points to the need to set up a system for continuous updating of these data, a high proportion of which serve as the basis for legislative proposals;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is convinced that the next MFF should build on the Union’s well- established policies and priorities, which aim at promoting peace, democracy and human rights, at boosting welfare, long- term and sustainable economic growth, high-quality jobs, sustainable development and innovation, environmental protection and territorial revival and at fostering economic, social and territorial cohesion as well as solidarity between Member States and citizens; considers that these pillars are prerequisites for a properly functioning single market and Economic and Monetary Union as well as for reinforcing Europe’s position in the world; trusts that they are more relevant than ever for Europe’s future endeavours;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Considers that if any possible new budgetary capacity is proposed specifically for Member States in the euro area, it should be developed within the Union framework and subject to proper democratic scrutiny and accountability through the existing institutions, and any financial assistance from this capacity should be made conditional on the implementation of agreed structural reforms;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that the next MFF provides an opportunity for the Union to demonstrate that it stands together and is able to address political developments such as Brexit, the rise of nationalist movements and changes in global leadership; underlines that divisions and self-centredness are not an answer to global issues and to citizens’ concerns; considers that the Brexit negotiations, in particular, show that the benefits of being a Union member greatly outweigh the cost of contributing to its budgetcrises;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Considers that while the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the Union is an unfortunate event that will have a negative influence on the future of the lives of citizens in the UK and in the remaining Member States, it alsoevent that creates an opportunity to redefine and reform the EU- 27’s political ambitions and the needed budget tools and methods; considers that the EU-27 should be ambitious in its budget reform and aim to maintain an annual EU budget similar in size to that of the EU-28;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Emphasises, in particular, the need to omit the unnecessary fixation omaintain the 1 % ceiling of EU GNI, put in practice for the current MFF 2014- 2020, since expenditure is often constrained by this ceiling and makes the budget significantly harder to balance in times of varying circumstances; enc; considers a radical reform of the own-resouragces the Member States to consider flexibility in their budget discussionsystem to be vital, though this should not have a financial impact on national budgets, citizens and SMEs;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Considers that the possibility to collect a CO2 levy, which should affect multinationals through carbon pricing (using either taxation or market-based instruments) – as presented by the High Level Group on Own Resources in its report on the future financing of the EU – should be examined by the Commission in the first instance as a way to strengthen the EU-27 budget7; believes that such an instrument could also provide extra added value in Europe, as the levy could function as an incentive to change consumer and producer behaviour in favour of a less carbon-intensive future; considers, however, that any tax-based EU solution should be as neutral as possiblebsolutely neutral for the total tax ratio of a given Member State, and should instead rely on higher contributions from risk actors; stresses that the introduction of a comprehensive financial transaction tax could represent a means not only to finance the EU budget but also to combat financial speculation; __________________ 7 European Commission, ‘Future financing of the EU – Final report and recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources’, 4 January 2017, pp. 41-43.
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that Europe should offer prospects to the younger generation as well as to the future-oriented undertakings that make the EU more successful in the global arena; is determined to substantially scale up two of its flagship programmes, namely the Research Framework Programme and Erasmus+, which cannot satisfy the very high demand involving top quality applications with their current means; calls also for progress to be made in the fight against youth unemployment and in support for small and medium-sized enterprises by equipping the successor programmes of the Youth Employment Initiative and the programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) with greadequater financial means and making appropriate corrections to them;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Union to assume its role in two emerging policy areas with internal and external dimensions, which have appeared in the course of the current MFF: on the one hand, by developing a comprehensive asylum, migration and integration policy and addressing the root causes of migration and displacement in third countries and on the other hand, by providing security to European citizens and promoting stability abroad, notably by pooling research efforts and capabilities in the area of defence;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Reaffirms the principle that additional political priorities should be coupled with additionalequate financial means, whether they emerge at the time of adoption of a new MFF or in the course of its implementation, and underlines that the financing of new needs should not undermine existing policiee need for a thorough analysis of existing policies and programmes in search of savings and for programmes which have not proved effective to be abandoned; expects, furthermore, that sufficient flexibility provisions will be put in place in order to accommodate unforeseen circumstances that may arise in the course of the MFF;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is convinced that, unless the Council agrees to significantly increase the level of its national contributions to the EU budget, the introduction of new EU own resources remains the only optioa priority in forder to adequately financinge the next MFF without imposing further burdens on citizens;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Considers that, for the 2021-2027 MFF, the mid-term revision should be proposed and decided in due time to allow for the next Parliament and Commission to adjust the financial framework accordingly; underlines that any revision of the MFF should ensure the involvement of Parliament and safeguard its prerogatives as an equal arm of the budgetary authority; underlines, moreover, that any real revision also entails the revision of the MFF ceilings, should their inadequacy be established for the rest of the period;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Underlines that, during the current MFF, the budgetary authority approved a substantial mobilisation of the flexibility mechanisms and special instruments included in the MFF Regulation, in order to secure the additional appropriations needed to respond to serious crises or finance new political priorities;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that the ceilings of the next MFF should be set at a level that allows not only the financing of EU policies, but and also the provision of sufficient margins in commitments for each headingto respond to crises;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls, in particular, for a substantial increase inspecial attention to be devoted to the financial envelope of the Flexibility Instrument of up to an annual allocation of at least EUR 2 billion; recalls that the Flexibility Instrument is not linked to any specific policy field and can thus be mobilised for any purpose that is deemed necessary; considers, therefore, that this instrument can be mobilised to cover any new financial needs as they occur during the MFF;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Considers that the use of the EGF, providing EU solidarity and support to workers losing their jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns arising from globalisation or as a result of the global economic and financial crisis, has not lived up to expectations and needs to be improved; stresses that the EGF is merely a means of providing immediate assistance, but does not address the root causes of the problem; points out, inter alia, that the procedures for implementing support from the EGF are too time- consuming and cumbersome; believes that a revised EGF should be endowed with at least an identical annual allocation under the new MFF;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Notes the reference to the notion of European added value presented in several Commission documents; reiterates the list of parameters identified by Parliament in its resolution6 in this context; recalls that the EU’s resources should be used to finance European public goods as well as to act as a catalyst in providing incentives for Member States at all administrative levels to take action in order to fulfil Treaty objectives and to attain common EU goals which would not be realised otherwise; agrees that the EU budget should be used to finance those actions that can benefit the EU as a whole, and which cannot be ensured efficiently by any single Member State alone and that, in certain cases, can offer better value for money compared to actions taken solely at national, regional or local level; __________________ 6 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0401.
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Underlines that the ‘health check’ of EU spending cannotshould provide for a reduction in the level of EU ambition or a sectoralisation of EU policies and programmes, norpolicies and programmes which have proved inefficient and ineffective, or for their termination; considers that it should inot lead to a replacement of grants by financial instruments with a view to generating some savings, as the great majority of actions supported by the EU budget are not suitable to be funded by the latter;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Reiterates, therefore, its long- standing position that the European Development Fund, alongside other instruments outside the MFF, should be integrated into the Union budget; underlines, however, that their respective financial envelopes should be added on top of the agreed MFF ceilings so that the budgetisation of these instruments has no detrimental impact either on their financing, or on other EU policies and programmes; welcomes, in principle, the proposal to incorporate the European Stability Mechanism in the Union’s finances in the form of a European Monetary Fund, without prejudice to its future design;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Recalls the build-up of a backlog of unpaid bills at the end of the previous MFF that spilled over into the current one, reaching an unprecedented peak of EUR 24.7 billion at the end of 2014, mostly in the field of cohesion policy, due to the late take-off of the previous programmes, under-budgeting and insufficient payment ceilings; regrets that the focus on the absorption of this backlog linked to the 2007-2013 period resulted in deliberate efforts to delay the start of some of the 2014-2020 programmes and has contributed to the opposite trend of under- execution in the 2016 and 2017 budgets; asks the Commission and the Member States to come up with concrete measures to accelerate the implementation of the 2014- 2020 programmes, and warns against a repetition of the payment crisis in the transition between two MFFs;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Emphasises that the EU budget has at its disposal a wide range of instruments tPoints also to the European Fund for Strategic Investment, which hats finance the European project and that can be regrouped in two categories: grants and financial instruments in form of guarantees, loans, risk-sharing or equity; points also toailed to close the gap between demand, employment and inflation, particularly in the outlying countries of the Eeuropean Fund for Strategic Investment, the aim of which is to mobilise private capital across the EU in support of projects in key areas for the EU economy that should complement limited public funds area, which clearly need to increase public investment in sectors with high potential;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Recognises the potential of financial instruments to increase the economic and political impact of the Union budget; highlights, however, that theyHighlights that financial instruments can be applied only for revenue- generating projects and therefore constitute only a complementary rather than an alternative form of funding as compared to grants, as some projects can be financed only through subsidies; points out that, in certain cases, the use of financial instruments could be a way to have the public bear financial losses incurred by private companies;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Recalls its request to the Commission to identify EU policy areas where grants could be combined with financial instruments and to reflect on a proper balance between the two; is convinced that subsidies should remain the predominant way of funding the EU project in the next MFF; underlines that loans, guarantees, risk-sharing and equity financing should be used with caution, based on appropriate independent ex-ante assessments and only when their use can demonstrate a clear added value and a leverage effect;
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. Highlights the importance of completing the European research area, the energy union and the digital single marketenergy union, with a forward-looking climate-change policy, the digital single market and the European research area, as fundamental elements of the European single market;
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 a (new)
Paragraph 67 a (new)
67a. Stresses the need for greater coherence between EU funding policies and its commitment under the Paris Agreement to direct all funding flows in line with long-term climate objectives; underlines in this context the capacity of the MFF to stimulate a rapid transition to a net-zero carbon economy in Europe by 2050; calls for fossil fuel support to be banned from 2020 and for at least half of MFF funding to be earmarked for climate- related expenditure; urges that a new instrument be proposed for the purpose of accelerating energy transition with support for local authorities, energy cooperatives, active energy consumers and businesses;
Amendment 340 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Believes that the next MFF should see a greater concentration of budgetary resources in areas that demonstrate a clear European added value and stimulate economic growth, help achieve climate and energy objectives and stimulate prosperity, competitiveness and employment; stresses, in this context, the importance of research and innovation in creating a sustainable, world-leading, knowledge-based economy, and regrets that, due to the lack of adequate financing, only a small proportion of high-quality projects in this field has received EU funding under the current MFF;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Calls, therefore, for a substantial increase in the overall budget earmarked for the FP9 programme in the next MFF that should be set at a level of at least EUR 120 billion and not be cut or reduced in the course of its implementation; considers this level to be appropriate for securing Europe’s global competitiveness, scientific and industrial leadership, for responding to societal challenges, and for helping to achieve the EU’s climate goals; reiterates in this context the need to maintain financial support (grants) for academic, collaborative and basic research in particular;
Amendment 357 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Calls, furthermore, for a greater focus on implementing research and innovation through joint undertakings and for supporting investment in key technologies, especially enabling technologies, to close the investment gap in innovation; emphasises that the increase in funds must be coupled with adequate support and a simplification of funding procedures; welcomescalls on the Commission’ to step up its efforts in this respect and insists that these should continue under the next programming period;
Amendment 364 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Stresses that SMEs are key drivers of economicsustainable growth, innovation and employment and recognises their important role in ensuring the recovery and boosting of a sustainable EU economy; recalls that there are more than 20 million SMEs in the EU and that they account for 99 % of all businesses; considers that improving and simplifying access to finance for SMEs, focusing on micro-enterprises in particular, should continue to remain an important policy objective for the next MFF and calls, therefore, for a doubling at least of the COSME programme’s financial envelope in order for it to correspond to the actual needs of the EU economy and the significant demand for participation;
Amendment 383 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
Paragraph 73
73. Insists on the importance of the MFF for sectors relying on long-term investment, such as the transport sector; highlights that transport infrastructures are the backba cornerstone of the single market and the basis for sustainable growth and job creation; notes that accomplishing a single European transport area connected to neighbouring countries requires major transport infrastructure and must be treated as a key priority in terms of the EU’s competitiveness and for economic, social and territorial cohesion, including for peripheral areas; considers, therefore, that the next MFF should provide for sufficient funding for projects that contribute in particular to the completion of the TEN-T core network and its corridors, which should be further extended; calls on the Commission accordingly to review the funding of financially questionable projects that are also harmful terms of public health, such as the Turin-Lyon railway; stresses that an updated and more effective CEF programme should cover all modes of transport and focus on interconnections and the completion of the network in peripheral areas while using common standards; underlines the need to prioritise projects that promote the decarbonisation and digitisation of transport systems;
Amendment 392 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
Paragraph 74
74. Underlines the importance of ensuring financing for completing the digital single market by making full use of the spectrum, 5G deployment and gigabit connectivity, and by making further progress on the harmonisation of EU telecom rules to create the right regulatory framework for the improvement of internet connectivity throughout the Union; stresses that CEF Telecom should continue to support the Digital Service Infrastructures and the broadband networks by enabling their accessibility, including in remote regions and rural areas, and by improving digital literacy, interconnectivity and interoperability; stresses that the CEF should also support digital telecommunications models that promote connectivity and peer-to-peer exchanges, as well as decentralised data storage;
Amendment 402 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
75. Considers it essential to secure a sustainable and affordable energy supply in Europe; calls, therefore, for continuous support for investments ensuring the diversification of energy sources, increasing energy securityefficient and waste-free energy use and energy supply based on renewable sources in Europe; calls, therefore, for continuous support for investments ensuring increasing energy efficiency, the use of decentralised renewable energy sources, their distribution and storage and enhancing ed energy efficiencsecurity, including by CEF Energy; stresses in particular the importance of providing for comprehensive support, especially for carbon-intensive regions, energy transition, transition to a lowzero-carbon economy by 2050, the modernisation of power generation and grids, carbon capture, storage and utilisationenergy storage technologies, and the modernisation of district heating; considers that the transformation of the energy sector in the light of the climate objectives should be supported also by the creation of an suitable Energy Transition Fund under the next MFF that would create incentives for investment in energy efficiency, renewable energies and innovative solutions, focusing on support for the local authorities, energy cooperatives, active energy consumers and businesses, and facilitate the structural changes in energy-intensive industries and carbon- intensive electricity production plants, and create incentives for low-carbon investments and innovative solutions;
Amendment 410 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75 a (new)
Paragraph 75 a (new)
75a. Reiterates that, in the next MFF, financial instruments cannot replace grants for the funding of energy efficiency, renewable energy and generally publicly driven R&I projects, as only grants can maximise output on the ground and ensure wider involvement of stakeholders such as academia, the local authorities, SMEs and civil society organisations;
Amendment 416 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
76. Underlines the strategic importance of large-scale infrastructure projects such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay (EGNOS), the Global Satellite Navigation System (Galileo) and the Earth Observation Programme (Copernicus) for the EU’s future competitiveness; considers that the financing of these large-scale projects should be secured in the EU budget but, at the same time, ring-fenced, so as to ensure that possible cost overruns do not threaten the funding and successful implementation of other Union policies, as was the case in the previous MFF; recalls that, for this purpose, the maximum amount for these projects is currently fixed in the MFF Regulation, and calls for similar provisions in the new regulation;
Amendment 418 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76 a (new)
Paragraph 76 a (new)
75a. Stresses that additional appropriations for ITER (over and above those already approved) cannot be justified, given the lack of concrete short and medium-term results on the one hand and the excessive and increasing costs on the other, and that the funding should be redirected towards energy storage and distributed generation technologies in particular, which can make a direct contribution to combating climate change and ensuring compliance with commitments entered into under the Paris Agreement;
Amendment 454 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78
78. Expects the global amount of direct payments to be kept intact under the next MFF, as they generate clear EU added value and strengthen the single market by avoiding distortions of competition between Member States; opposes any renationalisation and any national co- financing in that respect; stresses the need to increase funding in line with responses to the various cyclical crises in sensitive sectors, to create new instruments that can mitigate price volatility and to increase funding for Programmes of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI); concludes, therefore, that the CAP budget in the next MFF should be at least maintained at its current level for the EU-27;
Amendment 462 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79
Paragraph 79
79. Stresses the socioeconomic and ecological importance of the fisheries sector, the ‘blue economy and blue growth’ and their contribution to the food autonomy of the EU; points out that the common fisheries policy is an exclusive EU competence, while at the same time encouraging regionalisation, particularly when it comes to fish stock management; emphasises, in this respect, the need to keep a specific, substantial, independent and accessible fisheries fund, available for use by small-scale coastal fishermen also, to implement this policy; calls, at least, for the level of financial appropriations dedicated to the fisheries sector under the current MFF to be maintained, for access to funding to be simplified and accelerated and, if new needs arise, to increase the financial appropriations for maritime affairs; warns about the possible negative impacts of a hard Brexit on this sector; notes that other financial instruments, in addition to non-repayable aid, could provide complementary financing possibilities;
Amendment 471 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
80. Stresses the importance of the EU’s leading role in tackling climate change and its internal and external biodiversity commitments and goals; asks for appropriate financial resources to be provided to implement the Paris agreement and thorough climate mainstreaming of future EU spending; recalls that the next MFF should help the Union to achieve its 2030 climate and energy framework objectives; underlines that the EU should not finance projects and investments that are contrary to or hamper the achievement of these goals;
Amendment 490 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
Paragraph 81
81. Stresses that cohesion policy post- 2020 should remain the main investment policy of the European Union covering all EU regions while concentrating the majority of the resources on the most vulnerable ones; believes that, beyond the goal of reducing the disparities between levels of development and enhancing convergence as enshrined in the Treaty, it should focus on the achievement of some of the broad EU political objectives and proposes, therefore, that under the next MFF, the three cohesion policy funds – the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund – should concentrate mainly on providing support for innovation, digitalisation, industrial restructuring, with the related remediation, reindustrialisation, SMEs, transport, climate change adaptation, employment and social inclusion; calls, moreover, for a reinforced territorial cooperation component and an urban dimension for the policy;
Amendment 496 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81 a (new)
Paragraph 81 a (new)
81a. Takes the view that structural reforms, for example privatisation processes, intervention on the labour market, or any measures aimed at undermining the Welfare State in Member States, should not, under any circumstances, be imposed as conditions or as penalties for non-implementation of the above actions;
Amendment 497 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81 b (new)
Paragraph 81 b (new)
81b. Calls on the Commission to consider revising the investment clause so as to ensure that regional and national investment co-financed with funding intended for economic, social, and territorial cohesion may be excluded from the calculation of government deficits for the purposes of the European Semester;
Amendment 561 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
Paragraph 85
85. Expresses support for programmes in the areas of culture, education, media, youth, sports and citizenship that have clearly, when properly implemented, have demonstrated their European added value and enjoy lasting popularity among beneficiaries; advocates, therefore, continuous investment in the Education and Training 2020 framework through the Erasmus+, Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens programmes in order to pursue reaching out to young peoplea greater number of young people, especially those in more disadvantaged groups, and providinge them with valuable competences and life skills through lifelong learning, learner-centred and non- formal education, as well as informal learning opportunities; calls in particular for a tripling of the Erasmus+ envelope in the next MFF with the aim of reaching many more young people and learners across Europe, and achieving the full potential of the programme; recommends, moreover, the continuationiterates its support for the establishment of thea European Solidarity Corps and reiterates its supportoriented towards voluntary activities carried out by non-profit bodies and for strengthening the external dimension of the Erasmus+ and Creative Europe programmes;
Amendment 579 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86
Paragraph 86
86. Expects that in the post-2020 period, the European Union will move from crisis-management mode to a permanent, European policy in the field of asylum and migration; stresses that the actions in this field shouldmust be covered by a dedicated instrument, i.e. the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund; emphasises that the future fund, as well as the relevant Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) agencies, must be equipped with an adequate level of funding for the whole of the next MFF to address the comprehensive challenges in this area in order to avert the need to make use, as a matter of course, of the MFF flexibility provisions; believes, furthermore, that the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) should be complemented by additional components tackling this issue under other policies, in particular by the cohesion funds and the instruments financing external actions, as no single tool could hope to address the magnitude and complexity of needs in this field; points out that some regions, especially in Italy and Greece, are being subjected to considerable migration pressures and that the contribution of the ESI Funds in tackling this challenge can be effective if, and only if, the principles of solidarity are translated into practice and migrants are redistributed fairly; calls, in addition, for the disbursement of structural and cohesion funding to be made subject to fulfilment of obligations entered into; recognises, moreover, the importance of cultural, educational and sports programmes in integrating refugees and migrants into European society;
Amendment 602 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88
Paragraph 88
88. Stresses that the world is confronted with multiple challenges including conflicts, cyber-attacks, terrorism, disinformation, natural disasters, climate change, human rights violations and protracted crises; believes that the Union has a particular political and financial responsibility which is founded on rules-based foreign policya foreign policy deriving from its belief in a regulated global order underpinned by multilateralism as the cardinal principle and the United Nations as the core, and based on rules, cooperation with partner countries, poverty eradication and crisis response;
Amendment 619 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89
Paragraph 89
89. Emphasises that substantial additional funding is necessary for the Union to play its role in the framework of its global strategy and of its neighbourhood, development and enlargement policies; draws attention to the commitment by the EU and its Member States to increase their official development assistance (ODA) to 0.7% of GDP by 2030; expects the next MFF to reflect the unprecedented needs of neighbourhood countries struggling with conflicts and instability and the consequences of the challenges presented by migration and, refugees, and terrorism, as well as the needs for humanitarian aid as a result of natural and man-made disasters;
Amendment 645 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Stresses that the level and mechanisms of funding in the field of internal security should be stepped up from the outset and for the entire duration of the next MFF in order to avoid systematic recourse to the flexibility provisions of the MFF every year; calls for an assessment to be carried out in order to determine whether sufficient resources to beare being provided to law enforcement agencies (Europol, Eurojust and Cepol) and for the European Agency for the operational management of large- scale IT systems (eu- LISA) to be endowed with the means to implement and manage its new responsibilities; underlines the role of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights in understanding and responding to the phenomena of radicalisation, marginalisation, hate speech and hate crime;
Amendment 660 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94
Paragraph 94
94. In the context of the increased attention given to security and defence in the Union, requests a reassessment of all external security expenditure; looks forward in particular to a reform of the Athena mechanism and of the African Peace Facility after the budgetisation of the EDF; welcomnotes the recent commitments by Member States under permanent structured cooperation and asks the High Representative and the Commission to provide clarification as regards its future financing; calls for a successor programme for the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace focusing on crisis response and capacity building for security and development, while finding a legally sound solution for military capacity building;
Amendment 670 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 95
Paragraph 95
95. Considers that a strong, efficient and high quality public administration is indispensable to the delivery of Union policies and to rebuild trust and strengthen dialogue with citizens; underlines the role of the institutions made up by democratically elected members in that respect; recalls that, according to the Court of Auditors, the EU institutions, bodies and agencies have implemented the 5% reduction in staff as set out in their establishment plans; takes the view that they should not be subject to a further horizontal reduction approach of this kinda further reduction should be allowable if it is based on an assessment of real needs and on the merger, where possible, of common functions;
Amendment 682 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 100
Paragraph 100
100. Underlines, therefore, the need for substantial discussions between the three institutions to be launched without delay; stresses that all elements of the MFF Regulation, including the MFF ceilings, will be part of the MFF negotiations and should remain on the table until a final agreement is reached; recalls, in this respect, Parliament’s critical stance on the procedure leading to the adoption of the current MFF Regulation and the dominant role that the European Council assumed in this process by deciding irrevocably on a number of elements, including the MFF ceilings and several sectoral policy-related provisions;