9 Amendments of Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI related to 2018/2046(BUD)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with disappointment that the 2019 draft budget for Erasmus+ does notRecalls that Erasmus+ remains a highly valued and hugely popular programme promoting youth learning mobility, as demonstrated by the volume of applications received, which exceeds the funding available; deeply regrets that the 2019 draft budget for Erasmus+ falls well below Parliament’s expectations, failing to go beyond the programmed figures under the MFF; calls for at leastcurrent MFF, including in providing the remaining available top- up funding for the programme agreed under the MFF revision (around 26 million EUR) to be allocated in 2019; reiterates; calls, therefore, for an increase of 20% of the funding over the draft budget 2019 (DB 2019), across all four Erasmus+ budget lines, in order to cater for current needs, to respond to citizens’ expectations of the programme, and to provide European youth with the future they expect from the EU; reiterates, in that regard, its support for a tripling of Erasmus+ funding in the next MFF and its intention to fight for that increase;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Reiterates its concern at the manner in which the European Solidarity Corps was initially set up without a legal base and without a stand-alone budget line; is, furthermore, uncomfortable that the final decision on sources of funding for the Corps - with the exception of the stipulation on Erasmus+ - has been left to the annual budgetary procedure; confirms that it will scrutinise the amending letter from the Commission with great care to ensure that the trilogue agreement is fully respected;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the value of Creative Europe in supporting the EU’s audio- visual and cultural sectors; is pleased to note that the new programme proposal makes provision and insists that funding levels should match the ambitions of the programme; notes, with respect to the MEDIA sub-programme, that, in order to fund all high-quality projects, the budget would need to be increased by some 44%; calls, therefore, for a substantial 22% funding increase over the DB 2019 to tackle low application success rates, to reinforce supporting media pluralism and freedom and media literacy under the cross-sectoral strand; asks, in the meantime, for the budget line on digital content for European cinema operators’ networks and to incorporate - and finance - the successful Preparatory Action on the sub-titling of cultural content without jeopardising the financing of core actions; reiterates that both the Culture sub-programme and the cross-sectoral strand remain chronically underfunded and calls for a funding increase of at least 10% over the DB 2019 on both lines; proposes, with respect to the Culture sub-programme, and audiovisual and other media industries (09 02 05) to be reinforced to boost efforts to tackle fake news through enhanced media literacy work; dditional 3 million EUR funding over the DB 2019 - on top of the 10% increase - to scale up the already successful, but currently limited, trial action on the individual mobility of artists and culture professionals in preparation for the next Creative Europe programme;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Is pleased to note that the new Creative Europe programme proposal makes provision for supporting media pluralism and freedom and media literacy under the cross-sectoral strand; asks, in the meantime, for the budget line on digital content and audio-visual and other media industries (09 02 05) to be reinforced to boost efforts to tackle fake news through enhanced media literacy work and to provide direct support to organisations monitoring and promoting media freedom and pluralism;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges the Commission to conduct a full-scale review – to be provided to Parliament – of all activities under the ‘multimedia actions’ line to ensure that they deliver on their core aims and that the next MFF strikes the right funding balance across actions; calls for extra funding; calls for an additional 4.2 million EUR in commitment appropriations in 2019 to secure the important work of Euranet Plus for the remainder of the MFF; reiterates that the network’s current ‘hand- to-mouth’ existence is unsustainable, necessitating a long-term solution in the ; notes that the funding aim for Euranext MFFPlus from 2020 onwards is 8.4 million EUR annually;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the value of Europe for Citizens in enhancing citizens’ understanding of the EU and fostering a sense of citizenship; insists that the planned cuts to the programme to fund the revamped European Citizens’ Initiative be reversed; deplores the fact that the legislative proposal for the new European Citizens’ InitiativeCI failed to detail the budgetary impact on Europe for Citizens, thus depriving the legislator of essential information; beyond the restoration of these funds to the budget line, calls for a 10% funding increase over the DB 2019 - based on current MFF programming figures - to provide the minimum necessary increase for a programme that suffers from persistent under-funding and low project success rates, thus frustrating the expectations of applicants;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls that the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union poses particularly acute challenges for the European Schools, especially given the size of the English language section (around 21% of all pupils) and the prevalence of English as a second language (61% of all pupils in the 2016- 2017 school year); believes that important budgetary and educational questions remain to be addressed with regard to the long-term provision of first-class English- language teaching and the continued recognition of the European baccalaureate in the UK, notwithstanding the provisions in article 120 of the draft withdrawal agreement; urges the Commission and the Board of Governors to report to the Committee on Culture and Education on its long-term plans to deal with the challenges of Brexit;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Points to the potential of Pilot Projects and Preparatory Actions (PPPAs) as means to test out measures in Union policy areas and introduce new innovative initiatives that could become long-term Union measures; stresses that a number of PPPAs proposed by the committee in the current parliamentary term have proved hugely successful, paving the way for the design of the new generation of education and culture programmes; regrets that the pre- assessment of PPPAs by the Commission leaves very limited time for opinion-giving committees in the Parliament to address the ratings and comments; regrets, furthermore, that in some instances the ratings and comments provided by the Commission are not entirely objective, and appear to have been influenced by institutional or personal preferences; recalls that failure to enact a PPPA inside the Commission can never be a reason for a low assessment grade;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Urges the Committee on Budgets to review the procedure for handling and deciding on Pilot Projects and Preparatory Actions, which currently lacks transparency and does not give sufficient space for individual opinion- giving committees to shape the political priorities on PPPAs within their respective policy remits; asks the Committee on Budgets to engage more actively with the individual opinion-giving committees prior to its vote on the PPPA package and to consider how it could devolve more responsibility to the opinion- giving committees – potentially through a non-binding financial envelope for each committee, based on Parliament’s priorities and past spending in the relevant policy area among other criteria - for adopting their own priority PPPAs; suggests that such an approach might help respond to the Commission’s criticism regarding the proliferation of PPPA proposals over recent years by promoting a more focused, priority-based method in committees;