Activities of Sofia SAKORAFA related to 2015/2353(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal
Amendments (9)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the Commission should undertakeCalls for a comprehensive review of the functioning of the current MFF, followed by a legislative revision including an adjustment on the ceilings, in order for the EU to respond to a number of unforeseen serious crises that is faced with, and address new political priorities;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Underlines that according to the Treaty, the Parliament and the Council constitute the two arms of the budgetary authority; therefore calls for the full involvement of the Parliament in the mid- term review and revision of the MFF regulation;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that, while the MFF Regulation has to a large extent remained unchanged since its adoption, the framework conditions for its implementation have changed; highlights the fact that, following a genuine review, a legislative proposal should addres intensive recourse to MFF flexibility instruments after exhausting all available margins is not the best way to face complicated crises that are likely to continue; therefore a permanent system allowing for the mobilization of additional resources twhese challenges; points out in this regard that the new instruments, such as EFSI, that have been set up since the adoption of the MFF Regulation should be duly incorporated inton needed should be established through a genuine review, accompanied by a legislative proposal; while acknowledging the need to consolidate and further increase flexibility within MFF, points out that any new financial instrument should be set up according to the community method, in full compliance with the principle of the unity of the EU budget without any negative financial impact on the agreed programmesand on the grounds of democratic accountability and transparency;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the considerable long-term impact of EFSI on the EU budget; believes that EFSIBelieves that while EFSI is still a "pending success", invests in projects that are not the same as those targeted by the H2020-affected budget lines and CEF; stresses therefore that, if the EU is to reach its research and innovation targets, the unanimously agreed level of financing of these programmes needs to be fully restored; recalls, in this context, that CEF in the area of energy and telecom has high political priority for the Energy Union and the Digital Union;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that new political priorities should not be proposed at the expense of the agreed programmes of the current MFF, in particular H2020, CEF, COSME, Galileo and Copernicus, and pre-allocated national envelopes; therefore any redeployment of funds to the benefit of new financial instruments, such as EFSI, should not have any negative financial impact on agreed programmes with proven added value, such as H2020, CEF and COSME;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for a further strengthening of coordination, and a maximising of synergies between, ESIF funds and EU programmes such as Horizon 2020, COSME and CEF;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that Union programmes have not significantly contributed to ensuring access to finance for SMEthe majority of SMEs in the EU and especially for the ones operating in countries facing severe and persistent financial crisis; calls for further consideration to be given to ways of extendmeeting the programme to even more SMEs and meeting the various needs of SMEsvarious urgent needs of the SMEs and especially of the ones in danger of shut down, more adequately;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that Union funding can actually trigger and catalyse actions that Member States are unable to carry out on their own and create synergies and complementarities with Member States’ activities; encourages Member States to better explore areas in which the EU is not taking action;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the mid-term evaluation of the MFF programmes on the basis of theirNotes that given the fact of the late implementation of the current framework, the revision of the MFF is a key point in the management of EU spending in order to assess whether investment programmes performance against stipulated targets and objectives, present adequate absorption capacity and generate EU added value, taking into account the late implementation of the current framework.; underlines also that the mid-term review/revision is an opportunity for an MFF comprehensive simplification encompassing reforms in application, management, reporting and control of funds;