Activities of Joachim KUHS related to 2023/0201(APP)
Shadow reports (1)
RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council regulation amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027
Amendments (20)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights the need to streamline administrative procedures, rationalise expenditure and enhancing transparency and accountability in EU spending to grant an efficient and accountable use of taxpayers’ money for funding priorities and challenges;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Warmly welcomNotes the EUR 50 billion financing package for Ukraine for the period 2024- 2027, combining grants (EUR 17 billion) with loans on highly favourable terms (EUR 33 billion) and anchored in the EU budget; emphasises that the amendment of the MFF regulation to which Parliament is invited to give consent is a prerequisite for financial support to be provided to Ukraine; recalls that all loans and MFA+ are guaranteed by the EU budget, and in the case of Ukraine bankruptcy will lie fully on the shoulders of the Member States’ taxpayers;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Warmly welcomNotes the EUR 50 billion financing package for Ukraine for the period 2024- 2027, combining grants (EUR 17 billion) with of loans on highly favourable terms (EUR 33 billion) and, anchored in the EU budget; emphasises that the amendment of the MFF regulation to which Parliament is invited to give consent is a prerequisite for financial support to be provided to Ukraine;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that this medium-term structural solution gives certainty to the people of Ukraine, enabling the government to maintain essential services and helping the country on its path to reconstruction, and recovery and membership of the EU; considers, furthermore, that the financing package is a vital symbol of the Union’s long-term commitment to Ukraine and its people and sends an important signal of that commitment both to other key donors and to the Russian Federation; undertakes to monitor Ukraine’s future financing needs, taking into account international developments;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the fact that an additional EUR 3.1 billion in fresh money will be provided for Heading 6 (neighbourhood and the world), combined with a further EUR 4.5 billion in decommitted and redeployed funds to be re-purposed within the heading, for a total of EUR 7.6 billion planned to be spent on support for limiting migration measures andflows and keeping refugees in third countries and on enhanced accession funding for the Western Balkans between 2024 and 2027; underlines, furthermore, that the creation of the Ukraine Facility and enhanced support for the Western Balkans will also create space for increased financial support for Moldova on its path to accession;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9.a. Instructs the European Court of Auditors to carry out a mid-term review of the Facility before the end of 2026;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is very disappoinNoteds that neither the cushion in the Neighbourhood Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI)-Global Europe programme nor humanitarian aid have been reinforced as part of the MFF revision and that, despite the improvements, the heading as a whole will remain under significant pressure for the remainder of the MFF period given the challenging geopolitical situation and the combination of global crises; expects humanitarian aid needs to continue to exceed the amounts budgeted for and intends, therefore, to carefully monitor, and where necessary to address, those needs in the annual budgetary procedure;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recalls that, under the NDICI Regulation, decommitted funds are to be recommitted to their budget line of origin; emphasises that decisions on the redeployment of decommitted funds must respect the internal balance and distribution between the budget lines provided for in the NDICI Regulation; stresses that the precise breakdown of funds across budget lines is decided exclusively by the budgetary authority in the annual budgetary procedure and is determined to ensure that the EU continues to provide essential financial support and development aid to the Global South;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. WelcomesIs very disappointed of the additional EUR 2 billion in Heading 4 (migration and border management), which will be pivotal in implementing the New Pact on Migration and Asylum and help alleviate the strain on programmes and decentralised agencies in the heading;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. WelcomesIs very disappointed of the boost in the Union’s defence investment capacity through the EUR 1.5 billion reinforcement of the European Defence Fund, the Union’s defence being a pipe dream desired by the European Commission but which must remain the exclusive prerogative of the Member States; regrets, however, the overall limited additional resources to support the STEP objectives and the lack of fresh funding for the other programmes, with a consequent negative impact on green and digital investments;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. WelcomesIs very disappointed of the fact that the draft Council regulation establishes an uncapped special instrument over and above the ceilings (the EURI instrument) to cover at least part of the NGEU borrowing cost shortfall, which will provide certainty to the financial markets; recalls that the shortfall is currently estimated at EUR 15 billion between 2025 and 2027; underlines that, without a revision of the MFF, any shortfall can only be met by cutting programmes and exhausting budgetary flexibility;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that NextGenerationEU (NGEU) repayment costs are subject to market conditions, influenced by external factors and thus inherently volatile and that the repayment of borrowing costs is a non- discretionary legal commitment for the Union; reiterates, therefore, that it was strongly opposed to subjecting the repayment of NGEU borrowing costs to a cap within an MFF heading in the 2020 MFF negotiations; recalls that it has repeatedly argued for all NGEU borrowing costs to be placedits call to stop the borrowing to avoid excess costs for interest payments, and that no instrument should be over and above the MFF ceilings as a comprehensive structural solution to cover NGEU repayment costs, which have increased as a result of rising interest rates and required substantial use of the budget’s flexibility in 2023 and 2024of the MFF to respect principles of unity and of budgetary accuracy;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Points to the increased needs since the beginning of the MFF for humanitarian aid and emergency response inside and outside the Union and for support in relation to natural disasters, which are becoming more frequent and more intense in particular owing to climate change; is convinced that such needs are likely to grow; welcomes, therefore, the fact that the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve (SEAR) will be increased by EUR 1.5 billion for the remainder of the MFF period, though remains concerned that, even with this increase, needs are unlikely to be met;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Welcomes, furthermore, that, in line with Parliament’s long-standing position, the draft Council regulation splits the instrument into two parts - the European Solidarity Reserve for natural disasters and public health emergencies under the European Union Solidarity Fund and the Emergency Aid Reserve for rapid response to emergencies inside and outside the Union; considers that this revised architecture will facilitate implementation;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. RecognisNotes that, by increasing the Flexibility Instrument by EUR 2 billion between 2024 and 2027 and by creating the EURI special instrument for NGEU borrowing cost overruns, the draft Council regulation releases some pressure on thewhich is contrary to the principles of unity and of budgetary accuracy, the draft Council regulation releases some pressure on the budget; which is not the path to follow, as it is encouraged to find ways of saving funds by tackling any bottlenecks that prevent proper use of the Union’s budget; considers, nevertheless, that, given the logic of the steps leading to activation of the new special instrument and the shortfall in administrative spending owing to inflation, the increase is largely pre- allocated; remains concerned that, in line with the patterns of use in the early years of the MFF, the increase might not create sufficient budgetary space to enable the Union to respond to unforeseen circumstances and emerging needs, which once again alerts us to the need to find new ways of saving money by limiting unnecessary expenditure by the European institutions;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Regrets, therefore, that the draft Council regulation does not take up Parliament’s proposal of scrapping the annual cap in payments appropriations for recourse to the Single Margin Instrument, which would have eliminated any risk of a payments crisis; recalls that an increase of payment appropriations ceilings does not automatically correlate with better absorption capacity of the EU budget; points out, in this regard, that the amount of outstanding commitments (amounts committed but not yet paid) attained a record 490 billion EUR at the beginning of 2024;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. RegretWelcomes, therefore, that the draft Council regulation does not take up Parliament’s proposal of scrapping the annual cap in payments appropriations for recourse to the Single Margin Instrument, which would have eliminated any risk of a payments crisis, but which encourages the European institutions in search of new ways of saving money;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Deeply regretNotes the reduction of the financial envelope for Horizon Europe by EUR 2.1 billion, which runs counter to Council’s own stated objective of investing 3% of Gross Domestic Product in research and development; point outs, however, that Parliament helped mitigate the impact of the cut to Horizon Europe by making available EUR 100 million of research decommitments under Article 15(3) of the Financial Regulation to the benefit of the programme, on top of the EUR 500 million already agreed in 2020; recalls that the re- use of research decommitments is a long- standing Parliament demand;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
38. Recalls the importance ofat health policies and the clear political commitment in the 2020 MFF agreement to prioritise health funding; is, therefore, very disappointed by the cut of EUR 1 billion to EU4Health; considers that such a decision is likely to undermine preparedness for any further pandemic and curtail the Union’s ability tore exclusively a prerogative of the Member States; welcomes therefore, the cut of EUR 1 billion to EU4Health; considers that such a decision is likely to encourage national health services into stepping up and Member States to assume their responsibilities in supporting public health systems; points out, however, that, at Parliament’s request, the spending profile of the programme has been adapted in order to mitigate the impact of the cut on practical implementation by spreading the effect of the reduction more evenly across the remaining years;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Acknowledges that both the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) and the Brexit Adjustment Reserve (BAR) have not been required to the extent anticipated and that there is scope to adjust their envelopes; considers that amounts from these special instruments should have been re-used for other purposes in the budget, for example to reinforce the Flexibility Instrument; highlights that such events prove once again the ideological creation of the funds by the European Commission, which is not always driven by clear, undisputable demand;