Activities of Tineke STRIK related to 2023/2129(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on 2022 discharge: General budget of the EU - Commission
Amendments (10)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls attention to the fact that the current year of audit is the one during which Russia launched its full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine, the worldwide effects of which have dramatically increased pressure on many EU partners and the need for humanitarian assistance ; expresses satisfaction that the flexibility of the Neighbourhood, Development, and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe of the Neighbourhood, Development, and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI-GE) allowed the Union to quickly adapt to the extraordinary set of circumstances; urges, however, the Commission and the EEAS to take further measures to ensure that the cushion of the Instrument in the future is used more as intended, since its excessive early use has resulted in its being depleted very quickly and used beyond its core purpose of responding to emerging challenges and priorities;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes note of the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report regarding the programming which concluded that it was comprehensively designed, addressing a broad range of partner country needs and EU priorities; highlights the identified deficiencies in the methodologies used for allocating funding to countries and in the setup of the monitoring framework; recommends therefore that the Commission and the EEAS improve the methodology for allocating funding and the assessment of the impact of EU support, focus the scope of the programming process, simplify and consistently use the indicators in the multiannual indicative programmes; suggests, in the framework of the mid term evaluation of the Instrument that the nomenclature be revised introducing a higher level of detail for transparency, predictability, accountability, scrutiny, and to enhance the budgetary authority’s capacity to make choices reflecting political priorities; regrets the two different approaches applied by the Commission and EEAS within the Instrument for the allocation of funding to Neighbourhood and non-Neighbourhood countries and asks that they be standardised, comparable and transparent in order to facilitate the audit trail;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Reiterates its call on the Commission to implement the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors Special Report 01/2022 in order to ensure an effective impact of EU financial assistance in support for the rule of law in the Western Balkans, in particular by developing guidelines on the application of the provisions on modulation and conditionality under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) III;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that the Union budget must continue to provide support to build peace and stability in the Middle East region, to combat hate and fundamentalism and to promote human rights; awaitstakes positive note, in that light, of the results of the review of the Commission is conducting on the use of Union funds, which concluded that no EU funds went directly or indirectly to Hamas; urges the Commission to therefore swiftly disburse the EU funds to Palestine without additional conditionality, notably to Palestinian civil society, which plays a pivotal role in promoting human rights and secular values, as well as the fights against radicalisation; condemns the obstruction of the disbursement of funds under the Annual Action Plan for Palestine by Commissioner Varhelyi, despite institutional approval of the package in November 2022; regrets the Commission’s recent proposal to allocate EUR 18 million of NDICI-GE funding to an implementing act related to the Abraham Accords, reminds the Commission that this is not in line with the development purposes of NDICI-GE;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Underlines that the EU´s budget should be managed in compliance with the Treaties and EU acquis, including provisions related to fundamental rights compliance, transparency and accountability towards the European Parliament and EU citizens; regrets, against that backdrop, the modus operandi of the Commission in its management of the external migration budget lines, notably the absence of fundamental rights impact assessments prior to migration projects in third countries, absence of publicly available overviews of budgets and projects and the Commission´s systematic refusal to provide Parliament with budgetary migration related spending overviews per country and MOCADEM related documentation, despite several formal requests and commitments under the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission: urges the Commission to significantly improve these practices with immediate effect, notably by performing ex ante human rights impact assessments before projects, creating a public overview of all migration related projects in third countries and systematically putting Parliament on equal footing with the Council in terms of the level of information provided;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Urges the Commission to enhance the Rule of Law conditionality based approach of IPA III funding, in order for the instrument to serve its’ purpose of effectively preparing accession countries to fulfil the conditions of becoming EU Member States, considers a particular emphasis on the Rule of Law and democracy related conditions to be of importance in this regard;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights the importance of the Global Gateway initiative which can significantly contribute to initiatives on connectivity, green and digital cooperation and that it needs to be focused and clearly structured in order for the resources to be used in the best way possible; calls on the Commission to set a clear and transparent accountability mechanism for implementation of the strategy and to demonstrate clear rationale for the use of development finance for the projects branded under the Global Gateway strategy and its equal benefits to recipient countries’ public and private sectors;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Recognises the multiple roles that Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) play; recalls the EU’s commitment to support CSOs in all external instruments and programmes and in all areas of cooperation, including through a flexible and tailor-made approach to funding in order to reach all types of CSOs; calls on the Commission to involve CSOs more systematically in the Global Gateway and Team Europe Initiatives;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Regrets the fact that the CFSP budget for civilian CSDP missions has only marginally increased from the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 to the MFF 2021-2027 (from a starting point of approximately EUR 350 million per year), while at the same time the number and tasks of the missions have increased, the security environment has become more challenging, the cost of operations has increased, inflation has risen and the number of contracted personnel has increased, therefore limiting the potential for expanding the current missions’ mandates or possibly establishing new missions in response to urgent security needs; calls for a substantive increase of funding for the CFSP budget, while at the same time ensuring the efficient use of the funds allocated to the CSDP civilian missions, in order to make sure that they effectively respond to crisis situations and unforeseen events, and to actively identify where complementary projects and programmes could be funded from other relevant EU budgets, ensuring sound financial management and the careful prioritisation of existing resources;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Calls also for the structure of the CFSP budget to be changed and for the generation of one budget line per civilian CSDP mission, in order to allow for better scrutiny and increased transparency;