10 Amendments of José Ignacio SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ-NEYRA related to 2017/2052(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the seven-year duration of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is not synchronised with the five- year mandates of Parliament and the Commission, nor aligned with the Union’s 10-year strategic planning cycle and the Europe 2020 strategy; is of the opinion that this lack of synchronisation could undermine the image of the Union’s democratic legitimacy and of the efficiency of its political governance, given that situations may arise where Parliament and the Commission are bound by agreements on political objectives and finances made in the previous framework period; stresses that this could create an impression that the European elections are somewhat irrelevant in the context of long-term budgetary and strategy planning;
Amendment 8 #
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, without jeopardising the implementation or administration of on-going programmes; 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 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
- the allocation of resources in the EU budget reflects the EU’s strategic priorities and opportunities to add value, in particular in policies that have shown to drain a lot of resources while serving merely redistributive functions, such as the Cohesion Policy and the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), and in recent priority policy fields that have shown to have insufficient budget measures in times of variable circumstances, such as immigration policy and external action, and the extent to which
Amendment 44 #
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 naturalIs of the opinion that the economic, social and territorial Cohesion Policies of the Union should still provide support for the less developed regions, and for better cross-border comopetiration 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, and encourages the Commission to not only provide mere redistributive financial support but to focus even more on the development and modernisation of growth, innovation, mobility, climate change, energy and environmental transition, while applying the same criteria to the whole of the EU;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that a new balancon the basis of existing commitments there is a need to strike a balanced 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 implementing 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;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls its remarks of the unsustainabl5 concerning the structure of CAP expenditure: 44.7 % of all Union farms had an annual income of less than EUR 4000, and on average 80 % of the beneficiaries of CAP direct support received around 20 % of the payments, which also highlights the need to take into account the differences in size across the Member States; points out that in times of volatility or crisis, larger farms do not necessarily need the same degree of support for stabilising farm incomes as smaller farms do, since they often benefit from potential economies of scale that are likely to make them more resilient; considers that in the CAP financing schemes could focus more onmore attention could be paid to farmers under special constraints: small farms, climatically and geographically challenging areas and sparsely populated regions; __________________ 5 See paragraph 207 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 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls upon the Commission, as it reflects on a simplified and modernised CAP, to assess whether a different policy design, or a different model of distribution of direct payments, could provide a better means of targeting public funds to agri- environment and climate action objectives; stresses, however,Stresses the need to provide financial compensation to cover the costs of maintaining high standards in food production, and the high production costs associated with the challenging climate condition in some geographical areas, as the farmers in Europe often struggle with global competition;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 77 #
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 oncompatible with the implementation of agreed structural reformrules and procedures;