32 Amendments of Zbigniew KUŹMIUK related to 2018/0166R(APP)
Amendment 8 #
Recital C
C. whereas the MFF quickly proved its inadequacy in responding to a series of crises and new political challenges that were not anticipated at the time of adoption; whereas, for the purpose of securing the necessary funding, the MFF was pushed to its limits including an unprecedented recourse to the flexibility provisions and special instruments, after exhausting the available margins; whereas high-priority EU programmes on research and infrastructures were even cut just two years after their adoption;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reiterates its call for the CAP budget to be maintained in the 2021-2027 MFF at least at the level of the 2014-2020 budget for the EU-27 in real terms, given the fundamental role of this policy; points out that significant cuts in the CAP will have a negative impact on its implementation, in particular on ensuring widespread access to safe, cheap, high- quality food, which will have negative consequences going beyond rural areas; reaffirms its view that agriculture must not suffer any financial disadvantage as a result of political decisions such as the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU or the funding of new European policies;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Disagrees with the Commission’s proposal for the next MFF, which would entail substantial cuts to the CAP; highlights the fact that the extent of the cuts varies according to the parameters used for the comparison; disagrees with the Commission’s approach of providing two calculation methods for the MFF (current vs constant);
Amendment 41 #
Paragraph 5
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of direct payments as well as second-pillar funds for farmers; deplores in particular the severe cuts envisaged for the second pillar of the CAP, which makes a significant contribution to investment and employment in rural areas; stresses that it cannot be taken for granted that national co-funding of the second pillar will fill the budget gap; advocates maintaining the current level of EAFRD funding for rural development and maintaining the cohesion criteria for the distribution of this part of the CAP budget among the Member States; calls for the maximum permissible rate of transfers between pillars to be raised to the current 25%;
Amendment 71 #
Paragraph 8
8. Expects, therefore, that the MFF will be placed at the top of Council’s political agenda and regrets that no tangible progress is observed so far; believes that the regular meetings between the successive Council presidencies and Parliament’s negotiating team should intensify and pave the way to official negotiations; expects that a good agreement is reached before the 2019 European Parliament elections, in order to avoid the serious setbacks for the launch of the new programmes due to the late adoption of the financial framework, as experienced in the past; underlines that this timetable does not prevent the newly elected European Parliament from adjusting the 2021-2027 MFF during the mandatory mid-term revision;
Amendment 74 #
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that revenue and expenditure should be treated as a single package in the upcoming negotiations; stresses, therefore, that no agreement can be reached on the future MFF without corresponding progress being made on the new Union’s own resources;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that an indirect boost to farmers' income can also be achieved through a real reduction in red tape for farmers in the CAP;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 1 (new)
(1) Stresses that ensuring a level playing field for farmers in the EU single market requires full alignment of the level of direct payments between Member States;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point 2 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 2 (new)
(2) Considers that the Commission's proposal to extend financial discipline to all beneficiaries of direct payments will not serve the objective of achieving a better balance in the distribution of payments between farms of different sizes, and therefore expects the current exemption from the financial discipline mechanism for farmers receiving up to EUR 2 000 in direct payments to be maintained;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point 3 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 3 (new)
(3) Considers that the agricultural reserve for 2021 should constitute a separate budget line within the 2021 limit, which is justified by the nature of the disbursements from this reserve, which are intended to serve market mechanisms; stresses that the agricultural reserve should in the first instance be funded from assigned revenue under Pillar I of the CAP (EAGF);
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point 4 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 4 (new)
(4) Calls for the current N+3 rule applicable in the case of automatic decommitment of allocations under Pillar II of the CAP to be maintained;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point 5 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 5 (new)
(5) Advocates maintaining at least the current level of the school scheme budget as it plays an important role in promoting healthy eating and in shaping positive eating habits among children and young people;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point 6 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 6 (new)
(6) Recognises the risk that reducing support for CAP and cohesion policy measures would entail in limiting the scope for providing support for entrepreneurship in rural areas and support for territorial development in terms of infrastructure;
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point 7 (new)
Paragraph 7 – point 7 (new)
(7) Calls for a better balance between environmental and climate objectives and CAP funding, since the Commission's proposed increase in ambition in this area (40% of the entire CAP budget for climate goals, and 30% of Pillar II funding for the environment), together with significant cuts in funding, means that the policy's ability to meet the objectives of modernising and restructuring the agri- food sector and rural development will be severely reduced.
Amendment 144 #
Paragraph 18
Amendment 151 #
Paragraph 19
19. Welcomes the Commission proposals on flexibility that represent a good basis for the negotiations; strongly supports the clear provision that both commitment and payment appropriations deriving from the use of special instruments should be entered in the budget over and above the relevant MFF ceilings, as well as the removal of any capping to the adjustments flowing from the global margin for payments; calls for a number of additional improvements to be introduced, inter alia the following: i. Reserve with an amount equivalThe replenishment tof the revenue resulting from fines and penalties; ii. decommitments made during year n-2, including those resulting from commitments made in the current MFF;Union The immediate re-use of iii. The lapsed amounts of special instruments to be made available for all special instruments, and not just the Flexibility Instrument; iv. A higher allocation for the Flexibility Instrument, the Emergency Aid Reserve, the EU Solidarity Fund, and the Contingency Margin, the latter without a compulsory offsetting; iv a. Transfer of unused commitments and payments between current and next MFF.
Amendment 154 #
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines the need for MFF’s duration to move progressively towards a 5+5 period with a mandatory mid-term revision; accepts that the next MFF should be set for a period of seven years by way of a transitional solution to be applied for one last time; expects that the modalities linked to the implementation of a 5+5 framework are endorsed at the time of the mid-term revision of the 2021-2027 MFFbe set for a period of seven years to ensure the necessary stability of investments in multiannual budgetary programmes;
Amendment 157 #
Paragraph 21
21. Accepts the overall structure of seven MFF headings, as proposed by the Commission, which largely corresponds to Parliament’s own proposal; considers that this structure provides for greater transparency, improves the visibility of EU expenditure, while maintaining the necessary degree of flexibility; agrees, moreover, with the creation of “programme clusters” that are expected to lead to a significant simplification and rationalisation of the EU budget structure and its clear alignment with the MFF headings; insists however that cohesion policy, by reason of its significant, Treaty- based role as well as its distinct mode of implementation, should continue to be placed under a separate subheading, comprising the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the shared management strand of the European Social Fund+; no margin should be included under the separate cohesion policy subheading;
Amendment 160 #
Paragraph 22
22. Notes that the Commission proposes to reduce the number of EU programmes by more than a third; reserves the right to determine Parliament’s position with regard to the structure and composition of the 37 new programmes in the examination of the relevant sectorial legislative acts; recalls in this context the need to maintain separate, dedicated instruments for the Neighbourhood and Development within heading 6 expects, in any case, that the proposed budget nomenclature will reflect all different components of each programme, in a way that guarantees transparency and provides the level of information required for the budgetary authority to establish the annual budget;
Amendment 161 #
Paragraph 23
Amendment 170 #
Paragraph 26
26. Stresses the importance of the new sanction mechanism whereby Member States that do not respect the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) shall be subject to financial consequences; warns,notes however, that final beneficiaries of the Union budget shall in no way be affected by the disregarding from their government towards fundamental rights and the rule of law; therefore underlines that measures shall not affect the obligation of government entities orthe Commission’s proposal in this respect lacks legal clarity and foreseeability, which are essential elements of the rule of law principle itself; highlights that, pursuant to Article 322 TFEU, measures cannot be taken if, while guaranteeing respect for the rule of law, they are not directly linked to the sound management of funds paid out of the EU budget; is concerned that the proposed procedure would grant the Commission with discretionary powers unforeseen by the Treaties; in order to limit arbitrariness of power and ensure equal treatment of Member States and citizens, stresses the need to establish objective, measurable and adequate criteria as well as precise deadlines for every decision of both the Commission and the Council on action and lack of action; raises serious doubts as to the proposed use of the so-called reverse qualified majority voting procedure, which was intended as an exception to normal voting rules, specifically for decisions on the excessive deficit procedure, and an earlier political agreement of the European Council was required if this method was to be applied in other cases (point 81 of the February 2013 European Council Conclusions); is concerned that an obligation of a Member States to make payments to final beneficiaries or recipients; concerned to implement the programme or fund affected by the measures from the national budget may not be compatible with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 184 #
Paragraph 30
30. Stresses that the current system of own resources is highly complex, unfair and non-transparent; calls again for a simplified system that will be more understandable for the EU citizens and in line with the Protocol 28 to the TFEU;
Amendment 192 #
Paragraph 32
32. Supports the suggested modernisation of existing own resources, which implies: - maintaining the customs duties as traditional own resources for the EU, whilst decreasing the percentage Member States retain as “collection cost”; - simplifying the Value Added Tax- based own resource, i.e. introducing a uniform call rate to goods and services taxed with a standard rate in all Member States without exceptions; - maintaining the GNI-based own resource, with the objective of reducing, to less than 60%, its share in the financing of the EU budget, while preserving its balancing function;
Amendment 196 #
Paragraph 33
33. Takes positive note, in parallel, of the Commission proposal to gradually introduce a basket of new own resources which, without increasing the fiscal burden for citizens, would correspond to two strategic objectives of the EU, the European added value of which is evident and irreplaceable: - the proper functioning, the consolidation and the strengthening of the single market in particular by the implementation of a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB); noting however the slow progress of negotiations on the CCCTB directive; - the fight against climate change and the acceleration of energy transition, through measures such as a share of the emission trading scheme income and a contribution based on the quantity of non- recycled plastic packing; is concerned however about the fairness of these two proposals, as they would put a disproportionate burden on less affluent Member States;
Amendment 205 #
Paragraph 35
35. Approves strongly the suppression of all rebates and other correction mechanisms, accompanied, should the need arise, by a limited perdisagrees however with the proposed phasing-out periods which lack justification and sustain the focus on the flawed juste retour approach, without respect to the principle of European added value of the MFF; insists therefore that the suppressiodn of phasing outall correction mechanisms should take effect from the beginning of year 2021;
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Taking into account the need for an adequate level of predictability for preparing and implementing medium-term investments as well as the need for democratic legitimacy and accountability, the duration of theis Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) should be set at seven years starting on 1 January 2021.
Amendment 229 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 2 – Article 4 - paragraph 2 a (new)
Chapter 2 – Article 4 - paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. At the end of 2027, amounts that remain available under the GMP shall be carried over to the next MFF up to 2029.
Amendment 248 #
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 2 – Article 7
Chapter 2 – Article 7
In the case of the lifting, in accordance with the relevant basic acts, of a suspension of budgetary commitments concerning Union funds in the context of measures linked to sound economic governance or to the protection of the Union’s budget in the case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States, the amounts corresponding to the suspended commitme, the corresponding amounts shall be transferred to the following years and the corresponding ceilings of the MFF shall be adjusted accordingly. Suspended commitments of year n may not be entered in the budget beyond year n+23.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 4 – Article 16
Chapter 4 – Article 16
Before 1 January 2024, the Commission shall present a review of the functioning of the MFF. This review shall, as appropriate, be accompanied by relevant proposalsWithout prejudice to Article 6 of this Regulation, preallocated national envelopes shall not be reduced through such a review.
Amendment 274 #
Part 1
Section A – point 7
7. The institutions shall, for the purposes of sound financial management, ensure as far as possible during the budgetary procedure and at the time of the budget’s adoption that sufficient marginamounts are left available within the margins beneath the ceilings for the various headings of the MFF, except in the sub- heading 2a ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion, or within the available special instruments.