7 Amendments of Esther DE LANGE related to 2011/0177(APP)
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers thatRecognises the need for budgetary constraint in these cuts can not brrent economic crisis but does not believe that these cuts are counterbalanced by expenditure foreseen in other headings (food aid for most deprived persons, agricultural research, food safety reserve, etc.) or by flexibility instruments for unforeseeable expenditure (reserve for agricultural crisis, European Globalisation Fund, etc.), as these are budgetary reserves which do not contain commitment appropriations;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls, on therefore, on the Council to increase Council to recognise that agriculture spending has already taken significant reductions in Heading 2 and the subheading for direct payments and market related expenditure to EUR 420 682 million and EUR 336 685 million respectively, correspondand therefore believes that if there are to be any further reductions ing to a freeze in real terms, as requested in its earlier resolutionhe EU budget, the Council should look to other areas to make the necessary savings;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the importance of granting some flexibility to Member States to move funds between the two pillars of the CAP, taking into account existing co- financing requirements when moving funds from the 1st to the 2nd Pillar, in order to address the challenges of rural areas in the most appropriate way;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Underlines that the transition to a regional model and further greening of the CAP in the next period will have a severe impact on farmers and therefore extra cuts in the overall CAP- budget would put even more pressure on the position of individual farmers;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Strongly rejects, therefore, any attempt by the Council to reduce further the level of EU expenditure as proposed by the Commission; firmly opposes, in particular, any plead for in particular if such reductions would result in linear, across- the-board cuts that would jeopardise the implementation and effectiveness of all EU policies, irrespective of their European added value, political weight or performance; instead, challenges the Council, in case it proposes cuts, to clearly and publicly identify which of its political priorities or projects should be dropped altogether;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Believes that the effectiveness of EU expenditure depends on sound policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks at all levels; insists that, in accordance with Article 317 TFEU Member States, must shoulder their share of responsibility in making EU funding more effective; recalls that 90 % of the errors detected by the European Court of Auditors have been in Member States, and that the majority of those errors could have been avoided; calls on allthe Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal obliging Member States to issue national management declarations signed at the appropriate political level;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Stresses, however, that there is no direct relation between the regional policy performance and the macroeconomic performance of a Member State, and that the regions should not be punished for the failure of the national level to comply with procedures related to economic governance; believes that imposing additional penalties could thus exacerbate the problems of Member States already facing macroeconomic difficulties, and, therefore, that macroeconomic conditionalities are not acceptable; not withstanding agreements already reached in the framework of a stronger European economic governance;