BETA

19 Amendments of Rolandas PAKSAS related to 2011/2020(BUD)

Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Asks the Commission not to increase, during the current economic crisis, the level of appropriations earmarked for administrative expenditure in the field of trade policy under budget heading 20 01;
2011/08/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Supports the sharp increase in payments proposed by the Commission for the CIP- EIP programme as a crucial reaction to the positive trend of SMEs recovering from the crisis and to the priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy;
2011/07/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Rejects the Council’s amendments to the 2012 Draft Budget; considers that the Commission’s estimates of budgetary needs are more realistic than the Council’s proposals, in particular with regard to clearance of the accounts for previous years; insists, therefore, on reinstating the figures in the 2012 Draft Budget, in particular against the current background of great economic uncertainty and market instabilityof instability in the markets and in terms of farmers’ incomes, which calls for a very careful approach to any important changes;
2011/09/06
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Commends the Commission on its efforts to maintain overall payment appropriations for fisheries at the same level as in the previous financial year; takes the view that, even in a difficult economic context, efforts towards the sustainable development of the fisheries sector must be supported and social and economic problems in the sector prevented;
2011/07/20
Committee: PECH
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Considers, however, that priority should be given to areas in which the European Union has a clear added value and creates conditions to exploit the potential synergies that exist in the areas of law- enforcement cooperation, integrated border management and criminal justice systems; stresses that new measures and programmes need a clear justification;
2011/08/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that at this time of economic hardship the agencies should have appropriate, reasonable andly justifiable funding to ensure security of European society and fulfil the new tasks stemming from the Lisbon Treaty, the Stockholm Programme and their mandates;
2011/08/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the effective and efficient implementation of regional policy is key to the achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy in the present context of economic adversity and fiscal consolidation, as it contributes not only to the effective reduction of regional disparities, but also to creating the right framework to stable and sustainable economic growth and job creation;
2011/08/01
Committee: REGI
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Notes with satisfaction that the Ombudsman continues his policy of multiannual planning, systematically scrutinising budget lines and redeploying means with a view to generating savings; notes that the implementation of the budget line review strategy has made it possible to reduce the number of lines from 23 to 16; urges the other EU institutions to follow the Ombudsman’s best practice by applying this method;
2011/06/24
Committee: PETI
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the importance of adequate financing for specific programmes such as the school fruit and school milk schemes; points out that these specific programmes not only benefit farmers, but also support vulnerable groups in society and promote a healthier diet, increase children’s environmental awareness, promote proper nutrition and a healthy lifestyle and improve human health in relation to food and nutrition; asks, therefore, for the amounts which had been entered in the 2012 Draft Budget for both programmes to be reinstated;
2011/09/06
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the proper functioning of the external European business centres (Beijing, four locations in India and ASEAN trade Centre in Thailand) must be secured, but asks the Commission to ensure that the activities of these business centres do not duplicate those already being undertaken by trade organisations, private consultancy firms and national embassies; to this end, supports the proposed preparatory action for launching a cost effective coordination platform aiming to help European businesses, SMEs in particular, to expand their capacity for international action and to gain market access in fast growing third countries;
2011/08/11
Committee: INTA
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission – in order to strengthen the independence and integrity of the European Supervisory Authorities – to initiate a dialogue on changing their funding key so that the share covered by the EU budget is, as a first step, increased from 40 % to 60 %; underlines that the option of partly financing their activto give more attention to the option of partly financing the activities of the European Supervisory Authorities via fees paid by market actors should be given more attention; stresses that as soon as the authorities are running at full speed, the issue of whether they are sufficiently staffed to safeguard stability and ensure coherent implementation of regulatory reform should be thoroughly dealt with;
2011/07/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers it particularly important to extend the current ongoing pilot projects and measures related to implementation of the macro-regional strategies, given that if those strategies were implemented more effectively, the potential of the regions could be exploited to greater advantage, the EU Structural Funds could be turned to account in a more purposeful way, and the best possible response could be found to the challenges posed in a given region, for instance in the field of environmental protection;
2011/08/01
Committee: REGI
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that programmes for deprived persons must be implemented in the light of the proceedings before the General Court, as the Commission rightly points out in its statement of estimates; notes that, in its judgment in Case T-576/08 of 13 April 2011, the General Court stated that funding for this programe ‘Free Food for Europe’s Poor’ scheme should only cover the cost of taking food from intervention stocks, but not expenditure generated by the purchase of food supplies on the market; stresses, therefore, the urgent need – given that food poverty affects more than 43 million EU citizens – for a new legal basis in order to maintain the same level of financial support for food-aid programmes;
2011/09/06
Committee: AGRI
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its calls on the Commission and the Member States to co-fund further joint market surveillance actions; recognises the role of customs in market surveillance and supports the strengthening of the cooperation between customs administrations and market surveillance authorities, promoting the exchange of good practices and technical assistance; calls on the Member States to allocate necessary financial and human resources in order to fulfil their respective obligations for the implementation of Customs 2013 Programme (budget lines 14 01 04 02 and 14 04 02), paying particular attention to protecting external borders and combating trafficking and fraud;
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that Eurostat might also need to be reinforced in order to bee need to ensure that Eurostat is capable of managing new tasks in the updated economic governance framework; points out that the resources of Eurostat must continuously match the expanding workload and the enhanced quality demands in the key area of economic and financial statistics; is concerned about the reduction proposed by the Commission for the Union Statistical Programme and the very limited increase in staff expenditure in the ‘Statistics’ policy area;
2011/07/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Notes the key messages of the recent evaluation of the European Consumer Centeres (ECC) Network's functioning, especially with regard to the limited resources available so far and performance- based incentives proposed for the future; maintains its support for the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network, notwithstanding the forthcoming evaluation and assessment of its effectiveness.. which seeks to ensure that effective cooperation mechanisms for consumer protection enforcement authorities are defined and applied in the Member States;
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance for the stability of the European economy of making certain that the economic governance reforms are implemented in an effective way; welcomes the reinforcement of DG ECFIN made so farthat has already taken place in order to monitor national economies more closely, but underlines that this DG might have to be further strengthened to enable it to cope with the expanded and new responsibilities included in the reform packageand envisages no further reinforcement during the current phase of economic uncertainty;
2011/07/20
Committee: ECON
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers, particularly in view of the demographic changes taking place in the Member States and with a view to achieving the ambitious objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, that investment should be made in the wellbeing, education, labour market integration, entrepreneurship and active citizenship of young people, and stresses therefore the importance of appropriate funding for programmes which encourage mobility and cooperation programmes in the area of youth policy, such as ‘Youth in Action’, ‘Erasmus’ and ‘People;
2011/09/12
Committee: CULT
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Council to reconsider its position on the volume of commitments and payments against the lines in Title 11, in particular those relating to the EFF; highlights the EFF's importance in terms of adapting fishing communities to new industrial developments, their transition to more environmentally friendly production methods and their sustainable economic diversification.
2011/07/20
Committee: PECH