6 Amendments of Nadezhda NEYNSKY related to 2012/2016(BUD)
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the proposal to contain increases for appropriations under the European Neighbourhood Instrument, addressing the needs of countries facing major political and economical changes; welcomes the focus on the Eastern Partnership but considers the Commission’s reporting on the application of the ‘more for more’ principle to be insufficient; notes the EUR 80 million allocated for the SPRING programme but considers that allocations to this programme should be increased further in order to intensify EU-Southern Mediterranean relations; is critical of the 3.2% reduction of commitment appropriations to the Mediterranean countries in 2013;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that further efforts should be made to provide sensible and user-friendly information on the Union’s programmes and actions; in this regard, is of the opinion that the Commission should start producing annual reports that consolidate information on all external funding in the broad remit (such that is covered by Heading IV and such that may not be confined only to Heading IV) and that offers a breakdown of spending by inter alia beneficiary country, general area of application of the funds, use of financial instruments, commitments and payments, level of participation of partners;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates its concerns regarding the parliamentary scrutiny and transparency of the CFSP budget; firmly believes that a clear breakdown should be made of all items financed within the CFSP budget, including for each CSDP operations, for each EU special representatives and for each other attendant policiesy, convinced that this will not infringe on the necessary flexibility and reactivity required for the CFSP; calls on the Commission to provide, without delay, the rationale for using allocations from the CFSP budget, rather than from the budget of the External Action Service, to finance the outlays for EU Special Representatives; is of the conviction that any reduction of funding of CSDP missions should be conducted only after a careful impact assessment of such a reduction;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Considers that a sufficient level of EU financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA is still needed in order to adequately and comprehensively respond to the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East and the Peace Process; notes that the net effect of the increase in commitments for ENPI is mainly due to continued support to the occupied Palestinian territory at the level of the 2012 Draft Budget;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Calls on the Commission to update the multi-annual indicative financial framework (MIFF) accordingly to reflect the inclusion of Serbia as a candidate country under IPA; reminds that the change in candidacy status is seen as a significant amendment to the MIFF and should normally be revised before its annual revision in the autumn; Acknowledges the fact that with the accession of Croatia to the Union, a reduction of EUR 67,6 million will be made to IPA allocations; is nevertheless concerned that the Commission proposes a significantlarger cut in support for institutional capacity building for candidate countries than expected with the reduction of IPA allocations for Croatia (- 29,14 million EUR in total as compared to 2012), while the same line for potential candidates is reinforced (+10,5 million EUR compared to 2012); reminds that institutional capacity is of utmost importance for the rightful use of Union funding and is equally important for candidates and potential candidates; notes the proposed increase in CA for IPA rural development of 10,2% compared to Budget 2012;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Reiterates that especially in times of austerity commitment appropriations should be carefully planned for each CFSP budgetary line in order to guarantee that EU money is streamlined towards the measures where it is mostly needed, as much as possible taking into consideration the flexibility and unpredictability of CFSP operations; in this context, welcomes calls for greater synergies by inter alia pooling, sharing and integration of capabilities and through improved performance, planning and conducting of missions and operations; welcomes efforts for a transparent and complete overview of all CFSP missions; will carefully analyse the increase of 9,2% in CA for CFSP in 2013;