Activities of Estelle GRELIER related to 2011/0177(APP)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020
Amendments (10)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph A
Paragraph A
A. Highlights the small scale of the proposed MFF 2014-–2020, which in fact represents a reduction in relative terms by comparison with the current MFF 2007-– 2013; takes the view that the crisis cannot serve as an argument for reducing the EU budget but that, on the contrary, it strengthens the need for a robust, substantially increased budget that will make it possible to putachieve the political objectives of the EU, namely supporting economic growth, employment and putting the principle of economic and social cohesion into action within the framework of the EU 2020 strategy; argues, therefore, that the proposal for the MFF 2014-–2020 submitted by the Commission should be amended by the Council in this regard;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C
Paragraph C
C. Notes that the proposed multiannual financial framework 2014-–2020 contained in the Commission communication ‘A budget for Europe 2020’ makes provision for an overall indicative allocation of EUR 6.685 billion for fisheries and maritime affairs in 2011 constant prices (EMFF, including market measures + FPAs + RFMOs), representing an annual average of EUR 955 million for the period covered by the MFF 2014-2020 – a sum lower than that earmarked for 2013, the last year of the current MFF (EUR 984 million), even when inflation is taken into account; stresses with concern that the sums set aside for each of the years covered by the MFF 2014-–2020 fall below the amount set aside for 2013 under the current MFF; reiterates that Parliament called in its resolution of 8 June 2011 on ‘Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ for a global level of resources for the next MFF of at least 5 % extra compared to the 2013 level;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph D
Paragraph D
D. Points out that some of the policy objectives proposed by the Commission –— such as closing the innovation gap between fisheries and other sectors of the economy; facilitating the transition towards low impact fisheries, with the elimination of discards and low impact on marine ecosystems; the viability of communities dependent on inshorefishing and diversification, inter alia –— require increased financial resources, a lack of which will compromise their achievement;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph G
Paragraph G
G. Takes the view that the future common strategic framework that is to apply to funds under shared management, including the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), should mtake it possible to take the convergence principle more fully into account when allocating these funds, in accordance with the principle of solidarity and economic and social cohesion; stresses that new objectives in the field of cohesion (such as the creation of the new category of ‘transition regions’) should be matched by new, additional financial resources, without which the cohesion principle will be compromisednto account the diversity of the objectives of these financial instruments; recalls that the EMFF is a sectoral support fund, the allocation of which should not depend in any way on the economic status of the geographical area in which the beneficiary operates;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph H
Paragraph H
H. Expresses its concern atRejects the possible introduction and/or reinforcement of macroeconomic conditionality rules in connection with the use of European funds; takes the view that those countries facing the greatest financial difficulties and with the most fragile economies should not be doubly penalised, in the form of restricted access to funds that are essential for their recovery and development, which would call the cohesion principle into question;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph I
Paragraph I
I. Highlights the importance of the EMFF in the 2014-–2020 period, as the main instrument for financing the future CFP; stresses that new policies, objectives or priorities that will have an impact on the marine environment must be matched by newadequate financial resources; rejects the idea that new priorities, objectives and policies –— such as the integrated maritime policy –— should be financed at the expense of the appropriations required by fisheries policy;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph L
Paragraph L
L. Advocates the drawing-up of a Community programme supporting small- scale fishing that links uplinking up of existing instruments, particularly at the financial level, so as to respond to the specific problems of this segment and of the coastal communities most heavily dependent on it;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph Q
Paragraph Q
Q. Points out that the fishing industry plays an important part in the socio-economic situation, in employment and in promoting economic and social cohesion in the outermost regions (ORs), whose economies suffer from permanent structural constraints and limited possibilities for economic diversification; believes that Community support for the fishing industries in the ORs should be maintained and increased, notably through the programme compensating for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products from a number of ORs as a result of those regions’ remoteness (‘POSEI -– Fisheries’); in this connection, believes that this programme should continue in force indefinitely, since outermost status is a permanent factor; deplores the sharp cut in overall financing for these regions in the proposed MFF 2014-–2020, even though the number of ORs recognised by the EU is set to rise in the coming years, and calls for these appropriations to be increased substantially;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph R
Paragraph R
R. Urges the Commission to reconsider the draftCalls for the interinstitutional agreement and to make provision for the European Parliament to be fully involved in the process of negotiating international fisheries agreements; demands that representatives of the European Parliament should be able to take part in all stages of the negotiations, with observer status and on an equal footing with Member State representatives, taking account of Parliament’s powers in the field of fisheries agreements;