7 Amendments of Julie GIRLING related to 2016/2047(BUD)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that a substantial part of the draft budget for 2017 (especially of heading 3) has to be dedicated to the challenges that the Union is currently facing, especially to addressing the migration and security crises; points out, however, that the substantial European added value of the policies and financing instruments in the remit of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has to be borne in mind by the budgetary authorities when deciding on the draft budget for 2017 and urges the Council in particular to refrain from making any cuts in respect of policies and financing instruments within the remit of that committee which have clearly demonstrable Union added value;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that the revisionew of the MFF creates an excellent opportunity to ensure that the target of spending 20 % on climate-related actions is reached and possibly increased in line with the Union's international commitments made during COP21; notes that the Commission’s climate mainstreaming methodology indicates that 19,2 % of total commitment appropriations proposed in the draft budget for 2017 are climate-related, compared to 20,8% in 2016; calls on the Commission to ensure that that the mechanism of climate action mainstreaming is put fully put into operation and that the current method of tracking such spending is improved; recalls, furthermore, that the Union is also committed to implementing the United Nations Convention's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and underlines that it should dedicate sufficient resources to fulfilling its commitments in that respect; notes in this regard that 8,2 % of total commitment appropriations proposed in draft budget for 2017 are related to reversing the decline in biodiversity, compared to 9 % in 2016; calls on the Commission to provide further explanation for the apparent fall in both climate and biodiversity-related spending as a proportion of the overall budget;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights the previous problems entailed by the lack of payment appropriations for the LIFE programme, which would impeded and delayed its proper implementation; welcomes, in this regard, the proposed 29,8 % increase in payment appropriations compared to 2016;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Highlights that the Union has the highest standards for food safety in the world; takes note of the proposed EUR 256.2 million in commitments (+1,3 % compared to 2016) and EUR 234,5 million in payments (-3,1 %) for food and feed under the draft budget for 2017; regrets that this represents a share of only 0,16 % in commitments in the draft budget for 2017 and a share of only 6 % of heading 3, and that it does not fully reflect the importance of food and feed safety in the Union; underlines that the activities funded will further focus onrelated to ensuring effective, efficient and reliable controls, as well as funding emergency measures related to animal and plant health have suffered decreases in payment appropriations of 10,4 % and 11,1 % respectively, in comparison to 2016; considers that these decreases have the potential to undermine the prevention and the reduction of the incidence of animal and plant diseases and the implementation of effective official controls in the area;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Recalls the paramount role of decentralised agencies in carrying out technical, scientific or managerial tasks that substantially help the Union’s institutions to make and implement policies; recalls, moreover, the very important tasks of the agencies which are under the remit of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (EEA, ECHA, ECDC, EFSA, EMA) and the paramount importance of their enhanced cooperation to perform these tasks, both for the Union institutions and citizens; highlights in this respect, that it is of a paramount importance that these agencies receive adequate human and financial resources, properly taking into account a case-by-case evaluation of the respective needs for each agency; expresses, nevertheless, its concerns that staff reductions in EEA (-3), ECHA (-5), ECDC (-4), EFSA (-7) and EMA (-6), could negatively impact their contribution to the implementation of Union policies;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Recalls that in view of the publication, on 15 June 2016, of two draft legal acts, which set the criteria to identify endocrine disruptors, the Commission has asked the relevant agencies to immediately start preparatory work to accelerate the process once the criteria are in force; highlights, therefore, that it is crucial that adequate financial and human resources are at the disposal of EFSA and ECHA;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that there is no margin left for pilot projects and preparatory actions are very valuable tools to initiate new activities and policiesunder heading 3; reiterates that several ideas of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety have been implemented successfully in the past as pilot projects/preparatory actions; considers, therefore that that committee will make further use of those instruments in 2017; encourages the but that the scope for new pilot projects and preparatory actions has been reduced by the lack of commitment appropriations available, and the lack of margin in heading 3; considers that it is likely, therefore that that committee must make carefull use of the margins available under each headingose instruments in 2017.