2015/2353(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that the RAL (reste à liquider) is ~~an inevitable by-product of~~the consequence of faulty choices made by the institutions when establishing multi-annual programming and differentiated appropriations; notes that the RAL was significantly higher than expected at the end of the financial framework for 2007-2013, and stresses that current gaps between commitments and payments will inevitably lead to new difficulties for ongoing programmes and that this must be avoided;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Is firmly convinced that the EU and the Member States should abandon the economic approach based on austerity policies; believes that austerity policies and a lack of job security can be considered to be the basic causes of the extremely high youth unemployment rate, the huge rise in the number of poor workers and NEETs and the continuing deterioration of quality in the cultural and education sectors; calls on the EU and the Member States to adopt urgent measures in order to provide a tangible and effective response to these serious issues;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Support~~Notes the creation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) ~~and highlights the need to minimise the impact of the cuts on the Horizon 2020 programmes and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) in order to allow them to accomplish their respective objectives~~, which is designed to enable SMEs to propose a project that could be financed by the European Investment Bank; is nevertheless concerned at the possible budgetary restrictions that the European Fund for Strategic Investments could entail for other programmes such as Horizon 2020 and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF);

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Supports~~Notes that the creation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) ~~and highlights the need to minimise the impact of the~~has had an impact in terms of cuts ton the Horizon 2020 programmes and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) ~~in order to allow them~~, limiting their ability to accomplish their respective objectives;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. SReiterates its supports for the creation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) ~~and highlights~~; stresses the need to increase the focus on investment in education, training and the cultural and creative industries within the EFSI; highlights, in addition, the need to minimise the impact of the cuts on the Horizon 2020 programmes and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) in order to allow them to accomplish their respective objectives and to exploit in full the potential additionality and synergies between these three instruments, with a view to restoring sustainable growth in Europe, based on innovation and quality employment;

Amendment 14 #

Marc JOULAUD, Bogdan Brunon WENTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Support~~Notes the creation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and highlights the need to minimise the impact of t~~he cuts on~~ransfers from the Horizon 2020 ~~programmes and the~~and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) programmes to establish EFSI in order to allow them to accomplish their respective objectives;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Supports the creation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), which will promote cultural and educational projects and recognises the role of cultural and creative industries, and highlights the need to minimise the impact of the cuts on the Horizon 2020 programmes and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) in order to allow them to accomplish their respective objectives;

Amendment 16 #

Luigi MORGANO, Silvia COSTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Maintains that the establishment of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) has not boosted the EU economy at all but has, conversely, hampered the adoption of the economic measures that are necessary to achieve the goal of markedly improving the quality of life and living conditions of EU citizens, especially those from the most disadvantaged groups; takes the view that the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is extremely detrimental to the education sector because of the privatisation processes it could engender;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. IExpresses concern~~ed by~~ over the slower- than-planned take-off of new programmes under the 2014-2020 MFF period owing to the late approval of the legal bases and of the operational programmes, as well as to the shortages in payment appropriations in 2014; notes that, despite the acceleration of processes throughout 2014, the problem of unfinalised contracts and unpaid invoices persists, and is becoming structural; highlights, from this point of view, the responsibilities of the Member States, which are required to comply with the decisions they themselves have taken as budgetary authorities together with the European Parliament, in particular with regard to payment appropriations; expresses its concern for how the important programmes which invest in education and, in general, in human ~~skills~~capital - Erasmus+, Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens - will manage to reach cruising speed; ~~takes note~~welcomes the albeit belated launch of the safeguard mechanism for the Creative Europe programme, which is an important financing instrument for SMEs and organisations working in the cultural and creative sectors; stresses that these experiences should be included as an important basis for the coming MFF;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is concerned by the slower-than-planned take-off of new programmes under the 2014-2020 MFF period owing to the late approval of the legal bases and of the operational programmes, as well as to the shortages in payment appropriations in 2014; expresses its concern for how ~~the~~ important programmes ~~which~~that seek to make investments in education ~~and in human skills -~~, skills and the EU's cultural and creative industries, such as Erasmus+, Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens -, will manage to reach cruising speed; takes note that these experiences should be ~~included as an important basis for~~reviewed as part of the coming MFF;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is concerned by the slower-than-planned take-off of new programmes under the 2014-2020 MFF period owing to the late approval of the legal bases and of the operational programmes, ~~as well as to~~ the shortages in payment appropriations in 2014 and new expenditure linked to the migration crisis, as well as the EUR 3 billion in additional financial aid promised to Turkey; expresses its concern for how the important programmes which invest in education and in human skills - Erasmus+, Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens - will manage to reach cruising speed; takes note that these experiences should be included as an important basis for the coming MFF;

Amendment 2 #

Helga TRÜPEL, Ernest MARAGALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that the RAL (reste à liquider) is an inevitable by-product of multi-annual programming and differentiated appropriations and of an excessive inflexibility of the MFF, which does not allow funding to be reallocated between headings and has limited room for flexibility; notes that the RAL was significantly higher than expected at the end of the financial framework for 2007- 2013, and stresses that current gaps between commitments and payments will inevitably lead to new difficulties for ongoing programmes and that this must be ~~avoided;~~ resolved structurally, without resorting to draft amending budgets each year;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that Erasmus+ would reach its cruising speed only if it takes on board a growing number of smaller projects that allow a larger diffusion of the programme at schools or for youth, an increase of VET mobility, and therefore a better efficiency in realising its educative, social and humanitarian goals; welcomes therefore all efforts made by the EACEA and national agencies to improve not only their financial transparency but the simplification procedures for the project leaders;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Highlights the opportunity of the mid- term review of the MFF 2014-2020 to assess the effectiveness and added value of all EU culture and education programmes, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and to ensure their effective management by executive agencies;

Amendment 22 #

Helga TRÜPEL, Ernest MARAGALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Is concerned at the fact that virtually no resources are available in heading 3 of the current MFF (‘Security and citizenship’) and calls for the next meeting to provide it with the necessary resources and sufficient flexibility to enable it to tackle the significant challenges facing the EU in this area;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Recommends the Commission to pay special attention to the implementation of the financial Guarantee facility tool which is delayed by more than a few months; is concerned that cultural NGOs and small associations will not be eligible for this tool, and only cultural and creative SMEs would be able to participate; recommends a thorough analysis of the experiences done throughout the whole process in order to check the pertinence and sustainability of such a tool, aside COSME;

Amendment 24 #

Helga TRÜPEL, Ernest MARAGALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Urges the Commission and Council to review their position on the "Europe for Citizens" programme, the only programme which involves all citizens directly, and to provide it with a substantial additional budget allowing better implementation of the goals of the programme and avoiding further frustration among participants to the calls; indeed, having been cut beyond any reason, the programme can only accept a dramatically low percentage of projects, a situation that it is not sustainable and defendable towards the EU citizens, even more so in the present social and humanitarian situation in the EU;

Amendment 25 #

Luigi MORGANO, Silvia COSTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines, in the context of the migrant crisis that the EU is facing, that the Paris Declaration of the 28 Education Ministers of 17 March 20151 emphasises the role of intercultural dialogue and the combined efforts of the Member States in order to prevent and tackle marginalisation, intolerance, racism and radicalisation, and also to preserve a framework of equal opportunities for all. ; points out that current European programmes relating to culture, education, youth and sport are characterised by their potential additionality and synergies with respect to integration policies for migrants and refugees, and thus informs the institutions of the need to respond to the migration crisis by providing for additional resources in both the directly managed programmes and the Structural Funds, in addition to dedicated budget lines; __________________ 1 The Declaration on Promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education (Paris Declaration) of the informal meeting of the European Union Education Ministers of 17 March 2015.

Amendment 27 #

Marc JOULAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that the refugee crisis the EU is experiencing is long-term in nature and will therefore require specific, appropriate and long-term financial resources to help Member States meet the needs of refugees, with particular regard to education and cultural integration.

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that the mismatch between the seven-year programming of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the ten-year programming of the political and strategic priorities of the EU could adversely affect the consistent evaluation of the results achieved by Union programmes; calls on the institutions, therefore, to consider changing the MFF programming period in order to align it with the parliamentary term, albeit while permitting long-term programming;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Underlines the difference between the process of "review" and that of "revision" of the MFF, whereas with the second it must be possible to undergo substantial modification of the headings so as to guarantee the democratic legitimacy of EU multiannual financial planning; strongly supports, therefore, the work of the inter-institutional high level group on own resources, as a structural solution to some of the problems inherent in the multiannual planning of the EU budget.

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that the RAL (reste à liquider) is a~~n inevitable~~ by-product of multi-annual programming and differentiated appropriations; notes that the RAL was significantly higher than expected at the end of the financial framework for 2007- 2013, and stresses that current gaps between commitments and payments ~~will inevitabl~~may lead to new difficulties for ongoing programmes and that this must be avoided;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that the revision of the MFF is a key point in the management of Union spending by ensuring that Union investment programmes remain efficient; insists on a thorough simplification of the application forms and criteria, of reporting and reimbursement, especially for small-scale projects, both in Erasmus+ and in the Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens programmes;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Notes that the mid-term review of the MFF and the reports on implementation of EU programmes should be regarded as two interconnected parts of the same process; calls on the institutions, therefore, to review the functioning of that process, where there are requirements which are an obstacle to achieving the Union's strategic and political objectives, particularly with regard to decentralisation in the provision of funding under the Youth section of Erasmus +;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for the ~~continuat~~revision of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), proposed by the European Council of 7-8 February 2013 as a reaction to the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, ~~following a fully-fledged assessment of its performance and subsequent adjustments to overcome existing implementation impediments;~~ given that the initiative has proved ineffective up to now, with youth unemployment rates that remain extremely high in some Member States (50.1% in Greece, for example) and indeed have increased in some cases since the initiative was launched (21.5% in 2011 rising to 22.8% in 2014 in France);

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for ~~the continuation~~a review of the operational mechanisms of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), proposed by the European Council of 7-8 February 2013 ~~as a reaction to~~, in order to make it an effective tool for helping to resolve the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, following a fully-fledged assessment of its performance and subsequent adjustments to overcome existing implementation impediments; regrets that the Youth Employment Initiative has hitherto failed to achieve the goal of improving working and economic conditions for young people;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Calls for the continua~~Notes the introduction of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), proposed by the European Council of 7-8 February 2013 as a reaction to the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment~~, following~~; underlines the need for a fully-fledged assessment of its performance and an ex ante impact assessment of any subsequent adjustments to overcome existing implementation impediments;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), proposed by the European Council of 7-8 February 2013 as a reaction to the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment, following athe fully-fledged assessment of its performance ~~and~~that the Commission has undertaken to submit in the first half of 2016, and calls for subsequent adjustments to be proposed to overcome existing implementation impediments up to the end of the current financial framework;

source: 578.793

2016/04/05 ENVI 64 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Helmut SCHOLZ, Barbara SPINELLI, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Underlines that the European Union, which has spearheaded efforts to reach a global agreement in COP21, will have to radically transform its economy into a sustainable low-carbon economy in order to achieve its commitment and to lead by example global efforts to tackle climate change; calls therefore for the Multiannual Financial Framework to be strengthened as to fully support the achievement of the Union's climate goals;

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for the full involvement of the whole Parliament in the interinstitutional debate on the role, structure, goals, priorities and results of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) in accordance with its mandate adopted by the plenary;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Calls on the Commission to ensure Union financial resources do not contain subsidies that are harmful for the climate, or lock in fossil fuel infrastructure;

Amendment 10 #

Pervenche BERÈS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls that under Article 311, first paragraph, TFEU, ‘The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies’; in this view considers that the accumulation of unpaid bills from previous European budgets, and the lacking means to face crisis and challenges, current or to come, i.e. among others, the displacement of refugees, the migration flux, the coordination of fight against the terrorism, the reinforcement of the security of EU citizens, the support and coordination of the energy and transport sector, the support of measures to combat the climate changes, demonstrate to the urgency of more European action and funds;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Stresses that the review of the MFF should not be used by the Member States to unload their responsibilities, that derive from the Paris target of $100 billion per year joint goal to support developing countries, on the EU budget;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF~~, particularly through the creation of new and genuine o~~; however, considers it imperative that the revision of the forecast of Traditional Own rResources; urges the Council to commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High-Level Group on Own Resources; also urges the Council to reflect on the establishment of a fiscal capacity within the eurozone in order to assist and the budgeting of GNI balances and VAT remains free from political interference, and based solely on the latest economic data, thereby providing a greater degree of certainty for both Member States inand the ~~implementation of agreed structural reforms; underlines that any new instrument should be placed within the EU budget, but above the ceil~~Commission alike in the forward plannings of ~~the MFF, and financed from real own resource~~both National and European Union budgets;

Amendment 12 #

Ramón JÁUREGUI ATONDO, Enrique GUERRERO SALOM

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Notes that the implementing regulation for Horizon 2020 has set a higher climate action target than that of the overall EU budget; believes that for climate-related expenditure to exceed 35% of the overall Horizon 2020 budget, more accurate and complete tracking of climate action within Horizon 2020 is required, as well as increased focus on the parts of Horizon 2020 that are potentially climate- relevant, but have so far not delivered significant climate action;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF, particularly through the creation of new and genuine own resources~~; urges the Cou~~, such as the tax on financial t~~o commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High-Level Group on Own Resources;~~ransactions, ECB profits, and other European tax revenue, and accordingly urges the Council ~~also~~to commit to reflecting on the provision of budgetary resources in the euro area to help Member States implement agreed structural reforms; stresses that any new instrument should be entered in the EU budget, while remaining outside MFF ceiling limits, and be funded from genuine ois issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High- Level Group on Own rResources;

Amendment 13 #

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. As at least 20% of the MFF for 2014- 2020 should be spent on climate change related action, the Commission shall assess, especially in light of the Paris Agreement and the European Union's commitments therein, what climate change related action is funded and whether this guarantees that the targets under the Paris Agreement will be met; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to guarantee that the mechanism of climate change mainstreaming is fully operationalized and that the mainstreaming target is met, not only in the context of energy and transport but also in other investment areas;

Amendment 13 #

Charles GOERENS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF, particularly through the creation of new and genuine own resources; urges the Council to commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High-Level Group on Own Resources; also urges the Council to reflect on the establishment of a fiscal capacity within the eurozone ~~in order to assist Member States in the implementation of agreed structural reforms~~; underlines that any new instrument should be placed within the EU budget, but above the ceilings of the MFF~~, and financed from real own resources~~;

Amendment 14 #

Helmut SCHOLZ, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Barbara SPINELLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Given that the added value of the ecosystems and biodiversity of the European environment must be ensured, considers that the ~~MFF should recognise this value by allocating sufficient resources in the upcoming budget~~mid-term review of the MFF provides an ideal opportunity to identify policy areas which are no longer among the Union's priorities, in order to reallocate existing funds to areas with genuine added value such as tohe preserv~~e this~~ation of biodiversity, mainly in rural areas;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF, particularly through the creation of new and genuine own resources, e.g. the already by the Commission proposed financial transaction tax (FTT); urges the Council to commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High-Level Group on Own Resources; also urges the Council to reflect on the establishment of a fiscal capacity within the eurozone in order to assist Member States in ~~the implementation of agreed structural reforms~~creasing their public investment; underlines that any new instrument should be placed to ensure the needed parliamentary control and transparency within the EU budget, but above the ceilings of the MFF, and financed from real own resources;

Amendment 15 #

Csaba MOLNÁR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Given that the sustainability of European economies and the added value of the ecosystems and biodiversity of the European environment must be ensured, considers that the MFF should recognise this value by allocating sufficient resources in the upcoming budgets to preserve this biodiversity, mainly in rural areas;

Amendment 15 #

Mercedes BRESSO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF, particularly through the creation of new and genuine own resources; urges the Council to commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High-Level Group on Own Resources; also urges the Council to reflect on the establishment of a fiscal and a budget capacity within the eurozone in order to assist Member States in the implementation of agreed structural reforms; underlines that any new instrument should be placed within the EU budget, ~~but~~ above the ceilings of the MFF, ~~and~~ financed from real own resources, and could be put under the scrutiny of a European Finance Minister which could be created inside the framework of the Lisbon Treaty;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF, particularly through the creation of new and genuine own resources for the EU budget; urges the Council to commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High-Level Group on Own Resources; also urges the Council to reflect on the establishment of a fiscal capacity within the eurozone in order to assist Member States in the implementation of agreed structural reforms; underlines that any new instrument should be placed within the EU budget, but above the ceilings of the MFF, and financed from real own resources; stresses the necessity of unity of the EU budget on the grounds of democratic accountability and transparency;

Amendment 17 #

Stefan ECK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Given that the added value of the ecosystems and biodiversity of the European environment must be ensured, considers that the MFF should recognise this value by allocating sufficient resources in the upcoming budgets to preserve this biodiversity, mainly in rural areas, but not only. In the light of the current EU's commitments to halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in Europe by 2020, we must make sure that the overall EU spending has no negative impacts on biodiversity and supports the achievement of our biodiversity targets. Consequently, with environmental protection being an integral part of all EU policies under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, there is a direct link between biodiversity protection with the expenses of major EU policies such as agriculture and forest policies; fisheries, marine and water policies; regional policy; and climate change policy;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF, particularly through the creation of new and genuine own resources related to corrective taxes on economic activities generating negative externalities, such as a Financial Transaction Tax and a Carbon Tax; urges the Council to commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High- Level Group on Own Resources; also urges the Council to reflect on the establishment of a fiscal capacity within the eurozone in order to assist Member States in the implementation of agreed structural reforms; underlines that any new instrument should be placed within the EU budget, but above the ceilings of the MFF, and financed from real own resources;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 18 #

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF, particularly through the creation of new and genuine own resources in order to move towards a budget 'wholly financed by own resources' as provided for by Article 311 TFEU; urges the Council to commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High- Level Group on Own Resources; also urges the Council to reflect on the establishment of a fiscal capacity within the eurozone in order to assist Member States in the implementation of agreed structural reforms; underlines that any new instrument should be placed within the EU budget, but above the ceilings of the MFF, and financed from real own resources;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 19 #

Morten MESSERSCHMIDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers it necessary to reform the system of financing of the MFF, particularly through the creation of new and genuine own resources and assuring that the Member States' fiscal sovereignty remains unimpaired; urges the Council to commit to reflecting on this issue, without prejudice to the final report from the High- Level Group on Own Resources; also urges the Council to reflect on the establishment of a fiscal capacity within the eurozone in order to assist Member States in the implementation of agreed structural reforms; underlines that any new instrument should be placed within the EU budget, but above the ceilings of the MFF, and financed from real own resources;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be adapted to achieve the goals set in Paris~~, in the context of the Horizon 2020 strategy,~~ given that adaptation of the European economies to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change will be one of the main challenges the European Union will have to face in the coming years;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for ~~the~~a full and meaningful involvement of the European Parliament in the interinstitutional debate on the role, structure, goals, priorities and results of the multiannual financial framework (MFF);

Amendment 20 #

Ramón JÁUREGUI ATONDO, Enrique GUERRERO SALOM

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the Commission to introduce an effective method of tracking biodiversity spending in the Union budget and to ensure Union financial resources do not contain subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Urges the Council also to reflect on the provision of budgetary resources in the euro area to help Member States implement agreed structural reforms; stresses that any new instrument should be entered in the EU budget, while remaining outside MFF ceiling limits, and be funded from genuine own resources;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the MFF should provide an adequate budget and financing for the Natura 2000 network, in particular through the LIFE programme which aims to promote implementation of environment and climate objectives and their integration into other policies and Member State practice; notes with concern the decrease of payment appropriations in the 2015 budget for the LIFE programme, mainly due to the postponement of some projects due to the economic situation and delays in disbursements for the Natural Capital Financing Facility financial instrument;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses the importance of EU budgetary cohesion; notes that this is being jeopardised by the recent agreement between the EU and Turkey, under which the former undertakes to pay EUR 3 billion;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the MFF should provide an adequate budget and financing for the Natura 2000 network~~, in particular through~~ at a level of at least €750 million annually, in particular through increasing the resources of the LIFE programme which aims to promote implementation of environment and climate objectives and their integration into other policies and Member State practice;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Demands that a transparent, well- informed and conclusive debate be held jointly with the Council and the Commission on the most suitabl~~Believes that the duration of the post- 2020 financial frameworks~~, which allows for their~~ should be reduced to five years under the provisions of Article 312, first paragraph, TFEU and align~~ment~~ed with the Edur~~opean election cycles~~ation of Parliament's legislative term;

Amendment 23 #

Csaba MOLNÁR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. On the basis of available evidence considers it very likely the Common Agricultural Policy - representing nearly 40% of the Union spending - will fail to deliver on its sustainable management of natural resources objective; therefore calls for the Commission to start a Fitness Check of the CAP as soon as possible, on the basis of the five fitness check questions: EU value added, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and policy coherence;

Amendment 24 #

Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Demands that a transparent, well- informed and conclusive debate be held jointly with the Council and the Commission on the most suitable duration of the post-2020 financial frameworks, which allows for their alignment with the European election cycles, above all to take into account, on the one hand, their consequences for programming cycles and individual policy implementation and, on the other, the need for a degree of flexibility and for review mechanisms, so as to achieve the best possible balance between stability, predictability and flexibility;

Amendment 25 #

Helmut SCHOLZ, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Considers that for the Common Agricultural Policy to prove its Union added value, CAP financing must be aligned to contribute to Union environmental policy objectives, inter alia air quality, water, biodiversity and climate policy goals;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

~~5. Calls for the activation of the available ‘passerelle’ clauses regarding the decision-making procedures for both the MFF and the own resources decision, as provided for in the Treaties;~~deleted

Amendment 26 #

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls on the Commission to assess whether the objectives of the Horizon 2020 programme are being met after the redeployment of funds to the European Fund for Strategic Investment and to at least restore the budgetary envelope of the programme;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes that the transition to a more circular economy will stimulate energy and resource efficiency and will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, hence calls for adequate financial support for the implementation of the Circular Economy Package;

Amendment 27 #

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the activation of the available ‘passerelle’ clauses, as provided for by Article 48(7) TEU, regarding the decision- making procedures for both the MFF and the own resources decision, ~~as provided for in the Treaties~~in order to switch from unanimity to QMV for their adoption;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the revision of the MFF should make provision for the fact that food safety will be a challenge in the coming years given the increased pressure on resources ~~– this provision could be used to tackle malnutrition trends in Member States.~~; further notices that under the Paris Agreement, EU funding needs to be allocated for supporting climate action in developing countries; as this commitment runs until 2025, asks the Commission to address it in the MFF review/revision;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for the activation of the available ‘passerelle’ clauses regarding the decision- making procedures for both the MFF and the own resources decision, as provided for in the Treaties, and in particular in Article 312 (2) TFEU;

Amendment 29 #

Daciana Octavia SÂRBU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the revision of the MFF should make provision for the fact that food safety and security will be a challenges in the coming years given the increased pressure on resources – this provision could be used to tackle malnutrition trends in Member States.;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that the regulations implementing the MFF and respective funds could be further streamlined and simplified~~, in line with the objectives set out in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making~~; however, notes with concern that the Better Law-Making Agreement will make it more difficult to propose new laws, thereby resulting in less regulation as opposed to more streamlined and simplified legislation.

Amendment 3 #

Csaba MOLNÁR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be adapted to achieve the goals set in Paris and the climate and energy policy targets for the period up to 2030, in the context of the Horizon 2020 strategy, given that adaptation of the European economies to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change will be one of the main challenges the European Union will have to face in the coming years;

Amendment 3 #

Charles GOERENS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Calls for~~Insists on the full involvement of Parliament in the interinstitutional debate on the role, structure, goals, priorities and results of the multiannual financial framework (MFF);

Amendment 30 #

Stefan ECK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the revision of the MFF should make provision for the fact that food safety will be a challenge in the coming years given the increased pressure on resources – this provision could be used to tackle malnutrition trends in Member States. and, also, to enhance food quality and food safety, namely by improving the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability of official controls, as a vital tool for maintaining a high level of safety for humans, animals and plants along the food chain whilst ensuring a high level of protection of the environment. Furthermore, the revision of the MFF is a unique opportunity to provide extra money to improve animal welfare in line with current and future EU laws on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes recognized as "sentient beings" under Article 13 of title II of the Lisbon Treaty;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the revision of the MFF should make provision for the fact that food safety will be a challenge in the coming years given the increased pressure on resources and the increasing prevalence of plant disease epidemics in the EU – this provision could be used to tackle malnutrition trends in Member States.

Amendment 32 #

Tibor SZANYI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers that the revision of the MFF should make provision for the fact that food safety will be a challenge in the coming years given the increased pressure on resources ~~– t~~. This provision could be used to tackle different areas, such as malnutrition trends in Member States., consistency among environmental tools in food production and mitigation of the negative environmental impacts of the excessive food taxation practices;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Considers that a genuine own resource for the EU budget based on the 'polluter pays principle' would not only create strong synergies with EU environmental and climate policies but it would also create a stable financing tool for the MFF;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls for environmentally damaging subsidies to be eliminated more quickly with reference to the forecasts of the MFF, which subsidies comprise support for carbon-intensive activities, activities which require increased use of resources and energy and activities which damage ecosystems and bioversity, as well as fuel subsidies;

Amendment 35 #

Nils TORVALDS, Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Considers that the revision of the MFF should take into account the increase in the number and seriousness of natural and man-made disasters, by allocating greater sources to the civil protection instrument and permitting them to be used more flexibly;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for a revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ~~to be adapted to achieve the goals set in Paris, in the context of the Horizon 2020 strategy~~in order to ensure that the European Union is on track to achieve the goals set at COP21 in Paris; considers that, given that adaptation of the European economies to the Paris Agreement ~~on Climate Change~~ will be one of the main challenges the European Union will have to face in the coming years, and that the objectives of the Paris Agreement could imply new rules or programmes under the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Internal Security Fund, a revision of the MFF is justified;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Insists that all expenditure and revenue resulting from decisions taken by, or in the name of, the EU institutions, including borrowing, lending and loan guarantee operations, must be summarised in a document annexed every year to the Draft Budget, providing an overall view of the financial and budgetary consequences of European Union activities; expects that this will ensure full information for citizens and adequate parliamentary control;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be adapted to achieve the goals set in Paris, in the context of the Horizon 2020 strategy, given that adaptation of the European economies to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change will be one of the main challenges the European Union will have to face in the coming years; believes that any financial adjustment required to meet this challenge must stay within the MFF ceilings agreed in 2013;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for a ~~genuine revision of the MFF~~comprehensive, wide- ranging review of the functioning of the MFF that subsequently leads to a compulsory legislative revision of the MFF Regulation and the accompanying Inter- institutional Agreement in accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation 1311/2013, encompassing the financial means made available under the current framework; notes the deployment of the special and flexibility tools in order to respond to the exceptional and unforeseen circumstances the Union is facing; calls for even greater flexibility in order to deal adequately with such circumstances; stresses, however, that in tackling new challenges the EU must not prejudice the allocation of resources for cohesion purposes;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls ~~for the Multiannual Financial Framework (~~, bearing in mind that the MFF 2014-2020 must make it possible to attain the 20-20-20 climate and energy objectives and to increase the emissions reduction target to 30%, for the MFF) to be adapted to achieve the goals set in Paris, in the context of the Horizon 2020 strategy, given that adaptation of the European economies to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change will be one of the main challenges the European Union will have to face in the coming years;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. In light of the urgency of global action and to show Union leadership, calls upon the Commission to increase the climate spending in the Union budget from 20 to 25% and to introduce an effective method of tracking such spending;

Amendment 7 #

Morten MESSERSCHMIDT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 8 #

Helmut SCHOLZ, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Barbara SPINELLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses that a budget neutral tool to help transform Europe into a sustainable low-carbon economy would be an increase of the current 20% rate of the EU's budget dedicated to climate-related action;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for a genuine revision of the MFF, encompassing the financial means made available under the current framework; notes the deployment of the special and flexibility tools in order to respond to the exceptional and unforeseen circumstances the Union is facing; calls for even greater flexibility in order to deal adequately with such circumstances; stresses, however, that in tackling new challenges the EU must not prejudice the allocation of resources for cohesion purposes; underlines that any increase of flexibility should go hand in hand with a stronger parliamentary control; expresses its deep concern for the increased recourse to ad hoc financial instruments in the field of external action, since they undermine, as currently arranged, the unity of the EU budget and the community method; stresses, therefore, the need to fully involve the European Parliament in the adoption, management and control of these instruments and to allocate, during the revision of the MFF, more resources in the relevant headings in order to enable the EU to provide a more structured response to the current humanitarian crisis and, at the same time, to preserve and guarantee the prerogatives of the European Parliament as co-legislator;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notes the EU's commitment that at least 20% of the EU budget under the MFF for 2014-2020 should be climate related expenditure, in accordance with the climate action priority of the 'Europe 2020 strategy'; notes that the Commission's mainstreaming methodology calculated that 12.7% of the 2014 budget was spent on climate change and 12.5% allocated in the 2015 draft budget; urges the Commission to provide definitive figures for the 2015 budget as implemented, and also the prospective spending on climate action required in the remaining years of the current MFF in order to meet the 20% target;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for a genuine revision of the MFF regulation, encompassing the financial means made available under the current framework; notes the deployment of the special and flexibility tools in order to respond to the exceptional and unforeseen circumstances the Union is facing; calls for even greater flexibility in order to deal adequately with such circumstances; stresses, however, that in tackling new challenges the EU must not prejudice the allocation of resources for cohesion purposes;

source: 580.568

2016/04/07 LIBE 36 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that~~, in light of the unpreceden~~ the arrival of migrants in Europe has been erroneously treated as an emergency, while it is instead ~~migratory emergency,~~a structural phenomenon, which will be solved only by tackling its roots; underlines that the current ceilings of the MFF 2014-2020 – in particular heading 3 – have proven to be too tight; recalls that the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) is already virtually exhausted; recalls that the available MFF flexibility mechanisms have already been extensively used;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deems substantial additional financial resources at EU level to be necessary to address humanitarian challenges, develop a new Common European Asylum System, support resettlement and relocation programmes, foster integration and prevent discrimination, racism and xenophobia;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deems substantial additional financial resources at EU level to be necessary to address humanitarian challenges, develop a new Common European Asylum System, foster integration and prevent discrimination, especially against women, racism and xenophobia;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deems substantial additional financial resources at EU level to be necessary to address external border and coastal protection, humanitarian challenges, develop a new Common European Asylum System, foster integration and prevent discrimination, racism and xenophobia; an adequate staff level also has to be provided for the European Agencies dealing with the migratory pressure, especially EASO and FRONTEX;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deems substantial additional financial resources at EU level to be necessary to address humanitarian challenges, develop a new Common European Asylum System, support resettlement and relocation, foster integration and prevent discrimination, racism and xenophobia;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deems substantial additional financial resources at EU level to be necessary to address humanitarian challenges, inside and outside the EU and to develop a new Common European Asylum System, ~~foster integration and prevent discrimination, racism and xenophobia~~based on effective solidarity between Member States;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Considers that the EU budget should support policies focused on integration rather than on security; asks for the full use of the existing security instruments and possibilities before new allocations are decided, in particular when it comes to the exchange of information between security and law enforcement agencies in the member States;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the Commission to draft, as swiftly as possible, an up-to-date estimate of the budgetary resources that will be needed up to the end of the current MFF in order to meet all the challenges associated with migration pressure (rescue, interception, reception, registration, control, accommodation, transport, relocation, return and integration), the introduction of a genuine European asylum system, the common management of external borders and the internal security of the Schengen area;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Welcomes the establishment of an instrument for the provision of humanitarian assistance in the EU, in particular with a view to addressing the mass influx of migrants and refugees; questions, nonetheless, the choice of Article 122(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as a legal basis for the establishment of the new instrument, given the lack of provision for the proper involvement of Parliament; voices concern at the Commission's intention to fund the instrument under heading 3 of the MFF, and in particular the AMIF fund, which is already being heavily used and is underfunded; calls on the Commission to look for other ways of funding this instrument from the EU budget, so as not to adversely affect the measures and programmes funded under the AMIF;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Welcomes the addition of a new chapter under heading 3 on providing emergency support within the Union; takes the opinion that the revision of the MFF must ensure that the future financing of this 'support' will be provided above the ceilings, while guaranteeing the flexibility needed in order to adapt the allocation of resources in line with developments on the ground and changes in policy priorities;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for the AMIF to be revised and allocated more resources; stresses that the budget and staff of ~~the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) must~~agencies directly affected bey m~~arkedly increased to enable it to provide Member States with real support; believes that funds dedicated to search and rescue are erroneous~~igration pressure and involved in the internal security of the Schengen area - FRONTEX, EASO, EUROPOL and FRA - must be markedly inc~~lud~~reased in ~~the Internal Security Fund (ISF); calls for the establishment of a dedicated search and rescue fund~~order to ensure that they can properly carry out their missions;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. CTakes the view that the overall amount dedicated to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice does not adequately reflect the strengthening of this area with the Lisbon Treaty and its growing tasks and challenges; considers that, in light of the unprecedented migratory emergency, the current ceilings of the MFF 2014-2020 – in particular heading 3 – have proven to be too tight; recalls that the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) is already virtually exhausted; recalls that the available MFF flexibility mechanisms have already been extensively used;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for the AMIF to be revised and allocated more resources; stresses that the budget and staff of EUROPOL, FRONTEX and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) must be ~~markedly~~further increased to enable it to provide Member States with real support; believes that funds dedicated to search and rescue are erroneously included in the Internal Security Fund (ISF); ~~calls for the establishment of a dedicated~~the EU Agencies and Member States should be provided with adequate resources for search and rescue ~~fund~~operations;

Amendment 21 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Monika HOHLMEIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the Commission recently signed a Common Understanding with Member States on a three-billion-euro Facility for Refugees in Turkey, not counting any possible increases in funds; expresses concern about the establishment of financial instruments outside the EU budget as they threaten its unicity; stresses that these funds should provide direct support to refugees and host communities; calls on the Commission to establish a mechanism to monitor the use of these funds;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 23 #

Barbara MATERA, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the Commission recently signed a Common Understanding with Member States on a three-billion-euro Facility for Refugees in Turkey; ~~expresses concern about~~EU should avoid the establishment of financial instruments outside the EU budget as they threaten its unicity; stresses that these funds should provide direct support to refugees and host communities; calls on the Commission to establish a mechanism to monitor the use of these funds; this mechanism should take into account the monitoring role of the European Parliament;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the Commission recently signed a Common Understanding with Member States on a three-billion-euro Facility for Refugees in Turkey; expresses concern about the establishment of financial instruments outside the EU budget as they threaten ~~its unicity; stresses that these~~a normal budgetary procedure subject to a parliamentary scrutiny; stresses that this fund, as well as other similar funds, should provide direct support to refugees and host communities~~; calls on the Commission to establish a mechanism to monitor the use of these funds~~, and should not support repressive and border control measures or any action that might violate fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to establish a mechanism to monitor the use of these funds with regular reporting to the Parliament; stresses that the EU and Member States' support for refugees should come as an addition to the regular development assistance, not as a substitute;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the Commission recently signed a Common Understanding with Member States on a three-billion-euro Facility for Refugees in Turkey; expresses concern about the establishment of financial instruments outside the EU budget as they threaten its unicity; stresses that these funds should provide direct support to refugees and host communities; calls on the Commission to establish a mechanism to monitor the use of these funds; asks the Commission to monitor, in cooperation with the UNHCR, on the respect of the fundamental rights of the migrants and, in particular, on the full application of the principle of non- refoulement in the implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement; remarks that Lebanon and Jordan proportionally welcome more Syrians than Turkey; believes that hosting communities and Syrian displaced in these countries also deserve help;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the ~~Commission recently signed a Common Understanding with Member States on a three-~~EU recently concluded an agreement with Turkey on a six- billion-euro Ffacility for Rrefugees ~~in Turkey~~, which came into force on 20 March 2016 and is to run until the end of 2018; expresses concern about the establishment of financial instruments outside the EU budget as they threaten its unicity; stresses that ~~these funds should~~Parliament was not consulted at any stage during the adoption process; regards the approach used as a circumvention of the budget procedure, which requires the full involvement of Parliament; stresses that the agreement places the forthcoming negotiations on the 2017 budget in jeopardy by creating a fait accompli that there is no realistic chance of challenging; believes that the urgent need to address the refugee crisis is no justification for disrupting the institutional balance and freezing Parliament out; stresses, furthermore, that the funding the EU will be providing to Turkey must be used to provide direct support to refugees and host communities; calls on the Commission to establish a mechanism to monitor the use of these funds;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Believes that there is no direct link between migration and terrorism in Europe; asks for new funding to fight against the radicalisation of young people within the EU; considers that this can be achieved by promoting integration and fighting against discrimination, racism and xenophobia; asks not to reduce the funds for projects aiming to the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Takes the view that the Internal Security Fund should have adequate financial resources to allow it to fulfil its objectives, especially in the field of effective cooperation and information exchange between law enforcement agencies of the Member States, while emphasising that all of its actions must comply fully with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls for an increased budget of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme for promoting and protecting fundamental rights and combating racism, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, especially in the context of the growing intolerance in Europe;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that, in light of the unprecedented migratory emergency, the current ceilings of the MFF 2014-2020 – in particular heading 3 – have proven to be ~~too tigh~~insufficient; recalls that the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) is already virtually exhausted; recalls that the available MFF flexibility mechanisms have already been extensively used;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Expects the migratory emergency to continue due to sustained political instability and conflict in many regions and the lack of legal means of access to the EU; ~~considers that a genuine MFF revision is essential by the end of 2016 at the latest;~~ requests an updated estimation of budgetary needs to respond to the challenges expected until the end of the MFF; in the course of the MFF review in 2017 calls for additional flexibility in the MFF as well as adequate upwards revision of Headings 3 and 4.

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Expects the migratory emergency to continue due to sustained political instability and conflict in many regions ~~and the lack of legal means of access to the EU~~; considers that a genuine MFF revision is essential by the end of 2016 at the latest; requests an updated estimation of budgetary needs to respond to the challenges expected until the end of the MFF; calls for additional flexibility in the MFF and greater financial support for the Member States hardest hit by migration.

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Expects thmassive migratory ~~emergency~~flows to continue due to sustained political instability and conflict in many regions and the lack of legal means of access to the EU; considers that a genuine MFF revision is essential by the end of 2016 at the latest; requests an updated estimation of budgetary needs to respond to the challenges expected until the end of the MFF; calls for ~~additional~~the greatest flexibility in the MFF.

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Expects the ~~migratory~~asylum emergency to continue due to sustained political instability and conflict in many regions and the lack of legal means of access to the EU for both asylum seekers and migrants; considers that a genuine MFF revision is essential by the end of 2016 at the latest; requests an updated estimation of budgetary needs to respond to the challenges expected until the end of the MFF; calls for additional flexibility in the MFF, while involving the Parliament at all stages of decision-making, as regards both budgetary and legislative measures.

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Expects the migratory emergency to continue due to sustained political instability and conflict in many regions and the lack of legal means of access to the EU; considers that a genuine MFF revision is essential by the end of 2016 at the latest; requests an updated estimation of budgetary needs to respond to the challenges expected until the end of the MFF; ~~calls for additional flexibility in the MFF~~stresses that the MFF review in 2016 provides an opportunity to make necessary adjustments to funding levels and calls for additional flexibility in the MFF and an ability to address situations that were not foreseen at the time of its adoption.

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Insists, in view of the ongoing dramatic situation that is at the root of migration flows and the absence of legal channels to enter the EU, that the Commission should propose an ambitious revision of the MFF by the end of 2016 that includes a clear assessment of the financial resources that will need to be provided above the current ceilings, and that it should ensure greater flexibility in allocating those resources.

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that, in light of the unprecedented migratory emergency, the current ceilings of the MFF 2014-2020 – in particular heading 3 – have proven to be too tight; recalls that the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) is already virtually exhausted; recalls that the available MFF flexibility mechanisms have already been extensively used and that this will greatly reduce the degree of financial flexibility available in forthcoming financial years;

Amendment 5 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ, Barbara MATERA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that, in light of the unprecedented migratory emergency and increased security demands, the current ceilings of the MFF 2014-2020 – in particular heading 3 – have proven to be too tight; recalls that the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) is already virtually exhausted; recalls that the available MFF flexibility mechanisms have already been extensively used;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notes that the higher need for ensuring internal security in the EU and fight against terrorism should be reflected in all budget projections. In this context the increased need for sufficient and permanent data exchange between Member States via European Agencies, such as Europol and Frontex, requires an adequate staff level for those Agencies. Furthermore considers it necessary to fund the development of smart (IT-) security tools with the MFF review in order to ensure an increased level of security while eliminating eventual burdens increased security measures could impose upon the freedom of movement;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. recalls that the available MFF flexibility mechanisms have been extensively used; asks that the most affected member States can fully benefit from them, in particular from the "exceptional circumstances clause" as included in the Stability and Growth Pack;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deems substantial additional financial resources at EU level to be necessary to address humanitarian challenges, develop a new Common European Asylum System, ~~foster integration~~step up return operations, foster integration and respect for the law, for traditions and for European culture and prevent discrimination, racism and xenophobia;

source: 580.615

2016/04/20 TRAN 75 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Stresses that total recovery of funds redeployed~~Criticises the redeployment of funds from the Connected Europe Facility (CEF) to the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) ~~should be one of the key priorities for the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 (MFF)~~;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises, in this context, the vital importance of adequate EU funding for the projects identified in the TEN-T Core Network Corridor Work Plans; highlights that oth~~is also requires enhanced coverage of~~er transport policy related areas, too, such as multi-modality and efficient logistics, intelligent transport systems and clean fuel equipment for the better integration of urban nodes require appropriate funding; rejects out of hand any budget increase or additional costs for Member States;

Amendment 11 #

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises, in this context, the vital importance of adequate EU funding for the projects identified in the TEN-T Core Network Corridor Work Plans; highlights that this also requires enhanced coverage of transport policy related areas such as multi-modality and efficient logistics, intelligent transport systems and clean fuel equipment ~~for~~, regarding also the better integration of urban nodes, as well the dedicated measures to reduce CO2 emissions;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises, in this context, the vital importance of adequate EU funding for the projects identified in the TEN-T Core Network Corridor Work Plans; highlights that this also requires enhanced coverage of transport policy related areas such as multi-modality and efficient logistics, intelligent transport systems and clean fuel equipment for the better integration of urban nodes and their sustainable development within the transport system;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses the need for the EU to fund geographical areas with an underdeveloped transport infrastructure to ensure connectivity between Member States;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the past cCalls for pProposals under the CEF, published in 2014 and 2015, have been threefold oversubscribed ~~threefold~~ and that this clearly shows a very significant pipeline of projects with strong EU added value that could absorb additional resources (beyond the recovery of redeployed funds) in both the general and cohesion envelopes of the CEF; reminding the original CEF allocation before final MFF decision, calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility to increase the total envelope of the CEF including an increase of the cohesion envelope of the CEF;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the past calls for proposals under the CEF, published in 2014 and 2015, have been oversubscribed threefold and that this clearly shows a very significant pipeline of projects with strong EU added value that could absorb additional resources (beyond the recovery of redeployed funds) in both the general and cohesion envelopes of the CEF, which should encourage the Commission to draw up stricter selection criteria, particularly with regard to budgetary matters, in order to promote viable projects and minimise potential sources of waste;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the past calls for proposals under the CEF, published in 2014 and 2015, have been oversubscribed threefold and that this clearly shows a very significant pipeline of projects with strong EU added value that could absorb additional resources ~~(beyond the~~coming from recovery of redeployed funds~~) in both the general and cohesion envelopes of the CEF~~ and the recovery from unnecessary large scale projects financing, such as the Lyon-Turin basis tunnel project;

Amendment 18 #

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that, despite the large number of projects affecting Europe in its entirety, in the last two calls for CEF funding, aid was allocated almost exclusively to projects for corridors and the core network, which benefit the EU's richest and most developed regions that already have dense transport network infrastructure networks;

Amendment 19 #

Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Draws attention to the fact that the shares of financial means allocated to CEF and Horizon 2020 are far too low and inappropriate in comparison to the funds allocated in the MFF to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP);

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that total recovery of funds redeployed from the Connected Europe Facility (CEF) to the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), which has different nature, beneficiaries and objectives, should be one of the key priorities for the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014- 2020 (MFF);

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Commission to pay due account of the need to compensate for the fact that, as a result of initial budgetary constraints, certain regions were somewhat overlooked by the Connecting Europe Facility in deciding – as part of the planned evaluation of the Facility in December 2017 – whether to renew, change or suspend measures;

Amendment 21 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Isabella DE MONTE, Claudia ȚAPARDEL, István UJHELYI, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights that the EFSI makes a worthwhile contribution to the financing of TEN-T projects, provided that grants remain a vital and necessary funding source; underlines, in particular, that grants could be combined together with innovative financial instruments, public- private partnerships and the EFSI to facilitate the implementation of additional projects ~~and catalyse private finance (blending)~~, particularly large infrastructure projects which can contribute to the reduction of economic disparities among regions and catalyse private finance (blending); simultaneously, reiterates the need for a thorough assessment of risks attached to the different types of financing used;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 23 #

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights that the EFSI makes a worthwhile contribution to the financing of TEN-T projects, ~~provided that grants~~but that it cannot replace grants, which remain a vital and necessary funding source for projects generating little or no income but which contribute to the achievement of EU policy goals; underlines, in particular, that grants could be combined together with innovative financial instruments and the EFSI to facilitate the implementation of additional projects and catalyse private finance (blending); is concerned that almost no funds remain available for new projects in the remaining four years of the MFF;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights that the EFSI makes a ~~worthwhile~~ contribution to the financing of TEN-T projects, provided that grants remain a vital and necessary funding source; underlines, in particular, that grants could be combined together with innovative financial instruments and the EFSI to facilitate the implementation of additional projects and catalyse private finance (blending);

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights that the EFSI makes a worthwhile contribution to the financing of TEN-T projects, provided that grants remain a vital and necessary funding source; underlines, in particular, that grants could be combined together with innovative financial instruments and the EFSI to facilitate the implementation of additional projects and catalyse private finance (blending); calls, therefore, on the Commission to draw up a double catalogue including both exemplary, successful projects and those facing major problems so as to improve understanding at Commission level and among national, regional and local authorities;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Points out that transport infrastructures are the backbone of the Single Market and are fundamental to the freedom of movement of persons, goods and services; u~~Underlines that the budgetary allocation for Trans-European Transport networks should also be carried out at the appropriate level in the post-2020 MFF in order to achieve the objective of the completion of the TEN-T core network by 2030 and the TEN-T comprehensive network by 2050;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points out that transport infrastructures are the backbone of the Single Market and are fundamental to the freedom of movement of persons, goods and services; underlines that the budgetary allocation for Trans-European Transport networks should also be carried out at the appropriate level in the post-2020 MFF in order to achieve the objective of the completion of the TEN-T core network by 2030 and the TEN-T comprehensive network by 2050; points, however, to the current crises - an economic crisis, a euro crisis and a migration crisis - and therefore questions the European institutions' priorities;

Amendment 29 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Claudia ȚAPARDEL, Isabella DE MONTE, István UJHELYI, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Points out that transport infrastructures are the backbone of the Single Market and are fundamental to the freedom of movement of persons, goods and services; underlines the importance of bringing the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund more closely into line to ensure the more effective implementation of digital single market rules in the transport sector; underlines that the budgetary allocation for Trans- European Transport networks should also be carried out at the appropriate level in the post-2020 MFF in order to achieve the objective of the completion of the TEN-T core network by 2030 and the TEN-T comprehensive network by 2050;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that total recovery of funds redeployed from the Connected Europe Facility (CEF) to the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) should be one of the key priorities for the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 (MFF); insists that decided priorities and designated financing are respected in future and no more reduction of CEF budget or other instruments for transport projects occur until 2020;

Amendment 30 #

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Highlights the substantial and permanent investment deficit in Europe, particularly in major transport infrastructure, and stresses that this risks undermining the competitiveness of the EU as a whole; notes that investment needs relate not only to the creation of infrastructure but also to its maintenance and modernisation;

Amendment 31 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Isabella DE MONTE, Claudia ȚAPARDEL, István UJHELYI, Maria GRAPINI, Miltiadis KYRKOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Underlines also that adequate EU funding for transport infrastructure is a key requirement for territorial, economic and social cohesion and recognizes the importance of the Cohesion Fund for improvement of infrastructure and connectivity in Europe; insists therefore that adequate funding is provided for this Fund in the current programing period as well as post 2020;

Amendment 32 #

Massimo PAOLUCCI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission and the Member States to improve the coordination of national transport strategies in order to facilitate Commission approval of large infrastructure projects; calls on the Commission to strengthen the governance of EU macro-regional strategies, with a view to enhancing territorial, economic and social cohesion, by earmarking resources under the next MFF for projects submitted jointly by regions covered by a macro-regional strategy;

Amendment 33 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Isabella DE MONTE, Claudia ȚAPARDEL, István UJHELYI, Maria GRAPINI, Miltiadis KYRKOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission and the Member States to guarantee the European added value and full transparency to the European citizens while improveing the coordination of national transport strategies in order to facilitate the acceptance by the citizens and the Commission approval of large infrastructure projects;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission and the Member States to improve the coordination of national transport strategies in order to facilitate Commission approval of large infrastructure projects; calls also for better coordination of all EU instruments related to transport in order to ensure that all core TEN-T projects are completed in time and potential savings are properly utilized for supporting mature projects waiting in the pipeline;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Urges the Commission and the Member States to improve the coordination of national transport strategies in order to ~~facilit~~substantiate Commission approval of large infrastructure projects responding to TEN- T and CEF criteria; calls therefore on the Commission for the strong commitment to improve the transparency of the financing schemes in terms of accuracy of the cost estimations, environmental sustainable compliance, involvement of the civil society in decision making and adequate and constant monitoring of the EU co- funding schemes;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Encourages the Commission and the Member States to invest stronger in projects with smaller budget needs and considerable short term advantages, such as abolishing missing links at abandoned and dismantled regional cross-border rail connections as well as upgrading and maintenance of existing transport infrastructure;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that it is necessary to a~~llow the transfer of the unspent money from one year to another year and calls on the Commission to make appropriate proposals in this regard~~sk why some of the money is not spent and whether it would be appropriate to reduce next year’s CEF budget accordingly, thereby reducing the Member States’ contribution to the EU budget;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that it is necessary to ~~allow~~prohibit the transfer of the unspent money from one year to another year and calls on the Commission to make appropriate proposals in this regard; stresses, however, that prohibiting the transfer of unspent money to the following year's budget must not lead to a last-minute spending rush;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that it is necessary to allow ~~the~~ transfer of the ~~unspent money~~surplus and unused commitments from one year to another year and calls on the Commission to make appropriate proposals in this regard; maximum flexibility should be envisaged in order to provide maximum utilisation of the committed MFF;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Emphasises that the MFF must be based on the European added value as well as the targets of the EU on GHG emissions reduction according to the COP 21 Paris agreements;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that it is necessary to allow the transfer of the unspent money from one year to another year and calls on the Commission to make appropriate proposals in this regard to reallocate the funds to most suitable, mature and economically and environmentally sustainable projects;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that it is necessary to allow the transfer of the unspent money from one year to only another year and calls on the Commission to make appropriate proposals in this regard;

Amendment 42 #

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses the strategic interest of the four upcoming sectoral packages (on railway, air and road transport and ports) and therefore calls on the Commission to take account of them and the improvements to the legislative mandate they bring, and to do all in its power to facilitate their swift implementation in such areas as interoperability, safety, improving social conditions and freedom of movement in the allocation of structural and cohesion funds such as EFSI and CEF;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that, through various forms of financial support (grants, financial instruments), the EU budget has played a decisive role in launching or relaunching numerous projects in the transport sector; believes that any revision of the MFF must now make it a priority;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines the strategic importance of adopting an ambitious global climate agreement for air transport at ICAO discussions and implementing them within the Single European Sky as the main instrument to ensure safety, environmental performance, competitiveness and protection of the citizens’' rights; calls on the Commission to ensure accordingly the allocation of necessary and previewed amounts for the deployment of Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR);

Amendment 45 #

Evžen TOŠENOVSKÝ, Marian-Jean MARINESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Supports also total recovery of funds redeployed from Horizon 2020 to European Fund for Strategic Investments; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility to increase the funds allocated to SESAR and Clean Sky JUs taking in account JU's good results and their contribution to the EU transport and climate change policies;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Underlines the critical importance of highly accurate and reliable positioning and timing information provided by European satellite navigation flagship programmes Galileo and EGNOS for increased safety and efficient use of aviation, road, rail and maritime transport, particularly for intelligent transport and traffic management systems such as ATM, ERTMS, eCall, connected/autonomous vehicles and smart fleet and cargo management; calls on the Commission to safeguard the already allocated funding in MFF 2014-2020 for fast and full completion and operation of the Galileo and EGNOS infrastructure as well as for support of downstream and upstream applications within the budgets for European GNSS programmes and Horizon 2020; reiterates in this regard the Commission's commitment to provide uninterrupted GNSS services, reinforce the resilience of the European economy and maximise the socio-economic benefits through fostering the development of applications;

Amendment 47 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Isabella DE MONTE, Claudia ȚAPARDEL, István UJHELYI, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Reminds the Commission and the Member States on the strong potentials of horizontal projects as well as synergies between the Transport, Energy and Telecommunications Trans-European Networks;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Points out that there is a need to develop and promote more environmentally friendly modes of transportation such as railways; calls therefore for enhanced support to initiatives such as Shift to Rail;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to ensure proper (cross-border) coordination of the proposed ~~projects under the Danube Strategy~~sustainable projects in different macro-regions, as inter alia foreseen under the Danube Strategy, the North-Sea (with special focus on Seine-Scheldt waterways), the Alpine, the Adriatic, Black Sea, Balkan, Baltic Area;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls, therefore, on the Commission to provide Parliament with an assessment of EFSI-funded projects on transport and tourism as soon as possible;

Amendment 50 #

Massimo PAOLUCCI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to ensure proper coordination of the proposed projects under the Danube Strategy; calls on the Commission, further to Parliament's resolution of 28 October 2015 on an EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region, to assist and support Member States in identifying priority infrastructure projects that will bring regional and European added value, paying particular attention to: (i) completing the Baltic-Adriatic corridor, including the extension of the entire Ionian-Adriatic dorsal, (ii) the North-South extension of the Scandinavian-Mediterranean corridor, (iii) the establishment of an Alpine- Western Balkans rail freight corridor, (iv) a better connection between the Iberian peninsula, central Italy and the Western Balkans, (v) implementing a road connection in the Balkan area between the port system and inside countries, as well as an interconnection with the Rhine-Danube corridor, (vi) improving port facilities for better connections between the two shores of the Adriatic, and the preparation of a joint strategy by the managing boards of the north Adriatic ports for a more comprehensive supply of imported goods to Central Europe;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure proper coordination of the proposed projects under the Danube Strategy and to immediately end the financing of the Lyon-Turin transalpine high-speed rail link in order to focus on maintenance and improvement of existing infrastructure and the completion of key projects for local economic development, such as the A51 motorway in the Greater South-East region of France;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to ensure proper coordination of the proposed projects under the Danube Strategy; recalls that the Danube river represents a key opportunity to connect European markets and reduce the pressure of road transport. As result, the strategy has the means to put Central and Eastern Europe in a competitive position as regards land and water transportation, as well as tourism and environmental conservation;

Amendment 53 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, István UJHELYI, Maria GRAPINI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

~~10. Calls for redistribution of the money not used by cohesion Member States under the CEF and encourages calls for proposals, including on the subject of cross-border connections;~~deleted

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

~~10. Calls for redistribution of the money not used by cohesion Member States under the CEF and encourages calls for proposals, including on the subject of cross-border connections;~~deleted

Amendment 55 #

Dominique RIQUET, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for redistribution of the money not used by cohesion Member States under the CEF and encourages the use of technical assistance and more calls for proposals, including on the subject of cross-border connections;

Amendment 56 #

Massimo PAOLUCCI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for redistribution of the money not used by cohesion Member States under the CEF and encourages calls for proposals, including on the subject of cross-border connections, and for funding to be provided for projects which will enable new sections that can generate European added value to be included when the central TEN-T network is reviewed; calls for funds to be made available under the post-2020 MFF for priority projects to enhance territorial, economic and social cohesion in order to close the infrastructure gap between regions coming under EU strategies;

Amendment 57 #

Cláudia MONTEIRO DE AGUIAR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for redistribution of the money not used by cohesion Member States under the CEF and encourages calls for proposals from the cohesion countries and new proposals as part of the package intended for each cohesion country, including on the subject of cross-border connections and the motorways of the sea;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for redistribution of the money not used by cohesion Member States under the CEF and encourages ~~calls for proposals, including on the subject of cross-border connections~~its redirection towards cross-border connections in developing regions, especially in countries under the Cohesion Policy;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Calls for redistribution of the money not used by cohesion Member States under the CEF, with priority being given to remote and island areas, and encourages calls for proposals, including on the subject of cross-border connections;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Underlines that the MFF should be oriented towards the EU target on reduction of accidents and strictly correspond to the criteria and conditions formulated in the Regulations 1315/2013/EC on TEN-T and 1316/2013/EC on CEF;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Calls for redistribution of the money not used by cohesion Member States under the CEF and encourag~~Starting with January 2017 the unused amounts part of the funds transferred from Cohesion policy to CEF could be used by all Member States; calls ~~for proposals, including on the subject of~~on Commission to allocate these amounts for projects for cross-border connections;

Amendment 61 #

Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. CBearing in mind that the cohesion Member States may not utilize the financial means under the CEF by the end of 2016, calls on the Commission to make appropriate proposals for prolonging the deadline to 31 December 2017; calls for redistribution of the money not used by cothes~~ion~~e Members States ~~under the CEF~~by the end of 2017 and encourages calls for proposals, including on the subject of cross-border connections;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Stresses the need to adopt a wider and more comprehensive approach to criteria of eligible projects applying for the EU-funding, providing better access to finance for the projects introducing new transport services and better deployment of data; underlines especially the demand to channel EU-funding for the introduction of digital transport services and intelligent transport systems which are contributing to the swift towards more sustainable transport system and optimizing the use of existing capacity;

Amendment 63 #

Claudia ȚAPARDEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Supports the creation of a list of high-priority infrastructure projects in underdeveloped regions in Member States which are part of the Cohesion Policy;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Recalls the importance of ensuring, within the Union, the highest level of safety, security and interoperability in the field of transport; ~~stresses that EU agencies’ budget allocations consist not just of administrative expenditure alone, but also~~criticises all spending by agencies, however, that does not comply with the principles of efficiency and economy, and recalls count~~ribute to achieving EU objectives, while aiming to make savings at national level and that their budgets should have sufficient and adequate means to perform their task~~less negative examples involving the EEA, EASA, EASO, EMCDDA, EMA, FRA and many others;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Points out that sustainable tourism is a key potential ~~growth~~ area of the European economyic development and a driver of a substantial amount of employment; considers that appropriate budgetary funds should be allocated to developing a genuine European tourism policy, with a focus on promoting SMEs and respecting natural, cultural, historical and industrial heritage.

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

Amendment 67 #

Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Points out that tourism is a key potential growth area of the European economy and a driver of a substantial amount of employment, in particular for young people; considers that appropriate budgetary funds should be allocated to developing a genuine European tourism policy and stepping up funding for EU tourism-related programmes.

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Points out that tourism is a key potential growth area of the European economy and a driver of a substantial amount of employment; considers that appropriate and increased budgetary funds should be allocated to developing a genuine European tourism policy.

Amendment 69 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Isabella DE MONTE, Claudia ȚAPARDEL, István UJHELYI, Maria GRAPINI, Miltiadis KYRKOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Points out that tourism is a key potential growth area of the European economy and a driver of a substantial amount of employment; recognizes the importance of the human capital for development of tourism services and underlines the role that the European Social Fund may play in this field; considers that appropriate budgetary funds should be allocated to developing a genuine European tourism policy and enhance this sector's development.

Amendment 7 #

Cláudia MONTEIRO DE AGUIAR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Considers that, with a view to arriving at the best possible decision on the review of the MFF, the Commission should submit, on soon as possible, a report on the implementation and take-up level of structural and cohesion funds in tourism and transport and infrastructure projects, specifying which contribute to the development of the core network, the corridors and the comprehensive network;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Points out that tourism is a key potential growth area of the European economy and a driver of a substantial amount of employment; considers that appropriate budgetary funds should be allocated to developing a genuine European tourism policy. ; asks the Commission to consider the possibility of introducing a specific heading in the future framework programme;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Points out that tourism is a key potential growth area of the European economy and a driver of a substantial amount of employment; considers that appropriate budgetary funds should be allocated to developing a genuine European tourism policy, which would seek a better inclusion of developing regions and a better coordination among tourism and infrastructure projects.

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Stresses the excellent returns on investment in tourism and its contribution to social cohesion, especially in rural areas.

Amendment 73 #

Gesine MEISSNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Stresses the importance of a sufficiently funded Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) as a flagship initiative of the European Union in cross-sectoral and trans-national governance.

Amendment 74 #

Dominique RIQUET, Pavel TELIČKA, Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

~~13. Considers that appropriate budgetary funds should be allocated to developing a genuine European tourism policy.~~deleted

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Considers that all EU budgetary instruments which support investment and innovation should be maintained and further developed, and that there is no need to favour one of these instruments to the detriment of the others; notes the essential role of the EU budget in providing an incentive for future spending and in supporting cohesion and effective implementation of policies within the EU.

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises, in this context, the vital importance of adequate EU funding for the projects identified in the TEN-T Core Network Corridor Work Plans; highlights that this also requires enhanced coverage of transport policy related areas such as upgrading and maintenance of existing transport infrastructure as well as multi- modality and efficient logistics, intelligent transport systems, interconnectivity, interoperability, and clean fuel equipment and accessibility for the better integration of urban nodes;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises, in this context, the vital importance of adequate EU funding for the projects identified in the TEN-T Core Network Corridor Work Plans; highlights that this also requires enhanced coverage of transport policy related areas such as multi-modality and efficient logistics, ~~intelligent transport system~~urban mobility, road safety and accessibility, intelligent transport systems, synergies with other sectors and clean fuel equipment for the better integration of urban nodes;

source: 582.056

2016/04/22 REGI 75 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Recalls that one of the main objectives of the European Union is to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States; u~~Underlines that cohesion policy set out for the long term is the Union's main tool for reducing regional disparities ~~between all EU regions, and that it plays an important role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy~~; notes, nevertheless, that serious doubts remain as to the effectiveness of cohesion policy given the increasing macroeconomic divergences within the European Union in the areas of competitiveness and employment;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises the need for effectiveness and result-orientation of cohesion policy; recalls that due to late agreement on the MFF, the starts of its implementation was delayed; therefore, stresses that the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds are at an early stage of implementation in 2016 and that at the time of the MFF review/revision only limited evidence is available as to results;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises the need for effectiveness and result-orientation of cohesion policy; recalls that, also because of the late adoption of Operational Programmes in some Member States, European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds are at an early stage of implementation in 2016 and that at the time of the MFF review/revision only limited evidence is available as to results;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises the need for effectiveness and result-orientation of cohesion policy; recalls that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds are at an early stage of implementation in 2016 and that at the time of the MFF review/revision ~~only~~ limited evidence is available as to results; therefore calls on the Commission to assess and communicate to REGI committee the state of play with regard to the implementation of ESI Funds as early as possible, to include a detailed analysis on risks of decommitment, with indicated amounts per Member State, and an analysis of payment forecasts submitted by Member States following the 31 January and 31 July deadlines set by Article 112(3) of the CPR;

Amendment 13 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ENotes that the post-electoral revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) must take into consideration the new political challenges facing the EU; therefore emphasises the need for effectiveness and result-orientation of cohesion policy; recalls that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds are at an early stage of implementation in 2016 and that at the time of the MFF review/revision only limited evidence is available as to results; stresses the need and importance on mobilizing all available resources by the Member States to meet the economic governance requirements and ex-ante conditionalities;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises the need for effectiveness and result-orientation of cohesion policy; recalls that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds are at an early stage of implementation in 2016 and that at the time of the MFF review/revision only limited evidence is available as to results; notes that local authorities are not sufficiently well informed about ESI funding opportunities and calls on the Commission and national authorities to ensure that available funding is deployed more effectively through cohesion policy measures;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Highlights that the implementation of the 2014-2020 MFF has already proven to be challenging in the first two years and the budgetary authority has already had to resort to almost all the special levers and flexibility instruments provided for in the MFF Regulation;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses the need to encourage implementation of structural reforms related to improvement of financial management and good governance as preconditions to increase and accelerate implementation of Cohesion policy; underlines that this has direct impact to the successful implementation of the MFF and achievement of the Europa 2020 strategy's goals;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls the performance reserve of 6 percent of the allocated funds which is inextricably linked to result-oriented cohesion policy; calls on the Commission to advance the allocation of the performance reserve during the period 2014-2020 to projects which have achieved the set milestones to 2018;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Reminds that full policy lessons learned from a previous programming period are not yet available when the current period is at an early stage of implementation and reflections on future proposals and positions need to start;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that one of the main objectives of the European Union is to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion ~~and solidarity~~ among Member States; underlines that cohesion policy set out for the long term is the Union's main tool for reducing disparities between all EU regions, and that it plays an important role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Calls on the Commission to draw concrete lessons on how the EU budget is being spent and whether is delivering on key policy priorities and to present mid- term evaluation reports in the course of 2017;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2d. Stresses that the findings of the MFF review-revision should serve as the basis for the legislative revision of the MFF Regulation;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Highlights the improved~~Reminds that in order to encourage better performance in the current period, synergies and coordination among the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other EU instruments~~, which is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of the EU budget~~ still need to be emphasised and improved;

Amendment 23 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Highlights the improved synergies and coordination~~Urges the Commission and Member States for maximising synergies and complementarities, ensuring better coordination and consistency among the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and the other EU instruments, including the European Fund for Strategic Investment, which is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of the EU budget;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights the need to further improved synergies and coordination among the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other EU instruments, which is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of the EU budget;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights the improved synergies and coordination among the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other EU instruments, which is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of the EU budget; calls on the Commission and on national, regional and local authorities to take appropriate account of the opportunities for combining ESI and EFSI funding, thus increasing the leverage effect of investments and positive impact on economic growth and development;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights the improved synergies and coordination among the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other EU instruments, which is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of the EU budget; notes, however, that the creation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) has had an impact in terms of cuts to the Horizon 2020 programmes and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), limiting their ability to accomplish their respective objectives;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights the improved synergies and coordination among the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other EU instruments, which is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of the EU budget; calls on the Commission to introduce joint multi- fund project management units with a view to avoiding bureaucratic logjams;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights the improved synergies and coordination among the five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other EU instruments, which is an important element in ensuring the effectiveness of the EU budget; calls on the Commission to further enhance complementarity and synergies between ESI Funds, EFSI and Horizon 2020;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that the territorial disparities have not been reduced in the European Union, partly due to the consequences of the crises that European regions have faced and are still facing; therefore stresses the need to intensify the cohesion policy and a targeted evaluation of the territorial effects of related instruments as EFSI and Horizon 2020 ; stresses therefore that it is essential that synergies between the ESI funds and Horizon 2020 and the uptake of these instruments will be improved;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that one of the main objectives of the European Union is to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States; underlines that cohesion policy set out for the long term is the Union's main tool for reducing disparities between all EU regions, and that it plays an important role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy; looks forward to the Commission's 7th Cohesion report and calls for specific focus on assessment of outcomes, results, performance, synergies and added value;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls its opposition on introducing macroeconomic conditionalities in Cohesion Policy 2014-2020; Strongly rejects any intention to attach further conditions or to extend the scope of its application;

Amendment 31 #

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that pre-allocated national envelopes in line with Article 2 of Council Regulation No 1311/2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for 2014- 2020 cannot be reduced via the MFF review/revision; recalls also that, in respect of cohesion policy, Article 7 of the current Financial Framework Regulation indicates that the amounts allocated must be automatically adjusted in 2017 on the basis of updated GDP statistics from Eurostat;

Amendment 33 #

Andrey NOVAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 34 #

Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates its firm position on the importance of simplifying access to ESI Funds, and ~~suppor~~regrets, in this context, th~~e work of the Commission's~~at Parliament is not directly involved in the High Level Group inresponsible for monitoring simplification for beneficiaries;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates its firm position on the importance of simplifying access to ESI Funds, ~~and~~ supports in this context the work of the Commission's High Level Group in monitoring simplification for beneficiaries and invites Member States and the Commission to introduce relevant simplification proposals of the High Level Group already in the current programming period;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Reiterates its firm position on the importance of simplifying access to ESI Funds, and supports in this context the work of the Commission's High Level Group in monitoring simplification for beneficiaries; stresses, however, the need to ensure a proper balance between simplification on the one hand, and the detection and prevention of irregularities, including fraud, on the other;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Reminds that in the context of the MFF review-revision simplification is highlighted as a crucial issue because administrative burden is a cross-cutting issue, raising important questions about the future of cohesion policy, the model of shared management and also the concepts linked to performance and result orientations;

Amendment 38 #

Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the European Parliament resolution Towards simplification and performance orientation in cohesion policy, which calls for reduction of administrative burden on beneficiaries of EU funds in the process of application, management and control of projects;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; ~~recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls for a more simplified use of~~stresses that financial instruments may in certain specific cases be a form of beneficial support for certain beneficiaries of ESI Funds; calls for a simplification in future, for final beneficiaries, of the use of grants and financial instruments ~~in future~~;

Amendment 4 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that one of the main objectives of the European Union is to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States; underlines that cohesion policy set out for the long term is the Union's main tool for reducing disparities between all EU regions and improve the quality of life of EU citizens, especially in rural areas, and that it plays an important role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy;

Amendment 40 #

Iskra MIHAYLOVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; ~~recognises the potential~~encourages the broader use of financial instruments as ~~a form of support for ESI Funds~~flexible mechanisms to be applied alongside grants after appropriate ex-ante assessment, considering that the multiplier effect in terms of impact and leverage can be much greater; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future;

Amendment 41 #

Andrea COZZOLINO, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; ~~calls for a more simplified~~warns subscribers, however, about the use of such financial instruments ~~in future~~, whose complexity and modalities can be particularly risky;

Amendment 42 #

Louis-Joseph MANSCOUR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls ~~for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future~~on the Commission and all stakeholders to consider the procedures for using these instruments in future; believes that the current 'spend better' approach should not lead to an unreasonable increase in blending between ESI Funds and ad hoc financial instruments, as this practice risks fragmenting European cohesion policy and the EU budget;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective and priority form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention but recalls, that according to the recital 53 of the Regulation No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, financial instruments should be used on a complementary basis, on the basis of an ex ante evaluation, demonstrating that they are more effective for the achievement of the Union's policy objectives than other forms of Union funding, including grants; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future and for an adequate training of the managing authorities in this field;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls for a more simplified use of grants and financial instruments in future; Notes the lack of evidence on the outcomes and results achieved by financial instruments and the loose link of those financial instruments to overarching objectives and priorities of the EU; Considers necessary to further strengthening the accountability, transparency and result-orientation of financial instruments;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future, underlining that clear, consistent and focused rules on Financial Instruments to help simplify the preparation and implementation process for fund managers and recipients, which recognise the different development levels of financial markets across the EU's Member States, are key to increasing their use;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds~~; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future~~, however, stresses that grants should not be side-lined in favour of financial instruments; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future because there is a risk that the opportunities are lost due to poorly designed financial instruments, leading to little use and impact;

Amendment 48 #

Lambert van NISTELROOIJ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; stresses that more robust evidence is needed to understand how such financial instruments can be effectively used in cohesion policy; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future;

Amendment 49 #

Ivan JAKOVČIĆ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention and private entrepreneurship; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls for a more simplified use of financial instruments in future;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that one of the main objectives of the European Union is to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States; underlines that cohesion policy set out for the long term is the Union's main investment policy and a tool for reducing disparities between all EU regions, and that it plays an important role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Underlines that administrative capacity at national and regional/ local level as well as at the level of EU institutions is a key precondition for timely and successful performance of Cohesion policy as well as all other policies financed from EU budget; therefore asks the Commission to define actions to support strengthening of administrative capacity for implementation of the policies;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Invites the Commission to take into account the extraordinary efforts made by Member States and regions in providing appropriate reception conditions and integrating asylum seekers and other migrants, aOpposes any reprogramming of European structural funds to ~~explore the possibility, in compliance with the expenditu~~finance re ce~~ilings set out in the MFF, of providing additional assistance to such Member States and region~~ption infrastructure for illegal migrants when reviewing the functioning of the ~~MFF~~multiannual financial framework;

Amendment 52 #

Younous OMARJEE, Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Invites the Commission to take ~~into account~~note of the extraordinary efforts made by Member States and regions in providing appropriate reception conditions and integrating asylum seekers and other migrants, and to explore the possibility, in full compliance with the agreed expenditure ceilings set out in the MFF, of providing additional ~~assistance to~~flexibility within the ESI Funds in order to support such Member States and regions when reviewing the functioning of the MFF; stresses, however, the long-term nature of ESI Fund projects to support economic growth and territorial cohesion and underlines the availability of alternative tools for providing short-term, emergency assistance;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Invites the Commission to take into account the ~~extraordinary~~ efforts made by Member States and regions in providing appropriate reception conditions and integrating asylum seekers and other migrants, and to explore the possibility, in compliance with the expenditure ceilings set out in the MFF, of providing additional assistance to such Member States and regions when reviewing the functioning of the MFF; calls for the investment clause to be revised so that national and regional investments intended for migrants which are co-financed by ESI funds are excluded from the calculation of national deficits under the Stability and Growth Pact;

Amendment 54 #

Andrea COZZOLINO, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Invites the Commission to take into account the extraordinary efforts made by Member States and regions in providing appropriate reception conditions and integrating asylum seekers and other migrants, and to explore the possibility, in compliance with the expenditure ceilings set out in the MFF and without prejudice to the adjustment of the cohesion policy budget, pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation 1311/2013, of providing additional assistance to such Member States and regions when reviewing the functioning of the MFF;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Invites the Commission to take into account the extraordinary efforts made by Member States and regions in providing appropriate reception conditions and integrating asylum seekers and other migrants, and to explore the possibility, in compliance with the expenditure ceilings set out in the MFF, of providing additional conditional assistance to such Member States and regions when reviewing the functioning of the MFF, without decreasing commitment or payment appropriations under Heading 1b;

Amendment 56 #

Iliana IOTOVA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Invites the Commission to take into account the extraordinary efforts made by Member States and regions in providing appropriate reception conditions and integrating asylum seekers and other migrants, and to explore the possibility, in compliance with the expenditure ceilings set out in the MFF, of providing additional assistance to such Member States and regions, and especially to those lying on the EU's external borders, when reviewing the functioning of the MFF;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Underlines the important contribution of Cohesion Policy in achieving the target of dedicating 20% of the EU budget to climate action as set out in the conclusions of the European Council from 8 February 2013 on the MFF; Emphasises the need to take into account the agreements of COP 21 and to accelerate and improve effectiveness of climate spending whilst underlining the huge potential of Cohesion Policy in boosting the EU's efforts for climate protection; Invites the Commission and the Member States to increase their commitment and dedicate 30% of the current EU budget to climate action;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Notes that avoid~~Stresses that the reduced MFF had to absorb the abnormal backlog of payments that had built up since 2011; therefore, points that preventing a backlog of payments in future is crucial to ensuring successful implementation of EU cohesion policy;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that avoiding a backlog of payments in future is crucial to ensuring successful implementation of EU cohesion policy and preventing negative impacts on beneficiaries, in particular SMEs, in receipt of ESI Funds;

Amendment 6 #

Daniel BUDA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that Cohesion Policy 2014- 2020 is closely aligned with the objectives of the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth thus ensuring high European added-value of its spending; Considers that any Union instrument, including outside the EU budget, has to prove its contribution to EU objectives and priorities;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that avoiding a backlog of payments in future is crucial to ensuring successful implementation of EU cohesion policy; notes that the implementation of cohesion policy is being held up and that bureaucratic complications are making it impossible to reduce the lengthening delays; calls on the Commission to take account of these factors where risks arise in connection with the decommitment of amounts allocated;

Amendment 61 #

Andrey NOVAKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that avoiding a backlog of payments in future is crucial to ensuring successful implementation of EU cohesion policy; notes that introducing new own resources to the EU budget will positively influence the payments backlog issue; calls for a full-scale discussion on the introduction of new own resources alongside the MFF revision process;

Amendment 62 #

Stanislav POLČÁK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that avoiding a backlog of payments in future is crucial to ensuring successful implementation of EU cohesion policy; stresses in this context that the existing backlog of payments damages the reputation of the EU;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Regrets that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) has hitherto failed to achieve the goal of improving working and economic conditions for young people and calls therefore for a review of its operational mechanisms, in order to make it an effective tool for helping to resolve the persisting problem of high levels of youth unemployment;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Reiterates that national co-financing of the European Structural and Investment Funds should be completely excluded from the definition of Stability and Growth Pact structural deficits, as stated in the European Parliament resolution of 8 October 2013 on effects of budgetary constraints for regional and local authorities regarding the EU's Structural Funds expenditure in the Member States;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Considers that the MFF revision/review is a good opportunity to deal with the fundamental link between Cohesion Policy and the outcomes and agreements of the COP21 conference; calls, moreover, on the Commission to help the Managing authorities in the Member States adapt the programmes consistently with the recent decisions taken at the conference;

Amendment 66 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. PoRemintds t~~o the fact that a~~he current seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework ~~has proved its worth in the past and that the programming period should not be shorter~~; calls to explore the ways how the period could be more aligned with the mandate of the Commission and the European Parliament as it will increase democratic accountability and legitimacy.

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Points to the fact that a seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework has proved ~~its~~of some worth in the past ~~and that the programming period should not be shorte~~and can be advantageous to the public sector, providing a stable source of funding for local and regional authorities in particular.

Amendment 68 #

Mercedes BRESSO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Points to the fact that a seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework has proved its worth in the past ~~and that the programming period should not be shorter.~~; stresses, however, the importance of an in-depth assessment of the duration of the programming period, also with a view to aligning the political cycles of the European Parliament and the Commission; considers, in this regard, that the suggested duration of 5+5 years should be carefully assessed, since it would give the MFF the necessary flexibility, through a genuine and mandatory mid-term review, whilst retaining the ability to programme over the medium to longer term for initiatives and programmes which need such programming, such as cohesion policy and rural development policy; any change to the programming period should not, however, reduce the availability of resources for cohesion policy and the funds should remain commensurate with the challenges to be met;

Amendment 69 #

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Points to the fact that a seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework has proved its worth in the past ~~and that the programming period should not be shorter~~; Urges therefore that for cohesion policy a programming period of seven years should be ensured or a 5 + 5 programming period with a clear mid-term revision of the policy.

Amendment 7 #

Lambert van NISTELROOIJ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that a reformed cohesion policy, through the Common Provisions Regulation, has been agreed on for the period 2014-2020 and has led to performance based budgeting by the introduction of detailed ex-ante conditionalities;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Points to the fact that ~~a seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework has proved its worth in the past and~~, although the current MFF Regulation specifies that during the assessment/review process the three institutions shall jointly consider what the most appropriate period of duration of the next financial framework would be, and that the EP has on numerous occasions stated that this should be aligned with the political cycle at Parliament and the Commission, a seven-year period of the multiannual financial framework has proved its worth in the past, especially in the case of expenditure in programmes under shared management in the area of cohesion and rural development, since the adoption of legislation at national and regional level is long process and also calls for longer- term predictability, and therefore considers that the programming period should not be shorter.

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Stresses that a well-funded Cohesion Policy to support regional development and cohesion in the EU will continue to be in demand and that, according to the recent ESPON study modelling future territorial development scenarios across the EU, growing disparities are predicted between the core and periphery (southern and eastern) countries and regions as well as large labour migration and depopulation in many Central and Eastern European regions;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Notes that the discussion on the next programming period has already started and underlines in this context the importance of maintaining the role of cohesion policy after year 2020 as the main EU investment policy with adequate level of funding;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission to draw conclusions on the limitations of the current allocation key for determining support from cohesion policy funds based on GDP per capita only;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Urges that in 2018 the negotiations for post 2020 cohesion policy have to be finalized.

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Emphasises that the MFF review/revision should be concluded promptly to allow enough time to prepare the Commission proposals for the post- 2020 MFF;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises the need for increasing the effectiveness and result-orientation of cohesion policy and welcomes the fact that some mechanisms have already been introduced; recalls that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds are at an early stage of implementation in 2016 and that at the time of the MFF review/revision only limited evidence is available as to results; nevertheless underlines that the existing evidence should be used to the most possible extend during the debate;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises the need for effectiveness and result-orientation of cohesion policy; stresses that Cohesion Policy is a good example of how performance based budgeting can be implemented; recalls that European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds are at an early stage of implementation in 2016 and that at the time of the MFF review/revision only limited evidence is available as to results; recalls the possibilities that the Common Strategic Framework, annex to the Common Provisions Regulation, offers; regrets that the uptake of the possibilities under the CSF has thus far been limited; calls on the Commission to stimulate and improve the use of the possibilities under the CSF;

source: 582.102

2016/04/25 INTA 109 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for a~~dequate financing in order to implement the Commission’s ambitious trade policy agenda,~~ clear estimate of the adequate level of financing to meet the increased costs of the Commission’s ambitious trade policy agenda, including the costs of the numerous ongoing processes of negotiating free trade agreements; calls for investment in accompanying measures to offset the impact of trade agreements, with a view to contributing thereby to the stability and ~~prosperity~~sustainable development of the EU and third countries;

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the post-electoral revi~~sion~~ew of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) must address the new ~~political~~ challenges facing the EU~~; underlines that reallocation of funds for emergencies is not a sustainable solution; insists that the existing resource commit~~ in order to enable the Union and Member States to reassess their priorities; underlines that the flexibility mechanisms within the MFF enable the EU to mobilise the necessary funds to react to unforeseen events; believes that the existing resources in both commitments and payments for achieving the Union’s strategic objectives and greater economic, social and territorial cohesion should be maintained;

Amendment 10 #

Claude ROLIN, Georges BACH, Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER, Anne SANDER, Jérôme LAVRILLEUX, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the migration and refugee crisis has revealed ~~significant shortcomings in~~ the inconsistencyies of ~~EU action in the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood and in Sub-Saharan Afr~~Member States’ and EU foreign policay; calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity of the MFF revision to launch a fundamental reform of the policy strategy towards the EU’s partners with a view to increasing its impact and tackling migration causes effectivelyEuropean Union not to intervene further in the Member States’ foreign and migration policies;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Points to the need to provide the EU budget with a genuine own resources system, thereby lowering the proportion of GNI-based national contributions to the budget;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 11 #

Sorin MOISĂ, Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the importance for the achievement of EU strategic objectives of increasing public spending for education, training, research and development in all Member States, easing budgetary constraints in Europe to ensure effective tools for integration without removing employment opportunities and combating poverty and social exclusion;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to allocate resources in order to assess possible compensatory measures for European sectors that could be affected by the granting of emergency autonomous trade preferences for third countries;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Notes that the ceilings of the current MFF have been exceeded, jeopardising its viability for the second half of its cycle; calls on the Commission, therefore, to carry out a genuine mid-term revision of the MFF ceilings and of the provisions of the MFF Regulation, and to takes proper account of the findings of the review in order to provide the EU with a viable budgetary framework enabling it to achieve its primary goals and bring its major projects to a successful conclusion;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. CStresses that the vital role of SMEs for the EU economy should be reflected in a comprehensive and consistent strategy which provides European SMEs with a business-friendly environment and fosters their international trade and investment opportunities; in this context, calls on the Commission to assess and improve the various initiatives under the Partnership Instrument supporting SME internationalisation regarding their effectiveness and efficiency, in relation to private and Member State initiatives as well as other EU funding instruments supporting SMEs such as COSME, with a view to ensuring complementarity and European added-value;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Believes that the principle of European added value should represent the cornerstone of all future expenditures, which also must be guided by the principle of efficiency, effectiveness and value for money, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined by Article 5 TEU;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to assess and improve the various initiatives under the Partnership Instrument supporting SME internationalisation, in relation to private and Member State initiatives, with a view to ensuring complementarity and European added-value; underlines that such funding needs to be assessed against compliance with ILO and Human Rights standards;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that ~~the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and calls for increased public investment in job creation and skills~~Europe has 22 million unemployed, of which approximately 4.5 million are young people under the age of 25, reflecting the failure of the Europe 2020 strategy;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to assess and improve the various initiatives under the Partnership Instrument supporting SME internationalisation, in relation to private and Member State initiatives, with a view to ensuring complementarity and European added-valuelet the Member States act in the interests of their SMEs, with a view to efficiency and a return to national economic sovereignty;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Reminds that the EU budget is an investment budget with a strong leverage effect and can represent a strong tool to increase strategic investments with European added value consistent with an approach aimed at creating growth and jobs; Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target~~, and~~; calls for ~~increased public investment in job creation and skills~~a better use of existing funds by focussing spending on ‘smart growth’ allowing for a coherent and consistent long term strategic approach to the challenges faced by the Union;

Amendment 16 #

Claude ROLIN, Romana TOMC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to assess and improve the various initiatives under the Partnership Instrument supporting SME internationalisation, in relation to private and Member State initiatives, with a view to ensuring complementarity and European added-valuelet the Member States act in the interests of their SMEs, with a view to efficiency and a return to national economic sovereignty;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2%, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and calls for increased ~~public~~ investment in job creation and skills, as well as in infrastructure, not least through the EFSI; also maintains that the MFF revision should be used to find a way of fully offsetting the cuts by which the EFSI has been financed at the expense of the budgets of major EU programmes, including Horizon 2020 and the Connecting Europe Facility, bearing in mind the importance of those programmes for economic development and job creation in particular, without, however, undermining the EFSI, which has an essential part to play in revitalising investment in Europe;

Amendment 17 #

Sorin MOISĂ, Karoline GRASWANDER-HAINZ, Jude KIRTON-DARLING, Alessia Maria MOSCA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls for adequate financing in order to better support the internationalisation of SMEs by developing specific and clear guidebooks for SMEs about the opportunities and benefits offered by each trade agreement concluded by the EU;

Amendment 17 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Brando BENIFEI, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Siôn SIMON, Javi LÓPEZ, Richard HOWITT, Evelyn REGNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, that unemployment remains especially high among women, the young, the elderly and the disadvantaged groups and that more than 12 million people in Europe are long-term unemployed, representing 5% of the EU’s active population; and in this context reminds recently passed Council Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market which has demonstrated again a need for strong Union policies and much more resources and calls for increased public investment in job creation and skills;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Not~~Deplores the increasing recourse to guarantees and financial instruments outside the EU budget to respond to multiple crises despite budgetary constraints; ~~deplores the various cuts in Heading 4 in order to provide funding for the newly created Trust Funds for Syria and Africa and the Turkey Facility;~~ insists that such funding instruments must remain an exception and should eventually be included in the budget;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and calls for increased public investment in ~~job~~the creation ~~and~~of adequate jobs or in existing vacancies, and in skills;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 19 #

Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2%, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and calls for increased European public investment in job creation and skills, to be achieved by ring-fencing and strengthening the European Social Fund;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Calls for adequate financing in order to implement the Commission’s ambitious trade policy agenda~~Underlines that the EU's trade policy, by promoting open markets in a spirit of reciprocity to foster economic growth, employment and development, contribut~~ing~~es to the stability and prosperity of both the EU and third countries; calls for adequate financing to allow the Commission to implement its ambitious agenda outlined in its 'Trade for All' strategy;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the post-electoral revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) must address the new political challenges facing the EU; underlines that reallocation of funds for emergencies is not a sustainable solution; insists that the existing resource commitments for achieving the Untake note of the failure to use the funds received from the Member States to address at EU level the new economic and social crises; underlines that reallocation of funds for emergencies or requests for further EU budget increases to be met by the Member States are not acceptable solution’s ~~strategic objectives and greater economic, social and territorial cohesion be maintained~~but yet another burden for our citizens;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the increasing recourse to guarantees and financial instruments outside the EU budget to respond to multiple crises despite budgetary constraints; deplores the various cuts in Heading 4 in order to provide funding for the newly created Trust Funds for Syria and Africa and the Turkey Facility; insists that such funding instruments must adhere to the established criteria of aid effectiveness, such as ownership and alignments, remain an exception and should eventually be included in the budget;

Amendment 20 #

Sorin MOISĂ, Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and calls for increased public investment in ~~job creation and skills~~quality and sustainable job creation and skills, including green jobs and jobs in the social economy and the social, health and care sector;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the increasing recourse to guarantees and financial instruments outside the EU budget to respond to multiple crises despite budgetary constraints; deplores the various cuts in Heading 4 in order to provide funding for the newly created Trust Funds for Syria and Africa and the Turkey Facility; insists that such funding instruments must remain an exception and should eventually be included in the budget and thus ensure democratic accountability;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and calls for increased public and private investment in job creation and skills;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to indicate clearly the budgetary resources from which compensation payments to investors will be made if the European Union loses a case in the investor protection courts established under the trade agreements with Singapore, Vietnam and Canada; calls on the Commission not to commit the EU to any further obligations under investor protection arrangements in new trade agreements that could result in substantial burdens on the Union budget;

Amendment 22 #

Sorin MOISĂ, Jude KIRTON-DARLING, Agnes JONGERIUS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and calls for increased public investment, free of budgetary constraints, in job creation and skills;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to tackle the lack of resources in order to prevent a new payment crisis towards the end of the current Multiannual Financial Framework by revising upward the payment ceiling;

Amendment 23 #

Claude ROLIN, Georges BACH, Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER, Anne SANDER, Jérôme LAVRILLEUX, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Sofia RIBEIRO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Maintains that investment in research and development is crucially important for the competitiveness of the European economy and for job creation; notes, however, that, according to the most recent Eurostat figures, R & D investment accounted for just 2.03% of EU GDP, which is well below the Europe 2020 target; urges the Commission, therefore, to find a way of fully offsetting the cuts by which the EFSI has been financed at the expense of the Horizon 2020 budget;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers the European Guarantee Fund for External Actions to be an efficient and effective mechanism for provisioning for risks related to EU lending operations in third countries; urges that more lending be made available to support SMEs and the development of social and economic infrastructure in the regions most affected by the migration and refugee crisis; calls, in particular, for experience in the realm of fair trade to inform this approach and for a sustained strengthening of relevant structures and principles;

Amendment 24 #

Enrique CALVET CHAMBON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls for a review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF), to be based on criteria including the prior assessment of the effectiveness of measures to combat unemployment, with funding for the less effective provisions being cut; considers that such an approach is particularly important in times of crisis, such as the present moment, which are marked by unacceptable imbalances;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that gaining the full support from citizens in the context of on-going budgetary constraints is extremely important in order to reaffirm and achieve our social and employment commitments under the EU2020 strategy; believes that the challenge facing the EU will not be to spend more, but to spend more efficiently;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Considers the European Guarantee Fund for External Actions to be an efficient and effective mechanism for provisioning for risks related to EU lending operations in third countries; urges that ~~more~~ lending ~~be made available to support SMEs and~~ in support of the development of social and economic infrastructure in the regions most affected by the migration and refugee crisis is subject to prior sustainability impact assessment;

Amendment 26 #

Sorin MOISĂ, Jude KIRTON-DARLING, Alessia Maria MOSCA, Agnes JONGERIUS, Karoline GRASWANDER-HAINZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Insists on the ~~continuation of the Youth E~~need to support and promote the role of the Member States in drawing up truly effective projects that avoid waste and have a real impact on youth employment in Europe; stresses the importance of employment Iinitiative ~~and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided until 2020~~s regarding not only supply but also demand; calls for encouragement to be given to all initiatives and projects seeking to align training and business needs more closely;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Considers that European Globalisation Adjustment Fund could be a more efficient and effective instrument if reformed and shaped in a way that it is adequately funded by lowering the threshold for EGF eligibility in order to ensure that employees of small and medium companies in sectors that are directly damaged by the effects of globalisation, are assisted;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Insists on the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided until 2020;~~ Notes that the Youth Employment Initiative was introduced in the current programming period to foster employment in particular for young people with a budget of €6.4bn, and that co-legislators agreed to frontload the whole envelope for this programme for 2014 and 2015; Reminds the Commission of the joint statement as part of the 2016 Budget agreement in which the Commission committed to draw lessons from the results of the YEI evaluation; Insists on that any proposals for the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative must take the results of the evaluation fully into account in order to move towards performance based budgeting;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the ~~valuable~~ support under the EU’s Macro-Financial Assistance mechanism to partner countries facing severe economic difficulties must be reflected in the EU budget; deplores the fact that the ‘structural reforms’ required of countries in return for such assistance impose on them what is in some cases an unwanted economic model; deplores the fact that the assistance to Ukraine is disbursed via a corrupt government with links to dangerous political milieus, and ultimately favours the division of the country, torn as it is between its Russian and European interests;

Amendment 28 #

Martina DLABAJOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Insists on~~Notes that the coenti~~nuation of~~re envelope earmarked for the Youth Employment Initiative ~~and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided until 2020~~was frontloaded in 2014-2015 and that the figures available indicate full absorption to date; stresses the importance of continuing providing resources for the Youth Employment Initiative until 2020 if the assessment of the Court of Auditors in 2017 will demonstrate efficiency of the funds used and the achievement of the objectives of the programme;

Amendment 29 #

Claude ROLIN, Georges BACH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Insists on the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative ~~and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided until 2020~~, whose performance should be analysed and the necessary corrections made with a view to improving its implementation, and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided until 2020; points out that no financial commitment has been entered into regarding the Youth Employment Initiative in 2016, even though Parliament is calling for a figure of EUR 473 million;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for adequate financing in order to i~~mplement~~ncrease the coherence of the Commission’s ~~ambitious~~ trade policy agenda with the EU's global action goals, contributing to the stability and prosperity of the EU and third countries;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the post-electoral revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) must address the new political challenges facing the EU; ~~underlines that realloca~~considers that substantial addition ofal fund~~s for emergencies is not a sustainable solution; insist~~ing is needed at EU level to address humanitarian challenges, develop a new common European asylum system, promote integration and prevent discrimination, racism and xenophobia; believes that, in the ~~existing resource commitments for achieving the Union’s strategic objectives~~light of the unprecedented migration crisis, current MFF ceilings for 2014-2020 have proved inadequate; notes that the Asylum, Migration and Integreat~~er economic, social and territorial cohesion~~ion Fund (AMIF) is already virtually exhausted; recalls that extensive use has already been ma~~intained~~de of MFF flexibility mechanisms;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the valuable support under the EU’s Macro-Financial Assistance mechanism to partner countries facing severe economic difficulties must be reflected in the EU budget; criticises the fact that Macro-Financial Assistance in its current form is granted as credit, increasing the recipient countries’ debt burden, while neither EU taxpayers nor the people of the recipient countries are afforded transparency about how the financing is channelled and the uses to which it is put;

Amendment 30 #

Romana TOMC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Insists on the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative and the Erasmus+ programme and calls for the resources for th~~is initiative~~ese programmes to be provided at least until 2020;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the valuable support under the EU’s Macro-Financial Assistance mechanism to partner countries facing severe economic difficulties must be reflected in the EU budget; suggests that, in the longer term, the integration of the MFA instrument into the European Neighbourhood Program Instrument should be contemplated, in order to increase coherence of EU action;

Amendment 31 #

Marian HARKIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. INotes that the entire envelope earmarked for the Youth Employment Initiative was frontloaded in 2014-2015 and that the figures available indicate full absorption to date; insists on the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided until 2020;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that available commitment appropriations should be fully used; recalls that the level of outstanding commitments (RALs) under Heading IV, following a steady increase since 2010, reached an unprecedented level in 2015; notes that the situation was solved via a considerable reinforcement of payments; calls for a sufficient level of payments in relation to commitments under Heading IV to prevent the re-building of an unsustainable level of RALs in the future; emphasises that any loss of available commitment appropriations should be effectively prevented given the very tight MFF ceilings; asks, therefore, for commitment appropriations which are cancelled due to partial or non- implementation to be made available again in the EU budget for purposes decided by the European Parliament and the Council in the framework of the budgetary procedure;

Amendment 32 #

Jérôme LAVRILLEUX

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Insists on the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided at least until 2020;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the Commission to present proposals on the contribution international trade is intended to make in relation to the restructuring of the budget and the Union’s own resources;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Insists on the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided at least until 2020;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for sufficient resources under Heading 5 in order to conduct assessments of trade agreements, in particular with regards to their contribution to the fight against poverty and adverse impacts on sustainable development and Human Rights, and ensure that the obligations of the EU and its trading partners in this regard are implemented and enforced.

Amendment 34 #

Sorin MOISĂ, Jude KIRTON-DARLING, Alessia Maria MOSCA, Karoline GRASWANDER-HAINZ, Agnes JONGERIUS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3a. Insists on the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative and calls for the resources for this initiative to be provided until 2020; stresses the need to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of these investments, given the limited results achieved by the programmes implemented to date;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for sufficient resources under Heading 5 in order to conduct both ex-ante and ex-post assessments of trade agreements; to improve the quality and effectiveness of ex-ante and ex-post assessments by reviewing its methodology, and ensure that the obligations of the EU and its trading partners are implemented and enforced.;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Points out that combating youth unemployment is a top priority and points to the desirability of promoting apprenticeship, since Member States which favour that option give their young people direct and immediate access to employment; maintains that the necessary appropriations should be channelled for the purpose of encouraging mobility among apprentices, who should accordingly be entitled to benefit from Erasmus funding in the same way as students;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for sufficient resources under Heading 5 in order to conduct ex-ante, interim and ex-post assessments of trade agreements and ensure that the obligations of the EU and its trading partners are fully implemented and enforced.

Amendment 36 #

Sorin MOISĂ, Alessia Maria MOSCA, Jude KIRTON-DARLING, Karoline GRASWANDER-HAINZ, Agnes JONGERIUS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that the Court of Auditors’ report on ‘EU Youth Guarantee - Implementation in Member States’, due to be completed at the beginning of 2017, will provide a clearer assessment of the programme’s results; considers that, inter alia, analysis of the efficiency and the long-term results should be outlined in the report;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Recalls the importance of gender mainstreaming, which should underpin Union policies as a horizontal principle; calls on the Commission to put the principle of gender mainstreaming into practice when preparing the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020; calls on the Commission to ensure that the gender perspective is included, horizontally, in all future trade agreements and also, as an essential part of the EU mainstreaming strategy and proposes, to allocate sufficient resources to guarantee a thorough monitoring and evaluation of the gender impact of the trade agreements in force;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Notes the persistently high levels of youth unemployment in many Member States; calls on Member States to make use of the possibility to include NEETs in EGF applications where relevant and to promote entrepreneurship among young people as a mechanism to encourage job creation;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for adequate financing ~~in order to implement the Commission’s ambitious trade pol~~but recommends that a stop be put to the widespread negotiation of free trade agreements whicyh a~~genda, contributing to the stability and prosperity of the EU and third~~re destroying jobs and industry in the great majority of European countries;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the post-electoral revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) must address the ongoing and new political challenges facing the EU, such as high levels of poverty, social exclusion and unemployment; underlines that reallocation of funds for emergencies is not a sustainable solution; insists that the existing resource commitments for achieving the Union’s strategic objectives and greater economic, social and territorial cohesion be maintained; requests that the employment and social policy related ceilings of the MFF should be revised upwards and its flexibility expanded to be able to respond to unforeseen social circumstances;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that new legislation on EURES and the European platform for tackling undeclared work will draw on Employment and Social Innovation programme resources and insists that a sufficient amount of adequate funding for this programme be guaranteed in the EU budget, without jeopardising the roles assigned to the Progress and microfinance and social entrepreneurship components under the EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that new legislation on EURES and the European platform for tackling undeclared work will draw on Employment and Social Innovation programme resources and insists that adequate funding for this programme be guaranteed in the EU budget; calls for keeping the current allocation of 61% of the progress axis, namely for projects and support to Union-level networks that promote social inclusion and fight against poverty;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that new legislation on EURES and the European platform for tackling undeclared work will draw on Employment and Social Innovation programme resources and insists that adequate funding for this programme be guaranteed in the EU budget; notes, with regard to EURES initiatives to deal with unemployment, that it is necessary to ensure that labour mobility is organised on a voluntary basis and underpinned by appropriate social guarantees;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived ~~are not sufficient to address the unprecedented flow of refugees and that competition for scarce funds may lead to social c~~have been earmarked for measures to boost employment and provide material assistance to citizens of the EU Member States who are unemployed or poor; notes that the funds are insufficient to address the current unprecedented migration flict; insists that the ESF share amount to 25 % of the total cohesion budget, that no reductions in the national envelopes for ESF measures be made and that sufficient cash flow be provided annually for payments from the EU budgetow; stresses that this funding cannot be diverted from the original objectives or be extended to new beneficiary categories, but must be used more efficiently and effectively to tackle the problems of the 22 million jobless EU citizens;

Amendment 44 #

Claude ROLIN, Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived ~~are not sufficient~~could be used to address the unprecedented flow of refugees and that ~~competition for scarce funds may lead to social conflict;~~ any increases in these budget lines must be matched by identifying savings elsewhere in the EU budget for example, in lines that are not achieving their policy objectives or in budget lines that have been under implemented; insists that the ESF share amount to 25 % of the total cohesion budget, that no reductions in the national envelopes for ESF measures be made and that sufficient cash flow be provided annually for payments from the EU budget;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived are not sufficient to address the unprecedented flow of refugees ~~and that competition for scarce funds may lead to social conflict~~; calls on the Commission to increase social policy funding and in that way enhance cohesion policy in order to help refugees to integrate into society and enter the labour market while doing its best to achieve its goals of promoting employment and social inclusion; insists that the ESF share amount to 25% of the total cohesion budget, that no reductions in the national envelopes for ESF measures be made and that sufficient cash flow be provided annually for payments from the EU budget;

Amendment 46 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Brando BENIFEI, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Siôn SIMON, Javi LÓPEZ, Richard HOWITT, Evelyn REGNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived are not sufficient to address the rise of inequality and poverty, the worst consequences of the economic crisis and of austerity policies on the labour market concerning labour exclusion of young people and long-term unemployed, and the unprecedented flow of refugees; and is concerned that competition for scarce funds may lead to social conflict; insists that the ESF share amount to 2530 % of the total cohesion budget, that no reductions in the national envelopes for ESF measures be made and that sufficient cash flow be provided annually for payments from the EU budget;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived are not sufficient to address the unprecedented flow of refugees and that competition for scarce funds may lead to social conflict; ~~insists that the ESF share amount to 25 % of the total cohesion budget,~~calls therefore on the Commission to increase the European Social Fund allocation to 25 % of the cohesion policy budget as part of the revision of the multiannual financial framework; insists that no reductions in the national envelopes for ESF measures be made and that sufficient cash flow be provided annually for payments from the EU budget;

Amendment 48 #

Romana TOMC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived are not sufficient to address the unprecedented flow of refugees and that competition for scarce funds m~~ay lead to social conflict~~ust not interfere with the elements of the fund; insists that the ESF share amount to 25 % of the total cohesion budget, that no reductions in the national envelopes for ESF measures be made and that sufficient cash flow be provided annually for payments from the EU budget;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived are not sufficient to address the unprecedented flow of refugees and that competition for scarce funds may lead to social conflict; insists that the ESF share amount to 25 % of the total cohesion budget, that the 20% earmarking for social inclusion is kept, that no reductions in the national envelopes for ESF measures be made and that sufficient cash flow be provided annually for payments from the EU budget;

Amendment 5 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Brando BENIFEI, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls for adequate financing ~~in order to implement the Commission’s ambitious trade policy agenda, contributing to the stability and prosperity of the EU and third~~but recommends that a stop be put to the widespread negotiation of free trade agreements which are destroying jobs and industry in the great majority of European countries;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the post-electoral revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) must address the new political challenges facing the EU; underlines that reallocation of funds for emergencies is not a sustainable solution; recalls that most of the challenges that the EU is facing, from social dumping to dislocation of refugees, have their roots in the inequalities between Member States and insists that the existing resource commitments for achieving the Union’s strategic objectives and greater economic, social and territorial cohesion be maintained;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived are not sufficient to address the unprecedented flow of refugees and that competition for scarce funds may lead to social conflict; therefore calls for a halt to the acceptance of refugees so that the available financial resources can be used to make the stay of the asylum seekers who are already living here a dignified one; insists that the ESF share amount to 25 % of the total cohesion budget, that no reductions in the national envelopes for ESF measures be made and that sufficient cash flow be provided annually for payments from the EU budget;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the policies for poverty reduction and social inclusion among vulnerable groups have failed to produce the expected results and calls for increased financial aid to social services and the social economyPoints out that the Europe 2020 poverty target is far from being achieved, which highlights that policies in this field have failed, in particular for people in vulnerable situations; calls for increased financial aid to social policies measures, that promotes social investment, including in quality social services and social economy; calls on the Commission to thoroughly monitor that the share of the ESF earmarked to fighting poverty and social exclusion, is effectively used for this purpose;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the policies for poverty reduction and social inclusion among vulnerable groups have failed to produce the expected results and ~~calls for increased financial aid to social servic~~reminds the Commission of its commitment to make concrete proposals for the establishment of a performance-based public budgeting model in which each budget line is accompanied by objectives and ~~the social economy~~outputs to be measured by performance indicators;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the policies for poverty reduction and social inclusion among vulnerable groups have failed to produce the expected results and calls for i~~ncreased financial aid to social services and the social economy~~mpact assessments and value for money analysis to find the reasons for this failure; calls on the Commission and Member States to promote and support the social economy and calls on Member States to ensure the provision of adequate social services;

Amendment 55 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Brando BENIFEI, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ, Siôn SIMON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the policies for poverty reduction and social inclusion among vulnerable groups have failed to produce the expected results ~~and calls for~~; draws attention to the fact that 24,4 % of people in the EU are at risk of poverty and social exclusion, and that their number has increased by five million after 2008; calls therefore to substantially increased the financial aid to social services and the social economy and further strengthen the commitment to act against poverty and social exclusion by introducing a compulsory minimum share of 25 % from ESF on Member State level for promotion of social inclusion;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Emphasises~~Is critical of the fact that the policies for poverty reduction and social inclusion among vulnerable groups have failed to produce the expected results and ~~calls for increased financial aid to social services and the social econom~~notes in this context the need for funding to be used effectively;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the EU is still far short of the Europe 2020 target of combating poverty and social exclusion and that the policies for poverty reduction and social inclusion among vulnerable groups have failed to produce the expected results and calls for increased financial aid to social services and the social economy;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that the policies for poverty reduction and social inclusion among vulnerable groups have failed to produce the expected results and calls for increased financial aid to social services and the social economy; points out that Member States should introduce, as a possible poverty reduction measure and in accordance with national practices, a minimum income proportionate to their specific social and economic circumstances;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Draws attention to the huge problem of ~~child~~ poverty in Europe, which is afflicting over 20 million children, and reiterates its call for the establishment of a Child Guarantee with dedicated special resources, together with programmes to assist parents in getting out of social exclusion and unemployment; strongly believes that EU funding, particularly that under Heading 1a and 1b should not be used to subsidise national approaches, but should be used to provide additional support to people facing social exclusion and unemployment in a way that complements and enhances national programmes according to the decision of the Member States;

Amendment 6 #

Claude ROLIN, Georges BACH

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that the conclusion of each new free trade agreement means substantial revenue losses for the Union’s own-resources budget;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that the post-electoral revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) is vital and must address the new political challenges facing the EU, as well as enabling the EU to meet its targets under its Europe 2020 strategy; underlines that reallocation of funds for emergencies is not a sustainable solution; insists that the existing resource commitments for achieving the Union’s strategic objectives and greater economic, social and territorial cohesion be maintained;

Amendment 60 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Brando BENIFEI, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Javi LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Draws attention to the huge problem of child poverty in Europe, which is afflicting over 20 million children~~, and reiterates its call for the establishment of a Child Guarantee with dedicated special resources, together with~~; notes that between 2008 and 2014 24 EU countries saw an increase in child poverty; emphasises the need for a strong focus on alleviating child poverty in all relevant ESF programmes and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived along with targeted interventions and programmes to assist parents in getting out of social exclusion and unemployment;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Draws attention to the huge problem of child poverty in Europe, which is afflicting over 20 million children~~, and reiterates its call for the establishment of a~~ (27,8 % in EU-28 and almost 50 % in certain Member States), living in families that suffer daily from lack of income and basic services, such as food supplies, housing, education and healthcare; reiterates its call on the Commission and Member States for the establishment of a specific fund dedicated to the Child Guarantee with dedicated special resources, together with programmes to assist parents in getting out of social exclusion and unemployment;

Amendment 62 #

Laura AGEA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Draws attention to the huge problem of child poverty in Europe, which is afflicting over 20 million children, and reiterates its strong call for the establishment of a Child Guarantee with dedicated special resources, together with programmes to assist parents in getting out of social exclusion and unemployment;

Amendment 63 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Brando BENIFEI, Evelyn REGNER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Draws attention to the huge problem of child poverty in Europe, which is afflicting over 20 million children, and reiterates its call for the establishment of a Child Guarantee ~~with dedicated special resources, together with programmes to assist~~placing children at the centre of existing poverty alleviation policies and helping parents into get~~ting~~ out of social exclusion and unemployment;

Amendment 64 #

Romana TOMC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Draws attention to the huge problem of child poverty in Europe, which is afflicting over 20 million children, and reiterates its call for the establishment of a Child Guarantee with dedicated special resources, together with programmes to assist parents in getting out of social exclusion and unemployment; calls on the Commission to establish mechanisms for training and skills development in education and in work in order to increase the employability of EU citizens;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Takes the view that the maximum annual amount available for mobilisation through the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) should at least stay at EUR 150 million (2011 prices) as this instrument, despite underutilisation so far, has a huge potential for supporting workers affected by major economic structural changes;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses the material and cultural poverty and the deterioration of major European suburbs; notes the need to increase funding for qualitative improvements so as to increase the economic, cultural and social integration of European citizens living in such areas, especially the more vulnerable sections of society;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Considering that 13.1 % of EU 27 GDP has been spent on bank bailouts while the EU budget remains at less than 1 %, calls on Member States to ensure the provision of all resources necessary to successfully overcome the extreme challenges being faced by the EU at present.deleted

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Considering~~Points out that 13.1 % of EU 27 GDP has been spent on bank bailouts while the EU budget remains at less than 1 %~~, calls on Member States to ensure the provision of all resources necessary to successfully overcome the extreme challenges being faced by the EU at present~~.

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls on the Commission to provide precise estimates of the revenue losses expected to result from each of the free-trade agreements currently in negotiation and to indicate clearly what budgetary restructuring is to be undertaken to offset the lost amounts;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Acknowledges that the MFF ceilings form only one aspect of future budgeting and that efficient and effective spending is equally – if not more – important; recalls, furthermore, that all EU spending must be targeted at those regions and Member States that need it most, in line with the principle of equality and solidarity;

Amendment 70 #

Claude ROLIN, Georges BACH, Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER, Anne SANDER, Jérôme LAVRILLEUX, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Considering that 13.1 % of EU 27 GDP has been spent on bank bailouts while the EU budget remains at less than 1 %, calls on Member States to ensure the provision of all resources necessary to successfully implement its long-term strategic objectives and overcome the extreme challenges being faced by the EU at present.

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Maintains that the common agricultural policy (CAP) contributes significantly to growth and employment, especially in rural areas, and points out that one job in the agricultural sector generates seven jobs elsewhere; calls for the amounts entered under MFF heading 2 to remain unchanged, bearing in mind that the CAP is vitally important for employment; points out that the CAP not only helps to reduce farm income volatility, particularly in times of crisis, but also helps farmers, young people included, to set up in farming and develop their farms, making them profitable, prosperous, and a source of direct and indirect employment;

Amendment 72 #

Georgi PIRINSKI, Jutta STEINRUCK, Elena GENTILE, Brando BENIFEI, Vilija BLINKEVIČIŪTĖ, Siôn SIMON, Richard HOWITT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Notes the increased commitment of the EU budget to various financial engineering instruments including the European Fund for Strategic Investments; is concerned however about the access to funding of various key stakeholders in social policy areas such as NGOs, education and training institutions, social partners and social economy enterprises;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Calls on the Commission to indicate the costs entailed in the investment court systems (ICS) to be set up under the free trade agreements with Vietnam and Canada and the costs implied by other agreements that require the establishment of a specific investment protection court; calls on the Commission to indicate from which budget heading these costs will be met;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the MFF and the EU budget should reflect all the EU 2020 goals, and not the other way round; underlines in this context, that the EU budget should be used in a way that improves labour market access and combats unemployment, poverty and social exclusion and promotes equality, including gender equality;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the migration and refugee crisis has revealed significant shortcomings in the consistency of EU action in the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood and in Sub-Saharan Africa; calls on the Commission to seize the opportunity of the MFF revision to launch a fundamental reform of the policy strategy towards the EU’s partners with a view to increasing ~~its impac~~policy coherence for development and tackling migration causes effectively; underlines that the funding of programs for the mitigation of the refugee crisis should not be deduced from Official Development Assistance (ODA) spending;

Amendment 9 #

Sofia SAKORAFA, Marisa MATIAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Underlines that synergies and coordination between all five European Structural and Investment Funds, especially between ESF and ERDF, and other EU instruments have the potential to enhance their effectiveness, and shall be further developed;

source: 580.694

2016/04/26 ITRE 77 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Believes that the Commission should undertake~~Calls for a comprehensive review of the functioning of the current MFF, followed by a legislative revision including an adjustment on the ceilings, in order for the EU to respond to a number of unforeseen serious crises that is faced with, and address new political priorities;

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that gender equality is a fundamental value of the EU enshrined in the ~~EU T~~treatyies and should be included in all EU policies to deliver equality in practice; stresses that gender equality must become a policy objective in budget titles and similarly, gender mainstreaming must be recognised as an implementation method in budget titles; stresses therefore that gender budgeting must become an integral part of the budgetary procedure at all its stages, and notes that progress on this front has been marginal; welcomes the MFF mid-term review as an opportunity to make significant progress, in light of the ‘Budget for Results’ agenda; expects the Commission, therefore, to present further measurable and realistic objectives in order to truly embed gender perspectives in the EU budget for the remainder of this programming period;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls to the Commission that grants and loans do not finance the same type of activities and that those different instruments support different types of beneficiaries and projects; stresses the need of continuing with grants for financing fundamental and collaborative research, in particular research performed by the academia; alerts against the tendency in the Commission of transforming grants into loans or equity, in particular when university research budgets are suffering cuts in many Member States; believes that this tendency works towards the losing of the research basis, which in turn significantly reduces the innovation potential of the European Union in the future;

Amendment 10 #

Philippe DE BACKER, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Angelika MLINAR, Dominique RIQUET, Carolina PUNSET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Draws attention to the existing gender- related targets in the Europe 2020 strategy and to related EP priorities under Horizon 2020, which include the promotion of gender equality, especially in research and innovation1; stresses that the MFF review must assess progress towards these targets and should, if necessary, re~~vise~~consider the measures being taken to achieve these targets; 1 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/I DAN/2016/570010/IPOL_IDA(2016)570010_EN.p df

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Points out that the implementation of Horizon 2020 and COSME has led to very high absorption rates and that this has led to a very low success rate in Horizon 2020 which deters potential applicants from putting forward their projects;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Draws attention to~~Criticises the existing gender- related targets in the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses that the MFF review must assess ~~progress towards~~the utility and effectiveness of these targets and should, if necessary, revise the measures being taken to achieve these targets;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that total recovery of funds redeployed from the Connected Europe Facility to the European Fund for Strategic Investments should be one of the key priorities for the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Stress~~Notes that, despite the joint declaration attached to the MFF on gender mainstreaming, no specific measures have so far been taken; ~~calls for effective monitoring of this declaration’s implementation in the annual budgetary procedures and for more effective integration thereof in the MFF revision;~~

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Reiterates the importance of securing funding for the ITER project in order to project fusion as a credible sustainable energy source and future element of the energy mix, and further attract industry and SMEs and research centres;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Reaffirms the recently approved EP report on gender mainstreaming, which recognises that policies have only been implemented to a modest extent and insufficient budgetary resources have been allocated specifically for gender matters; calls for the MFF mid-term review to implement corrective measures throughout EU Institutions that honour the commitment to gender mainstreaming, as per the joint declaration to the MFF;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Reiterates the importance of the original CEF allocation funding for the identified projects of common interest which are essential for completing the European internal energy market and for reaching the EU's energy policy objectives of affordable, secure and sustainable energy; stresses in this regard the importance of securing funding for achieving the 10% electricity interconnectivity target or more;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers it important to assess the impact of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme, to which EUR 15 686 million has been allocated for the period up to 2020 (MFF Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013);

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that new political priorities ~~should not be proposed at the expense of the agreed programmes of the current MFF, in particular H2020, CEF, COSME, Galileo and Copernicus, and pre-allocated national envelopes;~~identified by the three institutions recognise the reality of the urgent needs arising from Climate Change, resource efficiency and energy security; supports therefore the inclusion of the Circular Economy Package, the EU's COP21 commitments, Energy Union and Digital Union as priorities that will benefit from and are interdependent with the already established programmes Horizon 2020, CEF, and Copernicus

Amendment 15 #

Ernest MARAGALL, Michèle RIVASI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that new political priorities ~~should~~must not be proposed at the expense of the agreed programmes of the current MFF, ~~in particular~~such as H2020, CEF, COSME, Galileo and Copernicus, and pre-allocated national envelopes;, that should be fully implemented; points however to the fact that the budget of ITER is larger than any other R&D investment in the field of energy; deeply regrets that some Member States are compelled to review their funding priorities for research, because of the surge of ITER costs; stresses that the European Parliament has voted to withhold approval of the 2014 accounts of ITER on ground of lack of coherence in the budgetary and financial management.

Amendment 16 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Angelika MLINAR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that, according to UNHCR data, since January 2016, 55 % of the refugees and asylum-seekers entering the EU have been women and children; ~~calls for an MFF revision to look at financial tools aimed specifically at integrating women refugees and asylum-seekers~~as women and girls are disproportionally disadvantaged and at risk in situations of crisis and conflict, calls for an MFF revision to look at financial tools targeted at the specific needs of displaced women and girls, including for sexual and reproductive health services and combatting sexual and gender-based violence, in headings 3 (Security and Citizenship) and 4 (Global Europe);

Amendment 17 #

Sofia SAKORAFA, Marisa MATIAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that new political priorities should not be proposed at the expense of the agreed programmes of the current MFF, in particular H2020, CEF, COSME, Galileo and Copernicus, and pre-allocated national envelopes; therefore any redeployment of funds to the benefit of new financial instruments, such as EFSI, should not have any negative financial impact on agreed programmes with proven added value, such as H2020, CEF and COSME;

Amendment 17 #

Philippe DE BACKER, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Angelika MLINAR, Dominique RIQUET, Carolina PUNSET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that, according to UNHCR data, since January 2016, 55 % of the refugees and asylum-seekers entering the EU have been women and children; calls for an MFF revision to look at financial tools aimed specifically at integrating women refugees and asylum-seekers into their host country such as including flexible language training, education and childcare; also calls on the MFF revision to look at the financial tools available to address the root causes of their original displacement;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that new political priorities should not be proposed at the expense of the agreed programmes of the current MFF, in particular H2020, CEF, COSME, Galileo and Copernicus, and pre-allocated national envelopes; Stresses that any new funds should be alimented with new funding, and should not go to the detriment of existing programmes;

Amendment 18 #

Eleonora FORENZA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls that, according to UNHCR data, since January 2016, 55 % of the refugees and asylum-seekers entering the EU have been women and children; stresses that such migration is composed of entire families that need a tailored support; calls for an MFF revision to look at financial tools aimed specifically at integrating women refugees and asylum-seekers;

Amendment 19 #

Evžen TOŠENOVSKÝ, Marian-Jean MARINESCU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to safeguard the already allocated funding in MFF 2014-2020 for fast and full completion and operation of the Galileo, EGNOS and Copernicus infrastructure as well as for support of downstream and upstream GNSS applications and earth observation activities within the budgets for Horizon 2020 and European GNSS programmes; Underlines that the European space flagship programmes are of major importance for scientific and technical progress, innovations, economic growth, industrial competitiveness, creation of new jobs and enterprises and new opportunities for both upstream and downstream market; Emphasises the vital contribution of satellite navigation and earth observation services to implementation of Union's policies such as transport, energy, environment or agriculture and to safety and security of its citizens; Reiterates the Commission's commitment to provide uninterrupted GNSS and earth observation services, reinforce the resilience of the European economy and maximise the socio- economic benefits through fostering the development of applications;

Amendment 19 #

Sofia SAKORAFA, Marisa MATIAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Underlines that according to the Treaty, the Parliament and the Council constitute the two arms of the budgetary authority; therefore calls for the full involvement of the Parliament in the mid- term review and revision of the MFF regulation;

Amendment 2 #

Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Evžen TOŠENOVSKÝ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that gender equality is enshrined in the EU Treaty and should be included in all EU policies to deliver equality in practice; stresses that gender equality must become a policy objective in all budget titles and similarly, gender mainstreaming must be recognised as an implementation method in all budget titles; stresses that therefore, gender budgeting must become an integral part of the budgetary procedure at all its stages, and notes that progress on this front has been marginal; welcomes the MFF mid- term review as an opportunity to make significant progress, in light of the ‘'Budget for Results’' agenda; expects the Commission, therefore, to present further measurable ~~and realistic~~ objectives in order to truly embed gender perspectives in the EU budget for the remainder of this programming period;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Reiterates the important role that Horizon 2020 can play in helping the EU reduce its dependence in terms of critical space technologies; in that connection, recalls that the space part of Horizon 2020 falls within the "Industrial leadership" priority, and in particular within the specific objective of "Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies "; takes the view therefore that Horizon 2020 should be used to support Europe's space technological base and space industrial capabilities;

Amendment 20 #

Ernest MARAGALL, Michèle RIVASI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Firmly believes that ITER is the largest misallocated EU investment in energy R&D; calls for the investment dedicated to ITER to be halted and reallocated to the development and deployment of sustainable energy solutions that are already available, or available in the foreseeable future to deliver the climate and energy 2020 goals;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Believes that grant funded projects provide critically important qualitative outcomes which are not reflected on balance sheets; such as the fight against online child abuse, where EU funding has made Europe a world leader;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that the gender budgeting exercise has revealed that the gender perspective is far from being assumed in all policies, at all levels and at every stage of the policy making process;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Notes that the principle of programmes such as Horizon 2020 is to fund risky research with uncertain outcomes, providing a lifeline for innovation where the private sector will not invest; Believes the purpose of public financing for the Union should be to support these important, innovation and critical projects to bring them closer to market readiness;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that investing public funds in in the care sector such as quality and affordable childcare ~~and elder care services will boost employment and~~, social care services, long term and elder care services creates jobs, drives economic growth and fosters gender equality, allows more women to return or take up fulltime work given that women spend two to ten times more time on unpaid care than men; calls for the MFF revision to be used to invest in this social infrastructure in Europe as part of the Jobs and Growth Agenda and Europe2020 Strategy; notes that this form of expenditure is rarely considered as a suitable form of investment when policy makers are looking for effective forms of employment generation in recessionary times and in fact we often witness the opposite happening as public expenditure on education, health, childcare and social care services is cut in many countries as part of their deficit reduction strategies; regrets that this neglect of social infrastructure reflects a gender bias in economic thinking and may derive from the gender division of labour and gender employment segregation which in turn contributes to the widening gender pay gap in Europe; regards the review of the MFF as a chance to take action to address this;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for a further ~~strengthening of,~~aligning of objectives and a maximising of synergies between, ESIF funds and EU programmes such as Horizon 2020, COSME and CEF; deplores that despite sharing the same budgetary heading, competitiveness and cohesion policies are managed as isolated silos; believes that, without changing the established Member States envelopes, greater competitiveness convergence between European regions and a greater R&D exploitation rate could be achieved by better integrating both policies under a common industrial policy, driven towards full employment, and having the sustainable energy transition and digital union as main tools;

Amendment 24 #

Sofia SAKORAFA, Marisa MATIAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that investing public funds in quality and affordable childcare and elder care services will boost employment and economic growth and foster gender equality given that women spend two to ten times more time on unpaid care than men1; calls for the MFF revision to be used to invest in social infrastructure and other public services in Europe as part of the Jobs and Growth Agenda; 1 Unpaid Care Work: The missing link in the analysis of gender gaps in labour outcomes OECD Development Centre, December 2014: http://www.oecd.org/dev/development- gender/Unpaid_care_work.pdf

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for a further strengthening of coordination, and a maximising of synergies between, ESIF funds and EU programmes such as Horizon 2020, COSME and CEF;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that investing public funds in quality and affordable childcare and elder care services will boost employment and economic growth and foster gender equality; calls for the MFF revision to be used to invest in social infrastructure in Europe as part of the Jobs and Growth Agenda, making specific provision for investment in entrepreneurship education for women;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for a further strengthening of, and a maximising of synergies between, EFSI~~F funds and EU programmes such as~~, ESIF, Horizon 2020, COSME and CEF;

Amendment 26 #

Eleonora FORENZA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that investing public funds in quality and affordable womencare, as well as childcare and elder care services and in a cultural campaign supporting parental leave, will boost employment and economic growth and foster gender equality; calls for the MFF revision to be used to invest in social infrastructure in Europe as part of the Jobs and Growth Agenda;

Amendment 27 #

Jeppe KOFOD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses the need for adequate and appropriate funding of key EU agencies in order to implement, monitor and facilitate European Union priorities such as the Energy Union and the completion of the Internal Energy Market; highlights in this regard the continued difficult budgetary situation of agencies such as ACER; stresses that with new tasks and responsibilities must follow new resources; is of the opinion that these basic principles must be reflected within the MFF revision;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses that investing public funds in ~~quality and affordable~~genuine freedom of choice in childcare and elder care services will boost employment and economic growth and foster gender equality; calls for the MFF revision to be used to invest in social infrastructure in Europe as part of the Jobs and Growth Agenda;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls for the substantial strengthening of the application of sustainability criteria to the EFSI investments as well as all EIB investments, in order to ensure additionality as well as impact towards the EU 2020 targets;

Amendment 28 #

Philippe DE BACKER, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Angelika MLINAR, Dominique RIQUET, Carolina PUNSET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that the 2008 study to assess the feasibility and options for the introduction of elements of gender budgeting into the EU budgetary process commissioned by the European Commission Directorate-General for Budget confirmed that despite its unique features, the EU budget is suitable for gender budgeting and that gender budgeting can be applied at all steps of the budgeting process from the planning and preparation to the auditing and evaluation of the EU budget;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the budgetary authorities to establish the maximum possible flexibility to direct unused annual appropriations towards the programmes under Heading 1a, such as Horizon 2020, COSME and the Connecting Europe Facility;

Amendment 29 #

Sofia SAKORAFA, Marisa MATIAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Stresses that in order to be effective gender mainstreaming needs to be operationalised and supported through predictable funding and allocations;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that, while the MFF Regulation has to a large extent remained unchanged since its adoption, the framework conditions for its implementation have changed; highlights the fact that~~, following a genuine review, a legislative proposal should addres~~ intensive recourse to MFF flexibility instruments after exhausting all available margins is not the best way to face complicated crises that are likely to continue; therefore a permanent system allowing for the mobilization of additional resources twhe~~se challenges; points out in this regard that the new instruments, such as EFSI, that have been set up since the adoption of the MFF Regulation should be duly incorporated into~~n needed should be established through a genuine review, accompanied by a legislative proposal; while acknowledging the need to consolidate and further increase flexibility within MFF, points out that any new financial instrument should be set up according to the community method, in full compliance with the principle of the unity of the EU budget ~~without any negative financial impact on the agreed programmes~~and on the grounds of democratic accountability and transparency;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that gender equality is enshrined in the EU Treaty and should be ~~included in all EU policies to deliver equality in practice; stresses~~delivered in practice; criticises the intention that gender budgeting ~~must~~should become an integral part of the budgetary procedure at all its stages; ~~welcomes the MFF mid-term review as an opportunity to make significant progress, in light of the ‘Budget for Results’ agenda; expects the Commission, therefore, to~~emphasises that while equality between women and men should be an important part of any democracy, the adoption of pure~~sent further measurable and realistic objectives in order to truly embed gender perspectives in the EU budget for the remainder of th~~ly ideological measures such as gender mainstreaming means that this equality finds expression in a forced and dis pro~~gramming period~~portionate manner;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that Union programmes have ~~significantly~~ contributed to ensuring access to finance for SMEs; calls for further ~~consideration to be given to ways of extending~~resources to be allocated to the programme to even more SMEs and meeting the various needs of SMEs more adequately; calls in particular for the significant extension of the SME instruments under Horizon 2020, in order to meet at minimum its legal budgetary commitments; requests to the Commission to establish as of 2016, an unique budget line for the SME Instrument, in order to allow clearer budgetary oversight and control, and ensure a genuine bottom-up approach to its implementation.

Amendment 30 #

Sofia SAKORAFA, Marisa MATIAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Reiterates that the Daphne programmes played a fundamental role in combating violence against children, young people and women in the EU; underlines the need for sufficient financial support and for more clarity on how this objective is pursued under the REC programme; urges the importance of ensuring funds reach the grass-roots organisations on the ground to ensure effective implementation.

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that Union programmes have not significantly contributed to ensuring access to finance for ~~SME~~the majority of SMEs in the EU and especially for the ones operating in countries facing severe and persistent financial crisis; calls for further consideration to be given to ways of ~~extend~~meeting the ~~programme to even more SMEs and meeting the various needs of SMEs~~various urgent needs of the SMEs and especially of the ones in danger of shut down, more adequately;

Amendment 31 #

Philippe DE BACKER, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Angelika MLINAR, Dominique RIQUET, Carolina PUNSET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Reiterates that the Daphne programmes played a fundamental role in combating violence against women in the EU; underlines the need for sufficient financial support and for more clarity on how this objective is pursued under the REC programme in order to achieve a high level of health protection, well-being and social cohesion.

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that Union programmes have significantly contributed to ensuring access to finance for SMEs; calls for further consideration to be given to ways of extending the programme to even more SMEs and meeting the various needs of SMEs more adequately; Stresses that access to finance remains a challenge for many SME's, with a particular focus on risk-financing;

Amendment 32 #

Gianluca BUONANNO, Nicolas BAY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Reiterates that the Daphne programmes played a fundamental role in combating violence against women in the EU, but deplores the fact that Daphne is no longer considered an expenditure area in its own right; underlines the need for sufficient financial support and for more clarity on how this objective is pursued under the REC programme.

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Points out that Union funding, because it is linked to size-based parameters and not macroeconomic fundamentals and because it is designed to address structural not short-term problems, cannot offer effective protection against economic shocks, such as those triggered by the financial crisis of 2007- 2008;

Amendment 33 #

Gianluca BUONANNO, Nicolas BAY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls the Parliament's crucial scrutiny role on gender-responsive budgeting; calls for all committees to take gender equality into consideration in the design and revision of budgets and of the financial framework in order to increase accountability and transparency regarding this Institution's commitment to gender equality; urges in this regard to systematically include specific gender indicators and gender-disaggregated data in the monitoring and evaluation of all actions that are funded by the EU budget.

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Emphasis~~Notes that Union funding can actually trigger and catalyse actions that Member States are unable to carry out on their own and create synergies and complementarities with Member States’ activities; encourages Member States to better explore ar, although intended as an instrument to offset imbalances between Member States, in practice magnifies those imbalances, in that the provision of funding is based on the twin principles of co-financing and conditionality; takes the view that Union funding can thus be seen as a particularly subtle means inby which the EU ~~is not taking action~~exercises control over Member State policies and spending;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Recalls that the EU is one of the global frontrunners in the debate on policy coherence for sustainable development; encourages the inclusion of a comprehensive gender equality perspective in all the impact assessments to be carried out as per the Better Regulation guidelines, namely with reference to the MFF mid-term review.

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ERecalls the Union's unique ability to initiate international collaboration and mobilise public finances on cross border issues such as climate action and environmental sustainability, where and when the private sector is unable; emphasises that Union funding can actually trigger and catalyse actions that Member States are unable to carry out on their own and create synergies and complementarities with Member States’ activities; encourages Member States to better explore areas in which the EU is not taking action;

Amendment 35 #

Sofia SAKORAFA, Marisa MATIAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Stresses that the MFF should reflect the Commission's goal to achieve 40% of female senior and middle management in the Commission as set out in Jean-Claude Juncker's mission letter to Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva.

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Emphasises that Union funding can actually trigger and catalyse actions that Member States are unable to carry out on their own and create synergies and complementarities with Member States’ activities; ~~encourages Member States to better explore areas in which the EU is not taking action;~~

Amendment 37 #

Sofia SAKORAFA, Marisa MATIAS, Neoklis SYLIKIOTIS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Believes that ambitious goals in sustainable energy policy, energy efficiency and resource efficiency policy can deliver cost-efficient benefits for European industry and the European economy as a whole; calls for the allocation of EU and Member State public and private resources to investments in those priority sectors; believes that further synergies between Horizon 2020 and smart specialisation initiatives (RIS3) should be fostered to ensure better R&D exploitation and support regional economic convergence;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Calls for the mid-term evaluation of the MFF programmes on the basis of their~~Notes that given the fact of the late implementation of the current framework, the revision of the MFF is a key point in the management of EU spending in order to assess whether investment programmes perform~~ance~~ against stipulated targets and objectives, present adequate absorption capacity and generate EU added value~~, taking into account the late implementation of the current framework.~~; underlines also that the mid-term review/revision is an opportunity for an MFF comprehensive simplification encompassing reforms in application, management, reporting and control of funds;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for the mid-term evaluation of the MFF programmes on the basis of their performance against stipulated targets and objectives, absorption capacity and EU added value, and newly emerging political priorities, taking into account the late implementation of the current framework; requests that as part of the MFF review the Commission defines and presents more clearly what Commissioner Georgieva's 'Budget for Results' agenda means in practice for the ITRE policy area; recalls the Parliament's stipulated priority for the need for gender balance under Horizon 2020, which includes the promotion of gender equality in research & innovation.

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 4 #

Philippe DE BACKER, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Angelika MLINAR, Dominique RIQUET, Carolina PUNSET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that gender equality is enshrined in the EU Treaty and should be included in all EU policies to deliver equality in practice; stresses that gender budgeting must become an integral part of the budgetary procedure at all its stages and the Commission should design and apply a gender budgeting methodology to the EU Budget; welcomes the MFF mid- term review as an opportunity to make significant progress, in light of the ‘Budget for Results’ agenda; expects the Commission, therefore, to present further measurable and realistic objectives in order to truly embed gender perspectives in the EU budget for the remainder of this programming period;

Amendment 40 #

Markus PIEPER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for the mid-term evaluation of the MFF programmes on the basis of their performance against stipulated targets and objectives, absorption capacity and EU added value, taking into account the late implementation of the current framework.; calls, on the basis of a performance assessment which focuses on sound financial management, for appropriations earmarked for programmes which have not been properly implemented to be reallocated to programmes which are working well;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 42 #

Dominique RIQUET, Philippe DE BACKER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Considers that all EU budgetary instruments which support investment and innovation should be maintained and further developed, and that there is no need to favour one or more of these instruments to the detriment of the others; notes the essential role of the EU budget in providing an incentive for future spending and in supporting cohesion and effective implementation of policies within the EU.

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the considerable long-term impact of EFSI on the EU budget; believes that EFSI ~~invests in projects that are not the same as those targeted by the~~does not fully compensate for H2020- affected budget lines and CEF; stresses therefore that, if the EU is to reach its research and innovation targets, the unanimously agreed level of financing of these programmes needs to be fully restored; ~~recalls, in this context, that CEF in the area of energy and telecom has high political priority for the Energy Union and the Digital Union;~~

Amendment 5 #

Jean-Luc SCHAFFHAUSER, Nicolas BAY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that gender equality is enshrined in the EU Treaty and should be included in all EU policies to deliver equality in practice and notes that insufficient budgetary resources are allocated to the issue of gender equality; stresses that gender budgeting must become an integral part of the budgetary procedure at all its stages; welcomes the MFF mid-term review as an opportunity to make significant progress, in light of the ‘Budget for Results’ agenda; expects the Commission, therefore, to present further measurable and realistic objectives in order to truly embed gender perspectives in the EU budget for the remainder of this programming period;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the considerable long-term impact of EFSI on the EU budget; believes that EFSI invests in projects that are not the same as those targeted by the H2020- affected budget lines and CEF; stresses therefore that, if the EU is to reach its research and innovation targets, the unanimously agreed level of financing of these programmes needs to be fully restored; recalls, in this context, that CEF in the area of energy and telecom has high political priority for the Energy Union and the Digital Union; takes the view that the EFSI should be funded not by means of further contribution to the budget on the part of the Member States, but through an across-the-board increase in the customs duties set in the Common External Tariff;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that gender equality is enshrined in the EU Treaty and should be included in all EU policies to deliver equality in practice; stresses that gender budgeting must become an integral part of the budgetary procedure at all its stages; welcomes the MFF mid-term review as an opportunity to make significant progress, in light of the ‘Budget for Results’ agenda; expects the Commission, therefore, to present further measurable and realistic objectives, based not least on analysis of achievements to date, in order to truly embed gender perspectives in the EU budget for the remainder of this programming period;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the considerable long-term impact of EFSI on the EU budget; believes that EFSI invests in projects that are not and should not be the same as those targeted by the H2020- affected budget lines and CEF; stresses therefore that, if the EU is to reach its research and innovation targets, the unanimously agreed level of financing of these programmes needs to be fully restored, and the right balance between grants and financial instruments to be maintained; recalls, in this context, that CEF in the area of energy and telecom has high political priority for the Energy Union and the Digital Union;

Amendment 7 #

Sofia SAKORAFA, Marisa MATIAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes the focus on the 'Budget for Results' agenda as an opportunity for budget spending to deliver integrated benefit of gender equality with every euro spent; also recognises that simplification measures in the 'Budget for Results' agenda must not be made at the expense of investments that can bring positive change to achieve gender equality;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Notes the considerable long-term impact of EFSI on the EU budget; believes that EFSI~~Believes that while EFSI is still a "pending success", invests in projects that are not the same as those targeted by the H2020-affected budget lines and CEF; stresses therefore that, if the EU is to reach its research and innovation targets, the unanimously agreed level of financing of these programmes needs to be fully restored; recalls, in this context, that CEF in the area of energy and telecom has high political priority for the Energy Union and the Digital Union;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes the focus on the 'Budget for Results' agenda but recalls that simplification measures cannot be done at the expense of investments that by its nature should be long-term, such as those that can bring positive change to achieve gender equality;

Amendment 9 #

Miroslav POCHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the considerable long-term impact of EFSI on the EU budget; believes that EFSI invests in projects that are not the same as those targeted by the H2020- affected budget lines and CEF; stresses therefore that, if the EU is to reach its research and innovation targets, the unanimously agreed level of financing of these programmes needs to be fully restored; recalls, in this context, that CEF in the area of energy and telecom ~~has high political priority for~~is essential for the completion of the Energy Union and the Digital Union;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Draws attention to the existing gender- related targets in the Europe 2020 strategy, namely increasing female employment to 75%, achieving equal pay between women and men, reaching gender-equal members of national parliaments and an equal number of women on large company boards, all of which we are a long way from reaching; also draws attention to the related EP priorities under Horizon 2020, which include the promotion of gender equality, especially in research and innovation; stresses that the MFF review must assess progress towards these targets and should, if necessary, revise the measures being taken to achieve these targets;

source: 582.063

2016/04/28 DEVE 30 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Reminds that the first years of the new MFF were characterised by severe payment shortages in the budget with negative implications for the implementation of external action programmes; calls for avoiding the reoccurrence of this problem by foreseeing an adequate payment level in line with the level of commitment appropriations;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Re~~cognises the need for security- related expenditure in the current efforts to comprehensively address the security/development nexus and deliver on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16~~jects any use of development aid for non-development objectives, which are clearly stated in TFEU article 208; believes that promoting peace, ~~security and justice~~good governance and rule of law in developing countries is ~~crucial~~necessary for poverty ~~reduction~~and inequality reduction, and at long term the eradication of poverty; emphasises that the funding concerned, which does not constitute Official Development Assistance (ODA), must come from other instruments than the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) or the European Development Fund (EDF);

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recognises the need for ~~security- related expenditure in the current efforts to comprehensively address the security/development nexus and deliver~~ expenditure for the achievement of all aspects onf Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16; believes that p~~romoting peace, security and justice in developing countries is crucial for poverty reduction~~overty reduction, the respect of human right and good governance are crucial for the achievement of peace and security; eEmphasises that the funding concerned, which does not constitute Official Development Assistance (ODA), must come from other instruments than the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) or the European Development Fund (EDF);

Amendment 12 #

Arne LIETZ, Elly SCHLEIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recognises the need for security- related expenditure in the current efforts to comprehensively address the security/development nexus and deliver on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16; believes that promoting peace, security and justice in developing countries is crucial for poverty reduction; emphasises that the funding concerned, which does not constitute Official Development Assistance (ODA), must come from other instruments than the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) or the European Development Fund (EDF) or any other mechanisms that benefit from these instruments, such as the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa; stresses in this context the need to avoid securitisation of development instruments that should instead be aimed at poverty eradication and promotion of sustainable development;

Amendment 14 #

Paul RÜBIG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Stresses the need for sufficient health-related expenditure in view of emerging epidemics; recalls the necessity for effective and comprehensive health systems with affordable medicines in order to deliver on SDG3; encourages the better use of all MFF programmes such as Horizon 2020, the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), the European Development Fund (EDF) or the health for growth programme, to tackle global health challenges that can easily affect Europe itself.

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recalls that the financing of the African Peace Facility via the European Development Fund was intended to be a provisional solution; regrets that this provisional solution has now been in place for over 10 years; calls on the Commission to make a proposal in order to finance the African Peace Facility through other means;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recalls that untying aid is a necessary condition for opening up opportunities for developing country socio-economic actors; calls for boosting the use of developing country procurement systems as the first option for aid programmes in support of activities managed by the public sector to enhance local private sector;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

~~3. Notes, in addition, that encouraging developments like those in Myanmar/Burma and Colombia require adequate responses and funds on the part of the EU;~~deleted

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes that trust funds are part of an ad hoc response which reveals that the Union budget and Multiannual Financial Framework lack the resources and flexibility needed for a rapid and comprehensive response to major crises; deplores the fact that trust funds result in bypassing of the budgetary authority and undermining of the unity of the budget;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Calls for a more holistic solution to be found for emergency funding as part of the MFF review/revision, including a revision of the ceiling and of crisis mechanisms, while achieving synergies between the Union budget and the EDF; urges the Commission to take immediate initiatives to improve the involvement of the budgetary authority and to better align the trust funds and other mechanisms with the budgetary norm, notably by making them appear in the Union budget;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the massive scale of the global needs for humanitarian aid and for disaster risk reduction, disaster preparedness and the building of resilience in developing countries; also notes the upward pressure on these needs stemming from effects of conflicts and wars, growing economic and social inequality, human rights violations, bad governance and corruption, poor provision of basic social services, including weak health systems and the lack of investments into health innovation, as well as climate change and competition for scarce resources; insists that the EU’s financial means for responding to humanitarian and development issues require strengthening, especially considering the newly established 2030 Agenda, and is convinced that this is also essential for the defence of the EU’s own interests, including its security in a broad sense;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Notes that in trust funds, CSOs should be recognised as key stakeholders, consulted and involved from the start-up of each new trust found. Clear, transparent, communication and access mechanism need to be set up;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the need for adequate 4. resources for the pursuit of the SDGs; deplores the EU failure on achieving the 0.7% ODA /GNI commitment by 2015; recalls the EU’s recent renewal of its collective commitment to raise its ODA to 0.7 % of its GNI and calls for a binding timetable to achieve this target, agreed already in 2000; calls for achieving OEDC DAC recommendation of reaching an average grant element in total ODA of 86%; points out that this requires substantial increases, and stresses that the MFF review should take this into account;

Amendment 22 #

Arne LIETZ, Elly SCHLEIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the need for adequate resources for the pursuit of the SDGs; recalls the EU’s recent renewal of its collective commitment to raise its ODA to 0.7 % of its GNI; points out that this requires substantial increases, and stresses that the MFF review should take this into account; calls on the EU-Member states to fulfil their commitment to contribute 0,7% of their GNI to ODA.

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the need for adequate resources for the pursuit of the SDGs; recalls the EU’s recent renewal of its collective commitment to raise its ODA to 0.7 % of its GNI; points out that this requires substantial increases, and stresses that the MFF reviewsion should take this into account; calls on the EU to adopt a timeline and a plan in order to reach the 0.7 % goal;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes that according to the OECD, in-donor refugee costs (expenditure on refugees' transport, food, shelter and training) spent during the first twelve months of stay can be reported as ODA; equally notes that many EU countries include all the costs relating to asylum seekers, regardless of whether they are granted refugee status or not, as refugee costs; is concerned that this practice has a huge opportunity cost against effective development aid programmes which aim at combating root causes of migration in developing countries; calls, therefore, on the EU and its member states not to report refugee costs as ODA;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Urges the EU and its Member States to stop inflating aid, and exclude inflated aid items from ODA reporting: refugee costs, imputed student costs, tied aid, interest on loans and debt relief;

Amendment 27 #

Paul RÜBIG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls for mid-term evaluation of the MFF programmes on the basis of their performance against stipulated targets and objectives, absorption capacity and EU added value, taking into account the late implementation of the current framework, and commitments made in the meantime such as the Sustainable Development Goals.

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls for the mid-term evaluation of the MFF development programmes to take into account existing EU commitments for financial allocation and common principles of development cooperation such as democratic ownership and partnership, participation of civil society, and gender equality, among others; recommends that insufficiently implemented commitments are, if needed, adequately resourced with the necessary budget;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Recalls the EU commitment to allocate at least 20% of its ODA to basic social services, with a focus on education and health; believes that enjoying the highest attainable standard of health is a fundamental human right and that universal access to health care and coverage, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, is a powerful development enabler and fundamental to promote gender equality, improved nutrition and education outcomes; consequently stresses the need for health-related expenditure in the context of rapidly emerging epidemics and in light of the need for comprehensive investment to create resilient health systems and provide affordable access to essential medicines in many low and middle income countries in order to deliver on the 2030 Agenda;

Amendment 3 #

Stelios KOULOGLOU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the massive scale of the global needs for humanitarian aid and for disaster risk reduction, disaster preparedness and the building of resilience in developing countries; also notes the upward pressure on these needs stemming from effects of conflicts and wars, human rights violations, economic and social inequality, bad governance and corruption, as well as climate change and competition for scarce resources; insists that the EU’s financial means for responding to humanitarian and development issues require strengthening, and ~~is convinced that this is also essential for the defence of the EU’s own interests, including its security in a broad sense~~fulfilling the principle of policy coherence for development;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Reminds that the EU has taken strong commitments regarding aid effectiveness, in particular the need to respect the principle of democratic ownership of development programmes by aid recipients and alignment of EU aid to developing countries' priorities; notes that these principles have not been upheld in the EU response to migration, e.g. in the set-up of the EU-Africa Trust fund which was specifically created in order to circumvent lengthier EDF procedures respecting aid effectiveness principles; calls on the Commission to fully respect aid effectiveness principles in defining and implementing development policy.

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the massive scale of the global needs for humanitarian aid and for disaster risk reduction, disaster preparedness and the building of resilience in developing countries; also notes the upward pressure on these needs stemming from effects of conflicts and wars, human rights violations, bad governance and corruption, poor provision of basic social services as well as climate change and competition for scarce resources; insists that the EU’s financial means for responding to humanitarian and development issues require strengthening, especially considering the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and is convinced that this is also essential for the defence of the EU’s own interests, including its security in a broad sense;

Amendment 5 #

Paul RÜBIG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the massive scale of the global needs for humanitarian aid and for disaster risk reduction, disaster and epidemic preparedness and the building of resilience in developing countries; also notes the upward pressure on these needs stemming from effects of conflicts and wars, human rights violations, bad governance and corruption, as well as climate change and competition for scarce resources, lack of universal health coverage and investments into health innovation; insists that the EU’s financial means for responding to humanitarian and development issues require strengthening, and is convinced that this is also essential for the defence of the EU’s own interests, including its security in a broad sense;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the massive scale of the global needs for humanitarian aid and for disaster risk reduction, disaster preparedness and the building of resilience in developing countries; also notes the upward pressure on these needs stemming from effects of conflicts and wars, human rights violations, bad governance and corruption, as well as climate change and competition for scarce resources; insists that the EU’s financial means for responding to humanitarian and development issues require strengthening~~, and is convinced that this is also essential for the defence of the EU’s own interests, including its security in a broad sense~~; considers it necessary to strengthen transparency, accountability and reporting of the resources for the development and the humanitarian aid;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Reiterates that actions to tackle humanitarian challenges should not come at the expense of the EU´s development funding and policies in other areas; also notes in this regard that public expenditure to cover the costs for the EU internal management of the current high influx of refugees, although partly covered by the OECD DAC definition of ODA, do not contribute to the strengthening of low- and middle-income countries' economies, governance, or basic social services, thus does not contribute to fighting the root causes of migration;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Notes that expenditure to cover in- donor refugee costs do not contribute to sustainable development in developing countries and to fighting the root causes of migration, in this regard reiterates that actions taken in this area should not come at the expense of EU's development policies in other areas;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Recalls that the migrant and refugee crisis has significantly impacted the EU budget and will continue to request dynamic responses in the coming years; welcomes the mobilization of the flexibility instruments available for 2014- 2016 and the exhaustion of the resources available under the EU budget's Heading 3 and 4; calls in this regard for an appropriate increase of the ceilings to address the migration and refugee crisis properly;

source: 582.098

2016/05/03 AFET 27 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that the EU is faced with an unprecedented number of crises, most notably the refugee crisis, natural disasters, security threats and armed conflicts, which ~~are threatening core values and require reinforced external action; underlines that these~~ were unforeseen at the time the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020 was concluded; recalls that the total for Heading 4 was ~~cut by some 16~~ increased by 3.3% compared to the ~~initial proposal, significantly debilitating the EU’s ability to respond to new situations and meet its political commitments; calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a revision raising~~period 2007-2013; calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a review under this heading and urges the Commission to incorporate fully a performance-based budgeting approach; urges the Commission to consider introducing greater flexibility between the MFF ceilings ~~of both payment and~~, provided that the overall level of commitment and payment appropriations ~~under this heading~~agreed in 2013 remains the same;

Amendment 10 #

Cristian Dan PREDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that addressing the migration and refugee crises is a key priority but that this should not come at the cost of policies in other areas, including those that are key to addressing long-term challenges; is convinced that responses to humanitarian distress must go in parallel with development processes ~~and~~, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, promoting human rights and all the other EU foreign policy priorities;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that addressing the migration and refugee crises is a key priority but stresses that this should not come at the cost of policies in other ~~areas~~important areas, due to its potential continuation and unpredictability, including those that are key to addressing long-term challenges; is convinced that responses to humanitarian distress must go in parallel with development processes and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that addressing the migration and refugee crises, including the root causes of the phenomenon, is a key priority but that this should not come at the cost of policies in other areas, including those that are key to addressing long-term challenges; is convinced that responses to humanitarian distress must go in parallel with development processes and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that current flexibility mechanisms are insufficient ~~in terms of volume and flexibility~~ to adequately respond to the changed situation; recalls that~~, mainly owing to a lack of resources,~~ the Commission has set up a number of ad hoc instruments, including the Trust Funds for Syria, Africa and the Central African Republic and the Refugee Facility for Turkey; welcomes their potential to increase the EU’s financial response, but is concerned, nevertheless, about transparency and accountability and notes Member States’ failure to deliver on funding pledgeurges the Commission to consider potential partnerships with the private and public sectors as well as civil society to respond to current and future humanitarian needs;

Amendment 14 #

Sabine LÖSING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that current flexibility mechanisms are insufficient in terms of volume and flexibility to adequately respond to the changed situation; recalls that, mainly owing to a lack of resources, the Commission has set up a number of ad hoc instruments, including the Trust Funds for Syria, Africa and the Central African Republic and the Refugee Facility for Turkey; ~~welcomes their potential~~rejects the EU Trust Fund for Africa since its main objective is to fin~~crease the EU’~~ance the current process of externalisation of EU borders fin~~ancial response, but is concerned, nevertheless, about transparency and accountability~~ order to prevent the arrival of migrants to Europe, increasing the control and militarization of borders of third countries and is concerned about transparency and accountability of all the mentioned Trust Funds and Facilities and notes Member States’ failure to deliver on funding pledges;

Amendment 15 #

Cristian Dan PREDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that current flexibility mechanisms are insufficient in terms of volume and flexibility to adequately respond to the changed situation; recalls that, mainly owing to a lack of resources, the Commission has set up a number of ad hoc instruments, including the Trust Funds for Syria, Africa and the Central African Republic and the Refugee Facility for Turkey; welcomes their potential to increase the EU’s financial response~~, but is concerned, nevertheless, about transparency and accountability and notes~~ and stresses the need of transparency and accountability in the management of these financial instruments, as well as for the Member States~~’ failure~~ to deliver on funding pledges;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that current flexibility mechanisms are insufficient in terms of volume and flexibility to adequately respond to the changed situation; recalls that, mainly owing to a lack of resources, the Commission has set up a number of ad hoc instruments, including the Trust Funds for Syria, Africa and the Central African Republic and the Refugee Facility for Turkey; welcomes their potential to increase the EU’s financial response, but is concerned, nevertheless, ~~about~~that these instruments bypass EU budgetary authorities, thus creating problems of transparency ~~and~~, accountability and democratic control; notes Member States’ failure to deliver on funding pledges;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that current flexibility mechanisms are insufficient in terms of volume and flexibility to adequately respond to the changed situation; recalls that, mainly owing to a lack of resources, the Commission has set up a number of ad hoc instruments without previous thorough analysis which are therefore not sufficient for real needs, including the Trust Funds for Syria, Africa and the Central African Republic and the Refugee Facility for Turkey; welcomes their potential to increase the EU’s financial response, but is concerned, nevertheless, about transparency and accountability and notes Member States’ failure to deliver on funding pledges;

Amendment 19 #

Neena GILL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that current flexibility mechanisms are insufficient in terms of volume and flexibility to adequately respond to the changed situation; recalls that, mainly owing to a lack of resources, the Commission has set up a number of ad hoc instruments, including the Trust Funds for Syria, Africa and the Central African Republic and the Refugee Facility for Turkey; welcomes their potential to increase the EU’s financial response, but is concerned, nevertheless, about transparency and accountability and notes Member States’ failure to deliver on funding pledges; strongly calls for ensuring European Parliament representation in the Trust Funds' governing structures;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that the EU is faced with an unprecedented number of crises, most notably the refugee crisis, ~~natural disasters,~~ security threats and armed conflicts, which are threatening core values and require reinforced external action; underlines that these were unforeseen at the time the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020 was concluded; recalls that the total for Heading 4 was cut by some 16 % compared to the initial Commission proposal, significantly debilitating the EU’s ability to respond to the new s~~ituation~~ecurity challenges and meet its political commitments; calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a revision ~~raising~~ the ceilings of ~~both payment and~~ commitment appropriations under this heading;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to propose a substantial re~~form~~view of the flexibility mechanisms under the MFF, setting up a ~~permanent~~ system that allows for the mobilisation of ~~additional~~ resources when needed, without raising financial ceilings set out in the 2013 Regulation for the duration of the current MFF in the interests of budgetary predictability and maintain an appropriate relationship between commitments and payment appropriations; stresses that any emergency funding for responding to crises and unforeseen situations shcould ~~by its very nature~~possibly be covered by special instruments ~~and be counted outside the MFF ceiling~~if deemed necessary and effective by Member States; believes that the possibility to transfer funds between headings would increase the ability to respond to evolving challenges;

Amendment 21 #

Neena GILL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to propose a substantial reform of the flexibility mechanisms under the MFF, setting up a permanent ~~system~~EU crisis reserve that allows for the mobilisation of additional resources when needed; stresses that any emergency funding for responding to crises and unforeseen situations should by its very nature be covered by special instruments and be counted outside the MFF ceilings; believes that the possibility to transfer funds between headings would increase the ability to respond to evolving challenges;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to propose a ~~substantial~~ reform of the flexibility mechanisms under the MFF, including setting up a permanent system that allows for the mobilisation of additional resources when needed, and also allowing the maximum utilisation of the MFF ceilings; stresses that any emergency funding for responding to crises and unforeseen situations should by its very nature be covered by special instruments and be counted outside the MFF ceilings; believes that the possibility to transfer unallocated funds between headings would increase the ability to respond to evolving challenges; notes that current funds should be used in the most efficient way; and also stresses the importance of emergency aid reserves, and maintaining sufficient funds for that purpose;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to propose a substantial reform of the flexibility mechanisms under the MFF, setting up a permanent system that allows for the mobilisation of additional resources when needed through agile procedures that allow rapid responses to urgent and volatile situations; stresses that any emergency funding for responding to crises and unforeseen situations should by its very nature be covered by special instruments and be counted outside the MFF ceilings; believes that the possibility to transfer funds between headings would increase the ability to respond to evolving challenges;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to propose a substantial reform of the flexibility mechanisms under the MFF, setting up a permanent system that allows for the mobilisation of additional resources when needed; stresses that any emergency funding for responding to crises and unforeseen situations should by its very nature be covered by special instruments and be counted outside the MFF ceilings, in order to respond rapidly; believes that the possibility to transfer funds between headings would increase the ability to respond to evolving challenges;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses the necessity for the revisewed MFF to be able to respond to the needs of the external financing instruments after their 2017 mid-term review and calls for better coherence and coordination of both review processes in the future.; calls on the Commission to use this opportunity to simplify the applicable rules of existing programmes, such as the Horizon 2020 programme, in line with the Better Regulation Agenda;

Amendment 26 #

Tamás MESZERICS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that Erasmus+ has been one of the most successful EU programs to foster mutual understanding between people of different European countries; urges therefore that the funding for youth exchanges between the EU and third countries be substantially increased, that the budget should be guaranteed over the 7 year period in order to allow for planning security and to assure coherency between the different regional programs;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Urges the Commission to align the next MFF with the political cycles of the Commission and Parliament in order to improve democratic accountability and transparency of the multiannual budget;

Amendment 3 #

Cristian Dan PREDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that the EU is faced with an unprecedented number of crises, most notably the refugee crisis, natural disasters, security threats and armed conflicts, which are threatening core values and require solidarity and reinforced common external action; underlines that these were unforeseen at the time the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020 was concluded; recalls that the total for Heading 4 was cut by some 16 % compared to the initial proposal, significantly debilitating the EU’s ability to respond to new situations and meet its political commitments; ~~calls on~~urges the Commission to submit a proposal for a revision raising the ceilings of both payment and commitment appropriations under this heading;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that the EU is faced with an unprecedented number of crises, most notably the refugee crisis, natural disasters, security threats ~~and~~, armed conflicts and those unresolved and ongoing on the EU border, which are threatening core values and require reinforced external action; underlines that these were unforeseen at the time the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020 was concluded; recalls that the total for Heading 4 was cut by some 16 % compared to the initial proposal, significantly debilitating the EU’s ability to respond to new situations and meet its political commitments, taken into account liability of payment obligations for longer- term instruments; stresses that measures to ensure an active management of the scarce payment appropriations only partly mitigate the effects of the payment shortage by postponing the time of disbursement, while past commitments still have to be honoured; calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a revision raising the ceilings of both payment and commitment appropriations under this heading;

Amendment 5 #

Urmas PAET, Petras AUŠTREVIČIUS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that the EU is faced with an unprecedented number of crises, especially in its neighbourhood and most notably the refugee crisis, natural disasters, security threats and armed conflicts, which are threatening core values and require reinforced external action; underlines that these were unforeseen at the time the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020 was concluded; recalls that the total for Heading 4 was cut by some 16 % compared to the initial proposal, significantly debilitating the EU’s ability to respond to new situations and meet its political commitments; calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a revision raising the ceilings of both payment and commitment appropriations under this heading, with particular attention to those concerning neighbour countries;

Amendment 6 #

Sabine LÖSING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that according to Article 41 (2) TEU any expenditure arising from actions having military or defence implications must not be charged to the Union budget, therefore rejects the implementation of the pilot project on CSDP research undertaken jointly by the Commission and the EDA, and calls for the termination of the budget line; strongly rejects any involvement or financing from the Horizon 2020 funds or EU- budget for military, civil-military or security research in general and the development of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) in particular;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the ongoing multiple crises face limited funding under Heading 4 hence constraining EU's capability to fully perform within other policy areas; notes that current crises will endure accordingly with all available assessments, thus additional funding under Heading 4 is urgently required vis- à-vis a sustainable solution to also secure better performance under other Headings;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that addressing the migration and refugee crises is a key priority but that this should not come at the cost of policies in other areas, including those that are key to addressing long-term challenges and goals; is convinced that responses to humanitarian distress must go in parallel with development processes; recalls that and a~~chieving the Sustainabl~~dequate security environment is a pre-condition to achieve Ddevelopment Ggoals;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights that addressing the migration and refugee crises is a key priority but that this should not come at the cost of policies in other areas~~, including those~~ that are key to addressing long-term challenges, however, overall commitment and payment appropriations as agreed in 2013 shall remain the same; is convinced that responses to humanitarian distress must go in parallel with development processes and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals; calls on the Commission to come up with innovative approaches towards life-saving assistance and humanitarian aid and focus more consistently on crisis prevention and early warning mechanisms;

source: 582.240

2016/05/04 AGRI 131 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Anja HAZEKAMP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the EU’s most genuinely common policy, which means that agricultural spending accounts for a considerable percentage of the total EU budget; stresses that spending on agriculture has declined considerably in relative terms over the last three decades from 75 % to the current 38 %; stresses, therefore, that each EU citizen contributes only 32 cents per day to the CAP and that this policy has a low error rate in terms of spending irregularitcalls to the Commission and the Member States to revise the current export-oriented, market driven and competitive EU agricultural policy model and to abolish the EU agricultural subsidies;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 100 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that agricultural production has an extremely high added value, since it also supplies the processing sector, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in regions and to the EU’s balanced regional development; points out that it is therefore necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, step up the support received by farmers, ~~since this provides an incentive to increase agricultural~~thereby linking them to sustainable modes of production; stresses that the CAP contributes significantly to growth and employment in rural areas, more so than other Union policies; recalls that, in statistical terms, one farmer provides seven additional jobs in related sectors; points to the importance of maintaining the CAP’s focus on supporting small-scale and family farming businesses as the cornerstone of agricultural production in the EU and of life in the EU’s rural areas;

Amendment 101 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 – subparagraph 1 (new)

stresses the need to face global economic competition through appropriate farm sizes; considers the incentive for solutions that group together agricultural holdings, such as Producers’ Organisations, to be critical in this regard

Amendment 102 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Stresses the important role of food processing in keeping the EU’s agricultural sector competitive; acknowledges that the European Union’s competitive advantage on the global market is primarily in food and drink, which have a high added value and whose designated origin may be protected; considers that protecting geographical indicators should be one of the most important objectives at the international free trade negotiations; stresses that in the future considerable EU funds should be spent on establishing and developing food processing plants by means of a strong rural development pillar;

Amendment 103 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Maria NOICHL, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Stresses that, in order for Pillar II of the CAP to effectively address its priorities in a fair manner across all Member States, there needs to be a move away from the historical influence on national allocations towards objective criteria linked to policy objectives and coherent job creation. Highlights that a fairer reallocation is required if growth and sustainable job creation in rural areas is to become a reality across all regions and Member States;

Amendment 104 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Notes the link between maintaining enough funds in the CAP budget and obtaining enough added value for society as a whole, in particular, so that job creation and improvements to quality of life increase the appeal of rural life compared with urban areas;

Amendment 105 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that the success of the CAP and acceptance thereof also depends on further reducing bureaucracy and limiting regulatory administrative provisions to an acceptable level; acknowledges that the single area payment scheme (SAPS) is a simple and fair means of support which is easy to implement and therefore recommends that SAPS be kept after 2020;

Amendment 106 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that the success of the CAP and acceptance thereof also depends on further reducing bureaucracy ~~and~~, limiting regulatory administrative provisions to an acceptable level; and, what is more, stresses that there should be a more direct link between the current support system and the creation of employment and wealth in the territory where food is produced.

Amendment 107 #

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that the success of the CAP and acceptance thereof also depends on further reducing bureaucracy ~~and~~, limiting regulatory administrative provisions to an acceptable level and fully harmonising the tax rate on agricultural products in all Member States;

Amendment 108 #

Elisabeth KÖSTINGER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that the success of the CAP and acceptance thereof also depends on further reducing bureaucracy and limiting regulatory administrative provisions to an acceptable level; , and a practical implementation of the CAP and simplification measures should therefore have priority;

Amendment 109 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that the success of the CAP and acceptance thereof also depends on further reducing bureaucracy and limiting regulatory administrative provisions to an acceptable level, and also on the promptness of payments from designated national authorities;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the CAP provides income support to farmers through Pillars 1 and 2 and provides support for environmental programmes and economic activity in rural areas and prevents rural depopulation; notes, in this connection, that ~~it is essential to maintain the two-pillar CAP~~the size of the budget must be maintained independently of the funding structure, in order to compensate and support farmers and rural areas;

Amendment 110 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that the success of the CAP and acceptance thereof also depends on further reducing bureaucracy and limiting regulatory administrative provisions to an acceptable level, while still achieving the policy objectives demanded by society that were intended;

Amendment 111 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that the success of the CAP and acceptance thereof also depends on further reducing bureaucracy and limiting regulatory administrative provisions to an acceptable and manageable level;

Amendment 112 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that the success of the CAP and acceptance thereof also depends on further reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and limiting regulatory administrative provisions to an acceptable level;

Amendment 113 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Edouard FERRAND, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that the success of the CAP and acceptance thereof also depends on further reducing bureaucracy and limiting regulatory administrative ~~provision~~costs to an acceptable level;

Amendment 114 #

Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Believes that the Cohesion Policy after 2020 should also play an essential role in supporting the development of rural areas with regard to technical infrastructure, the job market, the development of businesses and basic services, revitalising locations in rural areas and investment linked to water and sewage infrastructure.

Amendment 115 #

Jean ARTHUIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. and insists on the acceleration and the strengthening of the European Commission initiative in favour of the CAP simplification.

Amendment 116 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

17. Strongly opposes any renationalisation of agricultural policies; stresses that the common nature of the EU’s agricultural policy avoids distortion of competition within the internal market and generates savings for European taxpayers; affirms that a well-functioning and well-financed second pillar is essential for the success of the CAP and for the economic well-being of the Union’s rural areas;deleted

Amendment 117 #

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

17. Strongly opposes any renationalisation of agricultural policies; stresses that the common nature of the EU’s agricultural policy avoids distortion of competition within the internal market and generates savings for European taxpayers, provided that it takes account of and addresses the production needs and specificities for certain agricultural products which are grown in specific Member States; affirms that a well-functioning and well-financed second pillar is essential for the success of the CAP and for the economic well-being of the Union’s rural areas;

Amendment 118 #

Michel DANTIN, Sofia RIBEIRO, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Pilar AYUSO, Herbert DORFMANN, Albert DESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Mairead McGUINNESS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

17. Strongly opposes any renationalisation of agricultural policies; stresses that the common nature of the EU’s agricultural policy avoids distortion of competition within the internal market and generates savings for European taxpayers; is worried about the trend of renationalisation of public responses to agricultural crisis, in particular the mobilisation of targeted payments instead of real European actions ; affirms that a well-functioning and well-financed second pillar is essential for the success of the CAP and for the economic well-being of the Union’s rural areas;

Amendment 119 #

Ulrike MÜLLER, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

17. Strongly opposes any renationalisation of agricultural policies; ~~stress~~notes that the ~~common nature of the EU’s agricultural policy avoids distortion of competition within the internal market and generates savings for European taxpayers~~unequal implementation of the CAP along Member States leads to distortion of competition within the internal market; calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure equal implementation throughout the Union in order to realise the objectives of the common agricultural policy; affirms that a well-functioning and well-financed second pillar is essential for the success of the CAP and for the economic well-being of the Union’s rural areas;

Amendment 12 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 120 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

17. Strongly opposes any renationalisation of agricultural policies; stresses that the common nature of the EU’s agricultural policy avoids distortion of competition within the internal market and generates savings for European taxpayers; highlights, however, the need to safeguard each Member State’s right to guarantee a minimum level of food sovereignty; affirms that a well-functioning and well- financed second pillar is essential for the success of the CAP and for the economic well-being of the Union’s rural areas;

Amendment 121 #

Zbigniew KUŹMIUK, Stanisław OŻÓG, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

Amendment 122 #

John Stuart AGNEW

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

17. Str~~ongly opposes any renationalisation of agricultural policies; str~~esses that the common nature of the EU’s agricultural policy ~~avoids~~has failed to prevent distortion of competition within the internal market ~~and~~but generates ~~savings~~added value for European taxpayers; affirms that a well-functioning and well-financed second pillar is essential for the success of the CAP and for the economic well-being of the Union’s rural areas;

Amendment 123 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Notes that in other EU policies, significant changes which influence agriculture, the food production sector and rural areas are currently being planned and introduced; those changes concern, among others, trade policy and environment and climate policy; emphasises that the new requirements for the agri-food sector for meeting non- agricultural EU objectives should, in the future, be appropriately reflected in an increased CAP budget.

Amendment 124 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Edouard FERRAND, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Stresses the need to tackle the challenge of employment in rural areas using aid from the EARDF and other EU funds; notes that the second pillar of the CAP is particularly important and that it should be well-funded in order to guarantee the long-term sustainability of rural areas;

Amendment 125 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Notes that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy encourages social and environmental dumping between the Member States, thereby making competition unfair for farmers in some countries;

Amendment 126 #

Ulrike MÜLLER, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Draft opinion
Paragraph 18

18. Points out that the ~~ever-increasing~~ challenges faced by the CAP call for ~~increased~~adequate financial resources; calls, therefore, for an ~~increase in th~~appropriate funding under Heading 2 ~~in order to meet these challenges should they aris~~and in particular for funds to ensure an adequate implementation of the Natura 2000 directive by providing financial compensation to landowners for the restrictions they face; calls also for adequate compensation measures to deal with unforeseen events and market failures resulting from political decisions;

Amendment 127 #

Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 18

18. Points out that the ever-increasing challenges faced by the CAP, such as food security and combatting price volatility, call for increased financial resources; calls, therefore, for an increase in the funding under Heading 2 in order to meet these challenges should they arise; calls also for adequate compensation measures to deal with unforeseen events and market failures resulting from political decisions;

Amendment 128 #

John Stuart AGNEW

Draft opinion
Paragraph 18

18. Points out that the ever-increasing challenges faced by the CAP call for ~~increased~~more adaptable financial resources; calls, therefore, for ~~an increase in the funding under Heading 2~~vital flexible tools to be made available to farmers in order to meet these challenges should they arise; calls also for adequate compensation measures to deal with unforeseen events and market failures resulting from political decisions;

Amendment 129 #

Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Points out the difficult situation with regard to agricultural markets and the new and growing challenges that European agriculture is facing; warns against the consequences of the current crisis in agricultural markets, the weakening position of farmers in the food chain and in current and future trade negotiations; believes, furthermore, that adopting over-ambitious reduction targets linked to the energy-climate package and the NEC directive will cause the costs of agricultural production to rise.

Amendment 13 #

Michel DANTIN, Sofia RIBEIRO, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Pilar AYUSO, Herbert DORFMANN, Albert DESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Mairead McGUINNESS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 130 #

Marc TARABELLA, Tibor SZANYI, Nicola CAPUTO, Paul BRANNEN, Eric ANDRIEU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. notes that additional efforts can be made to facilitate the use of innovative financial instruments; to this end, calls on the Commission to work with the European Investment Bank with a view to offering new financing options to Member States, but also offering funding opportunities to young farmers so that they can develop their businesses.

Amendment 131 #

Jean ARTHUIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. Notes that in case of additional financial needs from the MFF, credits' limitation in the "greening measures" pillar have to be considered and he is in favour of the creation of a European agricultural insurance fund mobilisable during crisis context.

Amendment 14 #

2. Stresses that the CAP provides income support to farmers through Pillar 1 and provides support for environmental programmes and economic activity in rural areas ~~and prevents rural depopulation~~; notes, in this connection, that it is essential to maintain the two-pillar CAP structure in order to compensate and support farmers and rural areas;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses the importance of the CAP for growth, employment, the environment and innovation in rural European areas, and for ensuring the EU’s contribution to global food balances;

Amendment 16 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Stresses that in order to achieve a coherent and effective rural development policy it is essential that Rural Development remains part of the CAP;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that, were all policies in the EU, nationally or at Union level, to be entirely financed from the EU budget, the CAP share would only amount to 1 %, which seems very reasonable for a policy that supplies food for over 500 million citizens; considers that the CAP is the best and cheapest security policy of the Union as it ensures sufficient food supply, although efforts should still be made to provide good quality food that is accessible to everyone and has a positive influence on people’s health;

Amendment 18 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Edouard FERRAND, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that, were all policies in the EU, nationally or at Union level, to be entirely financed from the EU budget, the CAP share would only amount to 1 %, which seems very reasonable for a policy that supplies food for over 500 million citizens; ~~considers that the CAP is the best and cheapest security policy of the Union as it ensures sufficient food supply;~~

Amendment 19 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Maria NOICHL, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that, were all policies in the EU, nationally or at Union level, to be entirely financed from the EU budget, the CAP share would only amount to 1 %, which seems very reasonable for a policy that supplies food for over 500 million citizens, supports environmental sustainability and creates employment; considers that the CAP is the best and cheapest security policy of the Union as it ensures sufficient food supply, fosters territorial cohesion and prevents rural depopulation;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the EU’s most genuinely common policy, which means that agricultural spending accounts for a considerable percentage of the total EU budget; stresses that spending on agriculture has declined considerably in relative terms over the last three decades from 75% to the current 38%, in line with successive market-oriented reforms of the CAP; stresses, therefore, that each EU citizen contributes only 32 cents per day to the CAP and that this policy has a low error rate in terms of spending irregularities;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that, were all policies in the EU, nationally or at Union level, to be entirely financed from the EU budget, the CAP share would only amount to 1 %, which seems very reasonable for a policy that supplies food for over 500 ~~thousand~~million citizens; considers that the CAP is the best and cheapest security policy of the Union as it ensures sufficient food supply;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that the CAP, which represents less than 1% of the EU’s total public expenditure, should be maintained, as a minimum, at current levels until 2020 to ensure that the agricultural sector is economically sustainable, meets the growing demand for food and promotes growth and employment in rural EU areas;

Amendment 22 #

Marc TARABELLA, Tibor SZANYI, Nicola CAPUTO, Eric ANDRIEU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. acknowledges that the apparently large proportion of the EU budget allocated to agriculture can lead to misconceptions among the public about the policy, when in reality farm subsidies account for a negligible amount in relation to the total GDP of the Member States; points out, however, that 70% of Europeans believe that the CAP is fulfilling its responsibility to supply food in the EU, and that 62% of people asked believe that the PAC benefits not only farmers but all European citizens;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Acknowledges that the apparently large proportion of the EU budget allocated to agriculture can lead to misconceptions among the public about the policy, when in reality farm subsidies account for a negligible amount in relation to the total GDP of the Member States; stresses that the CAP implementation rules need to be simplified so that the financial support for agriculture and rural development can be absorbed better;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Acknowledges that the apparently large proportion of the EU budget allocated to agriculture can lead to misconceptions among the public about the policy, when in reality farm subsidies account for a negligible amount in relation to the total GDP of the Member States yet have a significant impact in terms of ensuring continuity in farming and a security of income for farmers as well as benefitting the wider rural economy;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recognises the need for aid to be distributed better, and for this purpose budget maintenance should be linked to the redistribution of aid, ceilings should be set and mandatory aid should be established for small farms;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes that the number of small farmers in the EU continues to fall dramatically, driving rural depopulation and impacting the socio-economic fabric of rural areas; notes also that this process seriously affects other policy areas and so public spending.

Amendment 27 #

Marc TARABELLA, Tibor SZANYI, Nicola CAPUTO, Eric ANDRIEU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. states clearly that, through numerous policy reforms, CAP spending has been reduced and has become more targeted, market-orientated and geared towards improving the competitiveness of EU agriculture, while at the same time addressing an ever-increasing range of challenges, including environmental issues and climate change, the introduction of ‘greening measures’ and ensuring the economic viability of rural areas; stresses, however, that an in-depth analysis should be performed in an effort to assess the economic sustainability of the agricultural sector by safeguarding incomes, and that price volatility should be combatted by proposing new instruments;

Amendment 28 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Edouard FERRAND, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. States clearly that, through numerous policy reforms, CAP spending has been reduced and has become more targeted, market-orientated and geared towards improving the competitiveness of EU agriculture, while at the same time addressing an ever-increasing range of challenges, including environmental issues and climate change, the introduction of ‘greening measures’ and ensuring the economic viability of rural areas; asserts that the effect of those reforms has been disastrous for European agriculture and has caused tens of thousands of farms to go out of business;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. States ~~clearly~~ that, through numerous policy reforms, CAP spending has been reduced and has become more targeted, market-orientated and geared towards improving the competitiveness of EU agriculture, while at the same time addressing an ever-increasing range of challenges, including environmental issues and climate change, the introduction of ‘greening measures’ and ensuring the economic viability of rural areasadministrative and financial constraints imposed on farmers have progressively become more complicated; also states that these constraints have partly contributed to a significant decrease in farming jobs and income;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) ~~is the EU’s most genuinely~~has been a common EU policy for decades, which means that agricultural spending accounts for a considerable percentage of the total EU budget; stresses that spending on agriculture has declined considerably in relative terms over the last three decades from 75 % to the current 38 %; stresses, therefore, that each EU citizen contributes only 32 cents per day to the CAP and that this policy has a low error rate in terms of spending irregularities;

Amendment 30 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Maria NOICHL, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. States clearly that, through numerous policy reforms, CAP spending has been reduced and has become more targeted, market-orientated and geared towards improving the competitiveness of EU agriculture, while at the same time addressing an ever-increasing range of challenges, including environmental issues and climate change, and the introduction of ‘greening measures’ ~~and ensuring the economic viability of rural areas~~;

Amendment 31 #

Anja HAZEKAMP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls for allocation of CAP funding to the measures guiding improvements in agricultural sector in the fields of socio- economic and environmental sustainability, animal welfare and biodiversity; calls for a creation of measurable milestones on these improvements, with regular monitoring by the Commission and reporting to the Parliament;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that no alteration to the allocation of funds under Heading 2 agreed for the 2014-2020 period is included in the aims of the MFF mid-term review, although some guidance can be provided for the next programming period;

Amendment 33 #

Michel DANTIN, Sofia RIBEIRO, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Pilar AYUSO, José BOVÉ, Eric ANDRIEU, Herbert DORFMANN, Albert DESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Paolo DE CASTRO, Mairead McGUINNESS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists that the current amount in Heading 2, as provided for in the current MFF, must remain at least at the same level; refers, in this connection, to Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, which clearly states that allocated national envelopes may not be reduced by the midterm revision; considers, furthermore, that other Union policies must have the necessary financial means to allow the Union to honour its legal obligations in accordance with the corresponding sectoral legislation; calls on the Commission, in a context of migration crisis, to explore the possibility to strengthen synergies between the withdrawal of agricultural products from the market and the distribution of food aid to the most deprived citizens and to refugees through the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) ;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists that the current amount in Heading 2, as provided for in the current MFF, must remain at least at the same level; refers, in this connection, to Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, which clearly states that allocated national envelopes may not be reduced by the midterm revision; considers, furthermore, that other Union policies must have the necessary financial means to allow the Union to honour its legal obligations in accordance with the corresponding sectoral legislation; considers it unacceptable that the funds set aside for agricultural policy are reallocated in order to compensate for a lack of funds in other policies or programmes;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists that the current amount in Heading 2, as provided for in the current MFF, must remain at least at the same level as long as the CAP performs to achieve its policy objectives ; refers, in this connection, to Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, which clearly states that allocated national envelopes may not be reduced by the midterm revision; considers, furthermore, that other Union policies must have the necessary financial means to allow the Union to honour its legal obligations in accordance with the corresponding sectoral legislation;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Insists that the current amount in Heading 2, as provided for in the current MFF, must ~~remain at least at the same level~~be increased, commensurate with the current crisis; refers, in this connection, to Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, which clearly states that allocated national envelopes may not be reduced by the midterm revision; considers, furthermore, that other Union policies must have the necessary financial means to allow the Union to honour its legal obligations in accordance with the corresponding sectoral legislation;

Amendment 37 #

Bronis ROPĖ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Points out that direct payments to the farmers of new Member States are substantially smaller than those to the farmers of old Member States, and that, in turn, restricts Member States’ capacity to allocate national funding and directly affects the competitiveness of agriculture in new Member States and the implementation of cohesion objectives, therefore, calls for the allocation of additional funding to balance out the difference in payments;

Amendment 38 #

Michel DANTIN, Sofia RIBEIRO, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Pilar AYUSO, Herbert DORFMANN, Albert DESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Mairead McGUINNESS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. notes that before the last CAP reform, it was also argued that CAP funding should continue, on the condition that it reformed to respond to citizens' demands and the realities of a new century; although the subsequent reform only addressed to a limited extent the major sustainability challenges of transitioning to food production systems that are resilient to volatility of markets and climate.

Amendment 39 #

Sandra KALNIETE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes the existing significant differences in direct payments between Member States, which have a great negative effect on the competitiveness of the agricultural sectors among Member States and therefore calls for balancing out these differences in levels of direct payments.

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the EU’s most genuinely common policy, which means that agricultural spending accounts for a ~~considerable~~n important percentage of the total EU budget; stresses that spending on agriculture has declined considerably in relative terms over the last three decades from 75 % to the current 38 %; stresses, therefore, that each EU citizen contributes only 32 cents per day to the CAP and that this policy has a low error rate in terms of spending irregularities;

Amendment 40 #

Zbigniew KUŹMIUK, Stanisław OŻÓG, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Insists also that the amounts for direct payments in Heading 2 should be left untouched; points out that this is crucial for the income situation of many farmers, particularly in times of crises, and that the absorption rate per year is almost 100 %; also stresses that the process of levelling direct payments between Member States, begun in the current financial perspective, must be completed as soon as possible; differences in production size and intensity from several decades ago cannot decide the level of support for realising current and future CAP objectives; levelling direct payment rates is essential for ensuring equal competition conditions in the EU’s single market, as well as for the sustainable exploitation of agricultural resources at EU level.

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Insists also that the amounts for direct payments in Heading 2 should be left untouched; points out that this is crucial for the income situation of many farmers, particularly during t~~imes of cris~~he crisis which is affecting several agricultural branches, and that the absorption rate per year is almost 100 %;

Amendment 42 #

Marc TARABELLA, Nicola CAPUTO, Eric ANDRIEU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Insists also that the amounts ~~for direct payment~~of Pillars 1 and 2 as sums in Heading 2 should be left untouched; points out that this is crucial for the income situation of many farmers, particularly in times of crises, and that the absorption rate per year is almost 100 %;

Amendment 43 #

Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. points out that the liberalisation of the milk sector threatens milk production in cost-intensive mountainous areas. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to develop programmes which support processing facilities in mountainous areas in particular, so that this milk can be made into high-quality final products and thus generate the added value which is absolutely essential to the milk producers;

Amendment 44 #

8. notes that price volatility linked to worsening market conditions in many agricultural sectors has significantly increased in recent years, leading to severe income volatility; stresses, therefore, the need to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are available to deal with market crises, such as those currently affecting the milk, pig meat and fruit and vegetable sectorsnotes that the CAP 2014-2020 has not really provided genuine means to contend with the instability of agricultural markets and farming incomes; stresses, therefore, the need to rapidly establish the market and exceptional crisis measures provided for under the single CMO, and to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are available to deal with market crises, such as those currently affecting the milk, pig meat and fruit and vegetable sectors; stresses that the CAP urgently needs to be discussed, and those discussions should focus on the sustainability of European agriculture, which will only be sustained if the sector’s volatility is managed in an organised and efficient manner; adds in this regard that, owing to the CAP budget cuts made during the last MFF negotiations, direct payments from the first pillar of the CAP are currently insufficient to mitigate the income volatility experienced by farmers;

Amendment 45 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. notes that price volatility linked to worsening market conditions in many agricultural sectors has significantly increased in recent years, leading to severe income volatility; ~~stresses, therefore,~~this situation has led the ~~need~~EU to e~~nsure that~~stablish budgetary resources ~~are available~~in an effort to deal with market crises, such as those currently affecting the milk, pig meat and fruit and vegetable sectors; adds in this regard that, owing to the CAP budget cuts made during the last MFF negotiations, direct payments from the first pillar of the CAP are currently insufficient to mitigate the income ~~volatility experienced by farmers;~~losses experienced by farmers; that public authorities and agriculture professionals should consider quickly and efficiently introducing the few market measures adopted by the Agriculture Council on 14 March 2016, with a view, above all, to curbing the overproduction phenomena which have caused prices to plummet and have been severely affecting livestock and, in particular, the dairy industry in the past few months.

Amendment 46 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Maria NOICHL, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that price volatility linked to worsening market conditions in many agricultural sectors has significantly increased in recent years, leading to severe income volatility; stresses, therefore, the need to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are available to deal with market crises, such as those currently affecting the milk, pig meat and fruit and vegetable sectors; adds, in this regard that, owing to the CAP budget cuts made during the last MFF negotiations, direct payments from the first pillar of the CAP are currently insufficient to mitigate the income volatility experienced by farmers, therefore the current CAP should be reviewed urgently and regulatory measures should be used to prevent such price shocks and prevent farmers being mere intermediaries through whom taxpayers’ money ends up benefiting companies and distribution;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that price volatility linked to worsening market conditions in many agricultural sectors has significantly increased in recent years, leading to severe income volatility; stresses, therefore, the need to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are available to deal with the market crises~~, such as those~~ caused on occasions by decisions taken outside the industry, such as the foreclosure of the Russian market after the veto, which currently affect~~ing~~s the milk, pig meat and fruit and vegetable sectors~~; a~~ particularly, along with the phasing out of the milk quota system a year ago. Adds in this regard that, owing to the CAP budget cuts made during the last MFF negotiations, direct payments from the first pillar of the CAP are currently insufficient to mitigate the income volatility experienced by farmers;

Amendment 48 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Edouard FERRAND, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 49 #

Daniel BUDA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that price volatility linked to worsening market conditions in many agricultural sectors has significantly increased in recent years, leading to severe income volatility; stresses, therefore, the need to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are available to deal with market crises, such as those currently affecting the milk, pig meat and fruit and vegetable sectors; adds in this regard that, owing to the CAP budget cuts made during the last MFF negotiations, direct payments from the first pillar of the CAP are currently insufficient to mitigate the income volatility experienced by farmers; recommends taking support measures to reshape the production of crisis-stricken farmers

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Whereas the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that the expected rise in the world’s population to 9.1 billion by 2050 will require a 60% increase in food production and a 24% increase in crop yields in the developed countries by that date; stresses that one of the most important goals in the future will be maintaining food security in the European Union and providing assistance to poorer countries to address the challenges of food security; stresses that food, like water, will be a strategic commodity in the future and therefore Europe will need the Common Agricultural Policy and a strong agricultural budget more than ever before;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that price volatility linked to worsening market conditions in many agricultural sectors has significantly increased in recent years, leading to severe income volatility; stresses, therefore, the need to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are available to deal with market crises, such as those currently affecting the milk, pig meat ~~and~~, fruit and vegetable, poultry, field crop and nursery sectors; adds in this regard that, owing to the CAP budget cuts made during the last MFF negotiations, direct payments from the first pillar of the CAP are currently insufficient to mitigate the income volatility experienced by farmers;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the price volatility experienced because of the liberalisation of the CAP and linked to worsening market conditions in many agricultural sectors has significantly increased in recent years, leading to severe income volatility; stresses, therefore, the need to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are available to deal with market crises, such as those currently affecting the milk, pig meat and fruit and vegetable sectors; adds in this regard that, owing to the CAP budget cuts made during the last MFF negotiations, direct payments from the first pillar of the CAP are currently insufficient to mitigate the income volatility experienced by farmers;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that price volatility linked to worsening market and climatic conditions in many agricultural sectors has significantly increased in recent years, leading to severe income volatility; stresses, therefore, the need to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are available to deal with market crises, such as those currently affecting the milk, pig meat and fruit and vegetable sectors; adds in this regard that, owing to the CAP budget cuts made during the last MFF negotiations, direct payments from the first pillar of the CAP are currently insufficient to mitigate the income volatility experienced by farmers;

Amendment 53 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. On recent food safety scandals: in light of, for example, the 2011 E-coli outbreak, the 2013 horsemeat scandal and the ongoing issue with counterfeit honey from China, along with current outbreaks of animal diseases such as African swine fever in Poland and the Baltic States and the avian influenza epidemic in France, insists that, during the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework, the excess funds from other budgetary items listed in Chapter 3 be reallocated to address food safety and animal health crises, as the EU funds currently available – altogether EUR 1.89 million over seven years – are insufficient;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. deplores the fact that, despite receiving some notes of caution, in its Autumn 2015 crisis plan, the Commission did not take suitable measures to eliminate the overproduction crisis in the livestock sector, and that it simply issued a EUR 420 million package to the Member States, and that package had absolutely no effect on the markets and farming income, but was also a bad use of public funds, which are so valuable in times of budgetary restraint, and so crucial to financing the crises affecting Europe.

Amendment 55 #

Marijana PETIR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Notes that farmers produce the food that the rest of our populations need and that in the majority of Member States, farmers’ incomes are below average, which negatively affects their living standards and the living standards of their families and reduces the appeal of this profession to young people; given that farmers in their later stage in life live on the breadline because their below average income during their working years directly affects how much they are able to save for retirement, encourages Member States to introduce a minimum national pension for farmers higher than the poverty threshold.

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that more and more farmers and farming cooperatives are being forced to cease their activities because of high production costs and extreme market volatility; notes that, in many agricultural sectors that are fundamental to the EU’s economy, the current crisis should lead the Commission to review certain market management and crisis management instruments, guaranteeing that enough budget resources are available;

Amendment 57 #

Jean ARTHUIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Avoid the prices volatility while being careful in signing free-trade agreements, particularly with New Zealand. This agreement, under negotiation, would have disastrous consequences towards the European dairy sector knowing that the price of the ton of milk is 170€ in New Zealand and 280€ in Europe.

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Notes that farmers are squeezed by rising input costs1a on one hand and prices for their goods that are non- remunerative on the other1b ; considers therefore that inputs and costs of production ought be addressed in the CAP by encouraging more autonomy _________________ 1aEP report on the farm input supply chain: structure and implications(2011/2114(INI)) of 28.11.2011 1bEP report A7-0225/2010 on fair revenues for farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe (2009/2237(INI)) of 07.09.2010

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Deplores the Commission’s proposal that provides for the reduction by 2017 of direct CAP payments of more than EUR two thousand by 1.36 %; stresses that this proposal threatens the availability of crisis reserves and seems inappropriate considering the challenges and crises that the European agricultural sector is facing;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the CAP provides income support to farmers through Pillar 1 and provides support for environmental programmes and economic activity in rural areas and prevents rural depopulation; notes, in this connection, that it is essential to maintain the two-pillar CAP structure in order to compensate and support farmers and rural areas; insists that support under the first pillar should be strictly geared towards increasing agricultural production and addressing possible profiteering

Amendment 60 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. considers that more effective supply management is needed to ensure that supply is matched to demand and decent and fair prices for the producers are maintained

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that the fixed ceilings for the CAP until 2020 entail much lower margins than in the previous MFF, while the sector faces more challenges; stresses, in this regard, that any use of the margin must be exclusively to address the needs of the agricultural sector, given that long-term planning and investment security are essential for EU farmers; points out that agriculture should not be the only sector to bear the brunt of political decisions, as is currently the case with the Russian embargo and points out that the embargo has also had serious indirect effects on markets which do not traditionally trade with Russia; points out that the agricultural sector was the most affected by the Russian embargo and insists that farmers should continue to receive substantial support to help them to overcome the current situation;

Amendment 62 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that the fixed ceilings for the CAP until 2020 entail much lower margins than in the previous MFF, while the sector faces more challenges; stresses, in this regard, that any use of the margin must be exclusively to address the needs of the agricultural sector, given that long-term planning and investment security are essential for EU farmers; points out that agriculture should not be the only sector to bear the brunt of political decisions, as is currently the case with the Russian embargo; believes that it is essential that room for manoeuvre is created under the 2016 budget, and that it is used as a matter of priority to finance the market measures taken by the Agriculture Council on 14 March 2016 with a view to tackling the current crises.

Amendment 63 #

Michel DANTIN, Sofia RIBEIRO, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Pilar AYUSO, Herbert DORFMANN, Albert DESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Elisabeth KÖSTINGER, Mairead McGUINNESS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that the fixed ceilings for the CAP until 2020 entail much lower margins than in the previous MFF, while the sector faces more challenges; stresses, in this regard, that any use of the margin must be exclusively to address the needs of the agricultural sector, given that long-term planning and investment security are essential for EU farmers; points out that agriculture should not be the only sector to bear the brunt of political decisions, as is currently the case with the Russian embargo; asks the Commission to keep up negotiations with Russia with a view to ending the agricultural embargo as soon as possible on the basis of mutual agreement;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that the fixed ceilings for the CAP until 2020 entail much lower margins than in the previous MFF, while the sector faces more challenges; stresses, in this regard, that any use of the margin must be exclusively to address the needs of the agricultural sector, given that long-term planning and investment security are essential for EU farmers; points out that agriculture should not be the only sector to bear the brunt of political decisions, as is currently the case with the Russian embargo; calls on the Commission to provide the European Parliament with an assessment of the impact of the Russian embargo on the EU agricultural sector;

Amendment 65 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Edouard FERRAND, Laurenţiu REBEGA

9. Stresses that the fixed ceilings for the CAP until 2020 entail much lower margins than in the previous MFF, while the sector faces more challenges; stresses, in this regard, that any use of the margin must be exclusively to address the needs of the agricultural sector, given that long-term planning and investment security are essential for EU farmers; points out that agriculture should not be the only sector to bear the brunt of political decisions, as is currently the case with the Russian embargo, which the EU should be looking to lift by abandoning its inept and harmful sanction policy against Russia;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. notes it is useful to define productivity in the long term so as to include long term investments in for example improving soil quality and health, or multifunctional agroforestry, and therefore resilience to climate change .

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. notes the principle of budgetary efficiency, whereby there should be coherence between policy areas, in particular that funding under the CAP of activities which generate additional costs in other policy areas covered by the general budget of the European Union, especially environment and public health, should be avoided 1c _________________ 1c recital (40) of Reg.1306/2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy

Amendment 69 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10 b. recalls that sustainable agriculture has been found to be a more cost-effective use of public funds than those approaches generating externalised costs covered either indirectly by taxpayers, via public funds to resolve environmental or public health impacts, or directly via citizens' water bills to clean drinking water for example.

Amendment 7 #

John Stuart AGNEW

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the CAP provides income support to farmers through Pillar 1 and provides support for environmental programmes and economic activity in rural areas and prevents rural depopulation; notes, in this connection, that it is essential to ~~maintain the two-pillar CAP structure~~create an equitable system of income support that is not based on historical output and does not reward landholding alone, in order to better compensate and support ~~farmers and~~socially and environmentally beneficial farmers and the sustainability of rural areas;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. stresses that price volatility is increasing and that it is therefore erroneous to believe that ~~farm subsidies are no longer needed~~budget support is no longer needed to achieve public regulation of the markets insofar as that support is controlled and enables market failures to be tackled effectively; points out that logic would dictate that farmers could, in the main, generate their income from selling their goods and services instead of receiving public assistance, which should be used to remunerate public goods and inherent handicaps not taken into account by the market; strongly disagrees, in this context, with the notion that a rise in food prices and sales of produce in recent years have provided farmers with a stable income allowing business planning or security;

Amendment 71 #

Marc TARABELLA, Nicola CAPUTO, Eric ANDRIEU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. stresses that price volatility is increasing and that it is therefore erroneous to believe that farm subsidies are no longer needed; notes, however, that direct payments that do not match the reality of agricultural production and the progressive elimination of supply management methods have been proven to be limited; strongly disagrees, in this context, with the notion that a rise in food prices and sales of produce in recent years have provided farmers with a stable income allowing business planning or security;

Amendment 72 #

Michel DANTIN, Sofia RIBEIRO, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Pilar AYUSO, Daniel BUDA, Albert DESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Elisabeth KÖSTINGER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses that price volatility is increasing and that it is therefore erroneous to believe that farm subsidies are no longer needed; strongly disagrees, in this context, with the notion that a rise in food prices and sales of produce in recent years have provided farmers with a stable income allowing business planning or security; recalls also that European consumers are not ready to pay their food at a price which would be undeniably higher if the agricultural sector was not receiving public support;

Amendment 73 #

Daniel BUDA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses that price volatility is increasing and that it is therefore erroneous to believe that farm subsidies are no longer needed; strongly disagrees, in this context, with the notion that a rise in food prices and sales of produce in recent years have provided farmers with a stable income allowing business planning or security; stresses the need for supply regulation instruments to be put in place, as they are the only effective means of stabilising prices and farmers’ incomes;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses that price volatility is increasing and that it is therefore erroneous to believe that farm subsidies are no longer needed; stresses that the differences in subsidy payment levels in the Member States result in lower farmer competitiveness; strongly disagrees, in this context, with the notion that a rise in food prices and sales of produce in recent years have provided farmers with a stable income allowing business planning or security;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses that price volatility is increasing and that it is therefore erroneous to believe that farm subsidies are no longer needed; strongly disagrees, in this context, with the notion that a rise in food prices and sales of produce in recent years have provided farmers with a stable income allowing business planning or security as the purpose of the aforementioned measures was, above all, to stabilise prices rather than income;

Amendment 76 #

Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Stresses that price volatility is increasing and that it is therefore erroneous to believe that farm subsidies are no longer needed; strongly disagrees, in this context, with the notion that a rise in food prices and sales of produce in recent years havedue to currently unstable agricultural markets and high price volatility it is essential to maintain farm subsidies in order to provided farmers with a stable income allowing business planning orand security;

Amendment 77 #

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Stresses that the Neighbourhood Policy does not need to be a part of Agricultural Policy matters by offering favourable treatment to third-country agricultural and livestock products in an effort to avoid giving financial assistance to those countries; the above policy results in unfair competition and is economically damaging for Member State farmers; this is what happened with the approval to import 70 000 tonnes of olive oil from Tunisia, which affected the financial interests of farmers in the south of Europe, particularly in Greece;

Amendment 78 #

Marc TARABELLA, Nicola CAPUTO, Eric ANDRIEU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. considers that one of the functions of the CAP should be to cover the short term financial risk taken by farmers transitioning to sustainable practices beneficial in the long term, for example increasing resilience of production systems

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. stresses that the European Union’s agricultural policy runs counter to the major agricultural policies in the rest of the world, under which agricultural support is directly linked to prices, production volume or the use of inputs; stresses, therefore, the importance of introducing countercyclical and insurance instruments as part of the CAP, within the budget limits of the multiannual financial framework.

Amendment 8 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Edouard FERRAND, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the CAP provides income support to farmers through Pillar 1 and provides support for environmental programmes and economic activity in rural areas and prevents rural depopulation; notes, in this connection, that it is essential to maintain the two-pillar CAP structure in order to compensate and support farmers and rural areas; stresses the need to reverse the long-term trend observed in recent decades of falling farmer incomes;

Amendment 80 #

Elisabeth KÖSTINGER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Points out that the objectives of the CAP remain unchanged under the Lisbon Treaty, namely increasing agricultural productivity, ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, stabilising markets, ensuring the availability of supplies and ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices; notes, however, that the successive reforms of the CAP have assigned new tasks to agriculture in terms of product quality, environmental protection, climate change, consumer health, land use issues and modes of production and productivity; takes the view, therefore, that the impact of the CAP on overall EU strategies (EU 2020 and the Climate and Energy Goals) must be analysed so that conclusions for the period after 2020 can be found; stresses that the objectives laid down as part of the EU’s sustainability strategy must also be taken into account in the EU’s agricultural policy;

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Points out that the objectives of the CAP remain unchanged under the Lisbon Treaty, namely increasing agricultural productivity, ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, stabilising markets, ensuring the availability of supplies and ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices; notes, however, that the successive reforms of the CAP have assigned new tasks to agriculture in terms of product quality, environmental protection, climate change, consumer health, land use issues and modes of production and productivity; ~~stresses that the objectives laid down as part of the EU’s sustainability strategy must also be taken into account in the EU’s agricultural policy;~~

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Points out that the objectives of the CAP remain unchanged ~~under the Lisbon Treaty~~since the 1950's, namely increasing agricultural productivity, ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, stabilising markets, ensuring the availability of supplies and ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices; notes, however, that the successive reforms of the CAP ~~have assigned new tasks to agriculture in terms of~~tried to make it relevant to the 21st century and have assigned new tasks to agriculture to cope with modern challenges, for example: product quality, environmental protection, adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, consumer health, land use issues and modes of production and productivity; stresses that the objectives laid down as part of the EU’s sustainability strategy must also be taken into account in the EU’s agricultural policy;

Amendment 83 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Points out that the objectives of the CAP remain unchanged under the Lisbon Treaty, namely increasing agricultural productivity, ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, stabilising markets, ensuring the availability of supplies and ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices; notes, however, that the successive reforms of the CAP have assigned new tasks to agriculture in terms of product quality, environmental protection, climate change, consumer health, land use issues and modes of production and productivity which have led to a significant cost increase for farmers and growers; stresses that the objectives laid down as part of the EU’s sustainability strategy must also be taken into account in the EU’s agricultural policy;

Amendment 84 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Points out that the objectives of the CAP remain unchanged under the Lisbon Treaty, namely increasing agricultural productivity, ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, stabilising markets, ensuring the availability of supplies and ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices; notes, however, that the successive reforms of the CAP have assigned new tasks to agriculture in terms of product quality, environmental protection, climate change, consumer health, land use issues and modes of production and productivity; stresses that the objectives laid down as part of the EU’s sustainability strategy must also be taken into account in the EU’s agricultural policy, with regard, in particular, to social and territorial cohesion;

Amendment 85 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Edouard FERRAND, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Stresses that the obligations imposed on European farmers with regard to environmental sustainability and food security have no parallel in global agriculture.

Amendment 86 #

Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. is convinced that a strong CAP for the EU, both in terms of content and financing, is paramount in achieving these objectives, while guaranteeing a level playing field and transparent food chains within the internal market, as well as viable rural areas; considers, furthermore, that increasing resilience and improving employment and quality of life in rural areas should be prioritised in order to combat rural depopulation; considers that, for Pillar II, we will still need instruments after 2020 to support modernisation, investment and innovation in order to boost the competitiveness of the agri-food sector and to reduce differences between Member States and between regions in the development of agriculture and rural areas.

Amendment 87 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is convinced that a strong CAP for the EU, both in terms of content and financing, is paramount in achieving these objectives, while guaranteeing a level playing field and transparent food chains within the internal market, as well as viable rural areas; considers, furthermore,Considers that increasing resilience and improving employment and quality of life in rural areas should be prioritised in order to combat rural depopulation;

Amendment 88 #

Marc TARABELLA, Tibor SZANYI, Nicola CAPUTO, Paul BRANNEN, Eric ANDRIEU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is convinced that a strong CAP for the EU, both in terms of content and financing, is paramount in achieving these objectives, while guaranteeing a level playing field and transparent food chains within the internal market, as well as viable rural areas; considers, furthermore, that increasing resilience and improving employment and quality of life in rural areas should be prioritised in order to combat rural depopulation; therefore calls on the Member States and their regions to shift the focus of their rural policy to job creation, and calls on the Commission to help them to achieve that objective;

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is convinced that a strong CAP for the EU, both in terms of content and financing, is paramount in achieving these objectives, while guaranteeing a level playing field and transparent food chains within the internal market, which would guarantee producers fair prices, as well as viable rural areas; considers, furthermore, that increasing resilience and improving employment and quality of life in rural areas should be prioritised in order to combat rural depopulation;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 90 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is convinced that a strong CAP for the EU, both in terms of content and financing, is paramount in achieving these objectives, while guaranteeing a level playing field and transparent food chains within the internal market, as well as viable rural areas; considers, furthermore, that increasing resilience and improving employment and quality of life in rural areas should be prioritised in order to combat rural depopulation and promote viability;

Amendment 91 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA, Maria NOICHL, Paul BRANNEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Is convinced that a strong and sustainable CAP for the EU, both in terms of content and financing, is paramount in achieving these objectives, while guaranteeing a level playing field and transparent food chains within the internal market, as well as viable rural areas; considers, furthermore, that increasing resilience and improving employment and quality of life in rural areas should be prioritised in order to combat rural depopulation;

Amendment 92 #

Anja HAZEKAMP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. Stresses that financial resources should serve the purpose to improve the quality of agricultural products and to switch from bulk agricultural production to sustainable and value-added agricultural production;

Amendment 93 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that agricultural production has an extremely high added value, since it also supplies the processing sector, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in regions and to the EU’s balanced regional development; points out that it is therefore necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, step up the support received by farmers, since this provides an incentive to increase agricultural production; stresses that the CAP contributes significantly to growth and employment in rural areas, more so than other Union policies; recalls that, in statistical terms, one farmer provides seven additional jobs in related sectors; points to the importance of maintaining the CAP’s focus on supporting small-scale and family farming businesses as the cornerstone of agricultural production in the EU and of life in the EU’s rural areas; underlines how essential is to maintain specific measures in the framework of the CAP towards areas suffering from severe and permanent natural handicaps, notably mountainous areas and outermost regions, and other specific handicaps;

Amendment 94 #

Philippe LOISEAU, Edouard FERRAND, Laurenţiu REBEGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that agricultural production has an extremely high added value, since it also supplies the processing sector, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in regions and to the EU’s balanced regional development; points out that it is therefore necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, step up the support received by farmers, since this provides an incentive to increase agricultural production; stresses that the CAP contributes significantly to growth and employment in rural areas, more so than other Union policies; recalls that, in statistical terms, one farmer provides seven additional jobs in related sectors; points to the importance of maintaining the CAP’s focus on supporting small-scale and family farming businesses as the cornerstone of agricultural production in the EU and of life in the EU’s rural areas; points out that solutions and concrete support also need to be offered with a view to addressing the effects that the crisis has had on agricultural undertakings, such as lack of access to credit for farmers and declining farming income;

Amendment 95 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Marc TARABELLA, Maria NOICHL, Paul BRANNEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that agricultural production has an extremely high added value, which fosters employment, in the area of good quality food and also the supply of non- food goods and services, since it also supplies the processing sector, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in regions and to the EU’s balanced regional development; points out that it is therefore necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, step up the support received by ~~farmers, since this provides an incentive to increase agricultural production;~~the agricultural sector and rural areas, and, above all, to increase their legitimacy as part of a CAP that meets society’s requirements and is in the general interest stresses that the CAP contributes significantly to growth and employment in rural areas, more so than other Union policies; recalls that, in statistical terms, ~~one~~ farmers provide~~s seven additional~~ jobs in related sectors and in rural territories; points to the importance of maintaining the CAP’s focus on supporting small-scale and family farming businesses as the cornerstone of agricultural production in the EU and of life in the EU’s rural areas;

Amendment 96 #

15. Stresses that agricultural production has an extremely high added value, since it also supplies the processing sector, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in regions and to ~~the EU’s balanced~~every Member State’s regional development; points out that it is therefore necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, step up the support received by farmers, since this provides an incentive to increase agricultural production; ~~stresses that the CAP contributes significantly to growth and employment in rural areas, more so than other Union policies;~~ recalls that, in statistical terms, one farmer provides seven additional jobs in related sectors; points to the importance of ~~maintain~~increasing the CAP’s focus on supporting small-scale and family farming businesses as the cornerstone of agricultural production in the EU and of life in the EU’s rural areas;

Amendment 97 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that agricultural production has an extremely high added value, since it also supplies the processing sector, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in regions and to the EU’s balanced regional development; points out that it is therefore necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, step up the support received by farmers, since this provides an incentive to increase agricultural production; stresses that the CAP contributes significantly to growth and employment in rural areas, more so than other Union policies; recalls that, in statistical terms, one farmer provides seven additional jobs in related sectors; points to the importance of maintaining the CAP’s focus on supporting small-scale and family farming businesses as the cornerstone of agricultural production in the EU and of life in the EU’s rural areas and achieving real progress in that policy goal;

Amendment 98 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that agricultural production has an extremely high added value, since it also supplies the processing sector, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in regions and to the EU’s balanced regional development; points out that it is therefore necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, step up the support received by farmers, since this provides an incentive to increase agricultural production; stresses that the CAP and cohesion policy contributes significantly to growth and employment in rural areas, more so than other Union policies; recalls that, in statistical terms, one farmer provides seven additional jobs in related sectors; points to the importance of maintaining the CAP’s focus on supporting small-scale and family farming businesses as the cornerstone of agricultural production in the EU and of life in the EU’s rural areas;

Amendment 99 #

Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that agricultural production has an extremely high added value, since it also supplies the processing sector, thereby contributing to economic and social cohesion in regions and to the EU’s balanced regional development; points out that it is therefore necessary to maintain and, where appropriate, step up the support received by farmers, ~~since this provides an incentive to increase agricultural production~~with a view to combating volatility and maintaining or even boosting employment in the sector; stresses that the CAP contributes significantly to growth and employment in rural areas, more so than other Union policies; recalls that, in statistical terms, one farmer provides seven additional jobs in related sectors; points to the importance of maintaining the CAP’s focus on supporting small-scale and family farming businesses as the cornerstone of agricultural production in the EU and of life in the EU’s rural areas;

source: 582.271

2016/05/13 BUDG 358 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)

– having regard the interinstitutional joint declaration attached to the MFF on gender mainstreaming

Amendment 10 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Brando BENIFEI, Terry REINTKE

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the EU is presently facing its major crisis since its foundation, as a result of several episodes concatenated — the euro crisis, the cross credit-debt crisis, the Ukraine crisis, the refugee's crisis — all of them with budgetary impacts; whereas the budget cannot stand ignoring such situation but trying to fix it, anticipating instead of reacting when problems become almost unsolvable.

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 102 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Is particularly concerned, however, at the lack of new commitment appropriations for the YEI as of 2016, given that its entire original envelope was frontloaded in 2014-2015 (Article 15 of the MFF Regulation); stresses that in supporting this frontloading Parliament never intended that the initiative should be terminated after only two years of funding and that other MFF mechanisms, such as the Global Margin for Commitments, were put in place with the purpose of ensuring its continuation; also notes the frontloading of appropriations, on the basis of the same article, for Erasmus + (EUR 150 million), this being another EU programme that makes a major contribution to improving the employability of young people, which was fully implemented Notes that the YEI's entire original envelope was frontloaded in 2014-2015 (Article 15 of the MFF Regulation) and that other MFF mechanisms, such as the Global Margin for Commitments (Article 14), allow for unused margins in the years 2014 to 2017 to be used from 2016 to 2020 for policy objectives related to growth and employment, in particular youth employment; also notes the frontloading of appropriations, on the basis of the same article, for Erasmus + (EUR 150 million); highlights that a report on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee and the operation of the YEI is due later this year, following a request from the European Council in June 20131a ; considers it necessary to await the outcome of this report in order to determine the ~~first two years of this period;~~ appropriate level of funding for the YEI in the years ahead; __________________ 1a http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/c ms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/137634.pdf

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Is particularly concerned~~, however,~~ at the lack of new commitment appropriations for the YEI as of 2016, given that its entire original envelope was frontloaded in 2014- 2015 (Article 15 of the MFF Regulation); stresses that in supporting this frontloading Parliament never intended that the initiative should be terminated after only two years of funding and that other MFF mechanisms, such as the Global Margin for Commitments, were put in place with the purpose of ensuring its continuation; also notes the frontloading of appropriations, on the basis of the same article, for Erasmus + (EUR 150 million), this being another EU programme that makes a major contribution to improving the employability of young people, which was fully implemented in the first two years of this period;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF), the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived and the Employment and Social Innovation Programme (EaSI) contribute to the achievement of the poverty and employment targets of the Europe 2020 strategy which is already in need of increased commitment and achievement; notes that competition for scarce funds may lead to social conflict; calls on the Commission to monitor and on the Member States to ensure that the ear- marked budget of 20% of the ESF for spending on social inclusion to be fully met; insists that the ESF share amounts to 25 % of the total cohesion budget, that the 20% earmarking for social inclusion be kept;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Recalls that Europe's competitiveness, innovative capacity and productivity depend critically on the availability of highly educated and well trained workers; stresses that addressing skills mismatch in sectors with recognised job creation potential, such as ICT should remain a priority;

Amendment 106 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Reminds that, according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), an efficient Youth Guarantee at the European Union level would cost EUR 21 billion;

Amendment 107 #

Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA, Liadh NÍ RIADA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Recalls the recent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium and the increased threat levels in other Member States, which call for more coordinated and reinforced action at EU level; underlines that the Union ~~already~~ has the Internal Security Fund as an appropriate instrument and has several agencies operating in this field facing increased pressure; considers that more European action, and therefore funding, will be needed in this area to provide an adequate response to this threat; recalls furthermore the limited reinforcement of staffing levels of the European Counter- Terrorism Centre in Europol financed by redeployment from the Internal Security Fund; stresses that increased cooperation in the area, in line with the actions currently proposed by the Commission on the table, as well as a fully operational European Counter-Terrorism Centre, Internet Referral Unit, EC3 and joint investigation teams will require increased levels of staffing for the concerned agencies, which may further increase pressure on the EU budget;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Recalls the recent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium and the increased threat levels in other Member States, which call for more coordinated and reinforced action at EU level; underlines that the Union already has the Internal Security Fund as an appropriate instrument and has several agencies operating in this field; considers that more European action, and therefore funding, will be needed in this area to provide an adequate response to this threat, mainly taking measures in order to halting any economic and trade relationship with all those economic players who trade with the so-called Daesh, sanctioning those companies or States which take advantage of the armament selling or the purchasing of oil and gas at low price;

Amendment 109 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Recalls the recent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium and the increased threat levels in other Member States, which call for more coordinated actions and reinforced ~~action~~means at EU level; underlines that the Union already has the Internal Security Fund as an appropriate instrument and has several agencies operating in this field; considers that more European action~~, and therefore funding, will be needed in this area to provide~~ will be needed, as well as new initiatives, especially the enlargement of the missions and the reinforcement of the staff of the relevant a~~dequate response to this threat~~gencies and the interconnection and interoperability of various European databases;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1

Legal framework and scope of the ~~mid- term review/~~post electoral revision

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Recalls the recent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium and the increased threat levels in other ~~Member Stat~~countries, which call for more coordinated and reinforced action ~~at EU level~~between Member States; underlines that the Union already has the Internal Security Fund as an ~~appropriate~~ instrument and has several agencies operating in this field; considers that more European ~~action, and therefore funding,~~coordination initiatives will be needed in this area to provide an adequate response to this threat;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Recalls the recent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium and the increased threat levels in other Member States, which call for more coordinated and reinforced action at EU level; ~~underlines~~deplores the fact that the Union already has the Internal Security Fund ~~as an appropriate~~, which is a pointless and largely ineffectual instrument, and ~~has several agencies operating in this field; considers that more European action, and therefore funding, will be needed in this area to provide an adequate response to this threat~~points out that the fact that there have been further terrorist attacks despite there being several agencies operating in this field undermines the case for having the fund; believes that what is needed in this area is action to tighten up counter-terrorism policy;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Stresses that given the current actions and legislative proposals aimed at increasing judicial cooperation, additional financial and human resources will be progressively required for Eurojust which will impact the Union budget;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7

~~Crises in the agricultural sector~~ Agricultural crises 19a. Recalls that 38% of the overall EU budget under the current MFF is dedicated to the Common Agricultural Policy, making this Policy the top beneficiary of EU spending; therefore considers that the CAP should make a positive contribution to furthering the overall goals of the Union in the field of the economy, society and the environment and that the CAP funds should be spent in full coherence with all agreed EU policies to achieve these goals;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Recalls the various cris~~Notes that European farmers have been faced with various economic crises since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy and fruits and vegetables sectors crisis and the long- term negative effects on European farmers of the losses caused by the Russian embargo on agricultural products; highlights the budgetary impact of the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, involving EUR 500 million in the budget 2016 and EUR 300 million in 2015; underlines the persistent situation of crisis in the agricultural sector in several Member States; concludes that the CAP fails to creates the conditions for all farmers to make a decent living from their activity; and urges for the changes in the CAP in order to prioritize the Rural Development pillar as the only efficient strategy to fight against the chronical crisis in the rural areas;

Amendment 116 #

Nils TORVALDS, Gérard DEPREZ, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls the various crises that European farmers have faced since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy sector crisis and the long- term negative effects on European farmers of the losses caused by the Russian embargo on agricultural products; highlights the budgetary impact of the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, involving EUR 500 million in the budget 2016 and EUR 300 million in 2015; underlines the persistent situation of crisis in the agricultural sector in several Member States; insists that CAP keeps the same level of funding under the MFF 2014-2020; is convinced that a diminished CAP would pose numerous risks and endanger territorial cohesion , in particular as regards the rural areas; is against any movement towards re- nationalization of agricultural policy which would create distortion in the market and unfair competition of farmers;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls the various crises that European farmers have faced since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy sector crisis and the long- term negative effects on European farmers of the losses caused by the Russian embargo on agricultural products; highlights th~~e budgetary impact of~~at the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, involving EUR 500 million in the budget 2016 and EUR 300 million in 2015, where financed from the margins in Heading 2; underlines the persistent situation of crisis in the agricultural sector in several Member States and is therefore of the opinion that future targeted measures are to be financed promptly and appropriately from within the EU budget; recalls that the crisis is an effect of the foreign policy decision taken by the EU, and Russia, and stresses therefore that further emergency measures should not be funded by the CAP;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls the various crises that European farmers have faced since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy sector crisis and the long- term negative effects on European farmers of the losses caused by the Russian embargo on agricultural products; highlights th~~e budgetary impact of~~at the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, involving EUR 500 million in the budget 2016 and EUR 300 million in 2015, where financed from the margins in Heading 2; underlines the persistent situation of crisis in the agricultural sector in several Member States; and is therefore of the opinion that future targeted measures are to be financed promptly and appropriately from within the EU budget; recalls that the crisis is an effect of the foreign policy decision taken by the EU, and Russia, and stresses therefore that further emergency measures should not be funded by the CAP;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls the various crises that European farmers have faced since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy sector crisis and the long- term negative effects on European farmers of the losses caused by the Russian embargo on agricultural products, free- trade agreements with many non-EU countries and the financialisation of global agricultural trade; highlights the budgetary impact of the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, involving EUR 500 million in the budget 2016 and EUR 300 million in 2015; underlines the persistent situation of crisis in the agricultural sector in several Member States, and calls for European agricultural programmes for small and medium-sized farmers to be stepped up;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that in accordance with Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, the Commission shall present a compulsory review of the functioning of the MFF before the end of 2016, taking full account of the economic situation at that time as well as of the latest macroeconomic projections, and that this review shall~~, as appropriate,~~ be accompanied by a legislative proposal for the revision of the MFF Regulation; Reiterates that a binding post-electoral revision clause was one of the key demand from the EP to grant its consent to the MFF regulation;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls the various crises that European farmers have faced since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy sector crisis and the long- term negative effects on European farmers of the losses caused by the Russian embargo on agricultural products; highlights the budgetary impact of the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, involving EUR 500 million in the budget 2016 and EUR 300 million in 2015; underlines the persistent situation of crisis in the agricultural sector in several Member States;, therefore calls for further exceptional temporary targeted direct support measures for countries, which have suffered the major losses due to the Russian embargo and fall in market prices.

Amendment 121 #

Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Recalls the various crises that European farmers have faced since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy sector crisis and the long- term negative effects on European farmers of the losses caused by the Russian embargo on agricultural products; highlights the budgetary impact of the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, involving EUR 500 million in the budget 2016 and EUR 300 million in 2015; underlines the persistent situation of crisis in the agricultural sector in several Member States; considers it necessary to continue with adequate emergency measures in coordination with other action to alleviate the crisis of European agriculture;

Amendment 122 #

Raffaele FITTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Member States' fiscal positions

Amendment 124 #

Peter JAHR, Michel DANTIN, Albert DESS, Monika HOHLMEIER, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Norbert LINS, Herbert DORFMANN, Elisabeth KÖSTINGER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Stresses that the fixed ceilings for the CAP until 2020 entail much lower margins than in the previous MFF, while the sector faces more challenges; stresses in this regard, that any use of the margin must be exclusively to address the needs of the agricultural sector; warns that the current margin within the agriculture budget may prove insufficient, with market volatility, veterinary and phytosanitary risks and other unforeseen events making increasing demands on the budget to such an extent that the margin is expected to be depleted at the end of this planning period;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7 a (new)

Climate change and environmental challenges Recalls that global warming represents an unprecedented challenge to the whole of mankind; is concerned that, according to the mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy, no significant progress has been made towards reaching the headline target of halting biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in the EU by 2020; gives utmost importance to biodiversity protection and restoration in the EU; notes the significant needs for financing to climate action, biodiversity protection and the sustainable use of natural resources;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Welcomes the fact that a number of the programme countries have exited their relief programmes; notes, however, that Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Italy and Portugal remain in the excessive imbalances category without triggering the Excessive Imbalances Procedure and Finland, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Slovenia are found to experience imbalances1b; __________________ 1b http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eco nomic_governance/macroeconomic_imba lance_procedure/index_en.htm

Amendment 127 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Regrets that the CAP fails to support a number of farming systems that contribute to the EU biodiversity targets; deplores that public money is used inefficiently in pursuit of the Union's goals in the field of the environment; calls for better use of MFF heading 2 funds to the benefit of farmers, society and the environment;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Calls for an early response to be made to the impact of the abolition of sugar quotas in 2017, which is likely to undermine the sugar cane sector in the outermost regions, and for provision to be made for support measures for small- scale sugar cane planters in those regions;

Amendment 129 #

Nils TORVALDS, Gérard DEPREZ, Nedzhmi ALI, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7 a (new)

The Paris Agreement on climate change

Amendment 13 #

Nils TORVALDS, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Gérard DEPREZ, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that in accordance with Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, the Commission shall present a compulsory review of the functioning of the MFF before the end of 2016, taking full account of the economic situation at that time as well as of the latest macroeconomic projections, and that this review shall, as appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal for the revision of the MFF Regulation; is of the view that it is not an appropriate time to revise upwards the MFF ceilings;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Underlines that the agreement reached on 12 December 2015 in Paris by the 196 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is a universal, binding, dynamic and differentiated agreement aimed at facing the challenge of climate change; recalls that the EU successfully steered the efforts to reach the Paris Agreement; calls on the Commission to present its first evaluation of the possible impact of the COP21 agreement on the EU budget in due time for the revision, including an assessment on which climate change related action are being funded and whether these guarantee that the targets under the Paris Agreement will be met; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to guarantee that the mechanism of climate action mainstreaming is fully operationalized; further notices that under the Paris Agreement, EU funding needs to be allocated for supporting climate action in developing countries and asks the Commission to address it in the MFF review/revision;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Notes that the United Kingdom, Spain, Slovenia, Ireland, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Portugal and Greece are in Excessive Deficit Procedure1c ; __________________ 1c http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eco nomic_governance/macroeconomic_imba lance_procedure/index_en.htm

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)

20c. Notes that approximately 70% of the EU budget is made up of Own Resources based on GNI; underlines that Member States who are struggling to reduce their deficits are prioritising spending on essential services, such as welfare, healthcare and defence; believes that all institutions must take this into account during the mid-term review, particularly before considering any increase the MFF ceilings from the amounts agreed in 2013;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7 a (new)

Public Opinion

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 d (new)

20d. Believes it to be essential that the views of EU citizens are taken into account during the mid-term review, and possible revision of the MFF; highlights that a plurality of EU citizens are both opposed to an increase in the Union's budget, and believe the budget gives poor value for money1d ; notes that in the Czech Republic, Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, France, Finland, Italy, Spain, Slovenia, Belgium, and Austria more people are opposed to increasing the size of the Union's budget than are in favour; __________________ 1dEurobarometer, Spring 2015: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archiv es/eb/eb83/eb83_budget_en.pdf

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8

~~Payments backlog~~ Cohesion policy 20a. Underlines the important contribution of Cohesion Policy in achieving the target of dedicating 20% of the EU budget to climate action as set out in the Conclusions of the European Council from 7/8 February 2013 on the MFF; Emphasises the need to take into account the agreements of COP 21 and to accelerate and improve effectiveness of climate spending whilst underlining the huge potential of Cohesion Policy in boosting the EU's efforts for climate protection; Invites the Commission and the Member States to increase their commitment and dedicate 30% of the current EU budget to climate action; 20b. Invites the Commission to take into account the extraordinary efforts made by Member States and regions in providing appropriate reception conditions and integrating asylum seekers and other migrants, and to explore the possibility, in compliance with the expenditure ceilings set out in the MFF, of providing additional assistance and flexibility within the ESI funds in order to support such Member States and regions, including those situated on EU external borders, when reviewing the functioning of the MFF, without decreasing commitment or payment appropriations under heading 1b and without prejudice to the adjustment of the cohesion policy budget, pursuant to Article 7 of the Regulation No 1311/2013; 20c. Recalls its opposition on introducing macroeconomic conditionalities in Cohesion Policy 2014-2020; Strongly rejects any intention to attach further conditions or to extend the scope of its application; 20d. Stresses that grants are an effective form of support in many areas of public intervention; recognises the potential of financial instruments as a form of support for ESI Funds; calls for a more simplified use of grants and financial instruments in future; Notes the lack of evidence on the outcomes and results achieved by financial instruments and the loose link of those financial instruments to overarching objectives and priorities of the EU; Considers necessary to further strengthening the accountability, transparency and result-orientation of financial instruments; 20e. Believes that result-orientation in Cohesion Policy should be further strengthened; Underlines the urgent need to increase synergies with other EU policies on competitiveness, in particular in the field of research and development, ICT, renewable energies and SMEs in view of increasing the exploitation rate of EU R&D results, creating new high- quality jobs and maintaining existing ones and promoting the green economy; Calls on the Commission to assess options for increasing the synergetic use of different EU instruments;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 a (new)

Payments backlog

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls the build-up over the previous (2007-2013) MFF of a backlog of unpaid bills, which rose from a ‘normal’ level of EUR 5 billion at end 2010 to EUR 11 billion at end 2011, EUR 16 billion at end 2012, and EUR 23.4 billion at end 2013; warns that this backlog has spilled over into the current (2014-2020) MFF, reaching an unprecedented peak of EUR 24.7 billion at the end of 2014; stresses that, at the insistent request of Parliament, a payment plan has been agreed with the aim of reducing the backlog of outstanding cohesion policy-related payment claims for 2007-2013 to EUR 2 billion by the end of 2016; points out that at least EUR 8.2 billion of unpaid bills were identified at the end of 2015 for 2007-2013 in the field of cohesion policy, a figure which is expected to fall below EUR 2 billion by the end of 2016; notes that this decrease provides merely temporary relief as it is only the result of submissions of payable claims for both the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programmes being less than announced; regrets that no action has been undertaken to address the ‘hidden backlog’ identified under other headings; draws the attention that the situation of 2012-2014 might recur at the end of the current MFF if no concrete measures are taken;

Amendment 138 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls the build-up over the previous (2007-2013) MFF of a backlog of unpaid bills, which rose from a ‘normal’ level of EUR 5 billion at end 2010 to unprecedented levels of EUR 11 billion at end 2011, EUR 16 billion at end 2012, and EUR 23.4 billion at end 2013; warns that this backlog has spilled over into the current (2014-2020) MFF, reaching an unprecedented peak of EUR 24.7 billion at the end of 2014; stresses that, at the insistent request of Parliament, a payment plan has been agreed with the aim of reducing the backlog of outstanding cohesion policy-related payment claims for 2007-2013 to EUR 2 billion by the end of 2016; points out that at least EUR 8.2 billion of unpaid bills were identified at the end of 2015 for 2007-2013 in the field of cohesion policy, a figure which is expected to fall below EUR 2 billion by the end of 2016; notes that this decrease provides merely temporary relief as it is only the result of submissions of payable claims for both the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programmes being less than announced; regrets that no action has been undertaken to address the ‘hidden backlog’ identified under other headings;

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls the build-up over the previous (2007-2013) MFF of a backlog of unpaid bills, which rose from a ~~‘normal’~~ level of EUR 5 billion at end 2010 to EUR 11 billion at end 2011, EUR 16 billion at end 2012, and EUR 23.4 billion at end 2013; warns that this backlog has spilled over into the current (2014-2020) MFF, reaching an unprecedented peak of EUR 24.7 billion at the end of 2014; stresses that, at the insistent request of Parliament, a payment plan has been agreed with the aim of reducing the backlog of outstanding cohesion policy-related payment claims for 2007-2013 to a 'normal' level of EUR 2 billion by the end of 2016; points out that at least EUR 8.2 billion of unpaid bills were identified at the end of 2015 for 2007-2013 in the field of cohesion policy, a figure which is expected to fall below EUR 2 billion by the end of 2016; notes that this decrease provides merely temporary relief as it is only the result of submissions of payable claims for both the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programmes being less than announced; regrets that no action has been undertaken to address the ‘hidden backlog’ identified under other headings;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that in accordance with Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, the Commission shall present a compulsory review of the functioning of the MFF before the end of 2016, taking full account of the economic situation at that time as well as of the latest macroeconomic projections, and that this review shall, ~~as appropriat~~if considered feasible, be accompanied by a legislative proposal for the revision of the MFF Regulation;

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Recalls the build-up over the previous (2007-2013) MFF of a backlog of unpaid bills, which rose from a ~~‘normal’~~ level of EUR 5 billion at end 2010 to EUR 11 billion at end 2011, EUR 16 billion at end 2012, and EUR 23.4 billion at end 2013; warns that this backlog has spilled over into the current (2014-2020) MFF, reaching an unprecedented peak of EUR 24.7 billion at the end of 2014; stresses that, at the insistent request of Parliament, a payment plan has been agreed with the aim of reducing the backlog of outstanding cohesion policy-related payment claims for 2007-2013 to a "normal" level of EUR 2 billion by the end of 2016; points out that at least EUR 8.2 billion of unpaid bills were identified at the end of 2015 for 2007-2013 in the field of cohesion policy, a figure which is expected to fall below EUR 2 billion by the end of 2016; notes that this decrease provides merely temporary relief as it is only the result of submissions of payable claims for both the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programmes being less than announced; regrets that no action has been undertaken to address the ‘hidden backlog’ identified under other headings;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – subparagraph 1 (new)

considers it essential to consider various options with regard to payments, including a freeze on future low-priority programme commitments pending the settlement of all outstanding arrears;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 – introductory part

22. Regrets that the consequences of this payment crisis have been severe, affecting beneficiaries of the EU budget such as students, universities, SMEs ~~and~~, researchers and project leaders , as well as local and regional authorities; recalls, in particular, the dramatic shortage of payments in the field of humanitarian operations in 2014, which negatively affected the EU’s life-saving operations; recalls that the Commission had to resort to ‘mitigating measures’ such as reducing pre-financing percentages and postponing calls for proposals/tenders and related contracting; recalls that an artificial slowdown in the implementation of the new 2014-2020 programmes occurred owing to the general lack of payments, an example being an artificial delay relating to EUR 1 billion worth of calls for proposals under Horizon 2020 in 2014, which aimed at ensuring that payments would fall due in 2015 rather than in 2014; stresses, furthermore, that penalties for late payments have been charged to the EU budget, reaching some EUR 3 million in both 2014 and 2015;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 – introductory part

22. Regrets that the consequences of this payment crisis have been severe, affecting beneficiaries of the EU budget such as students, universities, SMEs and researchers, NGOs, as well as local and regional authorities; recalls, in particular, the dramatic shortage of payments in the field of humanitarian operations in 2014, which negatively affected the EU’s life- saving operations; recalls that the Commission had to resort to ‘mitigating measures’ such as reducing pre-financing percentages and postponing calls for proposals/tenders and related contracting; recalls that an artificial slowdown in the implementation of the new 2014-2020 programmes occurred owing to the general lack of payments, an example being an artificial delay relating to EUR 1 billion worth of calls for proposals under Horizon 2020 in 2014, which aimed at ensuring that payments would fall due in 2015 rather than in 2014; stresses, furthermore, that penalties for late payments have been charged to the EU budget, reaching some EUR 3 million in both 2014 and 2015;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 – introductory part

22. Regrets that the consequences of this payment crisis have been severe, affecting beneficiaries of the EU budget such as students, universities, SMEs ~~and~~, researchers and NGOs, as well as local and regional authorities; recalls, in particular, the dramatic shortage of payments in the field of humanitarian operations in 2014, which negatively affected the EU’s life-saving operations; recalls that the Commission had to resort to ‘mitigating measures’ such as reducing pre-financing percentages and postponing calls for proposals/tenders and related contracting; recalls that an artificial slowdown in the implementation of the new 2014-2020 programmes occurred owing to the general lack of payments, an example being an artificial delay relating to EUR 1 billion worth of calls for proposals under Horizon 2020 in 2014, which aimed at ensuring that payments would fall due in 2015 rather than in 2014; stresses, furthermore, that penalties for late payments have been charged to the EU budget, reaching some EUR 3 million in both 2014 and 2015;

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Underlines that reprioritising funds from poorly performing programmes to better performing programmes, or to areas where there is a genuine need, should be the first consideration when identifying new areas of spending;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Stresses that, in order to secure the additional appropriations that have been needed to respond to crises or to finance new political priorities since 2014, the budgetary authority has approved a substantial mobilisation of the flexibility provisions and special instruments included in the MFF regulation, after exhausting all available margins; recalls that several of those provisions resulted directly from proposals of the European Parliament, which ranked the call for maximum possible flexibility as one of its key demands in the MFF negotiations; Points out that the Flexibility provisions were sharply reduced by the Council (- 48%) during the MFF negotiations;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Stresses that, in order to secure the additional appropriations that have been needed to respond to crises or to finance new political priorities since 2014, the budgetary authority has approved a substantial mobilisation of the flexibility provisions and special instruments included in the MFF regulation, after exhausting all available margins; recalls that several of those provisions resulted directly from proposals of the European Parliament, which ranked the call for maximum possible flexibility as one of its key demands in the MFF negotiations; stresses that the MFF budget has to match with the political and strategic priorities of the EU policies;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 – subparagraph 1 (new)

considers that, for the funding of non- budgeted initiatives, the first option should always be the redeployment of appropriations from existing non-priority budget lines, taking care to avoid waste and mismanagement;

Amendment 149 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Highlights Point 8 of the 2013 Interinstitutional Agreement1f , which emphasises that the institutions should ensure sufficient margins are left available beneath the ceilings for the purposes of sound financial management; considers maintaining suitable margins under the budget headings to be the most fiscally responsible means of ingraining flexibility within the budget, enabling the EU to better react to unforeseen circumstances; __________________ 1f OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 2.

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers, in this respect, that while a review aims at assessing and evaluating the functioning of the MFF against its implementation, new economic conditions and other new developments, and as such could maintain the legislative status quo, a revision implies a modification of the MFF Regulation, which also includes (besides the legislative provisions) the MFF ceilings, on a basis of due respect for Article 312 TFEU and the limitations on the scope of the MFF revision laid down in the last sentence of Article 2 of the MFF Regulation; recalls that this article stipulates that the pre- allocated national envelopes shall not be reduced through a revision; ~~stresses in this context that Article 323 TFEU requires that the financial means to fulfil the Union’s legal obligations in respect of third parties are being ensured~~points to the principle of budget unity as the sole guarantee of genuinely democratic decision-taking and oversight in connection with expenditure; stresses therefore that revision of the MFF cannot result in a reduction of envelopes for heading 1b on cohesion policy, for heading 2 on rural development and the EMFF, or for jointly managed programmes under headings 3 and 4, i.e. AMIF, ISF or the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa; stresses in this context that Article 323 TFEU requires that the financial means to fulfil the Union’s legal obligations in respect of third parties are being ensured; takes the view accordingly that the fact that, for most spending items, envelopes cannot be reduced and the imperative for the EU to honour its commitments in other sectors make it all- important to raise ceilings;

Amendment 150 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Notes, in particular, that the special instruments were mobilised to tackle the refugee and migration crisis (full amount of the Flexibility Instrument exhausted in 2016 - EUR 1 530 million; Emergency Aid Reserve in 2016 - EUR 150 million), the payments shortage problem (Contingency Margin activated in 2015 - EUR 3.16 billion), and the financing of the EFSI Guarantee Fund (full use of Global Margin for Commitments 2014 - EUR 543 million); recalls that the decision to mobilise the Contingency Margin in payments is coupled with a decrease in the payment ceilings for the years 2018 to 2020, at the same time when the payment needs should reach their normal peak and when payment ceilings will also face a stronger pressure with the cumulated impact of the slow start of programmes under shared management and of the Youth Employment Initiative, as well as the successful frontloading of COSME, Horizon 2020 and Erasmus + and the effect of frontloading in favour of Greece, notwithstanding the impact of the actions taken in the frame of the migration and refugee crisis;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Anticipates that ~~any~~ further needs ~~that~~could arise ~~with~~in relation to the migration and refugee crisis in 2016, including the tranche of EUR 200 million for the new instrument to provide emergency support within the Union~~, should result in the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin as soon as necessary; recall~~; considers the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin to be an instrument of last resort, and that its mobilisation should be fully offset against the margins in one or more headings for the current or future financial years in accordance with Article 13(3) of the MFF Regulation1g ; furthermore, considers its mobilisation should only be considered after all other avenues or reallocation and redeployment from existing budget lines have been explored; regrets that no more margins are available under Heading 3, while the Flexibility Instrument has already been used up in its entirety for this year; __________________ 1g OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.

Amendment 153 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Anticipates that any further needs that arise with relation to the migration and refugee crisis in 2016, including the tranche of EUR 200 million for the new instrument to provide emergency support within the Union, the necessary staff increases for the migration-related agencies required in order to tackle the on-going refugee and migration crisis and implement the measures reforming the Common European Asylum System, as well as the proposal for the establishment of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, should result in the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin as soon as necessary; recalls that no more margins are available under Heading 3, while the Flexibility Instrument has already been used up in its entirety for this year;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Anticipates that any further needs that arise with relation to the migration and refugee crisis in 2016, including the tranche of EUR 200 million for the new instrument to provide emergency support within the Union, should result in the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin as soon as necessary; recalls that no more margins are available under Heading 3, while the Flexibility Instrument has already been used up in its entirety for this year; suggests to investigate further opportunities for flexibility for emerging challenges, including easier access to unspent margins for any budget line, so that these margins can be redeployed for emergencies in other headings;

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Recalls that the legislative flexibility, as enshrined in Point 17 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA), allows for an ~~increase~~adjustment in the overall envelope of programmes adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure of up to 10 % over the seven-year period; notes that ‘new, objective, long-term circumstances’ allow the budgetary authority to depart even further from the original envelope; welcomes the fact that this provision has already been used to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen events by considerably increasing the original annual allocations of programmes such as AMIF; , with account being taken of the results obtained from implementing the programme, in particular on the basis of assessments1h, allow the budgetary authority to depart even further from the original envelope; welcomes the fact that this provision stipulates that any increase resulting from such variation shall remain beneath the existing ceiling for the heading concerned; __________________ 1h OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 3.

Amendment 156 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Recalls that the legislative flexibility, as enshrined in Point 17 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA), allows for an increase in the overall envelope of programmes adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure of up to +/- 10 % over the seven-year period; notes that ‘new, objective, long-term circumstances’ allow the budgetary authority to depart even further from the original envelope; welcomes the fact that this provision has already been used to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen events by considerably increasing the original annual allocations of programmes such as AMIF;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)

26a. Recalls that global warming represents an unprecedented challenge to the whole of mankind, bringing major threats as well as major opportunities of innovations if sufficient resources are dedicated to climate research;

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)

26b. Underlines that the European Union successfully led international efforts to reach the ambitious climate agreement agreed in Paris in 2015; therefore considers that the Union should dedicate sufficient resources to fulfilling its own commitments and objectives in the field of climate action;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading II

II. Mid-term revision of the MFF ~~– an imperative requirement~~

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Is convinced, on the basis of the above analysis, that the review of the functioning of the current MFF entails the conclusion that a genuine mid-term revision of the MFF as provided for in the MFF Regulation is absolutely indispensable if the Union is to effectively confront a number of challenges while fulfilling its political objectives; recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy remains the main priority to be supported by the EU budget; stresses the need for the EU budget to be endowed with adequate resources to effectively ensure investments conducive to growth and jobs, achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion and promote solidarity;

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Is convinced, on the basis of the above analysis, that the review of the functioning of the current MFF entails the conclusion that a genuine mid-term revision of the MFF as provided for in the MFF Regulation is absolutely indispensable if the Union is to effectively confront a number of challenges while fulfilling its political objectives; recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy remains the main priority to be supported by the EU budget; challenges the Council, in case it does not share this approach, to clearly identify which of its political priorities or projects could be dropped altogether, despite their proven European added value;

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Is convinced, on the basis of the above analysis, that the review of the functioning of the current MFF entails the conclusion that a genuine mid-term revision of the MFF as provided for in the MFF Regulation is absolutely indispensable if the Union is to effectively confront a number of challenges while fulfillingBelieves that the mid-term review of the functioning of the current MFF will provide the basis for deciding whether a legislative proposal on a revision of the MFF its ~~political objectives~~appropriate; recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy remains the main priority to be supported by the EU budget;

Amendment 163 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Is convinced, on the basis of the above analysis, that the review of the functioning of the current MFF ~~entails the conclusion that a genuine mid-term revision of the MFF as provided for in the MFF Regulation is absolutely indispensable if the Union is to effective~~affords a major opportunity to prioritise EU spending so as to redistribute funds to areas where the EU is clearly con~~front a number of challenges while fulfilling its political obj~~tributing added value, such as research and development, competitiveness and the internal market, and environmental protecti~~ves~~on; recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy remains the main priority to be supported by the EU budget;

Amendment 164 #

Peter JAHR, Michel DANTIN, Reimer BÖGE, Albert DESS, Monika HOHLMEIER, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Norbert LINS, Elisabeth KÖSTINGER, Herbert DORFMANN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)

27a. Insists that the amounts for direct payments in Heading 2 should be left untouched; points out that this is crucial for the income situation of many farmers, particular in times of crises, and that the absorption rate per year is almost 100%;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Urges the Commission, when preparing its legislative proposal, to take into consideration the following demands of Parliament regarding changes to the MFF Regulation, with respect both to the figures and to the raising of ceilings and to several provisions relating to the functioning of the MFF which need to be applicable already for the current MFF;

Amendment 166 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Urges the Commission, ~~when preparing its~~if it decides that a legislative proposal on revision is appropriate, to take into consideration the ~~following~~ demands of ~~Parliament regarding changes to the MFF Regulation, with respect both to the figures and to several provisions relating to the functioning of the MFF which need to be applicabl~~both Council and Parliament as the budgetary authority regarding changes to the MFF Regulation, in particular, the need to respect the ceilings which were algre~~ady for the current MFF~~ed to in 2013;

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28a. Points out that the specific envelopes for regions and Member States initially provided for under the MFF must simply be complementary and in no way result in a reduction in funding granted to regions and Member States in line with the criteria laid down in cohesion policy regulations; calls for any reduction in envelopes to be rectified as part of this mid-term revision;

Amendment 168 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Jens GEIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28a. Gives utmost importance to the well-timed implementation of any modification which will be agreed under the Mid-term revision of the MFF; stresses that these changes should be echoed in the EU budget for the year 2017; calls on the Commission to ensure that negotiations on both MFF Revision and the annual EU budget are concluded until the end of 2016 as this will influence Parliament´s decision making process on the EU budget 2017;

Amendment 169 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)

28b. Calls for stepped-up budget support for all Member States carrying out excessive-deficit reduction programmes;

Amendment 17 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 c (new)

28c. Calls for the investment clause to be revised so that national and regional investments which co-financed ESI funds are excluded from the calculation of national deficits under the Stability and Growth Pact;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Is convinced that, while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies; intends to deliver on its commitment to fully offset the EFSI-related cuts affecting Horizon 2020 and CEF, in order to allow them to accomplish their objectives as agreed only two years ago; furthermore stresses that reinforcements are needed for the EU programmes and policies contributing to growth, jobs and competitiveness as well as transition to a low carbon economy; believes that margins in Subheading 1a are not sufficient for accommodating these needs, hence calls for an increase of the ceiling in this subheading;

Amendment 172 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Is convinced that, while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies; intends to deliver on its commitment to fully offset the EFSI-related cuts affecting Horizon 2020 and CEF, in order to allow them to accomplish their objectives as agreed only two years ago and to allow the EU to reach its research and innovation targets; stresses that this compensation should not be proposed at the expense of other important programmes of the current MFF (in particular COSME, Galileo and Copernicus); considers that an upward revision of the ceilings under sub- Heading 1A is required;

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Is convinced that, while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies, except in cases where such programmes and policies have a demonstrably poor rate of implementation or performance; intends to deliver on its commitment to fully offset the EFSI-related cuts affecting Horizon 2020 and CEF, in order to allow them to accomplish their objectives as agreed only two years ago;

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Is convinced that~~, while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI,~~ the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies, as was the case for EFSI; intends to deliver on its commitment to ~~fully~~ offset the EFSI-related cuts affecting Horizon 2020 and CEF, through redistribution, in order to allow them to accomplish their objectives as agreed only two years ago;

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

Amendment 177 #

Zbigniew KUŹMIUK, Stanisław OŻÓG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Is convinced that, while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies; intends to deliver on its commitment to fully offset the EFSI-related cuts affecting Horizon 2020 and CEF, in order to allow them to accomplish their objectives as agreed only two years agoStresses therefore that the maximalist approach of the revision of the MFF might lead to an upward revision of the MFF up to the own resources ceiling (1,29% of the EU GNI in commitments) which would lead to an approximate increase by € 150 bn investment within and outside the EU in order to reach the EU2020 strategy targets and to fulfil the EU's international commitments, such as the COP21 and the post MDG objectives;

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Calls also for direct payment appropriations under Heading 2 to be kept at their current level; points out that this is of key importance for the incomes of many farmers, in particular at a time of crisis, and that the annual takeup rate is close to 100%; stresses, at the same time, that the process of bringing direct payment rates in the Member States into line with one another, which began during the current MFF, must be completed as soon as possible; takes the view that differences in production volumes and intensity dating back several decades cannot form the basis for decisions on the level of support to be provided with a view to achieving current and future CAP objectives; believes the alignment of direct payment rates to be essential in order to ensure a level playing field on the single market and the sustainable use of agricultural resources throughout the EU;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Therefore reiterates its views that the Commission proposal, which was then cut by € 85 bn, was not sufficient to finance existing policy priorities linked to Europe's strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the new tasks provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, or unforeseen events, not to mention the political objectives and commitments set by the European Council itself; therefore considers that the outcome of the revision should logically end up between those two minimum and maximum limits;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Believes that a clear distinction between a mid-term review and a revision of the MFF is an important determinant of the future direction of the current MFF; considers that any legislative proposal for the revision of the MFF Regulation must be on the basis of the mid-term review, and only if the conclusions of this review deem a legislative proposal to be appropriate;

Amendment 180 #

Peter JAHR, Michel DANTIN, Reimer BÖGE, Albert DESS, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Norbert LINS, Herbert DORFMANN, Elisabeth KÖSTINGER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Insists that the current amount in Heading 2 as foreseen in the current MFF remains at least at the same level; refers in this respect to Art.2 of the MFF regulation, which clearly states that allocated national envelopes may not be reduced by the midterm revision; considers furthermore that other Union policies must have the necessary financial means to allow the Union to honour its legal obligations in accordance with the corresponding sectoral legislation;

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Stresses the fact that the Pilot Projects and Preparatory Actions budget should be extended and the implementation time improved;

Amendment 182 #

Zbigniew KUŹMIUK, Stanisław OŻÓG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 b (new)

29b. Is convinced that, while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies; intends to deliver on its commitment to fully offset the EFSI-related cuts affecting Horizon 2020 and CEF, in order to allow them to accomplish their objectives as agreed only two years ago; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of Subheading 1a, as no margins are available;

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 b (new)

29b. Notes that a whole series of changes that have an effect on farming, food production and rural areas are currently being planned and introduced under other EU policies, including trade policy and environment and climate policy; stresses that the new requirements laid down for the agri-food sector with a view to meeting non-agricultural EU objectives should, in the future, be appropriately reflected in a larger CAP budget;

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 c (new)

29c. Asks for an increased financial support to the three European programmes concerning directly citizens: Creative Europe, Europe for citizens and Erasmus+, as those programmes develop new subvention lines to react to the present situation on refugees integration, education and are on the front of actions lead by the Union and Member States to improve the overall social situation, mutual understanding and the living together in our different societies;

Amendment 185 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 d (new)

29d. Urges the Commission and Council to review their position on the "Europe for Citizens" programme, the only programme which involves all citizens directly, and to provide it with a substantial additional budget allowing better implementation of the goals of the programme and avoiding further frustration among participants to the calls; indeed, having been cut beyond any reason, the programme can only accept a dramatically low percentage of projects, a situation that it is not sustainable and defendable towards the EU citizens, even more so in the present social and humanitarian situation in the EU;

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 e (new)

29e. Considers that Erasmus+ would reach its cruising speed only if it takes on board a growing number of smaller projects that allow a larger diffusion of the programme at schools or for youth, an increase of VET mobility, and therefore a better efficiency in realising its educative, social and humanitarian goals; welcomes therefore all efforts made by the EACEA and national agencies to improve not only their financial transparency but the simplification procedures for the project leaders;

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 f (new)

29f. Recommends the Commission to pay special attention to the implementation of the financial Guarantee facility tool which is delayed by more than a few months; is concerned that cultural NGOs and small associations will not be eligible for this tool, and only cultural and creative SMEs would be able to participate; recommends a thorough analysis of the experiences done throughout the whole process in order to check the pertinence and sustainability of such a tool, aside COSME;

Amendment 188 #

Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Younous OMARJEE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 g (new)

29g. Notes that the revision of the MFF is a key point in the management of Union spending by ensuring that Union investment programmes remain efficient; insists on a thorough simplification of the application forms and criteria, of reporting and reimbursement, especially for small-scale projects, both in Erasmus+ and in the Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens programmes;

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Strongly supports the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as a means of ensuring an urgent response in the fight against youth unemployment, following the necessary adjustments brought about by the ongoing evaluation; considers that this can only be achieved through the provision of an adequate level of commitment appropriations for the YEI for the remaining years of the current MFF; in order to increase the utilisation rate of this funding, very low in those less developed regions, which need in a larger extent this sort of budgetary line; points out the necessity of making easier the anticipation of available funds at the outset of the programs; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of Subheading 1b, as no margins are available;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that Article 311 TFEU states that the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies; considers, therefore, that should the review arrive at the conclusions that the current ceilings weare too low, it ~~would be a primary law requirement to~~is imperative that all possible means of reallocating expenditure between programmes and within the existing ceilings must be explored, before an increase in the ceilings is considered;

Amendment 190 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Brando BENIFEI, Terry REINTKE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Strongly supports the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as a means of ensuring an urgent response in the fight against youth unemployment, following the necessary adjustments brought about by the ongoing evaluation; considers that this can only be achieved through the provision of, a~~n adequat~~t least, the same level of commitment appropriations ~~for the YEI for the remaining years of the current MFF~~than the one agreed in 2013 (€ 6 billion for 2 years) for the YEI for the remaining years of the current MFF; concludes that at least, 12 billion should be available for the YEI programme for the period 2017- 2020; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of Subheading 1b, as no margins are available;

Amendment 191 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Strongly supports the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as a means of ensuring an urgent response in the fight against youth unemployment, following the necessary adjustments brought about by the ongoing evaluation of European institutions as well as a continued assessment of its performance by all relevant stakeholders, especially young people and youth organisations; considers that this can only be achieved through the provision of an adequate level of commitment appropriations for the YEI for the remaining years of the current MFF; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of Subheading 1b, as no margins are available;

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. ~~Strongly supports the continuation of~~Takes the view that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as a means of ensuring an urgent response in the fight against youth unemployment, following the necessary adjustments brought about by the ongoing evaluation; considers that this can only be achieved through the provision of an adequate level of commitment appropriations for the YEI for the remaining years of the current MFF; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilhas to date failed to achieve its objectives; considers that the objective of facilitating youth employment can only be achieved by addressing the imbalances resulting from the single currency, eliminating the social and economic constraingts ~~of Subheading 1b, as no margins are available~~imposed by the EU and generating massive public investment;

Amendment 193 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Strongly supports the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as a means of ensuring an urgent response in the fight against youth unemployment, following the necessary adjustments brought about by the ongoing evaluation; considers that this can only be achieved through the provision of an adequate level of commitment appropriations for the YEI for the remaining years of the current MFF; ~~note~~reminds that th~~is should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of Subheading 1b, as no margins are available~~e global margin for commitments, to be made available over and above the ceilings established in the MFF, should be directed, in priority, for youth employment;

Amendment 194 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. ~~Strongly supports the continuation of~~Notes the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as a ~~mean~~complementary means to national policies of ensuring an urgent response in the fight against youth unemployment~~, following the necessary adjustments brought about by the ongoing evaluation; considers that this can only be achieved through the provision of an adequate level of commitment appropriations~~; considers it necessary to await the outcome of the report on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee and the operation of the YEI in order to determine the appropriate level of funding for the YEI ~~for~~in the ~~remaining years of the current MFF; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of~~years ahead; believes that due consideration should also be given to the restricted room for manoeuvre in Subheading 1b, as no margins are available;

Amendment 195 #

Alain LAMASSOURE, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Strongly supports the continuation of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as a means of ensuring an urgent response in the fight against youth unemployment, following the necessary adjustments brought about by the ongoing evaluation; considers that this can only be achieved through the provision of a~~n adequate level of~~t least EUR 21 billion in commitment appropriations for the YEI ~~for the remaining years of~~under the current MFF; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of Subheading 1b, as no margins are available;

Amendment 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30a. Considers that beyond the preservation of the pre-allocated national envelopes stipulated in the Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, the preservation of the heading 2 margins is essential in order to face the impacts of the various crisis in agricultural markets in the second half of the MFF;

Amendment 197 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Brando BENIFEI, Terry REINTKE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30a. In a context of new increasing challenges, including migration and diverse societies, more investments in education, training, youth and culture are very much needed to reinforce cohesive, equal and inclusive societies as well as intercultural dialogue;

Amendment 198 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Considers that the magnitude of the migration and refugee crisis goes to show that additional needs with significant budgetary consequences may be expected to arise in the coming years; asks the Commission to draw up as soon as possible an updated estimate of the budget required, by the end of the current MFF, to meet all the challenges of migration pressure (safe and rescue, interception, reception, registration, control, accommodation, transportation, relocation, resettlement, return, integration), the implementation of a genuine European asylum system, the common management of external borders and the internal security of the Schengen area; underlines, moreover, that the need for internal security in the EU and the fight against terrorism should be included in all the budgetary projections and are expected also to necessitate additional funding to back up reinforced action at EU level; is of the firm opinion that, even with the mobilisation of the small margins available under Heading 3 (Security and Citizenship) and existing flexibility provisions, the resources available will not be sufficient to tackle the increased needs under this heading; calls, therefore, for significant reinforcements for the AMIF and the Internal Security Fund, as well as for the Union agencies operating in the field~~, as well as~~ (FRONTEX, EASO, EUROPOL, EU-LISA, FRA) to ensure the proper functioning of their missions and appropriate staffing levels, and urges for other initiatives that ~~can~~will be undertaken not to be funded at the expense of existing programmes and agencies; considers that an upward revision of the ceilings under Heading 3 is required;

Amendment 199 #

Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA, Liadh NÍ RIADA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Considers that the magnitude of the migration and refugee crisis goes to show that additional needs with significant budgetary consequences may be expected to arise in the coming years; ~~underlines, moreover, that the need for internal security in the EU and the fight against terrorism are expected also to necessitate additional funding to back up reinforced action at EU level;~~ is of the firm opinion that, even with the mobilisation of the small margins available under Heading 3 (Security and Citizenship) and existing flexibility provisions, the resources available will not be sufficient to tackle the increased needs under this heading; calls, therefore, for significant reinforcements for the AMIF ~~and the Internal Security Fund~~, as well as for the Union agencies operating in the field, as well as other initiatives that can be undertaken; considers that an upward revision of the ceilings under Heading 3 is required;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) was adopted for the first time under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, according to which the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously adopt the MFF regulation after having obtained the consent of the European Parliament, unless the Council decides to use the Passerelle clause, as provided for by Article 48(7) regarding the decision-making procedures for the MFF regulation, in order to switch from unanimity to QMV for its adoption;

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Considers that the magnitude of the migration and refugee crisis goes to show that additional needs with significant budgetary consequences may be expected to arise in the coming years; underlines, moreover, that the need for internal security in the EU and the fight against terrorism are expected also to necessitate additional funding to back up reinforced action at EU level; is of the firm opinion that, even with the mobilisation of the small margins available under Heading 3 (Security and Citizenship) and existing flexibility provisions, the resources available will not be sufficient to tackle the increased needs under this heading; calls, therefore, for significant reinforcements for the AMIF and the Internal Security Fund, as well as for the Union agencies ~~operating in the field, as well as other initiatives that can be undertaken; considers that an upward revision of the ceilings under Heading 3 is required~~who have undertaken new responsibilities; considers that the severity of the current situation may require an upward revision of the ceilings under Heading 3, provided that the raising of this ceiling is offset by the lowering of another ceiling, in accordance with Article 17(4) of the MFF Regulation;

Amendment 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Considers that the magnitude of the migration and refugee crisis goes to show that additional needs with significant budgetary consequences may be expected to arise in the coming years; underlines, moreover, that the need for internal security in the EU and the fight against terrorism ~~are expected also to~~might necessitate additional funding ~~to back up reinforced action at EU level~~so as to step up coordination between the Member States; is of the firm opinion that, even with the mobilisation of the small margins available under Heading 3 (Security and Citizenship) and existing flexibility provisions, the resources available ~~will~~might not be sufficient to tackle the increased needs under this heading; calls, therefore, for significant reinforcements for the AMIF and the Internal Security Fund, as well as for the Union agencies operating in the field, as well as other initiatives that can be undertaken; considersonsiders therefore that an upward revision of the ceilings under Heading 3 ismight be required, to be offset through cuts elsewhere;

Amendment 202 #

Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA, Liadh NÍ RIADA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Considers that the magnitude of the migration and refugee crisis, caused by wars and climate change, goes to show that additional needs with significant budgetary consequences may be expected to arise in the coming years; underlines, moreover, that the need for internal security in the EU and the fight against terrorism are expected also to necessitate additional funding to back up reinforced action at EU level; is of the firm opinion that, even with the mobilisation of the small margins available under Heading 3 (Security and Citizenship) and existing flexibility provisions, the resources available will not be sufficient to tackle the increased needs under this heading; calls, therefore, for significant reinforcements for the AMIF and the Internal Security Fund, as well as for the Union agencies operating in the field, as well as other initiatives that can be undertaken; considers that an upward revision of the ceilings under Heading 3 is required;

Amendment 203 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Expects that concerted action to effectively respond to the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis will intensify over the coming years, and will be accompanied by increased requests for funding under Heading 4 (Global Europe); which entails implementing solutions in origin, persecuting those practices which promoting directly or indirectly the Daesh and those who are taking advantage of human traffic, guaranteeing a safe mobility for the people under refugee status, and setting the resources needed in order to provide a worthy social integration during the period of stay for this population in Europe; underlines that such requests for additional funding should not be deployed to the detriment of the EU’s existing external action, including its development policy; calls, therefore, for a significant reinforcement of appropriations under this heading;

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. ~~Expects that concerted action to effectively~~Is concerned that EU policy and action to respond to the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis will intensify over the coming years, and will be accompanied by increased requests for funding under Heading 4 (Global Europe); underlines that such requests for additional funding should not be deployed to the detriment of the EU’s existing external action, including its development policy; calls, therefore, for a significant reinforcement of appropriations under this headingmerely serve to increase funding under Heading 4 (Global Europe);

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Expects that concerted action to effectively respond to the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis ~~will intensify~~, notably the political stabilisation of the European neighbourhood and Sub- Saharan Africa and the tackling of humanitarian and economic causes of migration, will require a substantial reform of the European Neighbourhood and development policy as well as humanitarian assistance over the coming years, and will be accompanied by increased requests for funding under Heading 4 (Global Europe); underlines that such requests for additional funding should not be deployed to the detriment of the EU’s existing external action~~, including its development policy~~; calls, therefore, for a significant reinforcement of appropriations under this heading;

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Expects that concerted action to effectively respond to the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis will intensify over the coming years, and will be accompanied by ~~increased~~better allocation in response to requests for funding under Heading 4 (Global Europe); underlines that such requests for additional funding should not be deployed to the detriment of the EU’s existing external action, including its development policy; ~~calls, therefore, for a significant reinforcement of appropriations under this heading;~~

Amendment 207 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Charles GOERENS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

Amendment 208 #

Charles GOERENS, Gérard DEPREZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)

32a. Recalls the Union's commitments of spending at least 20% of the EU budget on climate-related actions; regrets that currently, the Union does not respect this internal budget commitment since the Commission's own figures show only 12.5% allocated to climate change in the 2015 draft budget; underlines that a revision of the MFF would provide an opportunity to ensure that this target is met in the future; calls upon the Commission and Member States to increase immediately the climate spending in the EU budget from 20 to 30% and to improve the current method of tracking such spending In light of the Paris agreement on global action to combat climate change and to show European leadership in this regard;

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)

32a. Urges the Commission and Member States to ensure that funding mechanisms and budgetary lines reflect all 2030 Agenda commitments agreed to; calls on the EU and its Member States to re-commit without delay to the 0.7% of GNI target for ODA and submit a timeline on how to gradually increase ODA in order to reach the 0.7% by 2030;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that Article 311 TFEU states that the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies; ~~considers, therefore, that should the review arrive at the conclusions that the current ceilings were too low, it would be a primary law requirement to increase the ceil~~understands, however, that due to budgetary constraints of the Member States, the biggest contributors to the EU budget, it is unlikely that ceilings would be increased and calls therefore for strengthening of the flexibility mechanisms and for increased flexibility between headings;

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)

32a. Calls for an increase to the overall budget targeted at reducing child poverty and social exclusion and for a children's budget to be established, which would provide an opportunity to establish child budgeting procedures and support the implementation of the Recommendation 'Investing in Children: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage';

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)

32b. Believes that new political priorities must not be proposed at the expense of the agreed programmes of the current MFF, such as H2020, CEF, COSME, Galileo and Copernicus, and pre-allocated national envelopes, that should be fully implemented; points however to the fact that the budget of ITER is larger than any other R&D investment in the field of energy; deeply regrets that some Member States are compelled to review their funding priorities for research, because of the surge of ITER costs; stresses that the European Parliament has voted to withhold approval of the 2014 accounts of ITER on ground of lack of coherence in the budgetary and financial management;

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 c (new)

32c. Firmly believes that ITER is the largest misallocated EU investment in energy R&D; calls for the investment dedicated to ITER to be halted and reallocated to the development and deployment of sustainable energy solutions that are already available, or available in the foreseeable future to deliver the climate and energy 2020 goals;

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. ~~Considers that, as a matter of priority, it is necessary to act to prevent a new payment crisis occurring towards the end of the current MFF; firmly believes that every effort should be m~~Stresses therefore that the maximalist approach of the revision of the MFF might leade to a~~void building up a backlog of unpaid bills like the one that was observed during the previous period; stresses, however, the significant p~~n upward revision of the MFF up to the own ressoure on payments that can already be anticipated for the second half of the MFF, which is due, inter alia, to the offsetting of the Contingency Margin against the payments ceilings for 2018- 2020, the considerable delay in launching the new programmes under shared management, the payment profile of EFSI, and the additional payments corresponding to the recent increases in commitments in relation to the migration and refugee crisisces ceiling (1,23% of the EU GNI in payments) which would roughly lead to an additional € 120 bn;

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)

33a. Therefore reiterates its views that the Commission proposal, which was ten cut by € 91 bn in payments, was not sufficient to close the gap between the commitments and the payments and to reduce the RAL; therefore considers that the outcome of the revision should logically end up between those two minimum and maximum limits;

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)

33b. Considers that, as a matter of priority, it is necessary to act to prevent a new payment crisis occurring towards the end of the current MFF; firmly believes that every effort should be made to avoid building up a backlog of unpaid bills like the one that was observed during the previous period; stresses, however, the significant pressure on payments that can already be anticipated for the second half of the MFF, which is due, inter alia, to the offsetting of the Contingency Margin against the payments ceilings for 2018- 2020, the considerable delay in launching the new programmes under shared management, the payment profile of EFSI, and the additional payments corresponding to the recent increases in commitments in relation to the migration and refugee crisis;

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Expects, therefore, that new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in payment appropriations, including an upward revision of the annual payments ceiling if necessary; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF; believes that a joint payment plan for 2016-2020 should be developed and agreed between the three institutions; insists that such a new payment plan should be based on sound financial management and provide for a clear strategy to meet all payment needs in all headings until the end of the current MFF, and to avoid a "hidden backlog" caused by an artificial slowdown in the implementation of certain multiannual programmes and other mitigating measures such as the reduction of pre- financing rates;

Amendment 217 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. EReminds that payments appropriations are the orderly consequence of past commitments; expects, therefore, that new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in payment appropriations, ~~including~~and considers that an upward revision of the ~~annual~~ payments ceiling i~~f necessary~~s required; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF; ~~believes that a~~calls for a binding joint payment plan for 2016-2020 ~~should~~to be developed and agreed between the three institutions and enshrined in the Interinstitutional agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary matters and on sound financial management;

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Expects, therefore, that new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will be accompanied by a corresponding ~~increase in payment appropria~~reductions, in~~cluding an upward revision of~~ other a~~nnual payments ceiling if necessary~~reas; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF; believes that a joint payment plan for 2016- 2020 should be developed and agreed between the three institutions;

Amendment 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Expects, therefore, that new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in payment appropriations~~, including an upward revision of the annual payments ceiling if necessary~~; believes that a thorough evaluation of existing commitment appropriations should take place before new commitments are entered into; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review~~/revision~~ of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF; believes that a joint payment plan for 2016-2020 should be developed and agreed between the three institutions;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Recalls~~Deplores the fact that Article 311 TFEU states that the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies; ~~considers, therefore, that~~points out that, as a result of this, should the review arrive at the conclusions that the current ceilings were too low, it would be a primary law requirement to increase the ceilings, which would mean Member States paying more money into the EU budget;

Amendment 220 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Expects, therefore, that new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in payment appropriations, including an upward revision of the annual payments ceiling if necessaryIs of the opinion that the EU should only make commitments which it can deliver and expects, therefore, a more orderly relation between commitments and payments; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF; believes that a joint payment plan for 2016-2020 should be developed and agreed between the three institutions;

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. Expects, therefore, that any new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will ~~be accompanied~~at least be offset by a corresponding increase in payment appropriations, including an upward revision of the annual payments ceiling if necessary; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF; believes that a joint payment plan for 2016-2020 should be developed and agreed between the three institutions;

Amendment 222 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

34. ~~Expects, therefore,~~Deplores the fact that new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in payment appropriations, including an upward revision of the annual payments ceiling if necessary; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an ~~excellent~~ opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF; believes that a joint payment plan for 2016- 2020 should be developed and agreed between the three institutions;

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34

Amendment 224 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Charles GOERENS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Is determined to settle in an unequivocal way the issue of budgeting the payments of the MFF special instruments; recalls the unresolved conflict of interpretation between the Commission and Parliament on the one hand, and the Council on the other, which has been in the forefront of the budgetary negotiations in recent years; notes that the Council's practice of considering the payments of these instruments within the ceiling, make them similar to simple budgetary transfers, which is not their function; reiterates its long-standing position that payment appropriations resulting from the mobilisation of special instruments in commitment appropriations should also be counted over and above the annual MFF payment ceilings;

Amendment 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Is determined to settle in an unequivocal way the issue of budgeting the payments of the MFF special instruments; recalls the unresolved conflict of interpretation between the Commission and Parliament on the one hand, and the Council on the other, which has been in the forefront of the budgetary negotiations in recent years; reiterates its long-standing position that payment appropriations resulting from the mobilisation of special instruments in commitment appropriations should also be counted over and above the annual MFF payment ceilings;

Amendment 226 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Pina PICIERNO, Daniele VIOTTI, Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Is determined to settle in an unequivocal way the issue of budgeting the payments of the MFF special instruments; recalls the unresolved conflict of interpretation between the Commission and Parliament on the one hand, and the Council on the other, which has been in the forefront of the budgetary negotiations in recent years; ~~reiterates its long-standing position that payment appropriations resulting from the mobilisation of special instruments in commitment appropriations should als~~believes that the mid-term review of the MFF provides an opportunity to examine institutional differences and for a resolution to be cfoun~~ted over and above the annual MFF payment ceilings~~d in the interests of budgetary stability and predictability;

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)

35a. Conditionality to ensure fundamental right of the EU Insists that all countries should assume full share of responsibilities in the context of the refugee crisis and the Decision on the dedicated reallocation mechanism; calls on the Commission to introduce a financial bonus and malus mechanism as regards the Member States' fulfilment, or not, of their commitments under measures adopted by the EU; upholds that any financial contribution coming from sanctioning a Member state who does not respect these measures should flow back into the EU budget as an extra revenue;

Amendment 228 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Strongly believes that the automatic transfer to the following years of any surplus ~~resulting from under- implementation of~~from the EU budget or fines imposed on companies for breaching EU competition law wshould cont~~ribute to easing the payment problem; stresses that this surplus should be budgeted as extra revenue in the EU budget, with no~~inue to be accompanied by a corresponding adjustment to~~f the~~ GNIP contributions; ~~calls on the Commission to make appropriate legislative proposals in this regard;~~

Amendment 229 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Strongly believes that ~~the automatic transfer to the following years of~~ any surplus resulting from under- implementation of the EU budget or fines imposed on companies for breaching EU competition law ~~would contribute to easing the payment problem; stresses that this surplus~~ should be budgeted as extra revenue in the EU budget, with no corresponding adjustment of the GNI contributions; considers that this measure would significantly contribute to easing the payment problem of the EU budget; calls on the Commission to make appropriate legislative proposals in this regard;

Amendment 23 #

José Manuel FERNANDES, Marian-Jean MARINESCU, Reimer BÖGE, Lambert van NISTELROOIJ, Maria SPYRAKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that Article 311 TFEU states that the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies; considers, therefore, that ~~should the review arrive at the concl~~the Union should identify and focusi on~~s that the current ceilings were too low, it would be a primary law requirement to increase the ceiling~~ clear priorities and calls for a real commitment by Member States to solve the problem of late payments;

Amendment 230 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)

36a. Is convinced that decommitments across all headings, resulting from total or partial non-implementation of the actions for which they were earmarked, should be made available again in the EU budget and be mobilised by the budgetary authority in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure; strongly believes that, given the current constraints affecting the EU budget and the additional financing needs that the Union is facing, such provision should also apply to decommitments resulting from the implementation of the 2007-2013 programmes, including the closure of cohesion policy programmes; calls on the Commission to make appropriate legislative proposals in this regard;

Amendment 231 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Stresses that the mere frequency and level of mobilisation of the MFF special instruments over the past two years prove beyond any doubt the worth of the flexibility provisions and mechanisms enshrined in the MFF Regulation; ~~stresses the long-standing position of Parliament that flexibility should allow for a maximum use of the global MFF ceilings for commitments and payments;~~

Amendment 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Stresses that the mere frequency and level of mobilisation of the MFF special instruments over the past two years prove beyond any doubt the worth of the flexibility provisions and mechanisms enshrined in the MFF Regulation; stresses the long-standing position of Parliament that flexibility should allow for a maximum use of the global MFF ceilings for commitments and payments; while stresses the importance of ensuring the balance between the principle of long- term priorities and new challenges;

Amendment 233 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Believes, therefore, that the mid- term revision of the MFF Regulation should provide for the lifting of a number of constraints and limitations that were imposed by the Council on the flexibility provisions at the time of adoption of the MFF; considers, in particular, that any restrictions on the carry-over of unused appropriations and margins, either by setting annual ceilings (Global Margin for Payments) or by imposing time-limits (Global Margin for Commitments) should be revoked; the mid-term revision of the MFF Regulation should also provide solution for ambiguities regarding the use of special instruments as the current MFF Regulation does not expressly stipulate if the special instruments may exceed the MFF annual payment ceilings;

Amendment 234 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Believes, therefore, that the mid- term revision of the MFF Regulation should provide for the lifting of a number of constraints and limitations that were imposed by the Council on the flexibility provisions at the time of adoption of the MFF; considers, in particular, that any restrictions on the carry-over of unused appropriations and margins, either by setting annual ceilings (Global Margin for Payments) or by imposing time-limits (Global Margin for Commitments) should be revoked; believes that, given the current budgetary constraints across several headings, no specific scope should be defined as regards the utilisation of resources under the Global Margin for Commitments;

Amendment 235 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Believes, therefore, that the mid- term revision of the MFF Regulation should ~~provide for the lifting of a number of~~evaluate the constraints and limitations that were imposed by the Council on the flexibility provisions at the time of adoption of the MFF~~; considers, in particular, that~~, including any restrictions on the carry-over of unused appropriations and margins~~, either by setting annual ceilings (Global Margin for Payments) or by imposing time-limits (Global Margin for Commitments) should be revoked~~;

Amendment 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Believes, ~~therefore,~~ that the mid- term revision of the MFF Regulation should provide for the lifting of a number of constraints and limitations that were imposed by the Council on the flexibility provisions at the time of adoption of the MFF; considers, in particular, that any restrictions on the carry-over of unused appropriations and margins, either by setting annual ceilings (Global Margin for Payments) or by imposing time-limits (Global Margin for Commitments) should be revokedan opportunity to evaluate the flexibility provisions included in the current MFF, including the constraints and limitations of these provisions; considers that constraints and limitations on flexibility provisions are entirely consistent with the principles of budgetary discipline and sound financial management, ensuring that the EU budget lives within its means;

Amendment 237 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Stresses, in particular, the mobilisation of the full amount of the Flexibility Instrument in 2016; notes that this instrument allows for financing clearly identified expenditure that cannot be financed within the ceiling of one or more headings and is not linked to a specific EU policy; considers, therefore, that it provides genuine flexibility in the EU budget, especially in the event of a major crisis; ~~calls, accordingly, for a substantial inc~~streasse in its financial envelope up to an annual allocation of EUR 2 billion, pointing out that this amount is budgeted only in the event of a decision of the budgetary authority for mobilisation of this instrument; recalls that the Flexibility Instrument is not linked to a special policy field and can be mobilised for any purpose that is deemed necessarys, however, that this does not obviate the need for significant redistribution of the financial envelope;

Amendment 238 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Stresses, in particular, the mobilisation of the full amount of the Flexibility Instrument in 2016; notes that this instrument allows for financing clearly identified expenditure that cannot be financed within the ceiling of one or more headings and is not linked to a specific EU policy; considers, therefore, that it provides genuine flexibility in the EU budget, especially in the event of a major crisis; recalls~~, accordingly, for a substantial increase in its financial envelope up to an annual allocation of EUR 2 billion, pointing out~~ that the Flexibility Instrument is not linked to a special policy field and can be mobilised for any purpose that this amount is budgeted only in the event of a decision of the budgetary authority for mobilisation of this instrument; recalls that the Flexibility Instrument is not linked to a special policy field and candeemed necessary; highlights both an increase in the annual appropriations available and an increased carry-over possibility of unused appropriations from the previous MFF; notes that over EUR 3.7 billion is available in the current MFF, of which EUR 1.53 billion has been mobilised ~~for any purpose that is deemed necess~~thus fary;

Amendment 239 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Points to the role of the Emergency Aid Reserve in providing a rapid response to specific aid requirements for third countries for unforeseen events, and stresses its particular importance in the current context; ~~calls for a substantial increase in its financial envelope up to an annual allocation of EUR 1 bill~~highlights an increase in the annual appropriations available from the previous MFF, with the additional possibility of carry-over of unused appropriations;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that Article 311 TFEU states that the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies; considers, therefore, that should the review arrive at the conclusions that the current ceilings were too low, it would be a primary law requirement to increase the ceilings, especially the payment ceiling;

Amendment 240 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

40. Points to the role of the Emergency Aid Reserve in providing a rapid response to specific aid requirements for third countries for unforeseen events, and stresses its particular importance in the current context; calls for a substantial ~~increase in~~redistribution of its financial envelope ~~up to an annual allocation of EUR 1 billion~~in order to meet those needs;

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

41. Notes the different rules in force as regards the time-span for carrying over unspent appropriations for the MFF special instruments, namely the Flexibility Instrument, the Emergency Aid Reserve, the EU Solidarity Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund; ~~calls for the harmonisation of these rules so as to enable a general N+3 rule to apply to these instruments;~~

Amendment 242 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Attaches particular importance to the Contingency Margin, as a last-resort instrument for reacting to unforeseen circumstances; stresses that, according to the Commission, this is the only special instrument that can be mobilised only for payment appropriations and thus to prevent a payment crisis in the EU budget as in 2014; deplores the fact that, contrary to the previous period, a compulsory offsetting of the appropriations is stipulated in the MFF Regulation; is of the firm opinion that this requirement creates an unsustainable situation with regard to the MFF ceilings of the last years of the period; stresses that the Contingency Margin is in any event a last-resort instrument, whose mobilisation is jointly agreed by the two arms of the budgetary authority; calls, therefore, for the rule of compulsory offsetting to be lifted immediately with retroactive effect;

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Attaches particular importance to the Contingency Margin, as a last-resort instrument for reacting to unforeseen circumstances; stresses that, according to the Commission, this is the only special instrument that can be mobilised only for payment appropriations and thus to prevent a payment crisis in the EU budget as in 2014; ~~deplor~~recognises the fact that, contrary to the previous period, a compulsory offsetting of the appropriations is stipulated in the MFF Regulation; is of the firm opinion that this requirement creates an unsustainable situation with regard to the MFF ceilings of the last years of the period; stresses that the Contingency Margin is in any event a last-resort instrument, whose mobilisation is jointly agreed by the two arms of the budgetary authority; calls, therefore, for the rule of compulsory offsetting to be lifted immediately with retroactive effectinstils a sense of budgetary discipline;

Amendment 244 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Attaches particular importance to the Contingency Margin, as a last-resort instrument for reacting to unforeseen circumstances; stresses that, according to the Commission, this is the only special instrument that can be mobilised only for payment appropriations and thus to prevent a payment crisis in the EU budget as in 2014; ~~deplor~~notes the fact that, contrary to the previous period, a compulsory offsetting of the appropriations is stipulated in the MFF Regulation; is of the firm opinion that this requirement creates an unsustainable situation with regard to the MFF ceilings of the last years of the period; stresses that the Contingency Margin is in any event a last-resort instrument, whose mobilisation is jointly agreed by the two arms of the budgetary authority; calls, therefore, for the rule of compulsory offsetting to be lifted immediately with retroactive effectis essential in order to prevent a waste of taxpayers' money;

Amendment 245 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Attaches particular importance to the Contingency Margin, as a last-resort instrument for reacting to unforeseen circumstances; stresses that, according to the Commission, this is the only special instrument that can be mobilised only for payment appropriations and thus to prevent a payment crisis in the EU budget as in 2014; deplores the fact that, contrary to the previous period, a compulsory offsetting of the appropriations is stipulated in the MFF Regulation; is of the firm opinion that this requirement creates an unsustainable situation with regard to the MFF ceilings of the last years of the period; stresses that the Contingency Margin is in any event a last- resort instrument, whose mobilisation is jointly agreed by the two arms of the budgetary authority; calls, therefore, for the rule of compulsory offsetting to be lifted immediately with retroactive effect, as well as for an upward revision of its maximum annual amount to 0.05% of EU GNI;

Amendment 246 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Attaches particular importance to the Contingency Margin, as a last-resort instrument for reacting to unforeseen circumstances; stresses that, according to the Commission, this is the only special instrument that can be mobilised only for payment appropriations and thus to prevent a payment crisis in the EU budget as in 2014; deplores the fact that, contrary to the previous period, a compulsory offsetting of the appropriations is stipulated in the MFF Regulation; is of the firm opinion that this requirement creates an unsustainable situation w~~ith regard to the~~hich will in fact lower the annual MFF ceilings ofin the last years of the period and thus create additional pressure on the EU Budget; stresses that the Contingency Margin is in any event a last-resort instrument, whose mobilisation is jointly agreed by the two arms of the budgetary authority; calls, therefore, for the rule of compulsory offsetting to be lifted immediately with retroactive effect;

Amendment 247 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)

42a. Believes that the Commission should consider creating a mechanism based on the principle of Article 17(4) of the MFF Regulation; suggests that in order to increase flexibility, funding could be re-allocated between headings by offsetting any increase of the ceiling in one heading by an equivalent decrease in the ceiling of another heading, on agreement from both arms of the budgetary authority; underlines that this tool should be limited to a relatively small percentage of the headings in question order to achieve budgetary stability;

Amendment 248 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Charles GOERENS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)

42a. Stresses that the rigid structure of the Union budget deprives the budgetary authority of the possibility of reacting adequately to changing circumstances; calls, therefore, for allowing the transfer of available margins between headings at qualified majority in Council, with the aim of fully exploiting the MFF ceilings;

Amendment 249 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 14 a (new)

Gender Mainstreaming

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses the key role that the EU budget must play in achieving the jointly agreed EU 2020 Strategy objectives and the EU's international commitments; strongly believes that EU funding, if well devised, can actually trigger and catalyse actions having clear Union added value which Member States are unable to carry out on their own, as well as creating synergies and complementarities with Member States' activities by helping them focus on key future-oriented investment;

Amendment 250 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Charles GOERENS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 b (new)

42b. Welcomes the creation of an emergency support instrument within the European Union and takes note of the solution proposed by the Commission as a matter of urgency, while repeating its strong concerns as regards its exclusion from the decision-making process as well as the foreseen termination of this instrument by the end of 2018; Considers that a more sustainable legal and budgetary framework should be envisaged in order to allow for emergency aid within the Union to be mobilised in the future, meant at responding to crisis and unforeseen situations, should by its very nature be covered by special instruments and be counted outside the MFF; calls, consequently, for this instrument to be perpetuated in the form of a new MFF flexibility mechanism;

Amendment 251 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)

42a. Welcomes the MFF mid-term review as an opportunity to make significant progress in a more effective integration of the gender mainstreaming in the MFF and in the implementation and monitoring of the Joint Declaration attached to the MFF on this regard;

Amendment 252 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 b (new)

42b. Underlines that in addition to the ability to react flexibly to changing circumstances without prejudice to the agreed programming, there is also a necessity for the Union to be able to react quickly to developing crises; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a permanent EU crisis reserve within the Union budget over and above the MFF ceilings and below GNI limit of 1.23%, in order to avoid ad hoc solutions like the setting-up of trust funds; this reserve would enable the EU to deal with unforeseen circumstances or to cope with substantial and lasting changes in political priorities;

Amendment 253 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15

~~Simplification~~ Greening the EU budget 42a. Strongly believes that the post electoral revision of the MFF should not be limited to the figures both in commitments and payments but also in a qualitative reform of the MFF in order to make it compatible with the EU's commitments such as the EU-2020 strategy, the COP21, including the targets of the EU on GHG emissions reduction, and the post MDG; therefore calls on the Commission and the Member states to use all legislative and non-legislative tools to improve the added value of the EU budget in line with the ECA's statement; Moreover calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that the EU budget does not contain subsidies that are potentially harmful for the climate, the health and the environment, including those which lock in fossil fuel infrastructure; 42b. Calls on the Commission and Member States to take further efforts to mainstream climate protection, to integrate horizontal principles of sustainable development and the Energy Union priorities of putting energy efficiency first and becoming world number one in prosumer led renewables throughout all EU budget plans and programmes In order to improve the quality of the EU budget; 42c. Calls on the Commission to introduce an effective method of tracking biodiversity spending in the Union budget and to ensure Union financial resources do not contain subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity; 42d. Calls for the Commission to immediately start a Fitness Check of the CAP, as the recipient of nearly 40% of the EU spending which is supposed to be delivering on sustainable management of natural resources objectives, on the basis of the five fitness check questions: EU value added, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and policy coherence; 42e. Notes that before the last CAP reform, it was argued that CAP funding should continue, on the condition that it reformed to respond to citizens' demands and the realities of a new century; although the subsequent reform only addressed to a limited extent the major sustainability challenges of transitioning to food production systems that are resilient to volatility of markets and climate.

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15

Budgeting for Results & Simplification

Amendment 255 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15 a (new)

Gender-responsive budgeting 42c. Recognises that gender equality is enshrined in the EU Treaty and should be included in all EU policies to deliver equality in practice; stresses that gender equality must become a policy objective in all budget titles and similarly, gender mainstreaming must be recognised as an implementation method in all budget titles; stresses that therefore, gender budgeting must become an integral part of the budgetary procedure at all its stages, and notes that progress on this front has been marginal; welcomes the MFF mid-term review as an opportunity to make significant progress, in light of the 'Budget for Results' agenda; expects the Commission, therefore, to present further measurable objectives in order to truly embed gender perspectives in the EU budget for the remainder of this programming period; 42d. Recalls the Parliament's crucial scrutiny role on gender-responsive budgeting; calls for all committees to take gender equality into consideration in the design and revision of budgets and of the financial framework in order to increase accountability and transparency regarding this Institution's commitment to gender equality; urges in this regard to systematically include specific gender indicators and gender-disaggregated data in the monitoring and evaluation of all actions that are funded by the EU budget. 42e. Stresses that the MFF should reflect the Commission's goal to achieve 40% of female senior and middle management in the Commission as set out in Jean-Claude Juncker's mission letter to Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva.

Amendment 256 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15 b (new)

Simplification

Amendment 257 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Believes that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, and expects the Commission to supply an analysis identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system; invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the best possible use of scarce financial resources; but supports a future system in which the allocation and amount of the national envelopes should be based on the principles of performance based budgeting, also within the country specific recommendations and the control systems should be risk based: in which higher risks imply more controls and lower risks, less controls;

Amendment 258 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Believes that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, as well as the operation of the MFF flexibility provisions and special instruments, and expects the Commission to supply an analysis identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system; pays particular attention to the assessment of the impact on the implementation process of the new elements introduces in the current programming period, such as ex- ante conditionalities under cohesion policy; invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the best possible use of scarce financial resources;

Amendment 259 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Louis MICHEL, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Believes that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment of the functioning ~~of the EU policies and programmes concerned, and~~, impact, and where appropriate the tangible results, of the EU policies and programmes concerned, suggests the Commission to apply result- oriented framework in analysing how the EU funds are spent, expects the Commission to supply an analysis identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system; and invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve and rationalize the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the ~~bes~~most efficient possible use of scarce financial resources;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that Article 17 of the MFF Regulation provides for the possibility of revising the MFF in the event of unforeseen circumstances; points to the magnitude of the crises that have affected the Union since the adoption of the current MFF in 2013;

Amendment 260 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Brando BENIFEI, Terry REINTKE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Believes that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, and expects the Commission to supply an analysis identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system; invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address ~~the possible~~inefficiencies, deficiencies and to improve the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the best possible use of scarce financial resources; believes that Budget for Results agenda holds potential and in light of the huge pressure the EU budget is under, it could also boost the faith of citizens in EU expenditure;

Amendment 261 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Believes that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, and expects the Commission to supply an analysis involving relevant stakeholders such as civil society in a structured dialogue, identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system; invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the best possible use of scarce financial resources;

Amendment 262 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

Amendment 263 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Believes that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment and evaluation of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, and expects the Commission to supply an analysis identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system; invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the best possible use of scarce financial resources;

Amendment 264 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Believes that the ~~mid-term review/~~post electoral revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, and expects the Commission to supply an analysis identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system; invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the best possible use of scarce financial resources;

Amendment 265 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Expects targeted actions aimed at optimising and simplifying the rules of procedure applicable to the use of EU programs, required in order to decrease considerably the administrative burden for beneficiaries; stresses furthermore, the necessity for a strict application and interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity, in order to achieve better efficiency of EU intervention and transition from a system of mistrust of EU institutions to a system of confidence and transparency for Member States and their citizens;

Amendment 266 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 – subparagraph 1 (new)

calls on the European Commission and Member States to decide in which cases programmes can be funded and implemented more effectively at European level and in which cases measures at national level are more reasonable and more in line with the subsidiarity principle;

Amendment 267 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)

43a. Stresses that the Commission´s proposal to improve European spending via the so called performance based budgeting remains unclear; is convinced that the EU must strive to best use taxpayer's money, but that it must not take a form of a technocratic exercise aiming at reducing budgetary support in certain policy areas; recalls that a poor evaluation of the functioning of a programme should primarily lead to revision of its legal basis and its functioning in a Member state and not to the end of it financing; repeats that by no means should performance based budgeting lead to a budget reduction or transfer of fund; underlines that better spending cannot solve the main problem the EU is faced with- allocating scarce resources while the needs are growing;

Amendment 268 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)

43a. Encourages the Commission to come up with a future system in which the allocation and amount of the national envelopes will be subject to performance based budgeting and country specific recommendations within the EU semester;

Amendment 269 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)

43a. Believes that the Budget for Results agenda should be a vehicle for the boosting performance of underperforming programmes and that political priorities should not be abandoned due to technical or programming failures;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that the scope of this report is to analyse the purely budgetary aspects of the functioning of the MFF and that it will not touch on the legal bases of sectoral legislation; notes, however, that many EU policies and programmes foresee their own review/revision requirements, mainly scheduled for 2017 and, furthermore, that the possibility exists for the Commission to conduct comprehensive Fitness checks of EU policies;

Amendment 270 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 b (new)

43b. Reminds the Commission that as one arm of the budgetary authority the European Parliament must be included in budgetary decision making and must be included in developing the Commissions Budget for Results strategy;

Amendment 271 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 c (new)

43c. Believes that new priorities often correspond with very real need and require budgetary support; the Parliament would be more able to meet these needs under existing budgetary ceilings if more performance information and greater flexibility were available;

Amendment 272 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 d (new)

43d. The lack of adequate flexibility and accurate information has led to across the board cuts in some instances and the cutting of high demand, high performance programmes such as Horizon 2020; in this regard the current system is damaging to the EU's aims and reputation;

Amendment 273 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 e (new)

43e. Believes that many social challenges, such as achieving gender equality, would be better addressed by improved setting of targets and measurement of results across budget lines and headings;

Amendment 274 #

Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. ~~Acknowledg~~Deplores the increased role of financial instruments in the Union budget as a complementary form of funding as compared to subsidies and grants; recognises the potential of these instruments in terms of increasing the financial, and therefore the political, impact of the Union budgetnd acknowledges that the budget must go beyond a sum of subsidies and grants, and claims for a new strategy fostering public investment in well selected sectors at European level. The financial instruments are failing in order to attract enough private capital insofar the investors are searching higher profit rates than the low interest provided; furthermore, these funds persist in concentrating investments in activities that would be likewise carried out; and, finally, integrate particular interests and private actors into public activities which detract a surplus and determine functioning conditions which prevent undertaking projects that were looking fully for the general interest; and they issue bonds backed by public guarantees, putting the risk charge into the public contributions; underlines, however, that a shift from traditional financing to more innovative instruments is not advisable in all policy areas, as not all policies are entirely market-driven; underlines that increasing use of financial instruments should not lead to a reduction in the Union budget; recalls Parliament’s repeated calls for greater transparency and democratic scrutiny regarding the implementation of financial instruments supported by the Union budget;

Amendment 275 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Acknowledges the increased role of financial instruments in the Union budget as a complementary form of funding as compared to subsidies and grants; recognises the potential of these instruments in terms of increasing the financial, and therefore the political, impact of the Union budget; underlines, however, that a shift from traditional financing to more innovative instruments is not advisable in all policy areas, as not all policies are entirely market-driven; highlights that financial instruments provide an alternative and complementary way of funding and should not be used for the projects which can only benefit from the use of grant; underlines that increasing use of financial instruments should not lead to a reduction in the Union budget; recalls Parliament’'s repeated calls for greater transparency and democratic scrutiny regarding the implementation of financial instruments supported by the Union budget; stresses that when assessing a financial instrument, the leverage dimension cannot be the only evaluation criteria; in this context reminds of the importance of the "additionality" criteria and the ability to contribute fulfilment of the EU's political objectives;

Amendment 276 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Acknowledges the increased role of financial instruments in the Union budget as a complementary form of funding as compared to subsidies and grants; ~~recognises the potential of these instruments in terms of increasing~~Notes however the lack of evidence on the outcomes and results achieved by financial instruments and the loose link of those financial, and therefore the political, impact of the Union budget; underlines, however, that a shift from traditional financing to more innovative instruments is not advisable in all policy areas, as not all policies are entirely market-driven; underline instruments to overarching objectives and priorities of the EU; Considers necessary to further strengthening the accountability, transparency and result-orientation of financial instruments; Is opposed to a shift from traditional financing to more innovative instruments especially in both the Cohesion policy and research policy which should remain the main EU's EU2020-compatible investment capacity ; highlights that any increasing use of financial instruments should not lead to a reduction in the Union budget; recalls Parliament’'s repeated calls for greater transparency and democratic scrutiny regarding the implementation of financial instruments supported by the Union budget;

Amendment 277 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Acknowledges the increased role of financial instruments in the Union budget as a complementary form of funding as compared to subsidies and grants; recognises the potential of these instruments in terms of increasing the financial, and therefore the political, impact of the Union budget; underlines, however, that a shift from traditional financing to more innovative instruments is not advisable in all policy areas, as not all policies are entirely market-driven; stimulates that where possible a new balance between grants and loans should be achieved, in order to stimulate the multiplier effect on investments; underlines that increasing use of financial instruments should not lead to a reduction in the Union budget; recalls Parliament’s repeated calls for greater transparency and democratic scrutiny regarding the implementation of financial instruments supported by the Union budget;

Amendment 278 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Brando BENIFEI, Terry REINTKE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

Amendment 279 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Council to apply the qualified-majority rule provided for by Article 312(2) TFEU for revision of the MFF;

Amendment 280 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)

44a. Calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth analysis of the use of the financial instruments since the beginning of the current programming period in the course of the mid-term review/revision; encourages the Commission to identify all EU policy areas where grants could be combined with financial instruments; is of the firm opinion that the possibility of a combination of various EU resources under harmonised management rules would help optimizing the synergies between available sources of financing at EU level;

Amendment 281 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)

44a. Follows the debate about a new Eurozone budgetary capacity (EBC) and considers it must be included in the MFF revision, whether it could be funded by regular incomes and/or by EU debt issuance; calls for an integrated management and parliamentary control for the EU budget, the ESM and the EBC;

Amendment 282 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)

44a. Supports the use of the financial instruments, where it can contribute to a more efficient use of resources, however, stresses the importance of maintaining the EU grant elements, which are particularly important to less developed regions;

Amendment 283 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 b (new)

44b. Recalls to the Commission that grants and loans do not finance the same type of activities and that those different instruments support different types of beneficiaries and projects; stresses the need of continuing with grants for financing fundamental and collaborative research, in particular research performed by the academia; alerts against the tendency in the Commission of transforming grants into loans or equity, in particular when university research budgets are suffering cuts in many Member States; believes that this tendency works towards the losing of the research basis, which in turn significantly reduces the innovation potential of the European Union in the future;

Amendment 284 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Recalls that according to Article 25 of the MFF regulation, the Commission shall present a proposal for a new multiannual financial framework before 1 January 2018; stresses, therefore, that a number of key elements for the next MFF should already be debated in the framework of the upcoming review/revision to set the stage for the negotiations and to allow for good progress and a timely conclusion;

Amendment 285 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)

45a. Considers that the key priority to be addressed should be the future needs of the Union; suggests that the Union carefully consider the merits of every cent spent and prioritise spending on the most value generating areas or areas with proven EU added value;

Amendment 286 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Considers that ~~the key prioriti~~further issues to be addressed must include adjustments to the duration of the MFF, ~~a thorough reform of the own resources system,~~ a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, and more budgetary flexibility; ~~is furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy and comply with the provisions of the Treaty;~~

Amendment 287 #

Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Considers that the key priorities to be addressed must include adjustments to the duration of the MFF, a thorough reform of the own resources system, a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, and more budgetary flexibility; is furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy and comply with the provisions of the Treaty, specifically ensuring that the Parliament's role in adopting the multiannual financial framework is fully respected and that the Council doesn't act without Parliament's consent;

Amendment 288 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Considers that the key priorities to be addressed must include adjustments to the duration of the MFF, a thorough reform of the own resources system, a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, ~~and~~ more budgetary flexibility and a debate on the own resources ceilings which has not been modified for the last two decades ; is furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy and comply with the provisions of the Treaty;

Amendment 289 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Considers that the key priorities to be addressed must include adjustments to the duration of the MFF, a thorough reform of the own resources system, a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, a thorough revision of programs like Horizon 2020 and others, and more budgetary flexibility; is furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy and comply with the provisions of the Treaty;

Amendment 29 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Charles GOERENS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which ~~were~~could not be anticipated at the time of the MFF’'s adoption; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’'s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits; in these conditions, the Budget of the European Union will be able neither to further address additional financial needs and new political priorities, nor to avoid the resurgence of a payment crisis;

Amendment 290 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Considers that the key priorities to be addressed must include adjustments to the duration of the MFF, ~~a thorough reform of the own resources system,~~ a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, and more budgetary flexibility; is furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy and comply with the provisions of the Treaty;

Amendment 291 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Considers that the key priorities to be addressed must include ~~adjustments to the duration of the MFF, a thorough~~ reform of the own resources system, a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, and more budgetary flexibility; is furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy and comply with the provisions of the Treaty;

Amendment 292 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)

47a. Reminds that, at a time of scarcity of resources and erosion of the European citizens' confidence and belief in the EU project, it is important to show the added- value of EU budget delivery; believes that bringing the performance culture at the heart of the EU budget should constitute the roadmap of the inter-institutional working group on performance-based budgeting, which conclusions should be taken into account by the Commission in its legislative proposal for the post 2020 MFF, at the latest;

Amendment 293 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Louis MICHEL, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 b (new)

47b. Emphasizes that, where appropriate and in particular in innovation-focused programmes, performance and output-related assessment should become a key principle;

Amendment 294 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. Underlines that an essential element of the difficulties in agreeing on a multiannual financial framework between Member States is their primary focus on net balances; reiterates its position that the Union budget is not a simple zero-sum game but, rather, an important trigger for convergence and the expression of common policies which create collective added value; urges the Member States, therefore, to change their perception of and approach to the Union budget, that is to establish the size of the budget based on a thorough assessment of the financial needs deriving from the Union's legal obligations, its political objectives set out in its programmes and policies as well as international commitments, in order to ensure that the outcome is not another stalemate that will only further disconnect the Union from its citizens;

Amendment 295 #

Alain LAMASSOURE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. Underlines that an essential element of the difficulties in agreeing on a multiannual financial framework between Member States is their primary focus on net balances; reiterates its position that the Union budget is not a simple zero-sum game but, rather, the expression of common policies which create collective added value; urges the Member States, therefore, to change their perception of and approach to the Union budget in order to ensure that the outcome is not another stalemate that will only further disconnect the Union from its citizens; calls accordingly on the Commission to produce a study on the savings achieved at national level by Member States as a result of policy action funded at EU level;

Amendment 296 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. Underlines that an essential element of the difficulties in agreeing on a multiannual financial framework between Member States is their primary focus on net balances; reiterates its position that the Union budget ~~is not~~ought not to be a simple zero-sum game but, rather, the expression of common policies which could create collective added value; urges the Member States, therefore, to change their ~~perception of and~~ approach to the Union budget, in ~~order to ensure that the outcome is not another stalemate that will only further disconnect the Union from its citizen~~dicating clearly the priorities they wish to support, committing themselves fully and consistently to the development and implementation thereof, and taking care to avoid any dangerous drift towards payment arrears;

Amendment 297 #

José Manuel FERNANDES, Alain LAMASSOURE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. Underlines that an essential element of the difficulties in agreeing on a multiannual financial framework between Member States is the~~ir primary~~ focus on net balances, which is understandable given that national contributions from the Member States constitutes the vast majority of the EU's budget; reiterates its position that the Union budget is not a simple zero-sum game but, rather, the expression of common policies which can create collective added value; urges the Member States, therefore, to change their perception of and approach to the Union budget in order to ensure that the outcome is not another stalemate that will only further disconnect the Union from its citizensbelieves it is incumbent on all participants in future MFF negotiations to act on the basis of sound financial management and budgetary discipline;

Amendment 298 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)

48a. Points to the political imperative of setting up a decision-making procedure that guarantees the availability of the necessary financial resources, either at EU or national level, in order to ensure the full implementation of the political decisions taken by the European Council;

Amendment 299 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)

48a. Calls on the Commission to draw conclusions on the limitations of the current allocation key for determining support from cohesion policy funds based on GDP per capita only;

Amendment 3 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Brando BENIFEI, Terry REINTKE

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the current MFF, which was agreed in 2013, reflects the priorities of the Union at the time of adoption; whereas the EU will continue to face in the coming years challenges which were not foreseen when the MFF was approved; whereas EU's financing priorities have multiplied, while the MFF has remained unchanged;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, threatening social inclusion and cohesion, rising inequalities, populism and extremism challenging our democratic pluralistic societies and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits;

Amendment 300 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Recalls that, according to recital 3 of the MFF Regulation, the three institutions have agreed to jointly examine the issue of the most suitable duration in the context of the review/revision; reiterates its position that the duration of the MFF should be aligned with the political cycle of both Parliament and the Commission, thus making the European elections a forum for debate on future spending priorities;deleted

Amendment 301 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

Amendment 302 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

50. Underlines, however, that, especially for programmes under shared management in the field of cohesion policy and rural development, but also for other EU programmes, longer-term predictability is essential, given the time it takes to agree on sectoral legislation and operational programmes at national and regional level;

Amendment 303 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. Believes that, given the rapidly changing political environment and with a view to ensuring greater flexibility, some elements of the MFF should be agreed for five years while others, notably those related to programmes requiring longer- term programming and/or policies foreseeing complex procedures for the establishment of implementation systems, should be agreed for a period of 5+5 years with compulsory mid-term revision;deleted

Amendment 304 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

Amendment 305 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. Believes that, given the rapidly changing political environment and with a view to ensuring greater flexibility~~, some elements of~~ the MFF should be agreed for five years while others, notably those related to programmes requiring longer- term programming and/or policies foreseeing complex procedures for the establishment of implementation systems, should be agreed for a period of 5+5 years with compulsory mid-term revision different legal bases should be set without any expiration dates, like the CAP regulations; is therefore of the opinion that the MFF negotiations should mainly focus on the financial envelopes of the different EU funds and should not be necessarily linked to a revision of all legal basis; is of the opinion that such disconnection between the MFF negotiation and the revision of the legal basis could faster and ease the budgetary negotiations while keeping the needed flexibility to adapt and/or revise the legal bases when needed;

Amendment 306 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

Amendment 307 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Charles GOERENS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. BInsists on the need to ensure the synchronisation with the EU institutional cycle, its democratic responsibility, accountability and popular legitimacy and believes that, also given the rapidly changing political environment and with a view to ensuring greater flexibility, ~~some elements of~~ the MFF should be agreed for five years while others, notably those related to programmes requiring longer- term programming and/or policies foreseeing complex procedures for the establishment of implementation systems, should be agreed for a period of 5+5 years with compulsory mid-term revisionand match with the duration of the European Parliament legislature;

Amendment 308 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Underlines the need for a fully- fledged reform of the own resources system, with simplicity, fairness and transparency as guiding principles; is therefore expecting an ambitious final report from the High Level Group on Own Resources by the end of 2016, as well as an equally ambitious legislative package on own resources as of 2021 from thIs opposed to a reform of the own resources system and maintains that taxation should remain an exclusive Member State Ccom~~mission by the end of 2017~~petence;

Amendment 309 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Underlines the need for a fully- fledged reform of the own resources system, with simplicity, fairness ~~and~~, transparency and main focus on expenditures as guiding principles; is therefore expecting an ambitious final report from the High Level Group on Own Resources by the end of 2016, as well as an equally ambitious legislative package on own resources as of 2021 from the Commission by the end of 2017; stresses that the own resources system should be based on Member States' welfare, ensuring fair burden-sharing also in the future;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits; considers that an upward revision of MFF ceilings is warranted by the fact that flexibility instruments and margins have been fully utilised;

Amendment 310 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Underlines the need for a fully- fledged reform of the own resources system, with simplicity, fairness and transparency as guiding principles; is therefore expecting an ambitious final report from the High Level Group on Own Resources by the end of 2016, as well as an equally ambitious legislative package on own resources as of 2021 from the Commission by the end of 2017; which should pave the way toward a rebate-free, genuine and fair own resource system wholly funded by own resources;

Amendment 311 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. ~~Underlines the need for a fully- fledged reform of the o~~Notes that the High Level Group on Own rResources ~~system, with simplicity, fairness and transparency as guiding principles; is therefore expect~~is due to report by the end of 2016; remains open to proposals on own resources; nevertheless, believes that a convincing can ~~ambitious final report from the High Level Group on O~~didate for possible new own Rresources ~~by the end of 2016, as well as an equally ambitious legislative package on own resources as of 2021 from the Commission by the end of 2017~~has yet to be formalised; in addition, is strongly opposed to any new measure that would increase the overall tax burden on EU citizens or disproportionately affect a minority of Member States;

Amendment 312 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Underlines the need ~~for a fully- fledged~~to examine the possibility of a reform of the own resources system, with simplicity, fairness and transparency as guiding principles; is therefore expecting a~~n ambitious~~ final report from the High Level Group on Own Resources by the end of 2016, as well as a~~n equally ambitious~~ legislative package on own resources as of 2021 from the Commission by the end of 2017;

Amendment 313 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

53. Stresses the need to reduce the share of the GNI contributions to the Union budget in order to exit the ‘juste retour’ approach of Member States; underlines that this would reduce the burden on national treasuries and thus make the resources concerned available for Member States’ national budgets; recalls that the current VAT own resource is over-complex and is in essence a second GNI contribution, and therefore calls for this own resource either to be substantially reformed or to be scrapped altogether; considers it necessary, however, to keep the GNI contributions as an element of the budget, given the need for its function as a balancing contribution;deleted

Amendment 314 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

53. Stresses the need to reduce the share of the GNI contributions to the Union budget in order to exit the ‘'juste retour’' approach of Member States; underlines that this would reduce the burden on national treasuries and thus make the resources concerned available for Member States’' national budgets; recalls that the current VAT own resource is over-complex and is in essence a second GNI contribution, and therefore calls for this own resource either to be substantially reformed or to be scrapped altogether; ~~considers it necessary, however, to keep the GNI contributions as an element of the budget, given the need for its function as a balancing contribution;~~

Amendment 315 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

Amendment 316 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

53. Stresses the need to reduce ~~the share of the~~Member States' GNI contributions to the Union budget ~~in order to exit the ‘juste retour’ approach of Member States~~; underlines that this would reduce the burden on national treasuries and thus make the resources concerned available for Member States’ national budgets; recalls that the current VAT own resource is over- complex and is in essence a second GNI contribution, and therefore calls for this own resource either to be substantially reformed or to be scrapped altogether; considers it necessary, however, to keep the GNI contributions as an element of the budget, given the need for its function as a balancing contribution;

Amendment 317 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

Amendment 318 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

Amendment 319 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

54. Calls for the introduction of one or several new own resources, ideally with a clear link to European policies that create added value; notes that a large number of possible new own resources have already been discussed by the High Level Group, and eagerly awaits its recommendations; reminds its position set out on March 13 2013 that it supports the Commission's legislative proposals on the own-resources package, and that revenues from the Financial Transaction Tax should be allocated at least partly to the EU budget as a genuine own resource; calls on the HLGOR to work on the possibility to introduce an EU-wide Carbon tax as a potential EU Own resources as of 2021 as well as an EU corporate tax when implementing a full CCCTB (Common Consolidate Corporate Tax base);

Amendment 32 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Isabelle THOMAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the continuous decline of European and global biodiversity, the internationally agreed urgency for action on climate change, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits;

Amendment 320 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

54. Calls for the introduction of one or several new own resources, ideally with a clear link to European policies that create added value; notes that a large number of possible new own resources have already been discussed by the High Level Group, and ~~eagerly awaits it~~in the European Parliament, such as a reformed VAT, a Financial Transaction Tax, bank levies and ECB seigniorage, a reformed EU Emissions Trading System and carbon taxation, transport taxation, an EU-wide corporate taxation, electricity or digital taxation; eagerly awaits the High Level Group's recommendations;

Amendment 321 #

Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Younous OMARJEE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

54. Calls for the introduction of one or several new own resources, ideally with a clear link to European policies that create added value, through progressive tax figures, reinforcing the fiscal capacity to tackle the financial, economic and environmental crisis along cycles; notes that a large number of possible new own resources have already been discussed by the High Level Group, and eagerly awaits its recommendations;

Amendment 322 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

54. Calls for the possible introduction of one or several new own resources~~, ideally with~~ to indicate a clear link to European policies that create added value; ~~notes that a large number of possible new own resources have already been discussed by the High Level Group, and eagerly awaits its recommendations;~~

Amendment 323 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54

54. Calls for the phasing-out of all forms of rebates and for the introduction of one or several new own resources, ideally with a clear link to European policies ~~that create added value~~; notes that a large number of possible new own resources have already been discussed by the High Level Group, and eagerly awaits its recommendations;

Amendment 324 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Isabelle THOMAS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)

54a. Stresses furthermore that a new revenue system should reflect the Union's political priorities such as combating cross border tax fraud, tax evasion and fiscal competition, reducing the risk of financial speculation, and addressing environmental issues; calls for the continuation of tax harmonisation with the aim of establishing a minimum EU- wide corporate taxation;

Amendment 325 #

Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)

54a. Calls for the immediate establishment of binding common accounting rules for the MS contributions to the EU own resources, stating clearly its EU nature;

Amendment 326 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)

54a. Underlines that achieving European sustainable mobility requires appropriate investments, especially to ensure consistent maintenance and expansion of public transport infrastructure; calls therefore on the establishment of an investment fund specifically dedicated to public transport and public transport infrastructure projects; considers that corresponding expenses could be compensated by creating a European "Climate Solidarity Tax", based on CO2 emissions of every transport modes, which could help tackling climate change and promoting sustainable green transports;

Amendment 327 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. Underlines the importance of the principle of the unity of the budget, and recalls that according to Article 310(1) TFEU all items of revenue and expenditure of the Union shall be shown in the budget; is concerned about the recent shift from the Community method to intergovernmental decision-making as observed, since 2014, in the setting-up of the Bêkou Trust Fund for the Central African Republic, the Madad Regional Trust Fund in response to the Syrian crisis, and the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, as well as of the Refugee Facility for Turkey; stresses that this form of financing entails a reallocation of funds under existing multiannual financial programmes negotiated and agreed among the three institutions; highlights that this endangers democratic accountability, as the European Parliament has been excluded from setting-up of those funds;

Amendment 328 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56

56. Underlines that according to the Treaty, Parliament and the Council establish the Union budget on an equal footing as the two arms of the budgetary authority; considers, moreover, that ~~full~~ parliamentary ~~control over all~~scrutiny of expenditure is an essential element of all EU spending; calls on the Commission to preserve the unity of the budget and to consider it a guiding principle when proposing new policy initiatives;

Amendment 329 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

57. Reiterates its long-standing position that the European Development Fund should be integrated in the Union budget, as from 2021, while ensuring the financing of the African Peace Facility and security-related operations;deleted

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’'s adoption or undermined by the Council; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, the unacceptable high levels of poverty, social exclusion and inequality, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’'s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits;

Amendment 330 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

57. Reiterates its long-standing position that the European Development Fund (EDF) should be integrated in the Union budget, as from 2021, while ensuring the financing of the African Peace Facility and security- related operations; highlights in this respect that also the financial means financing the EDF have to be transferred into the EU budget then;

Amendment 331 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

Amendment 332 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

Amendment 333 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 – subparagraph 1 (new)

rejects the idea of a specific budget for the euro area, since this would confirm a significant divide between countries using the euro and those retaining their own currencies and lead to further surrender of democratic national sovereignty to technocratic formations;

Amendment 334 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 a (new)

57a. Stresses that any future integration of such instruments into the EU budget entails that their respective financial envelopes are added on top of the MFF ceilings, which will need to be revised accordingly, in order not to jeopardise the financing of other EU policies and programmes;

Amendment 335 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 21

Enhanced flexibility and special instruments

Amendment 336 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58

58. Stresses that the rigid structure of the Union budget deprives the budgetary authority of the possibility of reacting adequately to changing circumstances; ~~calls, therefore,~~notes that an extensive array of flexibility provisions were built in to the current MFF; believes, however, that there is scope for greater flexibility in the next MFF, in particular through more flexibility between headings and years with the aim of fully exploiting the MFF ceilings; believes that the Commission should further consider creating a mechanism to allow funding to be re-allocated between headings, provided any increase of the ceiling in one heading is offset by an equivalent decrease in the ceiling of another heading;

Amendment 337 #

Janusz LEWANDOWSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58

58. Stresses that the rigid structure of the Union budget deprives the budgetary authority of the possibility of reacting adequately to changing circumstances; calls, therefore, for greater flexibility in the next MFF, in particular through more flexibility between headings ~~and~~in the form of flexibility of unspent margins and between years with the aim of fully exploiting the MFF ceilings;

Amendment 338 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58

58. Stresses that the rigid structure of the Union budget deprives the budgetary authority of the possibility of reacting adequately to changing circumstances; ~~cal~~notes als,o th~~erefore, for greater flexibility in the next MFF, in particular through more flexibility between headings and years with the aim of fully exploiting the MFF ceilings~~at this is a guarantee that the financial framework ceilings will not be exceeded;

Amendment 339 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58 a (new)

58a. Recalls that many EU policies and programmes have their own revision/review requirements, mostly scheduled in 2017, and that these reviews will have to take account of available budgetary resources; in light of this the MFF review/revision should increase flexibility between headings so that budgetary resources can be reallocated more easily; notes that lack of flexibility in this respect leads to a situation whereby priorities are underfunded and scarce resources are not spent where the need is greatest;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of seprio~~us crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia,~~rities such as the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, ~~the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI),~~ the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; ~~considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits~~also regrets that policy initiatives such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) have diverted resources earmarked for other programmes without bringing any added value;

Amendment 340 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59

Amendment 341 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59

59. Underlines that in addition to the ability to react flexibly to changing circumstances without prejudice to the agreed programming, there is also a necessity for the Union to be able to react quickly to developing crises; calls, therefore, for the establishment of a permanent EU crisis reserve within the Union budget ~~over and above the MFF ceilings~~, in order to avoid ad hoc solutions like the setting-up of trust funds; stresses that such mechanism, meant to respond to crises and unforeseen situations, should by its very nature operate as an MFF special instrument and be counted over and above the MFF ceilings;

Amendment 342 #

Jean ARTHUIS, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59

59. Underlines that in addition to the ability to react flexibly to changing circumstances without prejudice to the agreed programming, there is also a necessity for the Union to be able to react quickly to developing crises; calls, therefore, for ~~the establishment~~an evaluation of the added value and utility of a permanent EU crisis reserve within the Union budget over and above the MFF ceilings, in order to ~~avoid~~minimize the use of ad hoc solutions like the setting-up of trust funds;

Amendment 343 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 – subparagraph 1 (new)

59a. Calls for an assessment on whether the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is the most appropriate instrument to deal with mass redundancies, as recommended by the Court of Auditors in its Special Report No 7 in 2013;

Amendment 344 #

Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 a (new)

Amendment 345 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22

Follow up of ~~the Paris~~international agreements on climate change and biodiversity

Amendment 346 #

Nils TORVALDS, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Gérard DEPREZ, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22

Follow up of the ~~Paris~~international agreements on climate change

Amendment 347 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60

Amendment 348 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60

60. Notes that the agreement reached on 12 December 2015 in Paris by the 196 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 21) is a universal, binding, dynamic and differentiated agreement aimed at facing the challenge of climate change; ~~calls on the Commission to p~~stresses that any funding for the possible measures originating from COP 21 should be additional; furthermore stresse~~nt its first evaluation of the possible impact of the COP21 agree~~s that individual obligation of donor countries to provide support to developing countries cannot be financed from the EU budget ; recalls that the EU is committed to implement the United Nations Convention's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity which will expire in 2020; calls on the Commission to present an assessment onf the EU budget ~~in due~~ary implications of different replacement options in time for ~~the~~ revision;

Amendment 349 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60

60. Notes that the agreement reached on 12 December 2015 in Paris by the 196 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is a universal, binding, dynamic and differentiated agreement aimed at facing the challenge of climate change; calls on the Commission to present its first evaluation of the possible impact of the COP21 agreement on the EU budget in due time for the revision; calls upon the Commission and Member States to increase for the post 2020-MFF the climate-related spending in the EU budget to 50% and to improve the current method of tracking such spending In light of the Paris agreement on global action to combat climate change and to show European leadership in this regard;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives at Europe's borders, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, ~~external emergencies,~~ internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits;

Amendment 350 #

Charles GOERENS, Gérard DEPREZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60

Amendment 351 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 a (new)

60a. Follow up of the Addis Abeba "Third International Conference on Financing for Development" Notes that the Heads of State and Government and High Representatives, gathered in Addis Ababa from 13 to 16 July 2015 affirmed their strong political commitment to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development to end poverty and hunger; Calls on the EU and its Member States to re-commit without delay to the 0,7% of GNI target for ODA and submit a timeline on how to gradually increase ODA in order to reach the 0,7% by 2030;

Amendment 352 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 a (new)

60a. Recalls that the Union is a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and that as such it committed to implement the Convention's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity; notes that the above mentioned plan, which has guided the Union's policy in the field of biodiversity since 2010, will expire in 2020; therefore calls on the Commission to present an assessment of the budgetary implications of different replacement options in time for the revision;

Amendment 353 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61

61. Recalls Parliament’'s critical stance as regards the manner in which the procedure leading to the adoption of the MFF Regulation for 2014-2020 was conducted; recalls that the adoption of the regulation requires Parliament’'s consent; stresses, therefore, that Parliament needs to be fully involved in the relevant negotiations from the outset; considers that the EU institutions should formalise the modalities for the next MFF procedure in an agreement reached at the time of the ~~mid-term review/~~post electoral revision of the MFF, which should take account of the shortcomings of the previous negotiations and fully safeguard Parliament’'s role and prerogatives as set out in the Treaties; considers that these modalities should eventually be enshrined in the IIA, as is the case for the annual budgetary procedure;

Amendment 354 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 a (new)

61a. Considers that the unanimity requirement for the adoption of the MFF Regulation represents a true impediment in the process; calls on the European Council in that regard to activate the passerelle in Art 312(2) TFEU so as to allow for the adoption of the MFF Regulation by qualified majority; recalls, moreover, that the general passerelle clause of Art 48(7) TEU can also be deployed, in order to apply the ordinary legislative procedure; stresses that a shift towards qualified majority voting for the adoption of the MFF Regulation would be in line with the decision-making process for the adoption of virtually all EU multiannual programmes as well as for the annual procedure for adopting the EU budget;

Amendment 355 #

José Manuel FERNANDES, Marian-Jean MARINESCU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 a (new)

61a. Recalls that the Treaty does not assign the European Council the right to exercise legislative functions; reiterates, in this context, its strong objection to the European Council's interference in legislation during the last MFF negotiations; demands from the European Council that it limits itself to its tasks defined by the Treaty and to refrain from pre-empting policy changes which are to be decided under the ordinary legislative procedure, thereby respecting Parliament's legislative prerogatives under co-decision;

Amendment 356 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62

62. ~~Calls on the Member States to reach a rapid agreement on the next MFF in order to~~Insists that the legislative process to adopt the next MFF should be concluded by the end of 2018, following substantial negotiations between the European Parliament and Council; stresses that a timely MFF agreement will allow all new programmes to start without delay on 1 January 2021;

Amendment 357 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62

62. Calls on the Member States to reach a rapid agreement on the next MFF, and on the sectorial regulations accompanying the MFF, in order to allow all new programmes to start without delay on 1 January 2021;

Amendment 358 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)

62a. In addition, to better inform national parliaments and European citizens of the importance of programming approach, the European Parliament and the Commission should organize, when appropriate, an inter- institutional and inter-parliamentary conference in which the challenges of the next MFF will be exposed as well as the outline of the negotiations;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and of poverty, social exclusion and inequalities, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, particularly in the milk and meat sectors, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially been pushed to its limits;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary~~, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings~~; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has ~~essentially been~~been unnecessarily pushed to its limits; due to a lack of sufficient reprioritisation within the budget to meet these new challenges;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that the Europe 2020 strategy represents the main orientation and overarching priority that underpins the EU budget; believes, therefore, that the MFF review should include, besides the examination of the budgetary implementation of relevant EU programmes, a qualitative analysis of whether and to what extent the objectives set out in this strategy have been attained; insists that this assessment is coupled with a projection on whether the financial resources earmarked in support of this strategy for the remaining years of the current MFF will be sufficient to allow for its successful implementation;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas the EU must be able to respond to multiple challenges while continuing to address its long-standing priority of creating growth and jobs;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Fully agrees with the European Court of Auditors which states in its first recommendation of its 2014 annual report that the EU strategy and the MFF need to be better aligned, in particular concerning the time period and priorities. This would help to ensure that adequate monitoring and reporting arrangements are in place, and so make it easier for the Commission to report effectively on the contribution of the EU budget to the EU strategy. The Commission should make appropriate proposals to the legislator to address this issue;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Considers that the mid-term review of the MFF should also take stock of the performance of funds allocated, in order to ascertain whether they are achieving their objectives and whether appropriations are being under-utilised; suggests that the review should evaluate whether the EU has an optimum number of objectives and consider prioritisation in this regard;

Amendment 42 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the conflicts in Syria, the Middle East and several regions in Africa have had humanitarian, security and migratory consequences on an unprecedented scale; recalls that the EU has been directly impacted, with more than one million refugees reaching Europe in 2015 alone and more expected in the coming years; recalls that this crisis has led to a major financial response on both the EU’s part and ~~hence had~~that of the Member States, with the former's contribution having a significant impact on the EU budget, notably on headings 3 (Security and Citizenship) and 4 (Global Europe);

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the conflicts in Syria, the Middle East and several regions in Africa have had humanitarian, security and migratory consequences on an unprecedented scale; recalls that the EU has been directly impacted, with more than one million refugees reaching Europe in 2015 alone and more expected in the coming years; recalls that this crisis led to a major financial response on the EU’s part ~~and hence~~, which, albeit insufficient by any standard, has had a significant impact on the EU budget, notably on headings 3 (Security and Citizenship) and 4 (Global Europe);

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the conflicts in Syria, the Middle East and several regions in Africa have had humanitarian, security and migratory consequences on an unprecedented scale; ~~recalls that the EU has been directly impacted~~deplores the fact that those events have exposed the powerlessness of Latin civilisation, with more than one million refugees reaching Europe in 2015 alone and more expected in the coming years; ~~recalls~~deplores also the fact that this crisis led to a major financial response on the EU’s part and hence had a significant impact on the EU budget, notably on headings 3 (Security and Citizenship) and 4 (Global Europe);

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the conflicts in Syria, the Middle East and several regions in Africa have had humanitarian~~, security~~ and migratory consequences on an unprecedented scale; recalls that the EU has been directly impacted, with more than one million refugees reaching Europe in 2015 alone and more expected in the coming years; recalls that this crisis led to a major financial response on the EU’s part and hence had a significant impact on the EU budget, notably on headings 3 (Security and Citizenship) and 4 (Global Europe);

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Recalls~~Deplores the fact that in the course of 2015 the additional measures approved in line with the European Agenda on Migration have had an immediate budgetary impact, as notably reflected in amending budgets 5 and 7/2015; furthermore ~~recalls~~deplores the fact that the utilisation of an additional EUR 1 506 million in EU budget 2016 by mobilising the Flexibility Instrument was approved in order to provide additional resources for migration/refugee-related measures under Heading 3, such as topping-up of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF), as well as resources for th~~e three migration-related~~ree agencies, namely Frontex, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and Europol, the point of whose existence is difficult to fathom;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the above-mentioned budgetary decisions have completely exhausted the small margin available under this heading and have led to a de facto revision of the ceilings of Heading 3; furthermore draws attention to the new Commission proposals which are expected to have an impact on the EU budget, notably the proposal for ~~the establishment of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, with an overall budget of EUR 1 212 million for the remainder of the MFF period~~a recast of the 'Dublin III' Regulation, with a total budgetary impact of EUR 1 829 million for the remainder of the MFF period, the proposal for the establishment of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, with an overall budget of EUR 1 212 million for the remainder of the MFF period, the proposal for an amending 'EASO' Regulation, with a budgetary implication amounting to EUR 364 million, the proposal for a recast of the 'Eurodac' Regulation, with an estimated cost of EUR 30 million, and the new emergency support mechanism, with an estimated impact of minimum EUR 700 million in the period 2016 to 2018; stresses that the situation is so critical that the additional appropriations authorised for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) in November 2015 had to be reduced in March 2016 so as to finance even more pressing needs, such as the need to provide humanitarian aid in the EU, addressed by the above- mentioned new emergency support mechanism;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Believes that the solution of the European migration and refugee crisis requires a European approach based on solidarity and fair burden-sharing; stresses, in this context, that the EU budget should support member states to alleviate the burden of the costs related to the reception of the refugee as this will relieve the pressure on the budgets of those member states facing a particularly high influx of refugees; emphasizes that this approach will create synergies, and is furthermore efficient and cost effective for all Member States;

Amendment 5 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Brando BENIFEI, Terry REINTKE

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas, in order to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the new MFF and to give the opportunity to the new Commission and the newly elected Parliament of reconfirming ~~and~~, reassessing or revising the EU’'s political and budgetary priorities by adjusting the MFF accordingly, a post-electoral revision clause was requested by Parliament;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that significant budgetary means have been deployed to tackle the root causes of the refugee and migration crisis by reinforcing specific EU programmes under Heading 4; stresses the additional upcoming budgetary means necessary for the inclusion of most vulnerable migrants, especially women and girls, young and under-aged and LGBTI migrants, recalls the reallocations in favour of migration/refugee-related actions of EUR 170 million in the course of 2015, as well as the approval in 2016 of an additional EUR 130 million under Heading 4 for migration/refugee-related activities, together with the reshuffling of EUR 430 million under the Instrument for Pre- accession Assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Neighbourhood Instrument; recalls, furthermore, that in order to address the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis the Commission has made various additional proposals having an impact on the EU budget, such as those for the establishment of EU trust funds (the Madad Trust Fund and the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, with an estimated initial budgetary impact of EUR 570 million and EUR 405 million respectively), as well as of the Refugee Facility for Turkey, for which EUR 1 billion is to be funded from the EU budget, not counting possible additional funding; stresses that further pressure on the Union budget might arise from other planned actions announced by the Commission such as the ‘London pledge’ or from events such as the EU- Turkey summit of 18 March 2016; is concerned, however, that owing to the magnitude of the problems the EU is facing further actions might still be required;

Amendment 51 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that significant budgetary means have been deployed to tackle the root causes of the refugee and migration crisis by reinforcing specific EU programmes under Heading 4; recalls the reallocations in favour of migration/refugee-related actions of EUR 170 million in the course of 2015, as well as the approval in 2016 of an additional EUR 130 million under Heading 4 for migration/refugee-related activities, together with the reshuffling of EUR 430 million under the Instrument for Pre- accession Assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Neighbourhood Instrument; recalls, furthermore, that in order to address the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis the Commission has made various additional proposals having an impact on the EU budget, such as those for the establishment of EU trust funds (the Madad Trust Fund and the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, with an estimated initial budgetary impact of EUR 570 million and EUR 405 million respectively)~~, as well as of~~; notes, however, that the Refugee Facility for Turkey, for which EUR 1 billion isought to be funded from the EU budget, ~~not counting possible additional funding~~is in fact illegal, since no provision has been made for ratification by the European Parliament; stresses that further pressure on the Union budget might arise from other planned actions announced by the Commission such as the ‘London pledge’ or from events such as the EU- Turkey summit of 18 March 2016; is concerned, ~~howe~~moreover, that ~~owing to the magnitude of the problems the EU is facing~~these initiatives are failing to resolve matters where they are not, as in the case of Turkey, actually counterproductive and that further actions might still be required;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Stresses that significant budgetary means have been deployed to tackle the root causes of the refugee and migration crisis by~~ Points out that migration/refugee- related actions are in~~forcing specific EU programmes under Heading 4; recalls the reallocations in favour of migration/refugee-related actions~~sufficient by any standard despite the reallocation of EUR 170 million to them in the course of 2015, as well as the approval in 2016 of an additional EUR 130 million ~~under Heading 4 for migration/refugee-related activities, together with~~for them and the reshuffling of EUR 430 million under the Instrument for Pre- accession Assistance, the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Neighbourhood Instrument; recalls, furthermore, that in order to address the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis the Commission has made various additional proposals having an impact on the EU budget, such as those for the establishment of EU trust funds (the Madad Trust Fund and the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, with an estimated initial budgetary impact of EUR 570 million and EUR 405 million respectively), as well as of the Refugee Facility for Turkey, for which EUR 1 billion is to be funded from the EU budget, not counting possible additional funding; stresses, however, that further pressure on the Union budget ~~might~~will arise from other planned actions announced by the Commission such as the ‘London pledge’ or from events such as the EU- Turkey summit of 18 March 2016; is concerned, however, that owing to the magnitude of the problems the EU is facing further actions might still be required; points out in addition that migration/refugee-related actions must not be overly outsourced to non-EU countries and that it is the duty of the EU to mount its own response too;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Notes that solidarity should take into account the economic capacity of each member state;

Amendment 54 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Charles GOERENS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Concludes that the ~~activities planned by the Commission to cope with the migrant and refugee cr~~magnitude of the migrant and refugee crisis and the financial impact of the measures initiated by the Commission to address this issue could not have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the MFF 2014-2020; highlights the fact that owing to the lack of sufficient resources the EU has had to set up ad hoc, ‘satellite’ instruments ~~such as EU trust funds~~, jointly financed by the Member States and by the EU budget, such as EU trust funds (the Madad Trust Fund and the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa) and the Refugee Facility for Turkey; stresses, however, that Member States have not yet delivered on their contribution pledges to the trust funds, thus undermining the success of those funds; calls on Member States to immediately fulfil their commitments to contribute, in order to be able to address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration by promoting economic and equal opportunities, strengthening resilience of vulnerable people, security and development; stresses, however, that the multiplication of such instruments creates a problem of accountability in the EU, which needs to be taken into account and analysed;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Concludes that the activities planned by the Commission to cope with the migrant and refugee crisis could not have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the MFF 2014-2020; highlights the fact that owing to the lack of sufficient resources the EU has had to set up ad hoc, ‘satellite’ instruments such as EU trust funds and the Refugee Facility for Turkey; stresses, however, that Member States have not yet delivered on their contribution pledges to the trust funds, thus undermining the success of those funds; calls on the Member states should take their responsibility in such situation, including in the reallocation of refugees; fears moreover that the extremely tense situation might lead to extra financial needs, especially in case of a non- agreement with the Turkish government;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Concludes that the activities planned by the Commission to cope with the migrant and refugee crisis could not have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the MFF 2014-2020; highlights the fact that owing to the lack of sufficient resources the EU has ~~had to~~ set up ad hoc, ‘satellite’ instruments such as EU trust funds and the Refugee Facility for Turkey~~; stresses, however, that Member States have not yet delivered on their~~ without an overall budgetary strategy to address the migrant and refugee crisis, which has led to the European Parliament being side-lined as regards the decision on the use of EU budget funds; deplores that Member States have as yet failed by far to deliver the expected contribution ~~pledge~~s to the trust funds, i.e. amounting to the same level as the contributions from the EU, thus undermining the success of those funds;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Concludes that the activities planned by the Commission to cope with the migrant and refugee crisis could not have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the MFF 2014-2020; highlights the fact~~Regrets that, on adoption of the 2014-2020 MFF, the problems relating to the migrant and refugee crisis were not adequately assessed, despite the numerous warning signals; notes that owing to the lack of sufficient resources the EU has ~~had to~~ set up ad hoc, ‘satellite’ instruments such as EU trust funds ~~and the Refugee Facility for Turkey~~; considers unacceptable, however, the agreement reached with Turkey providing for disbursement of substantial funds from the EU budget without any guarantee that the issue will be resolved; stresses, ~~howe~~moreover, that e lack of solidarity and responsibility on the part of Member States that have not yet delivered on their contribution pledges to the trust funds, thus undermining the success of those funds;

Amendment 58 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Calls for an immigration clause to be established so as to exclude Member State spending on migrant reception and integration from excessive-deficit calculations;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the agreement on the MFF 2014-2020 was the outcome of a long and strenuous process of negotiations which took place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context; whereas as a consequence the overall level of the MFF was effectively reduced compared to the previous programming period; considers that the first ever real-terms cut of the EU's multiannual budget was an important signal of solidarity with Member States facing difficult choices with regard to their national budgets;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3 a (new)

Situation in the Eastern Neighbourhood

Amendment 61 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Recalls that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has created and continues to pose serious security challenges to the EU and its Eastern Partners; stresses that these challenges must be addressed during the MFF revision by providing enhanced support to countries that are currently implementing Association Agreements, in order to advance reforms and ensure the deepening of the relations between the EU and the respective countries;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Calls for stepped-up EU budget support for Member States bearing the brunt of migration flows, such as Greece and Italy;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4

~~Low level of investment~~ Development policy 10a. Notes the massive scale of the global needs for humanitarian aid and for disaster risk reduction, disaster preparedness and the building of resilience in developing countries; also notes the upward pressure on these needs stemming from effects of conflicts and wars, growing economic and social inequality, human rights violations, bad governance and corruption, poor provision of basic social services, including weak health systems and the lack of investments into health innovation, as well as climate change and competition for scarce resources; insists that the EU's financial means for responding to humanitarian and development issues require strengthening, especially considering the newly established 2030 Agenda, and is convinced that this is also essential for the defence of the EU's own interests, including its security in a broad sense; 10b. Reiterates that actions to tackle humanitarian challenges should not come at the expense of the EU´s development funding and policies in other areas; 10c. Recalls the EU commitment to allocate 20% of its ODA to human development, with a focus on education and health; believes that enjoying the highest attainable standard of health is a fundamental human right and that universal access to health care and coverage, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, is a powerful development enabler and fundamental to promote gender equality, improved nutrition and education outcomes; consequently stresses the need for health-related expenditure in the context of rapidly emerging epidemics and in light of the need for comprehensive investment to create resilient health systems and provide affordable access to essential medicines in many low and middle income countries in order to deliver on the 2030 Agenda; 10d. Underlines the need for adequate resources for the pursuit of the SDGs; recalls the EU's recent renewal of its collective commitment to raise its ODA to 0.7 % of its GNI; points out that this requires substantial increases, and stresses that the MFF review should take this into account;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4 a (new)

Low level of investment

Amendment 65 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recalls that, since the global economic and financial crisis, the EU has suffered from low levels of investment; notes in particular that in 2014 total investment was 15 % below the 2007 level, which corresponds to an investment drop of EUR 430 billion; considers that weak investment slows economic recovery and has direct repercussions on growth, jobs and competitiveness; underlines that cohesion policy is still the main source of investment to reduce the economic, social and territorial disparities and improve living standards and quality of life in many EU countries;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recalls that, since the global economic and financial crisis, the EU has suffered from low levels of investment; notes in particular that in 2014 total investment was 15 % below the 2007 level, which corresponds to an investment drop of EUR 430 billion; considers that the austerity measures imposed and weak investment have slowsed economic recovery and hasve had direct repercussions onin terms of growth, jobs, increased poverty, a fresh upsurge in inequalities, disparities between EU regions and Member States, and competitiveness;

Amendment 67 #

Pina PICIERNO, Daniele VIOTTI, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recalls that, since the global economic and financial crisis, the EU has suffered from low levels of investment and a lack of aggregate internal demand; notes in particular that in 2014 total investment was 15 % below the 2007 level, which corresponds to an investment drop of EUR 430 billion; considers that weak investment and low aggregate internal demand slows economic recovery and has direct repercussions on growth, jobs and competitiveness;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Recalls that, since the global economic and financial crisis, the EU has suffered from low and insufficient levels of investment; notes in particular that in 2014 total investment was 15 % below the 2007 level, which corresponds to an investment drop of EUR 430 billion; considers that weak investment slows economic recovery and has direct repercussions on growth, jobs and competitiveness;

Amendment 69 #

Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Recalls that the main threat for the EU economy is the low level of solvency of the private banking system and the high risk of a domino effect if there are some banks "too big to fail" which finally could fall. Deplores that the debates on the changes regarding the capacity budgetary of the Eurozone are being used in order that sustaining a financial regulation and a monetary policy that are protecting rentists practices, jeopardising the investment and employment. These policies are clearly flexible for the oligopolies of the financial system, but unable accomplishing the social and productive function of credit. The integration of the European Stability Mechanism, the future European Monetary Fund, as a huge financial instrument, into the Treaties could be the financing tool to justify several consequences at the same time: the socialisation of private debt into public debt, through the higher public expenditure to restore the liabilities of the banking system, and the cuts in the field of tax collection, the progressivity of the fiscal regime and their corresponding public, social and labour policies;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the agreement on the MFF 2014-2020 was the outcome of a long and strenuous process of negotiations which took place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context; whereas as a consequence the overall level of the MFF was effectively reduced compared to the previous programming period; whereas the 2014-2020 MFF was reduced by 9% compared to the initial Commission proposal which came forward with a proposal representing a freeze at 2013 level;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines that, in response to this pressing problem, the new Commission in 2014 proposed an investment plan for Europe and the establishment of EFSI, with the aim of mobilising EUR 315 billion in new investment in the real economy; welcomes in this respect the adoption of EFSI, which will serve as one of the main tools for enhancing investments at EU level and will contribute to stimulating the creation of jobs; notes with satisfaction that a significant number of projects and EIF operations have already been approved and synergies between the EFSI and Horizon 2020 could be detected; calls on the Commission and EIB to ensure that geographical concentration is avoided and that all Member States benefit from EFSI; notes that the guarantee provided by the Union for EFSI is covered by a Guarantee Fund of EUR 8 billion constituted in the EU budget;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines that, in response to this pressing problem, the new Commission in 2014 proposed an investment plan for Europe and the establishment of EFSI, with the aim of mobilising EUR 315 billion in new investment in the real economy; notes, however, that the projects selected for the EFSI do not represent new investment in the real economy but the refinancing of existing projects of questionable sustainability in economic, social and environmental terms; stresses also that the guarantee provided by the Union for EFSI is covered by a Guarantee Fund of EUR 8 billion constituted in the EU budget, which has diverted resources from programmes such as Horizon 2020 or the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF);

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines that, in response to this pressing problem, the new Commission in 2014 proposed an investment plan for Europe and the establishment of EFSI, with the aim of mobilising EUR 315 billion in new investment in the real economy; reiterates its strong commitment to EFSI that is expected to deliver a powerful and targeted boost to economic sectors that are conducive to growth and job; .notes that the guarantee provided by the Union for EFSI is covered by a Guarantee Fund of EUR 8 billion constituted in the EU budget;

Amendment 73 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines that, in response to this pressing problem, the new Commission in 2014 proposed an investment plan for Europe and the establishment of EFSI, with the aim of mobilising EUR 315 billion in new private investment in the real economy; notes that the guarantee provided by the Union for EFSI is covered by a Guarantee Fund of EUR 8 billion constituted in the EU budget, based in the hope it will be enough to multiply private investment by a 21 factor.;

Amendment 74 #

Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Underlines that, in response to this pressing problem, the new Commission in 2014 proposed an clearly insufficient and poorly conceived investment plan for Europe and the establishment of EFSI, with the aim of mobilising EUR 315 billion in new investment in the real economy; notes that the guarantee provided by the Union for EFSI is covered by a Guarantee Fund of EUR 8 billion constituted in the EU budget;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Underlines that, in response to this pressing problem,~~Notes that the new Commission in 2014 proposed an investment plan for Europe and the establishment of EFSI, with the aim of mobilising EUR 315 billion in new investment in the real economy; notes that the guarantee provided by the Union for EFSI is covered by a Guarantee Fund of EUR 8 billion constituted in the EU budget;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls that, in order to secure this additional funding, the financial allocation for two significant EU programmes, Horizon 2020 and the Connecting European Facility (CEF), ~~has had to be~~were finally reduced by EUR 2.2 billion and EUR 2.8 billion respectively, while the remaining EUR 3 billion are covered by unallocated MFF margins; stresses Parliament’s commitment during the EFSI negotiations to reduce as much as possible the impact on these two programmes, whose financial envelopes were decided only in 2013 and which are key for supporting research, innovation and competitiveness and thus for future growth and the long-term prosperity of the Union;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls that, in order to secure this additional funding due to the Guarantee Fund, the financial allocation for two significant EU programmes, Horizon 2020 and the Connecting European Facility (CEF), has had to be reduced by EUR 2.2 billion and EUR 2.8 billion respectively, while the remaining EUR 3 billion are covered by unallocated MFF margins; stresses Parliament’'s commitment during the EFSI negotiations to reduce as much as possible the impact on these two programmes, which were already severely cut by the Council during the MFF negotiation (12% and 52% respectively) and whose financial envelopes were decided only in 2013;

Amendment 78 #

Nils TORVALDS, Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls that, in order to secure this additional funding, the financial allocation for two significant EU programmes, Horizon 2020 and the Connecting European Facility (CEF), has had to be reduced by EUR 2.2 billion and EUR 2.8 billion respectively, while the remaining EUR 3 billion are covered by unallocated MFF margins; stresses Parliament’s commitment during the EFSI negotiations to reduce as much as possible the impact on these two programmes, whose financial envelopes were decided only in 2013; efforts should be made to replenish these cuts from elsewhere in the EU budget including from under other headings;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls that, in order to secure this additional funding, the financial allocation for two significant EU programmes, Horizon 2020 and the Connecting European Facility (CEF), has had to be reduced by EUR 2.2 billion and EUR 2.8 billion respectively, while the remaining EUR 3 billion are covered by unallocated MFF margins; stresses Parliament’s commitment during the EFSI negotiations to ~~reduce as much~~avoid as far as possible tha negative impact on these two programmes, whose financial envelopes were decided only in 2013;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas, faced politically with the impossibility of changing the overall MFF figures decided by the European Council, Parliament ~~successfully~~ negotiated the inclusion of a specific article in the MFF regulation relating to a ~~compulsory and~~ comprehensive review/revision of the MFF, the establishment of new ~~and enhanced~~ flexibility provisions, and the setting-up of a High Level Group on Own Resources;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Highlights, in this context, that in accordance with Article 15 of the MFF Regulation, a frontloading of resources was implemented in 2014-2015 for Horizon 2020 (EUR 200 million for European Research Council and Marie Curie actions) and COSME (EUR 50 million), in order to compensate in part for the decrease in appropriations between 2013 and 2014; notes that this frontloading does not change the overall financial envelope of the programmes, leading to less appropriations respectively for the second half of the MFF; stresses, however, that the frontloading for Horizon 2020 and COSME was fully absorbed, thus proving the strong performance of these programmes and their capacity to absorb even more; would welcome flexibility measures to reallocate from across the EU budget from programmes with lower absorption rates and impact;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes also with great concern that that the success rate for Horizon 2020 has dropped to a level of 13 % from the 20-22 % enjoyed by its predecessor (FP7) in the previous programming period; regrets the fact that as a result fewer high-quality projects in the field of research and innovation are receiving EU funding; notes, similarly, the rejection of many high-quality applications relating to the CEF owing to insufficient budget funds; regrets that the portion of the EU budget dedicated to research and innovation has often been the first to be adversely affected by any rationalisation of the budget; notes that research and innovation programmes have the potential to generate EU added value, and therefore considers that necessary savings ought to be made elsewhere;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes also with great concern that that the success rate for Horizon 2020 has dropped to a level of 13 % from the 20-22 % enjoyed by its predecessor (FP7) in the previous programming period; regrets the fact that as a result fewer high-quality projects in the field of research and innovation are receiving EU funding; notes, similarly, the rejection of many high-quality applications relating to the CEF owing to insufficient budget funds being allocated to the relevant budget lines; with this in mind reallocation and getting the most out of existing resources under the MFF should be a priority;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes also with great concern that ~~that~~ the success rate for Horizon 2020 has dropped to a level of 13 % from the 20-22 % enjoyed by its predecessor (FP7) in the previous programming period~~; regret~~, which clearly shows that taxpayers' money is being wasted; notes the fact that as a result fewer high-quality projects in the field of research and innovation are receiving EU funding; notes, similarly, the rejection of many high-quality applications relating to the CEF owing to insufficient budget funds;

Amendment 84 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Underlines that while, according to the MFF regulation, the Global Margin for Commitments should be dedicated in priority to the Youth Employment Initiative, it has been mostly redirected, so far, to the European fund for Strategic Investments;

Amendment 85 #

Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Brando BENIFEI, Terry REINTKE

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5

~~Youth unemployment~~Precarious social and employment situation and persistent inequalities

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that youth unemployment remains dramatically high and represents one of the most pressing and serious problems that the EU is currently facing; highlights that 4.4 million young persons under 25 were unemployed across the Union in February 2016 and that this corresponds to a proportion of over 40 % in several Member States; consequently too many young people are at risk of social exclusion and more specific actions on including young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs) should be taken;

Amendment 87 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that youth unemployment ~~remains dramatically high~~has reached an extremely worrying level and represents one of the most pressing and serious problems that the EU is currently facing; highlights the fact that 4.4 million young persons under 25 were unemployed across the Union in February 2016 and that this corresponds to a proportion of over 40 % in several Member States and over 60% in several EU regions;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses that ~~youth unemployment remains dramatically high and represents on~~the MFF and the EU Budget should reflect all the EU 2020 goals, and not the of the ~~most pr~~r way round; Underliness in~~g and serious problems that the EU is currently facing; highlights that 4.4 million young person~~ this context, that the EU Budget should be used in a way that improves the labour market access uand~~er 25 were unemployed across the Union in February 2016 and that this corresponds to a proportion of over 40 % in several Member States~~ combats unemployment, poverty and social exclusion and promotes equality, including gender equality;

Amendment 89 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Points out that the Europe 2020 poverty target is far from being achieved, which highlights that policies in this field have failed, in particular for people in vulnerable situations; Is worried about the worsening social situation caused by the financial and economic crisis is undermining the sustainability of social protection systems; stresses there is a need for increased financial aid to social policies measures, that promotes social investment, including in quality social services and social economy; considers the Commission should thoroughly monitor that the share of the ESF earmarked to fighting poverty and social exclusion, is effectively used for this purpose;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the social, economic, environmental, migratory and terrorist crises faced by the EU provide all the more grounds for a substantial revision of the MFF, which, as it stands, has demonstrated its limitations as regards effectively addressing recent crises and the EU's new political priorities;

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Underlines that investing in growth and jobs and promoting territorial cooperation should remain one of the priorities of the EU policies; recalls that the Cohesion Fund for the 2014-2020 period concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia allocates 63,4 billion euros; stresses that this budget should remain unchanged in order to ensure the reduction of inequalities between EU countries, regions and cities and achieve our common 2020 targets;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16b. Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and considers there is a need for increased public investment in quality and sustainable job creation and skills, including green jobs and jobs in the social economy and the social, health and care sector;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16b. Recalls that the 2010-2018 EU Youth Strategy set out a framework for cooperation to provide more and equal opportunities for young people in education and the job market and to promote the active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity of all young people through EU funds such as Erasmus+, ESF and YEI;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)

16c. Stresses that youth unemployment remains dramatically high and represents one of the most pressing and serious problems that the EU is currently facing; highlights that 4.4 million young persons under 25 were unemployed across the Union in February 2016 and that this corresponds to a proportion of over 40 % in several Member States and peaking at more than 50% in certain regions or areas;</Date>

Amendment 94 #

Younous OMARJEE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Underlines that the EU budget makes a significant contribution to the fight against unemployment, especially through the European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI); stresses that despite the initial delays in the designation of national authorities and the implementation of the YEI, the current figures indicate full absorption capacity; notes that an evaluation of this initiative will soon be concluded, and expects that the necessary adjustments will be introduced to ensure its successful implementation; the full absorption capacity indicated by the current figures has been achieved in part through a significant increase in the pre-financing rate of this programme; points to the indication of the Commission that the designation of implementing authorities has constituted a key challenge for the financial flows of the programme; notes that an evaluation of this initiative will soon be concluded, and expects that the necessary adjustments, in particular with regard to the setting-up appropriate administrative structures, will be introduced to ensure its successful implementation; considers the legislative proposal for a Structural Reform Support Programme1a to be a valuable initiative to address the issue of insufficient administrative capacity; __________________ 1aProposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme for the period 2017 to 2020 and amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 1305/2013 COM(2015) 701 final – 2015/0263 (COD)

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Underlines the fact that the EU budget makes a ~~signi~~n insufficaient contribution to the fight against unemployment~~, especially throug~~ and that both the European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), though they are positive actions, are not sufficient; stresses also that, despite the initial delays in the designation of national authorities and the implementation of the YEI, the current figures indicate full absorption capacity; notes that an evaluation of this initiative will soon be concluded, and expects that the necessary adjustments will be introduced to ensure its successful implementation; calls for the establishment of new programmes with a view to giving substance to a genuinely social Europe;

Amendment 96 #

Raffaele FITTO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Underlines th~~at the EU budget makes a significant~~e fact that structural reforms are crucial for growth and jobs; states that the EU budget can support them and make a contribution to the fight against unemployment, especially through the European Social Fund and the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI); stresses that despite the initial delays in the designation of national authorities and the implementation of the YEI, the current figures indicate full absorption capacity; notes that an evaluation of this initiative will soon be concluded, and expects that the necessary adjustments will be introduced to ensure its successful implementation;

Amendment 98 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Martina DLABAJOVÁ, Louis MICHEL, Nils TORVALDS, Jean ARTHUIS, Nedzhmi ALI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 99 #