Activities of Reimer BÖGE related to 2015/2341(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the EU Trust Fund for Africa: the implications for development and humanitarian aid
Amendments (4)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the intention to disburse funds more quickly and flexibly in an emergency situation, and to bring together various sources of funding in order to address athe migration and refugee crisis in its multiple dimensions; stresses that financial rules do not allowcriticises that the Commission tohas diverted appropriations from the objectives and principles of the basic acts, and believes that any to channelling them through the trust fund should not go at the expenseas this is in breach of the financial rules and furthermore risks the success of long-term Union policies; calls for fresh appropriations to be used wherever possible and for full transparency as to the origin and destination of funds to be ensured;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges the added value of pooling a large number of national contributions at Union level in addition to substantial contributions from the external financing instruments and the European Development Fund (EDF); urges the Member States, however, to effectively match the Union contributiondeplores that the financial pledges made by Member States so far only amount to a small fraction of the Union contribution; underlines that the volatility of voluntary contributions shows that the recourse to funding instruments outside the EU budget is not viable to mobilize additional funding; urges the Member States to rapidly and effectively match the Union contribution in order to allow the trust fund to develop their full potential rather than provide the minimum required to obtain voting rights in the Strategic Board;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that trust funds are part of an ad hoc response which shows that the Union budget and the Multiannual Financial Framework lack the resources and flexibility needed for a rapid and comprehensive approach to major crises; deplores the fact that they result in bypassing the budgetary authority and undermining the unity of the budget; stresses, therefore, that the creation of funding instruments outside the EU budget must remain exceptional; calls for the budgetary authority as a main contributing donor to the fund to be invited to participate in its Strategic Board;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls forStrongly believes that a more holistic solution to be found for emergency funding as part ofshould be found in the MFF review/revision, which includes a revision of the ceiling and of crisis mechanisms and achieves synergies between the Union budget, the EDF and bilateral cooperation; calls, in particular, for an adequate revision of the ceiling to allow for the inclusion of the crisis mechanisms in the MFF in order to restore the unity of the budget; stresses, moreover, the need to review the financial rules with a view to facilitating the management of EU budget funds and to achieving greater synergies between the Union budget, the EDF and bilateral cooperation to increase the impact of development funding and to pave the way for the budgetisation of the EDF, while maintaining the current level of resources, foreseen as of 2021; urges the Commission to take immediate steps 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.