17 Amendments of Petri SARVAMAA related to 2017/2052(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the European Court of Auditors has highlighted, in its annual and special reports2 , instances where EU spending could have been planned more strategically and achieved better results; regrets, in this regard, that the resources allocated to major spending programmes and schemes were often not aligned with the political objectives set out in the 10- year strategic planning cycle, thus potentially leading to contradictory results; __________________ 2 See e.g. the European Court of Auditors’ Special Reports 4, 8, 19 and 23 of 2016.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 4 – indent 2 a (new)
- and the extent to which different EU programmes and schemes work together in a coherent manner, particularly in areas where ambiguously determined objectives or implementation may lead to contradictory results and inefficient spending;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls Parliament’s concern that the financial complexity resulting from the interactions of more than a thousand financial engineering instruments, and of numerous financial mechanisms supporting Union policies that are not recorded in the union balance sheet, constitutes a major reason why democratic accountability of the galaxies of budgets may be impossible; in addition to the simplification of the galaxy of budgets, calls for more flexibility in cross-sectoral use of different financial instruments, so as to break the block of restrictive regulations in taking advantage of multiple programmes for projects with matching goals;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points out that the Member States and the Commission should be able to present well-justified needs for Union funding, and define the aims and the results to be achieved, before any spending is set; calls on the Commission to distinctly define the criteria of EU value added, to prevent any possible ambiguities in the decisions about EU expenditure; points out, furthermore, that the principles of effectiveness, efficiency and sound financial management should be observed before every budgetary decision;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Points out that the past development of Cohesion beneficiaries should be better taken into account when distributing EU funds; calls on the Commission to present a revised system for the co-financing rates of Cohesion projects, by acknowledging the past developments and decreasing the share of EU-funding in areas where advancement is already proven;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Points out that a new balance is needed between, on the one hand, the CAP and Cohesion Policies, and, on the other hand, the other EU internal policies and a reinforced external capacity of the Union, including the elements of security and defence; encourages the Commission to emphasise cooperation in security and defence when preparing its proposal for MFF post-2020, and when reforming and implementing financial instruments of the EU such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSIF); supports the idea of further European integration and concrete initiatives in the field of security and defence;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls upon the Commission, as it reflects on a simplified and modernised CAP, to assess whether a different policy design, or a different model of distribution of direct payments, could provide a better means of targeting public funds to agri- environment and climate action objectives; stresses, however, the need to provide financial compensation to cover the costs of maintaining high health and environmental standards in food production, and the high production costs associated with the challenging climate condition in some geographical areas, as the farmers in Europe often struggle with global competition;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Insists that the aim of the EU budget should be to achieve the political objectives defined in the headings of the MFF, and that the budget lines should be presented in this framework and regrouped under programme statements pursuing these objectives rather than listed by activities; encourages the Commission to develop a more integrated approach for the use of different budget lines and funds to be able to respond to real life challenges at regional, national and European levels; stresses as well that enhanced cooperation expenditures should be included in the EU budget;
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Points out, however, that when filling the budgetary gap, the main objective should not be to increase the share of public funding, but to provide a more sustainable financial basis for all policy fields and to mobilise the maximum leverage of private resources; calls, in this regard, for a paradigm shift in EU expenditure from grant-based subsidising towards a more financial, instrument- oriented system, which, however, also carefully considers the capacities and financial needs of different beneficiaries;
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Considers that the possibility to collect a CO2 levy through carbon pricing (using either taxation or market-based instruments) – as presented by the High Level Group on Own Resources in its report on the future financing of the EU7 – should be examined by the Commission in the first instance as a way to strengthen the EU-27 budget; believes that such an instrument could also provide extra added value in Europe, as the levy could function as an incentive to change consumer and producer behaviour in favour of a less carbon-intensive future; considers, however, that any tax-based EU solution should be as neutral as possible for the total tax ratio of a given Member State, and should instead rely on higher contributions from risk actors; points out that such a CO2 levy would have to take into account the current emission trading schemes to avoid overlapping and conflicting means and objectives; __________________ 7 European Commission, ‘Future financing of the EU – Final report and recommendations of the High Level Group on Own Resources’, 4 January 2017, pp. 41-43.
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Agrees that the search for European added value should be one of the main principles guiding the EU institutions when deciding about the type of spending in the next MFF; points out, however, the existence of multiple interpretations of the concept and calls for a clear definition of the criteria thereof and measurable performance indicators that should take territorial specificities into account;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Advocates also a real simplification of sectoral implementation rules for beneficiaries and a reduction of administrative burdens; calls for a move towards a risk-based evaluation whereby control resources could be focused more on those regions and policy fields where the risks of irregularities have proven to be more significant;
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Recognises the potential of financial instruments to increase the economic and political impact of the Union budget; calls for more flexibility in cross- sectoral use of different financial instruments, so as to overcome the restrictive rules preventing recipients from taking advantage of multiple programmes for projects with matching goals; highlights, however, that they can be applied only for revenue-generating projects and therefore constitute only a complementary rather than an alternative form of funding as compared to grants, as some projects can be financed only through subsidies;
Amendment 436 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77 a (new)
Paragraph 77 a (new)
77a. Recalls its remarks1a of the unsustainable structure of CAP expenditure: 44.7 % of all Union farms had an annual income of less than EUR 4000, and on average 80 % of the beneficiaries of CAP direct support received around 20 % of the payments; points out that in times of volatility or crisis, larger farms do not necessarily need the same degree of support for stabilising farm incomes as smaller farms do, since they often benefit from potential economies of scale that are likely to make them more resilient; considers that the CAP financing schemes could focus more on farmers under special constraints: small farms, climatically and geographically challenging areas and sparsely populated regions __________________ 1aSee paragraph 207 of its resolution of 27 April 2017 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309).
Amendment 437 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77 b (new)
Paragraph 77 b (new)
77b. Calls upon the Commission, as it reflects on a simplified and modernised CAP, to assess whether a different policy design, or a different model of distribution of direct payments, could provide a better means of targeting public funds to agri- environment and climate action objectives; stresses, however, the need to provide financial compensation to cover the costs of maintaining high standards in food production, and the high production costs associated with the challenging climate condition in some geographical areas, as the farmers in Europe often struggle with global competition;
Amendment 446 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78
78. Expects the global amount of direct payments to be kept intact under the next MFF, as they generate clear EU added value and strengthen the single market by avoiding distortions of competition between Member States; opposeQuestions any renationalisation and any national co-financing in that respectof direct payments; stresses the need to increase funding in line with responses to the various cyclical crises in sensitive sectors, to create new instruments that can mitigate price volatility and to increase funding for Programmes of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI); concludes, therefore, that the CAP budget in the next MFF should be at least maintained at its current level for the EU-27;sufficient level to deal with the real needs of European agriculture
Amendment 500 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
82. Considers maintaining the financing of cohesion policy post-2020 for the EU-27 at least at the level of the 2014- 2020 budget to be of the utmost importance; stresses that GDP should remain one of the parameters for the allocation of cohesion policy funds, but believes that it should be complemented by an additional set of social, environmental and demographic indicators to better take into account new types of inequalities between EU regions; notes that cohesion expenditure should be bound to the structural reforms outlined in Commission's annual country reports and/or by requiring full compliance with common rules and decisions regarding the use and control of EU funds, and with European values and human rights; supports, in addition, the continuation under the new programming period of the elements that rendered cohesion policy more modern and performance-oriented under the current MFF; notes that more efficient results could be gained with more emphasis on growth, innovation, mobility, climate change, energy and environmental transition;