36 Amendments of Nils TORVALDS related to 2015/2353(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
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 strategyin 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 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
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 werecould 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 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Concludes that the activities planned by the Commission to cope with the migrant and refugee crmagnitude 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 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
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 muchavoid as far as possible tha negative impact on these two programmes, whose financial envelopes were decided only in 2013;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
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 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
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 and its extension to the mobility of apprentices;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
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 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
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 actionmeans 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 adequate response to this threatgencies and the interconnection and interoperability of various European databases;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
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 ofat 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 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7 a (new)
Subheading 7 a (new)
The Paris Agreement on climate change
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
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 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
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 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
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 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
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 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
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 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
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; notereminds that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of Subheading 1b, as no margins are availablee 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 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
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 canwill 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 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
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); 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 appropriationn upward revision of the ceilings under this hHeading 4;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
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, includingand considers that an upward revision of the annual payments ceiling if necessarys 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 acalls for a binding joint payment plan for 2016-2020 shouldto 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 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
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 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
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 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
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 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 b (new)
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 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
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 besmost efficient possible use of scarce financial resources;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
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 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 b (new)
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 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
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 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
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 344 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59 a (new)
Paragraph 59 a (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 347 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
Amendment 357 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
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 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)
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;