Activities of Isabelle THOMAS related to 2017/2052(INI)
Reports (1)
REPORT on the next MFF: Preparing the Parliament’s position on the MFF post-2020 PDF (1 MB) DOC (234 KB)
Amendments (20)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights the fact that a substantial and accessible fisheries fund is necessary in order to implement the common fisheries policy (CFP), to ensure the sustainability of European aquaculture and European fisheries, including through implementation of the discard ban andtroduce a selectivity plan so as to prevent discards and make the landing obligation and less restrictive, achievinge the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) objective, and to help the sector carry out the necessary restructuring process, in particular by providing support for handling the financial burden created by the landing obligation;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the CFP is an exclusive EU competence and that the financial funds made available to the EU for this policy should therefore be sufficient in order achieve the goals laid down in the Basic Regulation; recalls, however, that the current European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) accounts for only 0.6 % of the total 2014- 2020 MFF and has been cut under the 2018 budget; points out that the funding volume is not sufficient to realise CFP objectives and must be increased;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that Brexit must not be used as an excuse to reduce future funding; takes the view that the EU should find a way to ensure that a possible decline in the post-2020 MFF does not automatically translate into lower allocations to the EMFF and that on the contrary, because of the risks of an impact on fisheries from Brexit, there needs to be a separate budget heading;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the level of implementation of the 2014-2020 EMFF three years after its adoption on 15 May 2014 remains unsatisfactory, as by September 2017 only 1.4 % of the EUR 6.4 billion fund had been used; hopes that the level of implementation of the EMFF and other EU structural and investment programmes will eventually improve; calls for greater flexibility in allocating appropriations and, in particular, for data-related funding not used by Member States to be transferable to research institutes and, for control purposes, to the European Fisheries Control Agency;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Supports the view widely held by the industry and Member State administrations that the current financing rules are too complicated and could be made less cumbersome overall, but particularly so for projects involving low levels of funding; points out that, as the report on the omnibus regulation to simplify the Financial Regulation did not cover the EMFF, the EMFF Regulation must be simplified;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that, even though the EU remains a net seafood importer, European fisheries continue to be a very important source of healthy food for the European market and ensure EU food autonomy; underlines the fact that the EU should continue to prevent substandard products from entering the EU marketEU market entry for products that do not comply with food- related, environmental and social standards deriving from International Labour Organisation Convention No 188, or with provisions to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and that those requirements must be incorporated into free-trade agreements;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that European added value in fisheries management has to date been largely associated with a reduction in the capacity of fishing fleetssound resource management, product quality and product processing; is of the opinion that in the post-2020 MFF a balance between the fisheries resources available and fleet capacity will have to be taken into account; highlights, however, that other elements with a non-quantifiable added value should be considered as well, such as the role the fishing sector plays in communities highly dependent on this activity in terms of employment and local growth; underlines, therefore, that fisheries must remain independent in order to support these communities;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights the fact that European coastal communities are, and will remain, highly dependent on the fisheries sector, even thougand will remain so, both itsn contribution to local economies is constantly decliningnection with seafood product processing, tourism and catering and, upstream, as regards shipyard, maintenance and repair work, safety and new technologies; stresses, therefore, that community-led local development (CLLD) and fisheries local action groups (FLAGs) should remain a focus and their funding must be increased, as they serve to enable local fisheries communities to address these challenges at grass-roots level, using the knowledge of local stakeholders to tackle local issues; underlines, in this regard, the importance of keeping the financing structure of fishermen’s producer organisations intact and of making contributions to representative professional bodies;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the increasingly important role of the so-called ‘blue economy’; is of the opinion that the priorities of the Blue Growth strategy should be aligned with those of the EMFF, with a specific budget heading being assigned accordingly, i.e. environmental sustainability, resource efficiency, competitiveness, creation of high-quality employment opportunities, academic and vocational training, and territorial cohesion; calls on the Commission to reassess the financial allocations for Blue Growth in the MFF and stresses that a fisheries fund should play an important role in this regard;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Highlights the need for supporting measures to facilitate social dialogue and to use the EMFF to help train skilled professionals for the maritime and fisheries sector; stresses the importance of modernising the maritime and fisheries sector and notes the role that innovation plays in this; calls for greater innovation, in particular as regards selectivity, energy efficiency of vessels, alterations that need to be made to them because of the landing obligation, and crew comfort and safety;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that the next MFF should enable the Union to provide solutions and emerge strengthened from the crises of the decade: the economic and financial downturn, the phenomenon of migration and refugees, climate change and natural disasters, terrorism and instability, persistent poverty, increasing inequality, to name but a few; underlines that these global, cross-border challenges with domestic implications reveal the interdependency of our economies and societies, and point to the need for joint actions; stresses in this context the obligation to align the EU’s budgetary framework with the Sustainable Development Goals which provide a global roadmap for more sustainable, equitable and prosperous societies within planetary boundaries; recalls that all EU member states and the European Commission itself had signed up the SDG Declaration in November 2015
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the importance of maintainincreasing the same level of financing for the European Fisheries Control Agency.
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers that the EU’s budgetary framework should be aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals; recalls that all EU member states and the European Commission itself had signed up the SDG Declaration in November 2015; expects the EU to fulfil its commitments towards those goals;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Stresses that revising ceilings should remain an option in the MFF Regulation in the event of unforeseen circumstances, when the financing needs would exhaust or exceed available margins and special instruments; calls for the MFF Regulation to provide for a simplified procedure for a targeted revision under an agreed threshold;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)
Paragraph 32 b (new)
32b. Advocates in favour of maintaining the possibility to front- or backload the financing of any EU programme, in order to allow for countercyclical action that corresponds to the rhythm of the actual implementation as well as to provide a meaningful response to major crises; calls, moreover, for the legislative flexibility -currently enshrined in Point 17 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA)- that allows for an adjustment in the overall envelope of programmes adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure of up to +/- 10 %, to be further increased to +/-15 %;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 c (new)
Paragraph 32 c (new)
32c. Points to the flexibility that can be achieved through transfers within the same MFF heading, with the aim of placing the financial resources exactly where they are needed and ensuring a better implementation of the EU budget; considers that a lower number of headings contributes to enhanced flexibility in the MFF; requests, however, the Commission to proactively inform and consult the budgetary authority when adopting significant autonomous transfers;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Considers that the Contingency Margin should be maintained as an instrument of last resort; stresses that this is a special instrument that can also be mobilised for payment appropriations only, and that its mobilisation was instrumental in responding to the 2014 payment crisis; calls, therefore, for an upward adjustment of its maximum annual allocation to 0.05 % of EU GNI; considers, however, that no compulsory offsetting for it being mobilised should apply;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Notes that the current IIA foresees a special majority in Parliament for the mobilisation of three MFF special instruments; considers this provision to be obsolete, reflecting the special majorities needed for the adoption of the EU budget before the Lisbon Treaty; calls for a homogeneous approach as regards the voting requirements for the mobilisation of these instruments, which should be the same as for the adoption of the EU budget;
Amendment 653 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
93. Believes that the next MFF must support the establishment of a European Defence Union; reaffirms its strong principle that additional political priorities should be coupled with additional financial means, therefore, highlights that without additional financial means, such new policy could not be established; awaits, following the Commission’s announcements in this area, the relevant legislative proposals, including a dedicated EU defence research programme and an industrial development programme complemented by Member States’ investment in collaborative equipment; recalls that increased defence cooperation, the pooling of research and equipment and the elimination of duplications could lead to considerable efficiency gains, often estimated at around EUR 26 billion per year;
Amendment 683 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 101 a (new)
Paragraph 101 a (new)
101a. Considers that the unanimity requirement for the adoption of the MFF Regulation represents a true impediment in the process; calls, in that regard, on the European Council to activate the passerelle in Article 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 Article48(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;