17 Amendments of Barbara SPINELLI related to 2016/2047(BUD)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the commitments of the EC to provide the necessary resources to protect the external borders of the EU, to reinforce security inside and outside the Union, to provide MS support for the reception of people in need for international protection and to address the root causes of migration flows in the countries of origin and transiallocate for the 'Security and citizenship' budget line 1,8 billion € above the initially programmed amount for the year 2017, which represents a slight increase over the reinforced funding level in the 2016 budget; points out however that the EUR 5.2 billionn € programmed in 2017 for Heading III and IV to address challenges posed by the refugee and migration crisis represent less than 3,5% of the total EUnion budget, which is little considering existential stakes involved for the EU; considers that the Union should show solidarity with those in real need and the preservation of the European democratic values, when they are under threat by terrorism and intolerance aimed at destroying the European tolerance;we need solidarity among Member States and with those in need.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Reiterates its belief that EU funding for reception and integration of migrants and asylum seekers should be substantially increased, as opposed to the priority which is given today to border control and other costly security measures, such as administrative detention, which have not shown their effectiveness and often contravene the rights of migrants; calls on the Commission to primarily allocate additional resources for earmarked specific actions to Member States that volunteer for actions geared towards reception and integration of migrants and asylum seekers, as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2016 Budget1a; _________________ 1a §1 of EP budget opinion 2016
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls for ato revision ofe the MFF to deliver a more powerful, flexible and sustainable response to the current crisihumanitarian challenges in 2017 and requests simplification of the financial regulation and procedures, as well as the verification of how European funds are spent;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Believes the positive impact of the EU migration funds relies on processes at national and EU level to ensure transparency, effective monitoring and accountability. It is hence imperative to introduce monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in itinere and not only ex post which secure effective expenditure and assess whether the EU is attaining its policy objectives. Calls therefore on the Commission to ensure that result indicators and measurable targets based on the activities undertaken are defined at policy and project levels. Qualitative and quantitative indicators shall be established, be stable overtime and be comparable in order to measure the EU funds' impact and the achievement of their objectives. Quantified data should be systematically collected. Believes the European Court of Auditors should be monitoring throughout the project cycle and not only at the very end
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Recalls that the fair and transparent distribution of funding between the different objectives of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund was a priority for Parliament during negotiations leading to the adoption of that fund; calls on the Commission accordingly to increase the number of budget lines under the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund to facilitate a better readability and transparency of how the financial resources allocated to the different objectives and thus to those budgetary lines will be spent; calls, in particular, on the Commission to separate expenditure on enhancing fair return strategies from expenditure on legal migration and promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals in all future draft budgets as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2015 Budget 1a _________________ 1a §12 of EP budget opinion 2015
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Believes responsible authorities should ensure more transparency throughout the application process. The calls for proposals should be widely disseminated and easily accessible. At Member State level, local and regional technical bodies could play an active role in this dissemination as well as provide support in the application process. Each year, the following information should be publicized by the Commission as regards the selected projects and programmes: names and nature of all projects supported (avoiding generic titles that do not reflect the actual content like "capacity-building"), the year of funding, the duration of the project, the amount of EU contribution, the policy priority it addresses, the overall number of applicants for the call, the evaluation criteria and the remaining amount of the EU contribution that has not been allocated.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomesNotes the proposed funding amount of AMIF (EUR 1.6 billionn €) and ISF (EUR 0.7 billionn €); supports the total funding (EUR 3 billion) for setting up the European Border and Coast Guard agency, the new Entry-Exit System,for setting up the new Common European Asylum System and for creating the instrument providing fast and efficient emergency humanitarian assistance within the EU;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. SupportNotes the budget increase of the efficient JHA agencies involved with migration and security; requests the Commission to further justify the dramatic (+92%, EUR +73 million €)increase of the budget of EU-LISA for the Entry Exit System and the revision of Dublin legislation as well as to explain break-down of appropriations between EU- LISA budget and the ISF; notes that the Commission's impact assessment on the Smart Borders proposal has failed to demonstrate its cost-effectiveness, proportionality and practical feasibility and raises severe data protection concerns.
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Questions the existence of the budget line "establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register data on the entry, exit and refusal of entry of third country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union" even though the "Smart Borders" package has yet to be adopted by the co-legislators; underlines that no specific funding has been allocated to that budget line since its creation; calls on the Commission to establish budget lines for such actions only after the co-legislators have approved those actions through the appropriate legislative act, as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2015 Budget 1a; _________________ 1a §10 of EP budget opinion 2015
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the increase of the budget line "Ensuring the protection of rights and empowering citizens" and "Promoting non-discrimination and equality"; expects the Commission to issue new calls for proposals, in particular to ensure the highest level of protection of fundamental rights also in the digital environment.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Reiterates its call for specific funding to be allocated to tackle growing antisemitism, islamophobia, afrophobia and antiromism in Member States; calls in particular for the Union to support projects aiming at the empowerment of women and girls from the communities concerned, as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2016 Budget 1a. _________________ 1a §12 of EP budget opinion 2016
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Believes that a coherent European response to search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean must be independent from border management and control missions, and designed as a stand-alone mission; Reiterates its call for a more long-term approach to search and rescue operations, necessary also through a new budget line for an EU Search and Rescue Fund as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2016 Budget 1a _________________ 1a §4 and §8 of EP budget opinion 2016
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Calls for EU development funds and humanitarian aid not be linked to partner countries' capacity and/or willingness to collaborate in migration control e.g. through readmission clauses
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6 d. Insists that projects that run against fundamental rights of migrants and give legitimacy to dictatorial regimes should not be supported.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)
Paragraph 6 f (new)
6 f. Believes that civil society, including Non-Governmental Organisations, plays a significant role in safeguarding, promoting and implementing migrants' rights. Hence, such NGOs should be supported in playing their role as watchdogs and promoters of fundamental rights as direct service providers and innovators in developing new tools and building capacities of various stakeholders. Therefore, effective partnership principles for civil society organisations should be established, securing their involvement in preparation, planning, monitoring, implementation and evaluation of funding at both national and EU levels. Such principles should be mandatory.
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 g (new)
Paragraph 6 g (new)
6 g. Believes funds used for the reception and integration of migrants and asylum seekers should be exempt from EU deficit rules as provided for in the EU Stability and Growth Pact