Activities of Georgi PIRINSKI related to 2015/2132(BUD)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016 - all sections
Amendments (8)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes note that the agreement on European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) results in cuts in the Connected Europe Facility (CEF); reminds in this regard that there will be an inevitable decrease in investment in some specific areas, since they are less attractive for private investors, by their nature; reminds, for example, that though investments in railways and inland waterways produce substantial socio- economic and environmnotes that, as the purpose of EFSI is to support high-risk strategic projects, it should in particular correct the shortcomings of the market in sectors with a profitability risk profile, such as railways and inland waterways, which are discouraging to private investors; stresses, nevertheless, that sectors that are less suited to these financial instruments and require subsidy mechanisms to be put in place, such as railways and inland waterways, should be given preferential treatment in the allocation of CEF subsidies in order to avoid their being pental benefits, they are rather less profitable and need grants for their implementationised by the CEF budgetary contribution to the EU Guarantee Fund laid down in the agreement on EFSI; emphasises that coordination is needed to ensure that those projects of high European added value shall be reintroduced through the Juncker Plan or just EFSI.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of TEN-T not only as nodal points of connection within Europe, but also as a chance to launch the individual domestic markets, local economies and urban and metropolitan areas; underlines therefore that the CEF should be valued as a system of funding not only for infrastructures but for European policies as a whole; draws attention to the unprecedented interest demonstrated by Member States at the 2014 CEF-T calls and to the great number of submitted eligible proposals; insists in this regard that the provided funding in the MFF must be respected both for commitments and for payments in order to successfully achieve the CEF priorities and objectives.
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to take into account, with a view to the allocation of funds from the CEF, the economic and social difficulties some EU countries are currently undergoing which risk considerably hampering the submission of projects; calls, therefore, on the Commission to supply the necessary assistance to these countries in the framework of the CEF programme.
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Draws attention to the forthcoming adoption of the fourth railway package which provides for greater coordination between national safety agencies andnew powers of the European Railway Agency concerning the authorisation of rolling stock and the certification of the undertakings referred to in the agreement on the technical pillar of the railway package, and recalls the Commission’s commitment to provide the budget of the European Railway Agency with sufficient resources to exercise these new powers; calls, therefore, for the budget of the European Railway Agency into be maintained at a minimum level or even increased to order to mtake procedures, timing and resources more efficieninto account the wider tasks the Agency is called on to carry out; moreover, recalls the importance of investing in the development of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) with a single European and interoperable standard.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Draws attention to the crucial role played by the agencies whose main responsibility is to ensure the safety of the various modes of transport, and therefore rejects the proposed cuts in the agencies’ operating budgets and does not agree with proposed cuts that could undermine transport safety.
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Suggests, bBearing in mind that there is no direct budgetary line for tourism, usingstresses that an efficient cross-collaboration between the numerous sectors is necessary in utilizing resources both from the EU budget for the transport sector, as a factor inwell as under the COSME programme and ESIF for successfully promoting the tourist attractiveness and competitiveness of the whole ‘Old Continent’; stresses that an efficient cross-collaboration between the numerous sectors concerned is desirable in this field.
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. RecommendsConsiders indispensable paying particular attention to transport policy and spending for public transport projects in order to promote accessibility and development of urban and metropolitan areas; reminds and their connection with rural and remote areas, since such projects also have important social and environmental aspects for the quality of life of EU citizens; bearing in mind that today more than half of the world population lives in cities, and the trend of this phenomenon is growing; therefore believes that the contribution to, considers that the development of an efficient and sustainable urbanpublic transport sector irepresents a solid contribution to global growth and to fulfilment of the objectives for reduction of CO2 emissions and air quality.
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Emphasises the role of research and innovation in the transport and tourism sectors both for the development of intelligent transport systems and sustainable and clean power, as well as for better security and improved services for consumers; therefore rejects the proposed cuts for research, in particular for payment appropriations.