Activities of Ernest MARAGALL related to 2015/2353(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament's input ahead of the Commission's proposal (debate) ES
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal PDF (834 KB) DOC (333 KB)
Amendments (81)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) was adopted for the first time under the new provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, according to which the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously adopt the MFF regulation after having obtained the consent of the European Parliament, unless the Council decides to use the Passerelle clause, as provided for by Article 48(7) regarding the decision-making procedures for the MFF regulation, in order to switch from unanimity to QMV for its adoption;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that, while the MFF Regulation has to a large extent remained unchanged since its adoption, the framework conditions for its implementation have changed; highlights the fact that, following a genuine review, a legislative proposal should address these challenges; points out in this regard that the new instruments, such as EFSI, that have been set up since the adoption of the MFF Regulation should be duly incorporated into the EU budget without any negative financial impact on the agreed programmesfinancial enveloped of the research, innovation and investment programmes under Heading 1a, as agreed at the adoption of the MFF;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in order to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the new MFF and to give the opportunity to the new Commission and the newly elected Parliament of reconfirming and, reassessing or revising the EU’'s political and budgetary priorities by adjusting the MFF accordingly, a post-electoral revision clause was requested by Parliament;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the agreement on the MFF 2014-2020 was the outcome of a long and strenuous process of negotiations which took place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context; whereas as a consequence the overall level of the MFF was effectively reduced compared to the previous programming period; whereas the 2014-2020 MFF was reduced by 9% compared to the initial Commission proposal which came forward with a proposal representing a freeze at 2013 level;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the considerable long-term impact of EFSI on the EU budget; believes that EFSI invests in projects that are not and should not be the same as those targeted by the H2020- affected budget lines and CEF; stresses therefore that, if the EU is to reach its research and innovation targets, the unanimously agreed level of financing of these programmes needs to be fully restored, and the right balance between grants and financial instruments to be maintained; recalls, in this context, that CEF in the area of energy and telecom has high political priority for the Energy Union and the Digital Union;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, faced politically with the impossibility of changing the overall MFF figures decided by the European Council, Parliament successfully negotiated the inclusion of a specific article in the MFF regulation relating to a compulsory and comprehensive review/revision of the MFF, the establishment of new and enhanced flexibility provisions, and the setting-up of a High Level Group on Own Resources;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the EU is presently facing its major crisis since its foundation, as a result of several episodes concatenated — the euro crisis, the cross credit-debt crisis, the Ukraine crisis, the refugee's crisis — all of them with budgetary impacts; whereas the budget cannot stand ignoring such situation but trying to fix it, anticipating instead of reacting when problems become almost unsolvable.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls to the Commission that grants and loans do not finance the same type of activities and that those different instruments support different types of beneficiaries and projects; stresses the need of continuing with grants for financing fundamental and collaborative research, in particular research performed by the academia; alerts against the tendency in the Commission of transforming grants into loans or equity, in particular when university research budgets are suffering cuts in many Member States; believes that this tendency works towards the losing of the research basis, which in turn significantly reduces the innovation potential of the European Union in the future;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Legal framework and scope of the mid- term review/post electoral revision
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that in accordance with Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, the Commission shall present a compulsory review of the functioning of the MFF before the end of 2016, taking full account of the economic situation at that time as well as of the latest macroeconomic projections, and that this review shall, as appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal for the revision of the MFF Regulation; Reiterates that a binding post-electoral revision clause was one of the key demand from the EP to grant its consent to the MFF regulation;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that new political priorities shouldmust not be proposed at the expense of the agreed programmes of the current MFF, in particularsuch as H2020, CEF, COSME, Galileo and Copernicus, and pre-allocated national envelopes;, that should be fully implemented; points however to the fact that the budget of ITER is larger than any other R&D investment in the field of energy; deeply regrets that some Member States are compelled to review their funding priorities for research, because of the surge of ITER costs; stresses that the European Parliament has voted to withhold approval of the 2014 accounts of ITER on ground of lack of coherence in the budgetary and financial management.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that Erasmus+ would reach its cruising speed only if it takes on board a growing number of smaller projects that allow a larger diffusion of the programme at schools or for youth, an increase of VET mobility, and therefore a better efficiency in realising its educative, social and humanitarian goals; welcomes therefore all efforts made by the EACEA and national agencies to improve not only their financial transparency but the simplification procedures for the project leaders;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Firmly believes that ITER is the largest misallocated EU investment in energy R&D; calls for the investment dedicated to ITER to be halted and reallocated to the development and deployment of sustainable energy solutions that are already available, or available in the foreseeable future to deliver the climate and energy 2020 goals;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Recommends the Commission to pay special attention to the implementation of the financial Guarantee facility tool which is delayed by more than a few months; is concerned that cultural NGOs and small associations will not be eligible for this tool, and only cultural and creative SMEs would be able to participate; recommends a thorough analysis of the experiences done throughout the whole process in order to check the pertinence and sustainability of such a tool, aside COSME;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that Article 311 TFEU states that the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies; considers, therefore, that should the review arrive at the conclusions that the current ceilings were too low, it would be a primary law requirement to increase the ceilings, especially the payment ceiling;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for a further strengthening of,aligning of objectives and a maximising of synergies between, ESIF funds and EU programmes such as Horizon 2020, COSME and CEF; deplores that despite sharing the same budgetary heading, competitiveness and cohesion policies are managed as isolated silos; believes that, without changing the established Member States envelopes, greater competitiveness convergence between European regions and a greater R&D exploitation rate could be achieved by better integrating both policies under a common industrial policy, driven towards full employment, and having the sustainable energy transition and digital union as main tools;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Urges the Commission and Council to review their position on the "Europe for Citizens" programme, the only programme which involves all citizens directly, and to provide it with a substantial additional budget allowing better implementation of the goals of the programme and avoiding further frustration among participants to the calls; indeed, having been cut beyond any reason, the programme can only accept a dramatically low percentage of projects, a situation that it is not sustainable and defendable towards the EU citizens, even more so in the present social and humanitarian situation in the EU;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses the key role that the EU budget must play in achieving the jointly agreed EU 2020 Strategy objectives and the EU's international commitments; strongly believes that EU funding, if well devised, can actually trigger and catalyse actions having clear Union added value which Member States are unable to carry out on their own, as well as creating synergies and complementarities with Member States' activities by helping them focus on key future-oriented investment;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines that the scope of this report is to analyse the purely budgetary aspects of the functioning of the MFF and that it will not touch on the legal bases of sectoral legislation; notes, however, that many EU policies and programmes foresee their own review/revision requirements, mainly scheduled for 2017 and, furthermore, that the possibility exists for the Commission to conduct comprehensive Fitness checks of EU policies;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for the substantial strengthening of the application of sustainability criteria to the EFSI investments as well as all EIB investments, in order to ensure additionality as well as impact towards the EU 2020 targets;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that Union programmes have significantly contributed to ensuring access to finance for SMEs; calls for further consideration to be given to ways of extendingresources to be allocated to the programme to even more SMEs and meeting the various needs of SMEs more adequately; calls in particular for the significant extension of the SME instruments under Horizon 2020, in order to meet at minimum its legal budgetary commitments; requests to the Commission to establish as of 2016, an unique budget line for the SME Instrument, in order to allow clearer budgetary oversight and control, and ensure a genuine bottom-up approach to its implementation.
Amendment 33 #
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 were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’'s adoption or undermined by the Council; 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, the unacceptable high levels of poverty, social exclusion and inequality, 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;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Believes that ambitious goals in sustainable energy policy, energy efficiency and resource efficiency policy can deliver cost-efficient benefits for European industry and the European economy as a whole; calls for the allocation of EU and Member State public and private resources to investments in those priority sectors; believes that further synergies between Horizon 2020 and smart specialisation initiatives (RIS3) should be fostered to ensure better R&D exploitation and support regional economic convergence;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Fully agrees with the European Court of Auditors which states in its first recommendation of its 2014 annual report that the EU strategy and the MFF need to be better aligned, in particular concerning the time period and priorities. This would help to ensure that adequate monitoring and reporting arrangements are in place, and so make it easier for the Commission to report effectively on the contribution of the EU budget to the EU strategy. The Commission should make appropriate proposals to the legislator to address this issue;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Concludes that the activities planned by the Commission to cope with the migrant and refugee crisis 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 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 the Member states should take their responsibility in such situation, including in the reallocation of refugees; fears moreover that the extremely tense situation might lead to extra financial needs, especially in case of a non- agreement with the Turkish government;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4 a (new)
Subheading 4 a (new)
Low level of investment
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls that, since the global economic and financial crisis, the EU has suffered from low levels of investment and a lack of aggregate internal demand; notes in particular that in 2014 total investment was 15 % below the 2007 level, which corresponds to an investment drop of EUR 430 billion; considers that weak investment and low aggregate internal demand slows economic recovery and has direct repercussions on growth, jobs and competitiveness;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines that, in response to this pressing problem, the new Commission in 2014 proposed an investment plan for Europe and the establishment of EFSI, with the aim of mobilising EUR 315 billion in new private investment in the real economy; notes that the guarantee provided by the Union for EFSI is covered by a Guarantee Fund of EUR 8 billion constituted in the EU budget, based in the hope it will be enough to multiply private investment by a 21 factor.;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that, in order to secure this additional funding due to the Guarantee Fund, 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 much as possible the impact on these two programmes, which were already severely cut by the Council during the MFF negotiation (12% and 52% respectively) and whose financial envelopes were decided only in 2013;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5
Subheading 5
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that youth unemployment remains dramatically high and represents onthe MFF and the EU Budget should reflect all the EU 2020 goals, and not the of the most prr way round; Underliness ing and serious problems that the EU is currently facing; highlights that 4.4 million young person this context, that the EU Budget should be used in a way that improves the labour market access uander 25 were unemployed across the Union in February 2016 and that this corresponds to a proportion of over 40 % in several Member States combats unemployment, poverty and social exclusion and promotes equality, including gender equality;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Points out that the Europe 2020 poverty target is far from being achieved, which highlights that policies in this field have failed, in particular for people in vulnerable situations; Is worried about the worsening social situation caused by the financial and economic crisis is undermining the sustainability of social protection systems; stresses there is a need for increased financial aid to social policies measures, that promotes social investment, including in quality social services and social economy; considers the Commission should thoroughly monitor that the share of the ESF earmarked to fighting poverty and social exclusion, is effectively used for this purpose;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Underlines that the employment rate in the EU currently stands at 69.2 %, which is well below the Europe 2020 target, and considers there is a need for increased public investment in quality and sustainable job creation and skills, including green jobs and jobs in the social economy and the social, health and care sector;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16c. Stresses that youth unemployment remains dramatically high and represents one of the most pressing and serious problems that the EU is currently facing; highlights that 4.4 million young persons under 25 were unemployed across the Union in February 2016 and that this corresponds to a proportion of over 40 % in several Member States and peaking at more than 50% in certain regions or areas;</Date>
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Stresses that the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF), the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived and the Employment and Social Innovation Programme (EaSI) contribute to the achievement of the poverty and employment targets of the Europe 2020 strategy which is already in need of increased commitment and achievement; notes that competition for scarce funds may lead to social conflict; calls on the Commission to monitor and on the Member States to ensure that the ear- marked budget of 20% of the ESF for spending on social inclusion to be fully met; insists that the ESF share amounts to 25 % of the total cohesion budget, that the 20% earmarking for social inclusion be kept;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7
Subheading 7
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls the various crisNotes that European farmers have been faced with various economic crises since the beginning of the current MFF, most notably the dairy and fruits and vegetables sectors 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 of the emergency measures taken in response to these crises, involving EUR 500 million in the budget 2016 and EUR 300 million in 2015; underlines the persistent situation of crisis in the agricultural sector in several Member States; concludes that the CAP fails to creates the conditions for all farmers to make a decent living from their activity; and urges for the changes in the CAP in order to prioritize the Rural Development pillar as the only efficient strategy to fight against the chronical crisis in the rural areas;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Regrets that the CAP fails to support a number of farming systems that contribute to the EU biodiversity targets; deplores that public money is used inefficiently in pursuit of the Union's goals in the field of the environment; calls for better use of MFF heading 2 funds to the benefit of farmers, society and the environment;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8
Subheading 8
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 8 a (new)
Subheading 8 a (new)
Payments backlog
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 – introductory part
Paragraph 22 – introductory part
22. Regrets that the consequences of this payment crisis have been severe, affecting beneficiaries of the EU budget such as students, universities, SMEs and researchers, NGOs, as well as local and regional authorities; recalls, in particular, the dramatic shortage of payments in the field of humanitarian operations in 2014, which negatively affected the EU’s life- saving operations; recalls that the Commission had to resort to ‘mitigating measures’ such as reducing pre-financing percentages and postponing calls for proposals/tenders and related contracting; recalls that an artificial slowdown in the implementation of the new 2014-2020 programmes occurred owing to the general lack of payments, an example being an artificial delay relating to EUR 1 billion worth of calls for proposals under Horizon 2020 in 2014, which aimed at ensuring that payments would fall due in 2015 rather than in 2014; stresses, furthermore, that penalties for late payments have been charged to the EU budget, reaching some EUR 3 million in both 2014 and 2015;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Stresses that, in order to secure the additional appropriations that have been needed to respond to crises or to finance new political priorities since 2014, the budgetary authority has approved a substantial mobilisation of the flexibility provisions and special instruments included in the MFF regulation, after exhausting all available margins; recalls that several of those provisions resulted directly from proposals of the European Parliament, which ranked the call for maximum possible flexibility as one of its key demands in the MFF negotiations; Points out that the Flexibility provisions were sharply reduced by the Council (- 48%) during the MFF negotiations;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Recalls that global warming represents an unprecedented challenge to the whole of mankind, bringing major threats as well as major opportunities of innovations if sufficient resources are dedicated to climate research;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26b. Underlines that the European Union successfully led international efforts to reach the ambitious climate agreement agreed in Paris in 2015; therefore considers that the Union should dedicate sufficient resources to fulfilling its own commitments and objectives in the field of climate action;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Is convinced, on the basis of the above analysis, that the review of the functioning of the current MFF entails the conclusion that a genuine mid-term revision of the MFF as provided for in the MFF Regulation is absolutely indispensable if the Union is to effectively confront a number of challenges while fulfilling its political objectives; recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy remains the main priority to be supported by the EU budget; challenges the Council, in case it does not share this approach, to clearly identify which of its political priorities or projects could be dropped altogether, despite their proven European added value;
Amendment 177 #
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 agoStresses therefore that the maximalist approach of the revision of the MFF might lead to an upward revision of the MFF up to the own resources ceiling (1,29% of the EU GNI in commitments) which would lead to an approximate increase by € 150 bn investment within and outside the EU in order to reach the EU2020 strategy targets and to fulfil the EU's international commitments, such as the COP21 and the post MDG objectives;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Therefore reiterates its views that the Commission proposal, which was then cut by € 85 bn, was not sufficient to finance existing policy priorities linked to Europe's strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the new tasks provided for by the Treaty of Lisbon, or unforeseen events, not to mention the political objectives and commitments set by the European Council itself; therefore considers that the outcome of the revision should logically end up between those two minimum and maximum limits;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 b (new)
Paragraph 29 b (new)
29b. 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; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of Subheading 1a, as no margins are available;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 c (new)
Paragraph 29 c (new)
29c. Asks for an increased financial support to the three European programmes concerning directly citizens: Creative Europe, Europe for citizens and Erasmus+, as those programmes develop new subvention lines to react to the present situation on refugees integration, education and are on the front of actions lead by the Union and Member States to improve the overall social situation, mutual understanding and the living together in our different societies;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 d (new)
Paragraph 29 d (new)
29d. Urges the Commission and Council to review their position on the "Europe for Citizens" programme, the only programme which involves all citizens directly, and to provide it with a substantial additional budget allowing better implementation of the goals of the programme and avoiding further frustration among participants to the calls; indeed, having been cut beyond any reason, the programme can only accept a dramatically low percentage of projects, a situation that it is not sustainable and defendable towards the EU citizens, even more so in the present social and humanitarian situation in the EU;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 e (new)
Paragraph 29 e (new)
29e. Considers that Erasmus+ would reach its cruising speed only if it takes on board a growing number of smaller projects that allow a larger diffusion of the programme at schools or for youth, an increase of VET mobility, and therefore a better efficiency in realising its educative, social and humanitarian goals; welcomes therefore all efforts made by the EACEA and national agencies to improve not only their financial transparency but the simplification procedures for the project leaders;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 f (new)
Paragraph 29 f (new)
29f. Recommends the Commission to pay special attention to the implementation of the financial Guarantee facility tool which is delayed by more than a few months; is concerned that cultural NGOs and small associations will not be eligible for this tool, and only cultural and creative SMEs would be able to participate; recommends a thorough analysis of the experiences done throughout the whole process in order to check the pertinence and sustainability of such a tool, aside COSME;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 g (new)
Paragraph 29 g (new)
29g. Notes that the revision of the MFF is a key point in the management of Union spending by ensuring that Union investment programmes remain efficient; insists on a thorough simplification of the application forms and criteria, of reporting and reimbursement, especially for small-scale projects, both in Erasmus+ and in the Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens programmes;
Amendment 190 #
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 adequatt least, the same level of commitment appropriations for the YEI for the remaining years of the current MFFthan the one agreed in 2013 (€ 6 billion for 2 years) for the YEI for the remaining years of the current MFF; concludes that at least, 12 billion should be available for the YEI programme for the period 2017- 2020; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings of Subheading 1b, as no margins are available;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Recalls the Union's commitments of spending at least 20% of the EU budget on climate-related actions; regrets that currently, the Union does not respect this internal budget commitment since the Commission's own figures show only 12.5% allocated to climate change in the 2015 draft budget; underlines that a revision of the MFF would provide an opportunity to ensure that this target is met in the future; calls upon the Commission and Member States to increase immediately the climate spending in the EU budget from 20 to 30% and to improve the current method of tracking such spending In light of the Paris agreement on global action to combat climate change and to show European leadership in this regard;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)
Paragraph 32 b (new)
32b. Believes that new political priorities must not be proposed at the expense of the agreed programmes of the current MFF, such as H2020, CEF, COSME, Galileo and Copernicus, and pre-allocated national envelopes, that should be fully implemented; points however to the fact that the budget of ITER is larger than any other R&D investment in the field of energy; deeply regrets that some Member States are compelled to review their funding priorities for research, because of the surge of ITER costs; stresses that the European Parliament has voted to withhold approval of the 2014 accounts of ITER on ground of lack of coherence in the budgetary and financial management;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 c (new)
Paragraph 32 c (new)
32c. Firmly believes that ITER is the largest misallocated EU investment in energy R&D; calls for the investment dedicated to ITER to be halted and reallocated to the development and deployment of sustainable energy solutions that are already available, or available in the foreseeable future to deliver the climate and energy 2020 goals;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Considers that, as a matter of priority, it is necessary to act to prevent a new payment crisis occurring towards the end of the current MFF; firmly believes that every effort should be mStresses therefore that the maximalist approach of the revision of the MFF might leade to avoid building up a backlog of unpaid bills like the one that was observed during the previous period; stresses, however, the significant pn upward revision of the MFF up to the own ressoure on payments that can already be anticipated for the second half of the MFF, which is due, inter alia, to the offsetting of the Contingency Margin against the payments ceilings for 2018- 2020, the considerable delay in launching the new programmes under shared management, the payment profile of EFSI, and the additional payments corresponding to the recent increases in commitments in relation to the migration and refugee crisisces ceiling (1,23% of the EU GNI in payments) which would roughly lead to an additional € 120 bn;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33a. Therefore reiterates its views that the Commission proposal, which was ten cut by € 91 bn in payments, was not sufficient to close the gap between the commitments and the payments and to reduce the RAL; therefore considers that the outcome of the revision should logically end up between those two minimum and maximum limits;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 b (new)
Paragraph 33 b (new)
33b. Considers that, as a matter of priority, it is necessary to act to prevent a new payment crisis occurring towards the end of the current MFF; firmly believes that every effort should be made to avoid building up a backlog of unpaid bills like the one that was observed during the previous period; stresses, however, the significant pressure on payments that can already be anticipated for the second half of the MFF, which is due, inter alia, to the offsetting of the Contingency Margin against the payments ceilings for 2018- 2020, the considerable delay in launching the new programmes under shared management, the payment profile of EFSI, and the additional payments corresponding to the recent increases in commitments in relation to the migration and refugee crisis;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Expects, therefore, that new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in payment appropriations, including an upward revision of the annual payments ceiling if necessary; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review/post electoral 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 a joint payment plan for 2016-2020 should be developed and agreed between the three institutions;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15
Subheading 15
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15 a (new)
Subheading 15 a (new)
Gender-responsive budgeting 42c. Recognises that gender equality is enshrined in the EU Treaty and should be included in all EU policies to deliver equality in practice; stresses that gender equality must become a policy objective in all budget titles and similarly, gender mainstreaming must be recognised as an implementation method in all budget titles; stresses that therefore, gender budgeting must become an integral part of the budgetary procedure at all its stages, and notes that progress on this front has been marginal; welcomes the MFF mid-term review as an opportunity to make significant progress, in light of the 'Budget for Results' agenda; expects the Commission, therefore, to present further measurable objectives in order to truly embed gender perspectives in the EU budget for the remainder of this programming period; 42d. Recalls the Parliament's crucial scrutiny role on gender-responsive budgeting; calls for all committees to take gender equality into consideration in the design and revision of budgets and of the financial framework in order to increase accountability and transparency regarding this Institution's commitment to gender equality; urges in this regard to systematically include specific gender indicators and gender-disaggregated data in the monitoring and evaluation of all actions that are funded by the EU budget. 42e. Stresses that the MFF should reflect the Commission's goal to achieve 40% of female senior and middle management in the Commission as set out in Jean-Claude Juncker's mission letter to Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva.
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15 b (new)
Subheading 15 b (new)
Simplification
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Believes that the mid-term review/post electoral revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, and expects the Commission to supply an analysis identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system; invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possible deficiencies and to improve the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the best possible use of scarce financial resources;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Acknowledges the increased role of financial instruments in the Union budget as a complementary form of funding as compared to subsidies and grants; recognises the potential of these instruments in terms of increasingNotes however the lack of evidence on the outcomes and results achieved by financial instruments and the loose link of those financial, and therefore the political, impact of the Union budget; underlines, however, that a shift from traditional financing to more innovative instruments is not advisable in all policy areas, as not all policies are entirely market-driven; underline instruments to overarching objectives and priorities of the EU; Considers necessary to further strengthening the accountability, transparency and result-orientation of financial instruments; Is opposed to a shift from traditional financing to more innovative instruments especially in both the Cohesion policy and research policy which should remain the main EU's EU2020-compatible investment capacity ; highlights that any increasing use of financial instruments should not lead to a reduction in the Union budget; recalls Parliament’'s repeated calls for greater transparency and democratic scrutiny regarding the implementation of financial instruments supported by the Union budget;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 a (new)
Paragraph 44 a (new)
44a. Follows the debate about a new Eurozone budgetary capacity (EBC) and considers it must be included in the MFF revision, whether it could be funded by regular incomes and/or by EU debt issuance; calls for an integrated management and parliamentary control for the EU budget, the ESM and the EBC;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44 b (new)
Paragraph 44 b (new)
44b. Recalls to the Commission that grants and loans do not finance the same type of activities and that those different instruments support different types of beneficiaries and projects; stresses the need of continuing with grants for financing fundamental and collaborative research, in particular research performed by the academia; alerts against the tendency in the Commission of transforming grants into loans or equity, in particular when university research budgets are suffering cuts in many Member States; believes that this tendency works towards the losing of the research basis, which in turn significantly reduces the innovation potential of the European Union in the future;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Considers that the key priorities to be addressed must include adjustments to the duration of the MFF, a thorough reform of the own resources system, a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, and more budgetary flexibility and a debate on the own resources ceilings which has not been modified for the last two decades ; is furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy and comply with the provisions of the Treaty;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Calls on the Commission to draw conclusions on the limitations of the current allocation key for determining support from cohesion policy funds based on GDP per capita only;
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Believes that, 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 revision different legal bases should be set without any expiration dates, like the CAP regulations; is therefore of the opinion that the MFF negotiations should mainly focus on the financial envelopes of the different EU funds and should not be necessarily linked to a revision of all legal basis; is of the opinion that such disconnection between the MFF negotiation and the revision of the legal basis could faster and ease the budgetary negotiations while keeping the needed flexibility to adapt and/or revise the legal bases when needed;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Underlines the need for a fully- fledged reform of the own resources system, with simplicity, fairness and transparency as guiding principles; is therefore expecting an ambitious final report from the High Level Group on Own Resources by the end of 2016, as well as an equally ambitious legislative package on own resources as of 2021 from the Commission by the end of 2017; which should pave the way toward a rebate-free, genuine and fair own resource system wholly funded by own resources;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Stresses the need to reduce the share of the GNI contributions to the Union budget in order to exit the ‘'juste retour’' approach of Member States; underlines that this would reduce the burden on national treasuries and thus make the resources concerned available for Member States’' national budgets; recalls that the current VAT own resource is over-complex and is in essence a second GNI contribution, and therefore calls for this own resource either to be substantially reformed or to be scrapped altogether; considers it necessary, however, to keep the GNI contributions as an element of the budget, given the need for its function as a balancing contribution;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Calls 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; reminds its position set out on March 13 2013 that it supports the Commission's legislative proposals on the own-resources package, and that revenues from the Financial Transaction Tax should be allocated at least partly to the EU budget as a genuine own resource; calls on the HLGOR to work on the possibility to introduce an EU-wide Carbon tax as a potential EU Own resources as of 2021 as well as an EU corporate tax when implementing a full CCCTB (Common Consolidate Corporate Tax base);
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54a. Calls for the immediate establishment of binding common accounting rules for the MS contributions to the EU own resources, stating clearly its EU nature;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
57. Reiterates its long-standing position that the European Development Fund should be integrated in the Union budget, as from 2021, while ensuring the financing of the African Peace Facility and security- related operations; stresses that the budgetisation of the EDF should led to an increase of the ceiling in H4 accordingly;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22
Subheading 22
Follow up of the Parisinternational agreements on climate change and biodiversity
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Notes 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; 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; calls upon the Commission and Member States to increase for the post 2020-MFF the climate-related spending in the EU budget to 50% and to improve the current method of tracking such spending In light of the Paris agreement on global action to combat climate change and to show European leadership in this regard;
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 a (new)
Paragraph 60 a (new)
60a. Recalls that the Union is a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and that as such it committed to implement the Convention's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity; notes that the above mentioned plan, which has guided the Union's policy in the field of biodiversity since 2010, will expire in 2020; therefore calls on the Commission to present an assessment of the budgetary implications of different replacement options in time for the revision;
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Recalls Parliament’'s critical stance as regards the manner in which the procedure leading to the adoption of the MFF Regulation for 2014-2020 was conducted; recalls that the adoption of the regulation requires Parliament’'s consent; stresses, therefore, that Parliament needs to be fully involved in the relevant negotiations from the outset; considers that the EU institutions should formalise the modalities for the next MFF procedure in an agreement reached at the time of the mid-term review/post electoral revision of the MFF, which should take account of the shortcomings of the previous negotiations and fully safeguard Parliament’'s role and prerogatives as set out in the Treaties; considers that these modalities should eventually be enshrined in the IIA, as is the case for the annual budgetary procedure;