6 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2016/2148(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is of the opinion that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) are crucial investment tools, including for rural areas, and thatwhich includes the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) isare crucial investment tools, and should be the main financing vehicle for boosting rural development in many Member States; believes however that the complexity of the overlapping funds within the ESI Fund undermines its effectiveness and its implementation at local level;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the budget initially allocated for the current programming period under Pillar II was EUR 99.6 billion, which represents a decrease in real terms compared with the previous period, but because of provisions for additional national financing, variable co-financing rates and the possibility of fund-switching between CAP pillars, the final amount shows a slight overall increase at presentthis coupled with the economic downturn, which has been aggravated by geo- political decisions has led to a situation in many member states where there is a substantial decrease in the roll out of programs on the ground due to co- funding obligations at national level;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is concerned by the long adoption process of the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs); expects the Commission and the Member States to have drawn lessons from this processbelieves that a clear distinction should be made between essential over arching elements which require Commission approval and those which, under the principle of subsidiarity could be implemented at Member State level in a more timely manner with a view to preventing similar delays in the future;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the higher allocation by the Member States of funds for environmental measures and for physical investments aimed at boosting competitiveness; expects that those measures will have a long-lasting impact and ; believes however that future multiannual environmental measures must be implemented for the entire funding period i.e. seven years instead of five, to ensure that gains made while participating in environmental measures are built upon in subsequent funding tranches; is of the opinion that physical investments aimed at boosting competitiveness should be undertaken in a realistic manner whigch economic leveragewill not undermine the financial viability of the enterprise with unsustainable debt levels;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Urges the Member States to avoid gold-plating or adding unnecessary guidelines and procedures which could interfere with efficient implementation of the EAFRD; asks the Commission to continue the simplification of the CAP and, where feasible and necessary, to adapt the basic legislation to this effect; regrets that discussion on simplification of the CAP has centered on "greening" in pillar I, while ignoring the situation alluded to in the study prepared for the CONT Committee in 2014 titled, " "Gold- plating" in the EAFRD: To what extent do national rules unnecessarily add to complexity and, as a result increase the risk of errors? ", which has highlighted the problems in pillar II; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to successful fulfilment of remaining ex-ante conditionalities;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that the Directorate- General for Agriculture and Rural Development has the necessary technical knowledge and overview of rural and agricultural issues and is therefore the natural manager of the RDPs, and urges the Commission to ensure that staffing levels are in place to ensure proper implementation and auditing of the CAP; believes however that as the CAP has evolved, while it is still centrally about farmers and food production, it has been allocated the extra tasks of care for the environment and a broader rural development beyond the farm gate, failure to understand this and engage fully with these additional concept and external issues undermines the claim to be the sole manager of the RDP as it is implemented under the broader aims of the ESI Fund;