20 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2017/2052(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the seven-year duration of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is not synchronised with the five- year mandates of Parliament and the Commission, nor aligned with the Union’s 10-year strategic planning cycle and the Europe 2020 strategy; is of the opinion that this lack of synchronisation could undermines the Union’s democratic legitimacy and the efficiency of its political governance, given that situations may arise where Parliament and the Commission are bound by agreements on political objectives and finances made in the previous framework period; stresses that this could creates an impression that the European elections are somewhat irrelevant in the context of long-term budgetary and strategy planning;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls Parliament’s view that the duration of the MFF should be reduced from seven to five years so that it is aligned with the political mandate periods of Parliament and the Commission1 ; points out that in 2020 there will be an opportunity to bring the long-term strategy cycle in line with the budgetary cycle, and strongly recommends that this opportunity be taken; considers that the Commission should also examine the possibility of introducinge a rolling programme in which each MFF, while having the same duration as now, would partially cover the previous one, on the premise that overlapping could help mitigate naturally existing peaks and troughs; __________________ 1 See paragraph 73 of its resolution of 6 July 2016 on the preparation of the post electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309) and paragraph 5 of its resolution of 27 April 2017 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309).
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that the European Court of Auditors has highlighted, in its annual and special reports2 , has highlighted many instances where EU spending could have been planned more strategically and achieved better results; regrets, in this regard, that the resources allocated to major spending programmes and schemes were often not aligned with the political objectives set out in the 10- year strategic planning cycle; __________________ 2 See e.g. the European Court of Auditors’ Special Reports 4, 8, 19 and 23 of 2016.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that the common agricultural policy (CAP) is one of the oldest pan-EU policies, and is fundamental for food security, the preservation of rural populations and sustainable development; regrets that the CAP, which once accounted for 75 % of the EU budget is now only 38 % as laid down in the current multiannual financial framework (MFF), while food requirements have increased, as h; notes that agriculture has been assigned many new roles that are not remunerated by the market such as the need to develop environmentally friendly farming practices and to mitigate the effects of climate change; urges the Commission to increase, or at least to maintain at its current level, the CAP budget post-2020;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
Paragraph 4 – indent 1
- the allocation of resources in the EU budget reflects the EU’s strategic priorities and opportunities to add value, in particular in policies that have been shown to drain a lot of resources while serving merely redistributive functions, such as the Cohesion Policy and the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), and in recent priority policy fields that have shown to have insufficient budget measures in times of variable circumstances, such as immigration policy and external action, and the extent to which;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – indent 2
Paragraph 4 – indent 2
- EU programmes and schemes contribute to the achievement of strategic priorities, provide value for money and control the risk of irregularity, as proposed in the European Court of Auditors’ briefing paper of 3 November 2016 on the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20203;. __________________ 3 See point 55.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to take the spending review’s results carefully into account when drafting the MFF proposal or any proposal for a future EU strategy; insists, in this regard, that the Commission ensures that the administrative and control mechanisms are reliable at all levels and in all phases of the EU budget framework, and that frauds and irregularities can be detected and prevented efficiently; calls on the Commission to move towards a risk- based evaluation whereby control resources could be focused more on those regions and policy fields where the risks of irregularities have proven to be more significant;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that Union policies may have different short-, medium- and long-term objectives, the realisation of which cannot necessarily be determined by a single MFF; believes that consideration needs tomust be given to a new balance between political agenda setting, policy implementation and financial framework needs;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Reiterates Parliament’s call to integrate the European Development Fund into the EU budget in order to be able to control and tackleliminate the root causes of excessive migration in a better way, and one that is in line with Union policies and strategies, using tools and methods deriving from the Union’s budgetary competence; considers that common European challenges in development policy could be better mastered through common administration from the EU budget;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to continue defending farmers and to fund information campaigns on the CAP budget since the amount of aid publicised can be misleading, given that the public is unaware of the fact that the bulk of the CAP is financed at EU level and replaces national spending; stresses that the CAP delivers not only good quality products at very affordable prices to Europeans but also there is the hidden benefit of ensuring that consumers have extra disposable income which drives other sectors of the economy;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that Brexit will have a projected impact of between EUR 3.8 and EUR 4.1 billion a year on the CAP, and in addition to a disruption of trade flows; calls therefore on the Commission to find alternative forms of financing, for example by increasing Member States’ contributions as a percentage of gross national income; stresses the need to increase funding in line with responses to the various cyclical crises in sensitive sectors such as milk, pork, fruits and vegetables, and to create instrumetake into accounts that can mitigate price volatilitye negative effect Free Trade Agreements have on these sectors;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls its remarks5 of the unsustainable structure of CAP expenditure: Notes with concern that 44.7 % of all Union farms had an annual income of less than EUR 4000, and; notes with even greater concern that on average 80 % of the beneficiaries of CAP direct support received around 20 % of the payments and recommends that the Commission should mandate a cap on CAP payments such that this anomaly is rectified; points out that in times of volatility or crisis, larger farms do not necessarily need the same degree of support for stabilising farm incomes as smaller farms do, since they often benefit from potential economies of scale that are likely to make them more resilient; considers that the CAP financing schemes could focus more on farmers under special constraints: small farms, climatically and geographically challenging areas and sparsely populated regions; __________________ 5 See paragraph 207 of its resolution of 27 April 2017 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309).
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls upon the Commission, as it reflects on a simplified and modernised CAP, to assess whethermandate a different policy design, or a different model of distribution of direct payments, couldto provide a better means of targeting public funds to agri- environment and climate action objectives; stresses, however, the need to provide balancing financial compensation to cover the costs of maintaining high standards in food production, and the high production costs associated with the challenging climate condition in some geographical areas, as the farmers in Europe often struggle with global competition;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Asks the Commission and the Member States to significantly modernise and redesign the EU budget along the principles of performance-based budgeting - with the social impact of such budgeting also assessed and always taken into account - in order to fit the new priorities that have been agreed on at the EU-27 level, and to back up a fiscal stabilisation function for the euro area using own resources;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Recalls that in its resolution accompanying the discharge 20156 , Parliament called on the Commission to fundamentally reconsider the design and delivery mechanism for the ESIFs and to foresee, for the next programming period, more manageable and measurable performance indicators, including the social impact of such programmes; insists that all future expenditure should focus on programmes, with proven EU added value, designed to deliver results at minimum cost, and that performance should be at the centre of the next generation of all programmes and schemes; __________________ 6 See paragraph 190 of the resolution of 27 April 2017 with observations forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0309).
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to keep direct payments intact as they help to avoid distortions of competition between Member States, and to maintain them without any national co-financing; urges the Commission to continue the process of convergence of direct payments between Member States and insists on convergence of payments to beneficiaries within states;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Considers that while the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the Union is an unfortunate event that will have a negative influence on the future of the lives of citizens in the UK and in the remaining Member States, it also creates an opportunity to redefine and reform the EU-27’s political ambitions and the needed budget tools and methods; considers thatalso the EU-27 should be ambitious in its budget reform and aim to maintain an annual EU budget similar in size to that of the EU-28recent rise of extreme nationalism in many Member States - reflected in national election results across the EU - should equally give pause to those who wish to accelerate the process of ever-closer union, an acceleration that is contributing to the rise of that extreme nationalism;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for continueda reorientation of payments to ensure genuine support for those most in need, including family farms and small and medium-sized farms, as well as the most disadvantaged, mountain and outermost regions; calls on the Commission to envisage increasing the envelope for programmes of options specific to isolation and insularity (POSEI), as called for by Parliament;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to ensure the necessary financial and legal framework for the food supply chain, in order to combat unfair trading practices; regrets that the Commission has not, that far, taken the necessary regulatory action in this area as called for by the Parliament;