15 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2018/0166R(APP)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the MFF 2021-2027 should facilitate a true European added value budget with sufficient funding to achieve its ambitions, and a strengthened focus on performance and results, leading to better and more effective spending and increased accountability and transparency in relation to the Union’s funds;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Notes that as pointed out in Paragraph 3 above, even after taking inflation etc. into account, there is a real increase of 5% in this MFF over MFF 2014-2020, but that despite this increase the Commission proposes to reduce funding by 16 % for the MFF heading ‘Natural Resources and Environment’, which means in particular:
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Notes that the spending proposed for the heading ‘Cohesion and Values’ is set to increase by 1 %, but that there are major changes at programme level as, when taken together, the three funds that currently make up cohesion, namely the European Regional Development Fund (ERFD), the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund (ESF), are to be cut by 10 %, whicheventhough again, as pointed out in Paragraph 3 above, even after taking inflation etc. into account, there is a real increase of 5% in this MFF over MFF 2014-2020; those proposed cuts means:
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the Commission’s proposed reprioritisation focuses on the headings ‘Migration and Border Management’ and ‘Security and Defence’ that will rise to make up nearly 5 % of the budget as a whole, from the current level of 1 %, and that spending under ‘Single Market, Innovation and Digital’ will rise to 15 % from the current level of 11 %; regrets that this 'reprioritisation' means that the European Union focus has shifted now from feeding to fighting;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that a significant share of the proposed 50 % budget increase for LIFE+ for 2021-2027 is directed towards the new Clean Energy Transition sub-programme; supports the establishment of a comprehensive programme for energy transition, but considers that this should not be to the detriment of funding for nature and biodiversity, the circular economy, and climate adaptation and mitigation; reiterates, therefore, its call for the financial resources for these priorities to be doubled, at least;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that the Europe 2020 strategy will end before the start of the new MFF period, and that no new set of strategic EU goals has been decided on yet; stresses once again that public budgets are to be determined after the setting of political objectives and the designing of policies, and therefore regrets that the new MFF proposal has become a vehicle for shaping the EU’s political objectives after 2020 rather than simply reflecting them;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the proposed increase in the budget earmarked for Horizon Europe and, in particular, the dedicated envelopes for research and innovation in Health (EUR 6.83 billion), Climate, Energy and Mobility (EUR 13.31 billion), and Food and Natural Resources (EUR 8.87 billion); reiterates, however, its call for the 9th Framework Programme to be financed more heavily, with a budget of at least EUR 116.895 billion, with those extra costs possibly being raised through a Financial Transaction Tax;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Welcomes the fact that the new programmes will be grouped in policy clusters, which will be reflected in the titles of the annual budget, and proposes that given its rapidly-increasing significance, 'Security and Defence' should be one such cluster, treated on its own; expresses its hope that this will provide greater clarity on how they will contribute to policy goals;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses serious concern overDeplores the proposed reduction in funding for the health programme; reiterates its call for the health programme to be restored as a robust stand-alone programme with increased funding in the next MFF 2021- 2027, in order to ensure an ambitious health policy, including in particular a thorough increase in common EU efforts in the fight against cancer and easier access to cross-border healthcare;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates the risk of falling short of the current climate-related spending target and notes the proposed increase of this target to at least 25 % of the EU budget for 2021-2027; callin light of the many recent cataclysmic climate events, however, calls for a far more ambitious increase in climate-related spending to 30 % by 2027 at the latest and for the development of a reliable and transparent tracking method;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Is deeply concerned by the cuts proposed by the Commission in the CAP and cohesion, especially in light of the fact that, as pointed out in Paragraph 3 above, 'after taking inflation, the amounts attributable to UK beneficiaries during the MFF 2014-2020 and the incorporation of the European Development Fund (EDF) into the budget into account, the real increase is 5 %' - in other words, even with a bigger budget, a deliberate decision is being taken to reduce the investment in the most vulnerable link in the quality food- production chain in the European Union, the producers;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Asks, once again, for the Commission and the Member States to rectify this anomaly, and stresses that the CAP financing schemes should focus more on farmers operating under special constraints, more specifically small farms, ecologically and geographically challenging areas and sparsely populated regions; this could be achieved by front- loading such schemes, for example with a sliding scale based on hectares, the amount per hectare reducing with the size of the overall holding;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the proposal for an own- resource based on non-recycled plastic packaging waste and calls for its revenues to be directed as a priority towards fostering the packaging waste recycling targets; stresses that the steering effect of a possible contribution must be coherent with the waste hierarchy and give, with priority given to the prevention of waste generation; calls for effective registration and control mechanisms and a clarification of the calculation method;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. WelcomNotes the three new categories of own resources that include a share of the common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB), a 20 % share of the revenue generated by the emissions trading scheme and a national contribution calculated on the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste in each Member State;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Notes with concern that the legislative proposal on the CCCTB has still not been adopted and that there is no time estimate for when it will be agreed on in the Council; is of the opinion that the CCCTB cannot be considered as a true own resource for the next programming period for that reason; urges the Council to reach an agreement in this context;