6 Amendments of Jasenko SELIMOVIC related to 2015/2353(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for a revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be adapted to achieve the goals set in Paris, in the context of the Horizon 2020 strategyin order to ensure that the European Union is on track to achieve the goals set at COP21 in Paris; considers that, given that adaptation of the European economies to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change will be one of the main challenges the European Union will have to face in the coming years, and that the objectives of the Paris Agreement could imply new rules or programmes under the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Internal Security Fund, a revision of the MFF is justified;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Given that the added value of the ecosystems and biodiversity of the European environment must be ensured, considers that the MFF should recognise this value by allocating sufficient resources in the upcoming budgets to preserve this biodiversity, mainly in rural areas;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Calls on the Commission to assess whether the objectives of the Horizon 2020 programme are being met after the redeployment of funds to the European Fund for Strategic Investment and to at least restore the budgetary envelope of the programme;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the revision of the MFF should make provision for the fact that food safety will be a challenge in the coming years given the increased pressure on resources – this provision could be used to tackle malnutrition trends in Member States.; further notices that under the Paris Agreement, EU funding needs to be allocated for supporting climate action in developing countries; as this commitment runs until 2025, asks the Commission to address it in the MFF review/revision;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Strongly opposes any renationalisation of agricultural policies; stressnotes that the common nature of the EU’s agricultural policy avoids distortion of competition within the internal market and generates savings for European taxpayersunequal implementation of the CAP along Member States leads to distortion of competition within the internal market; calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure equal implementation throughout the Union in order to realise the objectives of the common agricultural policy; affirms that a well-functioning and well-financed second pillar is essential for the success of the CAP and for the economic well-being of the Union’s rural areas;
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out that the ever-increasing challenges faced by the CAP call for increasedadequate financial resources; calls, therefore, for an increase in thappropriate funding under Heading 2 in order to meet these challenges should they arisand in particular for funds to ensure an adequate implementation of the Natura 2000 directive by providing financial compensation to landowners for the restrictions they face; calls also for adequate compensation measures to deal with unforeseen events and market failures resulting from political decisions;