4 Amendments of María Teresa GIMÉNEZ BARBAT related to 2018/2046(BUD)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with disappointment that the 2019 draft budget for Erasmus+ does notRecalls that Erasmus+ remains a highly valued and hugely popular programme promoting youth learning mobility, as demonstrated by the volume of applications received, which exceeds the funding available; deeply regrets that the 2019 draft budget for Erasmus+ falls well below Parliament’s expectations, failing to go beyond the programmed figures under the MFF; calls for at leastcurrent MFF, including in providing the remaining available top- up funding for the programme agreed under the MFF revision (around 26 million EUR) to be allocated in 2019; reiterates; calls, therefore, for an increase of 20% of the funding over the draft budget 2019 (DB 2019), across all four Erasmus+ budget lines, in order to cater for current needs, to respond to citizens’ expectations of the programme, and to provide European youth with the future they expect from the EU; reiterates, in that regard, its support for a tripling of Erasmus+ funding in the next MFF and its intention to fight for that increase;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Reiterates its concern at the manner in which the European Solidarity Corps was initially set up without a legal base and without a stand-alone budget line; is, furthermore, uncomfortable that the final decision on sources of funding for the Corps - with the exception of the stipulation on Erasmus+ - has been left to the annual budgetary procedure; confirms that it will scrutinise the amending letter from the Commission with great care to ensure that the trilogue agreement is fully respected;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the value of Creative Europe in supporting the EU’s audio- visual and cultural sectors; is pleased to note that the new programme proposal makes provision and insists that funding levels should match the ambitions of the programme; notes, with respect to the MEDIA sub-programme, that, in order to fund all high-quality projects, the budget would need to be increased by some 44%; calls, therefore, for a substantial 22% funding increase over the DB 2019 to tackle low application success rates, to reinforce supporting media pluralism and freedom and media literacy under the cross-sectoral strand; asks, in the meantime, for the budget line on digital content for European cinema operators’ networks and to incorporate - and finance - the successful Preparatory Action on the sub-titling of cultural content without jeopardising the financing of core actions; reiterates that both the Culture sub-programme and the cross-sectoral strand remain chronically underfunded and calls for a funding increase of at least 10% over the DB 2019 on both lines; proposes, with respect to the Culture sub-programme, and audiovisual and other media industries (09 02 05) to be reinforced to boost efforts to tackle fake news through enhanced media literacy work; dditional 3 million EUR funding over the DB 2019 - on top of the 10% increase - to scale up the already successful, but currently limited, trial action on the individual mobility of artists and culture professionals in preparation for the next Creative Europe programme;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the value of Europe for Citizens in enhancing citizens’ understanding of the EU and fostering a sense of citizenship; insists that the planned cuts to the programme to fund the revamped European Citizens’ Initiative be reversed; deplores the fact that the legislative proposal for the new European Citizens’ InitiativeCI failed to detail the budgetary impact on Europe for Citizens, thus depriving the legislator of essential information; beyond the restoration of these funds to the budget line, calls for a 10% funding increase over the DB 2019 - based on current MFF programming figures - to provide the minimum necessary increase for a programme that suffers from persistent under-funding and low project success rates, thus frustrating the expectations of applicants;