6 Amendments of Pär HOLMGREN related to 2024/2019(DEC)
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the importance of proper scrutiny of climate expenditure in the Union budget, and holds the Commission accountable for the implementation of a robust and reliable methodology, in line with the commitments undertaken in the MFF agreement and paragraph 16d of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources2 ; calls on the Commission to follow the Court’s recommendations in the relevant reports to better estimate climate spending under future funding instruments, to ensure adequate design of future funding instruments that are to support the climate and environmental objectives and targets, to enhance the performance of green transition measures and to ensure comprehensive, consistent, reliable and transparent reporting on climate spending under the RRF; including by systematically implementing the “do no significant harm” principle in line with the requirements of the Financial Regulation, to enhance the performance of green transition measures including by adopting more impact oriented mainstreaming targets and to ensure comprehensive, consistent, reliable and transparent reporting on climate spending under the RRF; welcomes the design of the NextGenerationEU Green Bond Allocation and Impact Report as a model for future funding instruments; _________________ 2 OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, p. 28, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2 020/1222/oj
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that about EUR 20 billion, approximately 5% of the Union budget, was dedicated to the biodiversity mainstreaming objective, under various programmes e.g. the CAP, the RRF, cohesion policy programmes and the LIFE programme; urges the Commission to maintain its efforts to meet the targets for biodiversity mainstreaming of 7.5% for 2024 and 10% for 20276 and 2027 in particular following the revision of the CAP earlier this year ; welcomes the update of the biodiversity tracking methodology includingfor expenditures under the CAP;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Recalls that in line with Article 11.2 TEU, EU institutions must maintain an open, transparent and structured dialogue with civil society organisations and representative associations; stresses in this regard that access to structural funding is a prerequisite to ensure public participation of citizens through representative associations; considers the democratic participation of civil society in policy-making processes to be crucial in ensuring that a diversity of views and concerns are taken into account in legislative processes; recalls that the Aarhus convention enshrines a legal right of public participation in environmental decision-making; recalls the commitment of the Commission in its political guidelines to step up its engagement with civil society organisations that have expertise and an important role to play in defending specific societal issues and upholding human rights; considers, therefore, that the independence of civil society organisations should be safeguarded and advocacy activities should remain eligible in the relevant EU- funding programs, such as LIFE; urges the Commission to revise its Guidance on funding for activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy from May 2024 as the guidance is incompatible with the protection of the democratic right of public participation;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Considers that civil society and NGOs play an instrumental role in shaping policies that benefit society and our environment; recalls the commitment of the Commission in its political guidelines to step up its engagement with civil society organisations that have expertise and an important role to play in defending specific societal issues and upholding human rights; urges the Commission to revise its guidelines1a from May 2024 in order to ensure the continuation of the funding of NGO activities, including advocacy, under the LIFE programme; considers that discontinuation of this funding for all NGO activities would seriously undermine the voice of civil society in the public debate and would cause a severe reputational risk for the Commission; _________________ 1a Guidance on funding for activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of Union legislation and policy
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Recalls the EU4Health programme's transformative role in supporting public health policy objectives of the Union; regrets that the EU4Health programme suffered disproportionate cuts in 2023 of EUR 1 billion and that future public health actions in the Union will have to be downsized and the spending profile amended despite their importance for Union citizens; recalls the importance of the public health policies and the clear political commitment in the 2020 MFF agreement to prioritise health funding;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Notes that the European Ombudsman found maladministration by the European Commission regarding systemic delays in decision-making on authorisations for dangerous chemical substances and found that these delays, averaging 14.5 months instead of the statutory three months, allowed continued use of harmful chemicals, posing significant risks to public health and the environment; notes that the Ombudsman recommended to apply the rules that it is up to applicants to demonstrate that they have satisfied the legal conditions for obtaining the authorisiation by provinding sufficient information and to dismiss applications containing insufficient information; highlights the insufficient transparency in the Commission's processes and urges improvements, including timely public reports on the deliberations of the REACH Committee to enhance accountability; expects the Commission to follow the recomendations of the Ombudsman;