8 Amendments of Petri SARVAMAA related to 2015/2206(DEC)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points outRegrets that the Commission did not offer guidance or spread good practice at the start of the 2007–2013 programming period and did not ensure that Member States’ control systems were effective before they started approving grants; underlines that since 2012 the Commission has adopted a more active and coordinated approach;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that many weaknesses were found in the Member States’ control of the costs of rural development grants; notes that the Commission agrees that savings could be made by better control of costs in rural development project grants while still obtaining the same outcomes and results and achieving the same objectives; welcomes the fact that workable, cost- effective approaches have been identified and could be more widely applied, that the Commission accepts the Court'se findings and that it has expressed its intention to work with the Member States to improve control of rural development costs in the 2014– 2020 programming period;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Is concerned by the high error rate detected by the Court in rural development policy but welcomes; notes, however, the slight downward development in the last three years;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Recalls that the Court has stated in its annual reports that in numerous cases the national authorities would have had sufficient information to prevent or detect and correct the errors before declaring the expenditure to the Commission, which would have lowered the error rate significantly;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Observes that the easier the rules are to implement, the less errors will occur; is concerned that the error rate could again rise in forthcoming years given the complexity of the new rules of the reformed CAP ; therefore calls for a real simplification of the CAP incorporated with clearer guidance given to national authorities and farmers;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128
Paragraph 128
128. Is of the opinion that there are substantial differences between the European Social Fund (ESF) grants and the European Progress Microfinance Facility (EPMF) financial instruments, which tend to serve different purposes; considers that these particular characteristics impact on audit performance and can misrepresent the resultdifferent support mechanisms may be appropriate for different market conditions;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129
Paragraph 129
129. RegretNotes that the Court in this audit compares two dissimilar financial instrumentmechanisms that have different approaches and objectives; stresses that ESF and EPMF differ in many aspects, namely structure, rules and target groups, with the latter being exclusively devoted to micro- financing whereas the former covers a much broader range of aspects;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 132
Paragraph 132