4 Amendments of Martina MICHELS related to 2017/2136(DEC)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that, as was the case in previous years, Member States had enough information to prevent or correct a significant number of errors before claiming reimbursement and the estimated error rate could have been reduced below the materiality threshold; takes note of the conclusion drawn by the Court of Auditors that there is no need for additional controls in EU spending, but that existing controls need to be enforced properly; calls, therefore, on the Member States to properly enforce their management and control systems;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is concerned by the delays in implementing the 2014-2020 programmes andby several Member States and the repercussions on the regions to mobilise and utilise EU funds and hence to pursue public investments which are ever more needed in the aftermath of the multiple crises of the past decade; points out that, in 2016, the total amount of outstanding budgetary commitments were higher than ever and reached some EUR 238,8 billion, mainly because of those delays; underlines that this amount is expected to rise until 2020; emphasises that clearing this backlog should be a priority when planning the next MFF; highlights that delays in the implementation should in no way be interpreted as declining need of EU funding;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the average disbursement rate for financial instruments was only 75 % at the end of 2015, which shows that the potential of those instruments is not fully exploited and underlines that these instruments are not suitable for all types of interventions under cohesion policy, although they may be useful in some areas where they can play a complementary role; opposes therefore a further increase of the share of financial instruments or binding quantitative targets for the use of financial instruments, and insists that the use of financial instruments should not lead to a reduction of grants in the EU budget in general; points out that the revision of the Financial Regulation which is due to enter into force in 2018 willcould significantly contribute to the simplification, improvement and optimisation of their use during current programming period;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Highlights, as regards EFSI in particular, the audit relevant risks identified by the Court of Auditors namely additionality of EFSI to traditional EIB activities, coherence and complementarity of EFSI with traditional funding instruments under the EU budget, and the measurement and reporting of the public and private investment mobilized; stresses that the EFSI should not undermine the strategic coherence, territorial concentration and long-term perspective of cohesion policy programming and should not replace or crowd out the grants nor aim to replace or reduce the ESIF budget; insists on the real additionality of its resources; calls for the establishment of clear delimitations between the EFSI and cohesion policy; calls for further improvement of democratic scrutiny over EFSI;