8 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2017/2136(DEC)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. With respect to the overall error rate of the section “Rural Development, fisheries, environment and climate”, notes with regret only a slight reduction of the error rate in the report of the Court of Auditors ('the Court') for 2016, with 4,9 % against 5,3 % in 2015 and 6,2 % in 2014, still well above the 2% acceptable error rate; notes that, for the environment, climate action and fisheries, the three quantifiable errors identified in the transactions examined by the Court were due to ineligible expenditure;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 8 #
8. StressNotes that internal audits also showed that there were delays in the implementation of one very important IT security related recommendation (on the management of the security of the EU ETS IT system), which exposes the DG to the risk of security breaches, and stresses that this is not satisfactory;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that the budget of DG CLIMA is mainly implemented through direct centralised management, and that the 2016 commitments and payment appropriations amounted to EUR 118,1 million and EUR 59,25 million respectively; highlightnotes that while the implementation rate of commitment appropriations amounted to 99,72 %, it was only 70,49 % for payment appropriations, due to the signature only at the end of December 2016 of three new operations under the financial instrument Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE), and stresses that this is not satisfactory;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is of the opinion, on the basis of the data available - which shows an error rate more than double the acceptable rate - and the implementation report, that discharge can be grantedthe decision on granting discharge to the Commission with respect to expenditure in the areas of environmental and climate policy, public health and food safety for the financial year 2016, should be postponed.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that a small number of beneficiaries receive the largest payments and that 4 % of direct payments are divided amongst more than half of the current beneficiaries who receive less than EUR 1250 per year; believes that it is essential for the credibility of the CAP that there is convergence of payments to beneficiaries both, between member states and within member states;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the fall in the error rate for rural development to 4,9 % from 6 % in 2015, and 6 % in 2014; recognises that rural problems require complex investment programmes, and that the error rate springs from the different objectives for addressing economic, rural infrastructure, environmental, and animal health challenges, contrasting with the EAGF rate of 1,7 %; regrets therefore that the focus of simplification is on pillar I when it is acknowledged that there is more complexity in pillar II believes also that rural development investments are a core part of the policy to be maintained alongside proven sound and beneficial risk management models; is concerned at falling employment in agriculture and believes that Pillar 2 investments are key for rural development and infrastructure;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that there is a significant difference in types and scale of error, and regrets that, even if the investment was effective, expenditure is still judged 100 % ineligible by the ECA in the event of public procurement errors; stresses therefore that further rationalisation in the error calculation method is desirable. ; is concerned that the over emphasis on error rates, while acknowledging the need for oversight in the use of public money, may have the unintended consequence of lowering the ambition and innovation of program measures which are inherently more risky;