9 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2016/2151(DEC)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the estimated error rate in Cohesion Policy decreased from 5,7 % in 2014 to 5,2 % in 2015; highlights the reduced level of error for the 2007-2013 programming period compared to the 2000-2006 period, which is a result of the strengthened management and control systems of Member States and the corrective measures taken by the Commission; welcomes the fact that programmes to inform and train beneficiaries and simplification measures to make the rules less complex and reduce bureaucracy have contributed to the reduction in the number of errors;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the error rate for the first pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (EAGF: 2.2 %) is very different from that for the second CAP pillar (EAFRD: 5.3 %) and that that considerable difference is accounted for by the fact that the two CAP pillars differ in design, scale and objectives; notes that the bureaucratic burden in respect of funding under the second pillar is contributing to the increase in the number of errors and stresses the need to continue simplifying EAFRD funding procedures; welcomes the fact that direct payments were predominantly regular;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the reliability of information on CAP direct payments as reported by Member States is often seriously undermined as a result of misreporting; notes the delays in the supplying of information and stresses that Member States should forward reports in a timely manner;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Draws attention to the fact that many small-scale programmes, such as the school fruit and school milk schemes, are not user-friendly, partly because of the red tape involved, meaning less than perfect acceptance and implementation; stresses the need to tailor small-scale programmes to local characteristics; welcomes Commissioner Hogan’s simplification initiatives in this connection;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes with concern the delayed start-up of the 2014-2020 programming period and that by the end of 2015 fewer than 20 % of the national authorities responsible for ESI funds had been designated; urges Member States to speed up this process and the Commission to provide assistance and clarifications; points out that the late designation of management authorities creates serious gaps in the implementation of funding programmes and poses the risk of de- commitment of funds at the end of the funding period;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with concern that, as of 30 June 2016, not all Member States had transposed the directives on public procurement and urges the Commission to assist Member States increase their capacity to transpose those directives, as well as to implement all their action plans on ex ante conditionalities; stresses the importance of implementing the action plan on public procurement for ESI funds 2014-2020 with a view to simplifying, speeding up and harmonising electronic public procurement procedures;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Acknowledges the revised Financial Regulation recently proposed by the Commission with its supporting acts, as well as the proposed review of the MFF, aiming at simplification and more flexibility and synergies; calls on the Commission to identify more efficient channels of communication in order to increase the visibility of investments using ESI funds; urges the Commission, all institutions and stakeholders involved to reconsider the delivery mechanism for the ESI funds post 2020, taking into account the suggestions of the HLG;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the Commission’s proposed new approach to error rate analysis; welcomes also the Commission’s new procedure, likely to be applied for the first time in 2016, for prior checks, while retaining the method for dealing with minor errors; stresses that the detection of minor errors should not result in the suspension of payments, but that efforts should be made to resolve such errors during the implementation of projects;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the updating of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS), which makes it possible to record areas more precisely; draws attention to the backlog in land registration in some Member States, which is liable to affect future funding, and calls on the national authorities to use existing digital technology to ensure timely registration; realises that as a result of using this central control system there will inevitably be an increase in error rates over the first few years, because of greater data reliability, as the European Court of Auditors confirms, but that, in the long term, there will be lower error rates in this area; points out that there are already efforts and initiatives at Member State level for further simplification of the CAP while ensuring complete compatibility with GPS measurements;