Activities of Bronis ROPĖ related to 2019/2055(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018, Section III –Commission and executive agencies
Amendments (5)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that, as indicated in the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2018, the estimated level of error in spending on ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ increased from 3 % in 2017 to 5 % in 2018; regrets that, even if it should be stressed that errors in the implementation of the budget do not automatically imply a fraud, the positive trend of the last years has been reversed; moreover, finds alerting that the level of errors in relation to public procurement, state aid rules and grant award in 2018 contributed to 16% of ECA estimated level of error for high-risk expenditure, whereas in 2017 their impact was just 1%;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Takes note that the source of those errors is mainly a result of reimbursements of ineligible costs, infringements of internal market rules and lack of support documentation, but is also due to the previous year’s overall low rates of reimbursement and payments as well as fewer financial instruments having been included in the audit; furthermore, stresses that the performance based audit does not capture the entirety of cohesion policy spending, which is built on a series of horizontal principles, such as gender equality, non-discrimination and sustainable development, and based on the partnership principle, therefore, important side-effects are hard to measure, especially in the social field, so a wider range of indicators would be preferred; points out as well that respective changes of the administrative systems by some Member States (NUTS classification) should also be taken into account during the collection of data;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Draws attention to the fact that high-risk expenditures are often subject to complex rules and eligibility conditions which lead to errors and that a number of these errors are compounded by a supplemental layer added by national authorities; recalls that simpler national eligibility rules might help reduce this source of error and result in a smaller administrative burden for beneficiaries; calls on the simplification measures already introduced in Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council to be used; furthermore, local and regional authorities as well as national and regional parliaments should take a more active role when setting-up the specific national rules; stresses once again the need to reduce administrative burdens whereas possible while ensuring a full transparency of the processes;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that the absorption of European Structural and Investment Funds (‘ESI Funds’) has continued to be slower than planned - by the end of 2018, only 27,3% - notes that this value is even lower than the absorption rate of 2011, the corresponding year of the previous Multiannual Financial Framework; eventually this could lead to a rushed spending by the end of the programming period, which can then jeopardise achieving the cohesion goals;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that the reasons behind this low absorption rate not only lie in the decommitment methodology (the so-called “n+3 rule”), but also in the late adoption of the legislative framework enabling the implementation of the cohesion policy; therefore calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure proper measures in the next programming period 2021-2027 to avoid the repetition of delayed implementation of ESI Funds and its domino effect.; recalls the fact that delays encountered at the start of the programming period may result in a backlog in the future payment applications; stresses that although the project selection rates are high and a positive absorption rate could be reached by the end of the programming period, we should aim for the high quality and climate friendly project criteria to be respected. In that regard stresses the importance of the commitments made by the Paris Agreement and achieving the EU climate and energy targets and a climate-neutral EU;