2 Amendments of Konstantinos ARVANITIS related to 2019/2055(DEC)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomNotes the Court’s special reports on the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa1 (‘EUTF for Africa’) and on the Facility for Refugees in Turkey2 (‘Turkey Ffacility’); takes note of the Court’sexpresses concerns regarding findings that the EUTF for Africa, which support activities in 26 African countries, is a flexible tool that is faster in launching projects than traditional funding instruments but lacks focus to efficiently steer action towards addressing the unprecedented challenges it faces and that the selection of projects is not fully consistent and clear; considers that the Commission should review the design of the EUTF for Africa, in particular to increase its focus and accelerate its implementation, with a view to making it more effectivewith a view to making it more inclusive and responsive to the needs of displaced people, migrants and host communities; notes the Court’s finding that the first tranche of EUR 3 billion (out of a total of EUR 6 billion) mobilised under the Turkey Facility provided a swift response to the refugee crisis but only half of the projects achieved the expected outcomes; believes that the efficiency of cash-assistance projects should be improved; urges the Commission to act upon the Court’s recommendations, including for more investments in municipalemergency infrastructure and socio- economic support to address refugees’ needs and the development of a strategy to transition from humanitarian to development assistance;rights and needs; urges the Commission to propose clear guidelines on the appropriate situations in which special facilities should be established and to report in detail about the funding that has been allocated under this facility so far. _________________ 1Special report 32 /2018 “European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa: Flexible but lacking focus”. 2Special report 27/2018 “The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: helpful support, but improvements needed to deliver more value for money”.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes that the Court did not find major flaws in the Commission’s clearance procedures regarding the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and ISF and that it agrees with the Commission's clearance decisions; deplores, however, that three out of the 18 transactions examined by the Court contained errors, of which one shared management transaction under AMIF showed an highly disturbing error rate of 9,4 %; urges the Commission to address the systemic weaknesses identified by the Court, such as a lack of ex post checks of supporting documents in case of ex ante administrative checks of payment claims; calls on the Member States to improve legality and regularity checks of the procurement procedures organised by beneficiaries of funds.