Activities of Claude GRUFFAT related to 2020/2126(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
MFF 2021-2027: fight against oligarch structures, protection of EU funds from fraud and conflict of interest (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on MFF 2021-2027: fight against oligarch structures, protection of EU funds from fraud and conflict of interest
Amendments (14)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that common agricultural policy (CAP) funds make up a significant proportion of the 2021-2027 EU budget and that there is therefore a responsibility to protect them against any type of misuse, which is detrimental to the image of what is a public policy and to the interests of the European citizens who contribute to that budget;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that greater transparency is a decisive factor in detecting fraud and conflicts of interest and that it is therefore essential to publish a comprehensive list of CAP beneficiaries which is clear and accessible to the public; points out that that requires more common rules, better data interoperability, more cross-border cooperation and greater use of modern and efficient (digital) tools;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the study entitled ‘The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds’ and emphasises the importance of consolidating and harmonising EU reporting systems in order to have the knowledge that makes it possible to verify and compare ownership structures from one Member State to another; stresses also that reporting systems for CAP and cCohesion pPolicy funds should contain information on all final beneficiaries, including holding companies, parent structures, whether headquartered within or outside the EU, and ultimate beneficial owners;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the EU-wide definition of active farmers in the new CAP; emphasises, however, the lack of progress in the fight against oligarch structures; notes that this is largely because of a lack of transparency affecting all final beneficiaries of the CAP budget as a whole (including holding companies and ultimate beneficial owners), and in particular those upstream in the supply chain, as at present there is transparency only as regards farmers applying for CAP funds who complete an annual declaration;
Amendment 21 #
3a. Takes the view that the current unfair distribution of CAP support, resulting in the cumulation of support and in farm expansion, is creating an environment conducive to conflicts of interest and to fraud; regrets that the capping of support and other forms of redistribution under the CAP have not been made compulsory for Member States after 2023; considers that a unique opportunity has been missed, for which the Council bears responsibility in particular, to make the support system fairer, more equitable and less subject to risks of conflicts of interest and fraud;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Encourages the Member States to use the different redistributive tools for a fairer distribution of funds and to apply the capping provisions on direct payments, including at the level of parent structures, so that larger holding companies cannot circumvent capping by artificially splitting themselves up into smaller entities;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for the mandatory use of the ARACHNE system by Member States in order to achieve more transparency on ultimathe beneficiaries ofl owners and individual beneficiaries belonging to parent companies in connection with CAP funds and where such funds end up, as well as the mandatory use of the Early Detection and Exclusion System for CAP funds in an effort to enhance transparency on the use of taxpayers’ money;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Notes that, to date, ARACHNE has tended to be used in connection with project-related expenditure; calls therefore on the Commission to develop a similar approach as regards the data mining tool in order to increase transparency relating to the remaining CAP funds, in particular first-pillar payments aggregated by parent company and ultimate beneficial owner;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that combating conflicts of interest and fraud not only requires a comprehensive information and monitoring system that provides a clear and accurate picture of the distribution of CAP funds, but also presupposes a strengthened role for OLAF: the resources it has for investigations, for following up complaints and for training must be stepped up, and its arrangements for European coordination with the Court of Auditors, Eurojust, the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the Member States must be enhanced, as must the coordination it can carry out at international level; referral to OLAF by any citizen must be facilitated and whistle-blowers must be better protected;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Expresses its concern at the cases of high-level conflicts of interest and land- grabbing by oligarchs, which are possibly beingparticularly when they are facilitated by governments and public authorities; points out that these risks of conflicts of interest are greater with regard to shared expenditure, which is financed by the Union budget and disbursed to beneficiaries by the Member States, whose experience has shown that not all of them are a model of virtue;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Takes the view that there may also be conflicts of interest in connection with advisory services, because of the importance attached to AKIS receiving financial support from the second pillar of the CAP, in particular when a vendor advises a farmer on the purchase of inputs, and in particular pesticides, as this may discriminate against and penalise alternative practices based on agroecology and/or integrated pest management;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Encourages the harmonisation of cadastral systems at EU level. , the interoperability of land ownership systems, animal identification, and comparability of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) for payments, which have been designed differently from one Member State to another, so that analysis between Member States and at Union level is possible and that ultimate beneficial owners and parent companies with subsidiaries in different Member States can be identified and checked.