11 Amendments of Ľubica KARVAŠOVÁ related to 2024/2019(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that the Commission and the Court of Auditors have repeatedly stated that error is not synonymous with fraud; emphasises that the error rate does not necessarily indicate that the resources have been misspent, nor does it call into question the positive results and added value of cohesion policy; is worried that the Court of Auditors' estimate of the level of error in cohesion might be contributing to a negative image of the policy and of shared management in general; acknowledges that the risk of fraud is nevertheless a cause of concern and should be minimised;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that, in its most recent discharge opinions, the Committee on Regional Development called for urgentan additional advisory support from the Commission to national authorities to avoid that situationis situation; recognises the Commission’s efforts but, observes that, regrettably, these have not been sufficient to mitigate the error risk; warns that a similar administrative overload might arrive at the end of the RRF eligibility period and the final years of the MFF; underlines the need to address the insufficient administrative capacity of national authorities as a matter of urgency;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates its previous calls for further simplification to help reduce the risk of errors, which would make cohesion policy funding more accessible for beneficiaries and, at the same time, help reduce the risk of errors; reminds that the 2021-2027 CPR already introduced far-reaching simplification and flexibility measures, but that it is still early to draw lessons from the current programming period; acknowledges that more drastic changes are needed in respect of simplification in the post-2027 legislative framework; urges the Commission and the Member States to continue their cooperation in the current programming period to simplify unnecessarily complex rules and procedures wherever possible, work on a common interpretation of certain legal requirements and avoid gold-plating;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Highlights the role of the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in protecting the financial interests of the Union; welcomes that in 2023 a working arrangement was signed withs have been signed between the EPPO and Denmark, and that cooperation started with Poland and Ireland; stresses the need to keep supporting the EPPO with the necessary financial and human resources; is of the opinion that a strengthened EPPO is essential for the legislator to be able to further simplify the regulatory framework for cohesion;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Acknowledges that, thanks to the short-term, targeted flexibilities introduced through CRII(+), CARE and REACT-EU, cohesion policy played a key role in addressing the consequences of crises; reiterates, however, that the role of cohesion policy is to brthe Covid-19 pandemic, Russia's aggression in Ukrainge added value in regional development and contribute to competitivennd the resulting energy crises; reiteratess, not to bear the consequences of those crises, and therefore crisis repairhowever, that the EU’s response to crises or to emerging priorities should not come at the expense of the long- term structural cohesion objectives of reducing disparities across the EU and that the new MFF should be designed with an upfront crisis flexibility;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Notes that a significant number of errors were detected on transactions related to 100% co-financed measures; notes that, without taking into account transactions with funding from REACT- EU, CRII+ and CARE, the error rate in Heading 2 would have been 4.3 %;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Reiterates that the above mentioned factors have also contributed to the delays in the absorption of cohesion policy funds 2021-2027; notes that in 2023 payments for 2021-2027 programmes remained low, at 3.2%, which amounts to a one year delay when compared to the equivalent stage in the previous programming period;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Draws attention to the Court’s review on the main causes of errors in cohesion spending 2014-2020; welcomes the Court’s conclusion that the cohesion policy assurance framework has helped reduce the overall error level since 2007, but regrets it has not managed to bring it below the materiality threshold; points out that ineligible expenditure and projects were the most prevalent type of error, followed by non-compliance with state aid and public procurement rules;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6 d. Notes the uncertainties regarding the closure of the 2014-2020 programming period and welcomes that the Commission has taken additional steps to address this; emphasises the importance of a successful closure of the 2014-2020 programming period and urges the Commission to implement the Court’s recommendations (6.4) in this respect;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
6 e. Notes that the latest long-term payment forecast produced by the Commission foresees substantial decommitments as of 2027 unless member states undertake additional efforts and implement at a much faster pace than in the period 2014-2020; notes that for the CF, ERDF, and ESF+ cohesion policy funds, the Commission forecast total decommitments for 2024-2027 at €2.2 billion, more than five times its 2022 forecast of €0.4 billion; warns that for Just Transition Fund (JTF), the low implementation in 2023 puts important amounts at risk from 2025 onwards; calls on the Commission and on the member states to use all the available possibilities to avoid decommitments;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines the need for the new multiannual financial framework to be better designed to allow the use of relevant instruments, outside of cohesion policy, to adapt to emerging needs in the post-2027 period; stresses that local and regional authorities should be more involved in setting the policy’s priorities and have direct access to cohesion funds. in an appropriate manner, always in line with cohesion policy long-term objectives;