8 Amendments of Julie GIRLING related to 2013/2195(DEC)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. ConsiderNotes wit noteworthyh serious concerns in this context, that the chapter Rural development, environment, fisheries and health appears with the highest error rate in the report of the Court for 2012 with 7, 9% against 4,8% in average; observes that the Court refers in its report only to one project related to the LIFE+ programme and to the internal control system of DG SANCO; is very much concerned, taking into account Commission's replies, as the error rate accounts for all policy areas; notices that there are different views between the Court of Auditors and the Commission with regard to the way in which errors should be calculated; understands that, unlike the Commission services, the Court quantifies a 100 per cent error rate of a project even if the error is solely administrative or only one part of the project amount is effected;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. With regard to the overall implementation of the budgetary headings for environment, climate action, public health and food safety in 2012, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is not fully satisfied; recalls again that less than 0,8 per cent of the Union budget is dedicated to those policy instruments bearing in mind the clear EU added value in these fields and the support from European citizens for EU environmental and climate policies as well as for public health and food safety;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that the discharge decision should be based upon OECD guidelines to ensure high quality internationally recognised accounting, audit and financial disclosure standards; invites the European institutions to incorporate and commit to introducing OECD guidelines within a common framework for all European institutions and bodies;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. takes note that DG CLIMA has improvraised its implementation raising to 98,57% of EUR 42.585.882 in commitment appropriations and 73,44% of EUR 27.917.373 in payment appropriations; is aware that an higher implementation was not achievable partly due to an unsuccessful call jointly with Member States for the procurement of the EU ETS auction monitor and to a contract for the provisional EU ETS auctioning platform which was, in the end, at no cost;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is again very satisfied withAcknowledges the 98,75% overall implementation of the LIFE+ operational budget; notes that in 2012 EUR 280.771.849 were dedicated to call for proposals for projects in member States, EUR 8.999.631 supported operational activities of NGOs that are active in protecting and enhancing the environment at European level and which are involved in the development and implementation of Community policy and legislation and EUR 47.283.151 were used for measures intended to support the Commission's role of initiating and monitoring policy and legislation development; an amount of EUR 17.589.277 were used for administrative support;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers the progress in the implementation of six Pilot Projects (PPs) and five Preparatory Actions (PAs) amounting all together to EUR 15.733.692 as very satisfactory; is aware that the execution of these actions can be burdensome for the Commission due to the small amounts available in relation to the necessary procedures for execution (e.g. action plan, call for proposals); encourages the budgetary authority to focus in the future on PPs and PAs with true added value for the Union;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes the observations by the Court of Auditors on the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers, an administrative entity of the Commission; is aware that the Executive Agency was responsible tofor implementing EUR 37.8 million in commitments available to the Public health programme in 2012 and for EUR 35.5 million in payment appropriations; considers ECA's remarks as exaggerated as both comments are in relation to external participants and external meeting participants, issues beyond Commission's direct control; has of coursehas taken careful note of the replies given by the Executive Agency and supports its intention to further improve the cooperation with external contractors and participants;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is of the opinion, on the basis of the data available and the implementation report, that discharge canshould not be granted to the Commission in respect of expenditure in the areas of environmental and climate policy, public health and food safety for the financial year 2012.