Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
Next event: Vote in plenary scheduled 2017/04/27 more...
- Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading 2017/03/22
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading 2017/03/29
- Debate in Parliament 2017/04/26
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | CONT | AYALA SENDER Inés (S&D) | ZDECHOVSKÝ Tomáš (EPP), FITTO Raffaele (ECR), ALI Nedzhmi (ALDE), DE JONG Dennis (GUE/NGL), JÁVOR Benedek (Verts/ALE), VALLI Marco (EFD), KAPPEL Barbara (ENF) |
Opinion | ENVI | LA VIA Giovanni (EPP) |
Activites
-
2017/04/27
Vote in plenary scheduled
-
2017/04/26
Debate in Parliament
-
2017/03/29
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
A8-0098/2017
summary
The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the report by Inés AYALA SENDER (S&D, ES) on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority (ESFA) for the financial year 2015. The committee called on the European Parliament to grant the Executive Director of the Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2015. Noting that the Court of Auditors stated that it had obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts of the Authority for the financial year 2015 were reliable and that the underlying transactions were legal and regular, Members called on Parliament to approve the closure of the Authority’s accounts. They made, however, a number of recommendations that needed to be taken into account when the discharge is granted, in addition to the general recommendations that appear in the draft resolution on performance, financial management and control of EU agencies: Authority’s financial statements: Members noted that the final budget for the financial year 2015 was EUR 79 659 347. The entire budget derived from the Union budget. Budget and financial management: Members noted that the amount of unused appropriations was EUR 1 089 million. This under-execution corresponded to the unused assigned revenue (the Authority’s outturn of 2014), which was reused in 2016. Members also made a series of observations regarding procurement and recruitment procedures, as well as internal audits and controls. As regards conflicts of interest, Members stressed that experts with financial interests linked to companies whose substances are evaluated by the Authority shall not be allowed to sit in the Authority's scientific panels or working groups, and that no such expert should be appointed by the Authority before two years after his/her interests have expired. Members stated that the Authority should be endowed with a sufficient budget to hire independent in-house experts with no conflicts of interest. They called on the Authority to incorporate into its new independence policy a two-year cooling-off period for all material interests related to the companies whose products are assessed by the Authority and to any organisations funded by them. They regretted that the Authority has not included research funding in the list of interests to be covered by the two-year cooling-off period and called on it to swiftly implement the measure in line with the discharge authority's repeated requests. They acknowledged the fact that, since the adoption of its 2011 policy on independence, the Authority assesses and validates 100 % of the declarations of interest submitted by its experts, which on average corresponds to a grand total ranging from 6000 to 7000 declarations of interest per year. Members insisted that the Authority implement its independence policy consistently, and in particular for panel chairs and vice-chairs. They noted that, after the matter was brought to the attention of the Authority by the discharge authority, all declarations of interest of Management Board members are now published on the Authority’s website. In addition, they noted that, pending the adoption of implementing rules on whistleblowing, the Authority implemented in January 2016 a new standard operating procedure on the handling of requests by whistle-blowers facing retaliation. They called on the Authority to report to the discharge authority on the establishment and implementation of its whistleblowing rules. Lastly, Members noted that the Authority launched in 2015 the “Transparency and Engagement in Risk Assessment” project to provide clarity regarding, and further develop approaches towards transparency and engagement in, its scientific processes. They also noted that in July 2016, the Authority’s Management Board endorsed a new approach to stakeholder engagement, which enables the Authority to interact with a large range of stakeholders through a variety of channels in order to broaden outreach to representative organisations, including consumer bodies and other civil society actors in the food chain. In this respect, Members considered that the Authority should continue paying special attention to public opinion, and commit itself, as much as possible, to openness and transparency.
-
A8-0098/2017
summary
-
2017/03/22
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2016/10/04
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2016/07/11
Non-legislative basic document published
-
COM(2016)0475
summary
PURPOSE: presentation by the Commission of the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2015, as part of the 2015 discharge procedure. Analysis of the accounts of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). CONTENT: the organisational governance of the EU consists of institutions, agencies and other EU bodies whose expenditure is included in the general budget of the Union. The EU's operational expenditure of these institutions takes different forms, depending on how the money is paid out and managed. From 2014 onwards, the Commission classifies its expenditure as follows: Direct management: the budget is implemented directly by the Commission services. Indirect management: the Commission confers tasks of implementation of the budget to bodies of EU law or national law, such as the EU agencies. Shared management: under this method of budget implementation tasks are delegated to Member States. About 80 % of the expenditure falls under this management mode covering such areas as agricultural spending and structural actions. This Commission document concerns the EU's consolidated accounts for the year 2015 and details how spending by the EU institutions and bodies was carried out. The consolidated annual accounts of the EU provide financial information on the activities of the institutions, agencies and other bodies of the EU from an accrual accounting and budgetary perspective. It is the responsibility of the Commission's Accounting Officer to prepare the EU's consolidated annual accounts and ensure that they present fairly, in all material aspects, the financial position, the result of the operations and the cash flows of the EU institutions and bodies, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), with a view to granting discharge. Discharge procedure: the final step of a budget lifecycle is the discharge of the budget for a given financial year. It represents the political aspect of the external control of budget implementation and is the decision by which the European Parliament, acting on a Council recommendation, "releases" the Commission (and other EU bodies) from its responsibility for management of a given budget by marking the end of that budget's existence. The European Parliament is the discharge authority within the EU. The discharge procedure may produce three outcomes: (i) the granting; (ii) postponement or; (iii) the refusal of the discharge. The final discharge report including specific recommendations to the Commission for action is adopted in plenary by the European Parliament and are subject to an annual follow up report in which the Commission outlines the concrete actions it has taken to implement the recommendations made. Each agency is subject to its own discharge procedure, including the EFSA. The European Food Safety Authority: the Authority, which is located in Parma, was established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council in order to provide scientific opinions and scientific and technical support for the legislation and policies which have a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety. As regards the Authority’s accounts, these are presented in detail in the document on the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for 2015: Commitment appropriations: - committed: EUR 81 million; - paid: EUR 81 million; - carried-over: 0. Payment appropriations: - committed: EUR 87 million; - paid: EUR 79 million; - carried-over: EUR 8 million. For further details on expenditure, please refer to the final accounts of the EFSA.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/budget_en', 'title': 'Budget'}, GEORGIEVA Kristalina
-
COM(2016)0475
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2016)0475
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0098/2017
Amendments | Dossier |
30 |
2016/2174(DEC)
2016/12/14
ENVI
30 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that the Authority should continue paying special attention to public opinion, and commit itself, as much as possible, to openness and transparency; welcomes, in this respect, that in 2015, the Authority successfully tested its new methodological approach to the use of scientific evidence; also welcomes, in this context, the improvements in sharing data by opening up the data warehouse of the Authority to a growing number of stakeholders;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that the Authority should continue paying special attention to public opinion, and commit itself, as much as possible, to openness
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that the Authority should continue paying special attention to the needs of the general public and and those possibly voiced by public opinion, and commit itself, as much as possible, to openness and transparency; welcomes, in this respect, that in 2015, the Authority successfully tested its new methodological approach to the use of scientific evidence; also welcomes, in this context, the improvements in sharing data by opening up the data warehouse of the Authority to a growing number of stakeholders; encourages the Authority to further progress on this path;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that the Authority should continue paying special attention to public opinion as well as analyse and address criticism, and commit itself, as much as possible, to openness and transparency; welcomes, in this respect, that in 2015, the Authority successfully tested its new methodological approach to the use of scientific evidence; also welcomes, in this context, the improvements in sharing data by opening up the data warehouse of the Authority to a growing number of stakeholders; encourages the Authority to further progress on this path;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that the Authority should continue paying special attention to public opinion, and commit itself
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls for an overall improvement in the prevention of, and the fight against, corruption through a holistic approach, commencing with better public access to documents and more stringent rules on conflicts of interest, the introduction or strengthening of transparency registers and the provision of sufficient resources for law enforcement measures, and also through improved cooperation among Member States and with relevant third countries;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Believes that the Authority should conduct a survey focused on NGOs, in order to better understand the existing obstacles to a fruitful cooperation, as recommended in the latest external evaluation of the Authority, conducted in 2012;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Stresses that a core element of scientific credibility is transparency as regards the scientific studies which have been considered, as well as reproducibility of the results;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. Calls on the Authority to revise its access to documents policy, following the European Court of Justice's rulings on requests related to access to environmental documents from 23rd November 20161a . The Court ruled that, when a person requests access to environmental documents, the concept of 'information on emissions into the environment' covers, inter alia, information concerning the nature and effects of the release of a pesticide into air, water or soil, or onto plants, and that the confidentiality of commercial and industrial information may not be invoked to preclude the disclosure of such information; _________________ 1aJudgments in Cases C-673/13 P Commission v Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe and C- 442/14 Bayer CropScience and Stichting De Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden; see http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/a pplication/pdf/2016-11/cp160128en.pdf
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Points out that several Union rules, including amongst others the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, give individuals the right to access public documents; reminds the Authority that scientific rigour is ensured best by transparency and accountability of the results; highlights that the Authority should make therefore all data used to reach any scientific conclusions public in a machine-readable format so as to enable scientific scrutiny and constant progress;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the contribution of the Authority to the safety of the Union food and feed chain,
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 c (new) 6 c. Believes that, in order to strengthen public trust in the Authority, the European Parliament should be closely involved in this process of revision of the Authority's conflict of interest rules and the related composition of a special working group in the board;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 d (new) 6 d. Stresses that experts with financial interests in companies whose substances are regulated by the Authority shall not be allowed to sit in the Authority's scientific panels or working groups, and that no such expert should be appointed by the Authority before two years after his/her interests have expired; is convinced that the Authority should be endowed with a sufficient budget to hire independent in- house experts with no conflicts of interests;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 e (new) 6 e. Is concerned that any staff reduction within the Authority could seriously damage its capacities and reputation; believes, therefore, that it should be ensured that no reduction of staff takes place;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 f (new) 6 f. Believes that, in order to further the trust of the citizens of the Union, the Authority should take further steps as regards transparency and accountability, such as publishing the minutes of the its management board meetings, as well as the remunerations for experts' declared activities, and it should regularly check declarations of interests and publish the results as an annex to its yearly report;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Stresses that there were important milestones in the Authority’s communications with risk managers and the public in 2015: the launch of its new website based on extensive user research, and the move of the EFSA Journal to an external professional publishing platform. Progress was also made by the Applications Helpdesk, the Authority’s front office and support desk for the safety assessment of regulated products.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges with satisfaction that in 2015, the Authority established a liaison office in Brussels to improve communication and dialogue with Union institutions, the media and stakeholders;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. Believes that the Authority should continue encouraging stakeholders and citizens to participate regularly and to provide input at defined interaction points throughout the development of scientific outputs, including for regulated products, as stated in the EFSA Strategy 2020;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8 b. Underlines that the Authority should start reviewing the five existing impact indicators and also develop new ones; believes that such impact indicators are essential tools in order to measure the effectiveness of EFSA;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 c (new) 8 c. Stresses that the Authority should monitor the professional attractiveness of EFSA for external experts in order to maintain a high quality for scientific outputs;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 d (new) 8 d. Believes that the Authority should endeavour to limit the traveling time for experts and by promoting the use of IT tools such as interactive video- conferences or webinars;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the Authority produced more than 600 scientific outputs covering the entire food chain and contributing to the improvement of public health and expects further similar measures in the near future ;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Notes that the Authority produced more than 600 scientific outputs covering the entire food chain and contributing to the protection and possible improvement of public health;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Also notes that the Authority assessed public health risks in collaboration with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control by leveraging combined data sets; welcomes that the Authority also works in collaboration, on occasion, with the European Medicines Agency, (e.g. presenting a first joint report on the integrated analysis of the consumption of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from humans and food-producing animals) and with the European Chemicals Agency, (e.g. on the joint development of scientific guidance to enable identification of endocrine disruptors);
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Emphasises that it is essential that the Authority take full account of the recommendations made by the European Parliament and that it failed to do so in the case of the risks linked to GMOs;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
source: 595.704
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities/4/type |
Old
Debate in plenary scheduledNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/3/docs/0/text |
|
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate in plenary scheduled |
activities/5 |
|
activities/3 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
activities/2/committees |
|
activities/2/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/3 |
|
activities/2/date |
Old
2017-03-23T00:00:00New
2017-03-22T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016DC0475:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016DC0475:EN
|
activities/0/commission/0/DG/url |
Old
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/New
http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/budget_en |
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/6/mepref |
Old
53b2d70eb819f205b0000008New
53b2dbc9b819f205b0000096 |
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/6/name |
Old
ALIOT LouisNew
KAPPEL Barbara |
committees/0/shadows/6/mepref |
Old
53b2d70eb819f205b0000008New
53b2dbc9b819f205b0000096 |
committees/0/shadows/6/name |
Old
ALIOT LouisNew
KAPPEL Barbara |
other/0/dg/url |
Old
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/New
http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/budget_en |
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
activities/1 |
|
activities/2/committees |
|
activities/2/date |
Old
2016-10-04T00:00:00New
2017-03-23T00:00:00 |
activities/2/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
committees/0/shadows/4 |
|
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
committees/0/shadows/6 |
|
activities/1 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
CONT/8/07477
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
activities/0/commission/0 |
|
other/0 |
|
committees/1/date |
2016-08-31T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|