2022/2020(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that under shared management, Member States are responsible for setting up a management and control system for payments and must ensure that it is capable of detecting and correcting irregularities; stresses that a distinction must be made between deliberate fraud and unintentional error; stresses the importance of continuing legal certainty regarding payments to beneficiaries who have acted in good faith;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that under shared management, Member States are responsible for setting up a management and control system for payments and must ensure that it is capable of detecting and correcting irregularities; stresses that a distinction ~~must be made~~, already followed e.g. in the definition of OLAF's mandate and already made in the CAP FMM regulation, must be respected between deliberate fraud and unintentional error;

Amendment 12 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Insists that, for the reputation of the CAP, the standard of control systems must be robust and fully compliant with its new Common Agricultural Policy regulations in order to secure the proper implementation, in particular, of the new delivery model from 1 January 2023, and encourages the exchange of best practices to ensure this across all Member States;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that the new Common Agricultural Policy should simplify matters for farmers; points out that, in view of concerns caused by administrative burdens under joint management, the CAP Strategic Plans should specifically seek to simplify matters for the final beneficiaries;

Amendment 14 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Alin MITUȚA, Irène TOLLERET, Jérémy DECERLE, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes the consistently low levels of error in recent years regarding the CAP, reflecting the fact that the management and control systems in the Member States are operating within the correct parameters and providing reasonable assurances;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out the importance of information and awareness campaigns for the reduction of unintentional errors; calls on the Member States to organise such campaigns timely and involve all relevant stakeholders.

Amendment 16 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Alin MITUȚA, Irène TOLLERET, Jérémy DECERLE, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Welcomes in this regard the provision established in the Regulation (EU) No 2021/2116 that give the CAP beneficiaries possibility to retroactively correct errors in their aid application that were done in good faith and similarly welcomes the early awareness mechanism that points out to CAP beneficiaries minor non-compliance without deducting any payments at first.

Amendment 17 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Alin MITUȚA, Irène TOLLERET, Jérémy DECERLE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls on the Commission, when assessing the CAP Strategic Plans, to focus in particular on the extent to which they simplify matters and reduce administrative burdens for the final beneficiaries;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Stresses the simplifications and streamlining on the penalties for non- compliance that make a clear distinction between cases of intentional and non- intentional non-compliance and sets the penalties at lower level for the latter.

Amendment 19 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that Member States execute payments to CAP beneficiaries through accredited paying agencies (PAs), which perform on-the-spot checks to ensure the eligibility of applications and the correct execution of payments; , and considers that these checks must be coordinated, rigorous and effective, without increasing the level of bureaucracy faced by farmers;

Amendment 2 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. having regard to Regulation (EU) No 2021/2116 on the financing, management and monitoring (FMM) of the common agricultural policy (CAP);

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes that Member States execute payments of Union’s funds, co-financed with national funds in the case of second pillar rural development payments, to CAP beneficiaries through accredited paying agencies (PAs), which perform on- the-spot checks to ensure the eligibility of applications and the correct execution of payments;

Amendment 21 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that, during the COVID pandemic, drones were used for audit and control purposes to carry out remote sensing; calls for sharing the best practices from that experience, as well as use of geo-tagged photos, to build on it and in order to make the most effective use of the technology in future; calls likewise for retention of good practices developed in the remote auditing referred to in the Annual Activity Report 20212a of DG AGRI; __________________ 2a Point 2.1.1.2.1

Amendment 22 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Welcomes the Commission’s proposals on IT use in the proposal for revision of the Financial Regulation3a particularly to include use of electronic systems and digital controls to ensure adequate audit trails; __________________ 3a COM(2022) 223 final, point (d) of Articles 36(2) and point (a) of Article 63 (4)

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the role of certification bodies (CBs) appointed as independent audit bodies by Member States; observes that CBs provide an opinion on the proper functioning of PAs’ management and control systems, and since 2015; notes the relative dominance of the same few large international corporate audit companies in fulfilling this role for different Member States.

Amendment 24 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Alin MITUȚA, Irène TOLLERET, Jérémy DECERLE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the major role of certification bodies (CBs) appointed as independent audit bodies by Member States with an essentially risk-based approach; observes that CBs provide an opinion on the proper functioning of PAs’ management and control systems, and since 2015;

Amendment 25 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes the role of certification bodies (CBs) appointed as independent audit bodies by Member States; observes that ~~CBs~~certification bodies already provide an opinion on the proper functioning of ~~PAs’~~paying agencies' management and control systems~~, and since 2015~~;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls that the Commission plays a supervisory role, ensuring that the arrangements governing the management and control system are compliant by, among others, verifying the effective functioning of this system and making financial corrections, where necessary.

Amendment 27 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls that, from 1 January 2023, certification bodies must establish if Member States governance systems function properly, and whether expenditure is eligible according to the Financial Regulation4a; __________________ 4a Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2021/2116 and in particular its Article 37

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes also the role the Commission external audit services in DG AGRI and the European Court of Auditors, carrying out control functions in the interest of the Union, evaluating risk to the CAP funds EAGF and EAFRD.

Amendment 29 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that the main objective of thise assurance model is to ensure that the remaining risk to the budget is below the materiality threshold of 2 %; recognises the low error rates for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the continuous decrease in error rates for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development over the past financial years; notes furthermore that the overall adjusted error rate for the CAP funds overall for 2021 is below the materiality rate of 2%, for the third year in a row, at 1.84%;

Amendment 3 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2021 by the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that the main objective of this assurance model is to ensure that the remaining level of risk to the budget is below the materiality threshold of 2%; rRecognises and underlines the low error rates for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the continuous decrease in error rates for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development over the past financial years; stresses the need for a sustained effort to achieve still better results in progressively reducing the CAP error rate;

Amendment 31 #

Anne SANDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that the main objective of this assurance model is to ensure that the remaining risk to the budget is below the materiality threshold of 2 %, as indicated in the 2018 annual report of the Court of Auditors; recognises the low error rates for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the continuous decrease in error rates for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development over the past financial years;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that the main objective of this assurance model is to ensure that the remaining level of risk to the budget is below the materiality threshold of 2%; recognises and highlights the low error rates for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the continuous decrease in error rates for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development over the past financial years;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Understands the lower error rates for simpler payment schemes with relatively fewer deliverables, conditionalities or inherent complexity; notes that providing certain public goods such as CLLD (community-led local development), agri-environmental protection and building biodiversity are by their very nature more complex, so that their control is also more complex, with more errors possible; recalls that despite this, decades of Eurobarometer results in favour of climate, environment- and nature-friendly farming and bottom-up approaches show a consistently overwhelming public support from citizens for such schemes and their final deliverables in terms of public goods; insists that their marginally higher error rate should not discourage Member States from making them available to farmers and rural communities.

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that the rate of error can also be an indicator of the complexity of policies, identifying those areas in which further simplification is most needed; recommends, therefore, that the audit reports continue to give a clear breakdown of error rates for each pillar and, where appropriate, for each initiative, such as the eco-schemes, so as to ensure ongoing clarity about where further simplification is needed;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Approves of most of the simplifications introduced in the CAP for 2023-27, facilitating management by national authorities alongside their responsibilities for audit and control; notes the simplification coming with the New Delivery Model that has deleted the control rate for eligibility of CAP basic payments (formerly 5% of beneficiaries) to rates determined by the Member States based on error and risk; 6a. Notes in this regard the role of the new Area Monitoring System outlined in the FMM CAP regulation, using Copernicus satellite cluster data and monitoring, to supplement the existing area-based controls by physical on-the- spot inspections and remote sensing used up until now; 6b. Understands that this extension of coverage of farmed land, particularly useful to monitor active farming, justifies the reduction in the basic control rate. Sees the special usefulness in using Copernicus data as new techniques in controlling conditionality and land use relevant for Eco-schemes and AECMs, as well as gathering and correcting for data used for the indicators of the performance of the new CAP (annex I SPR); e.g. crop rotation, EFA, not ploughing Natura2000 sites, protecting high-carbon soils, wetlands and peatlands, etc.;

Amendment 36 #

Anne SANDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Approves of the simplifications introduced in the CAP for 2023-27, facilitating management by national authorities alongside their responsibilities for audit and control; recalls the addition of the ‘right to error’ for farmers and urges the Member States to implement this provision under the new national strategic plans;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Approves of~~Welcomes the simplifications introduced in the CAP for 2023-27, facilitating management by national authorities alongside their responsibilities for audit and control; stresses the need for sanctions imposed by the Member States to be effective, dissuasive and proportionate, being geared towards recovering undue payments;

Amendment 38 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Approves of the simplifications introduced in the CAP for 2023-27, facilitating management by national authorities alongside their responsibilities for audit and control which must be carried out effectively to ensure errors and irregularities do not increase under this simplification;

Amendment 39 #

Peter JAHR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Approves of~~Welcomes the simplifications introduced in the CAP for 2023-27, facilitating management by national authorities alongside their responsibilities for audit and control; points out that these simplifications should also reduce staffing costs in the Member States;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to place greater emphasis on administrative and technical assistance in the direct management of around 0.8% of the CAP budget;

Amendment 40 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Alin MITUȚA, Irène TOLLERET, Jérémy DECERLE, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Supports the interoperability of control and monitoring approaches so that data used for IACS or LPIS-GIS could be used to feed performance monitoring through indicators, for example to help Member States in their statistical gathering obligations under CAP and other policies, e.g. LULUCF and SAIO; reminds the Commission of the need for streamlining processes to avoid unnecessary administrative burden while delivering enough data to enable proper scrutiny of effectiveness of EU aid, and results and impacts, and ultimately success, of the policies;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the Member States to do their utmost to guarantee sound financial management, further reduction of errors and to avoid any delays in the implementation of CAP;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Notes the usefulness of satellite images and other digital technology approaches used in the area monitoring system for agroforestry and forestry parcels to complement LULUCF accounting and to justify possible future carbon farming payments based on remotely-observable agronomic techniques and sustainable and effective land management operations;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Notes the continued responsibility of the Commission to intervene if serious deficiencies are found in a member state control system, as outlined in the new FMM regulation;

Amendment 44 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Alin MITUȚA, Irène TOLLERET, Jérémy DECERLE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Supports the use of simplified cost options to allow authorities to calculate eligible expenditures of grants on the basis of flat rate financing to reduce complexity, ensuring that farmers are not out of pocket for payments compensating “costs incurred and income forgone”, e.g. Natura 2000, groundwater protection zones under the water framework directive, or other second pillar payments linked to statutory obligations; notes that ensuring high and at least remunerative payments for public goods provided by protection of such areas will, if applied correctly by the member states and the Commission, go far to diffuse tensions and resentment of some farmers against protection obligations;

Amendment 45 #

Peter JAHR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Reiterates the need to better balance the further simplification of rules and procedures with better controls over the most repeated areas of irregular spending, develop training sessions and practical information for applicants, in particular new applicants, and improve the assistance and guidelines for SMEs;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Acknowledges that the strategies of fraudsters are constantly evolving to evade detection; underlines, therefore, the importance of regular analysis of the effectiveness of measures taken to combat fraud in order to ensure consistently high standards and effectiveness;

Amendment 47 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Alin MITUȚA, Irène TOLLERET, Jérémy DECERLE, Elsi KATAINEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Encourages Member States to evaluate regularly their audit practices and internal control systems for EU funds under shared management to ensure that they are reliable and function effectively in preventing, detecting and correcting irregularities, including new forms of irregular practises;

Amendment 48 #

Atidzhe ALIEVA-VELI, Martin HLAVÁČEK, Irène TOLLERET, Jérémy DECERLE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Believes that digitalisation and the adoption of more sophisticated IT tools could improve the efficiency of the assurance process, as well as the use of the IACS to support the data monitoring needed to measure performance of the CAP via the indicators in annex I of the SPR; recalls that the performance approach was put forward in response to the clear and sustained wish of EU citizens to have a sustainable, fair and performing CAP; supports the extension of the use of the risk-scoring tool Arachne.

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Believes that digitalisation and the adoption of more sophisticated IT tools could improve the efficiency of the assurance process; supports the extension of the use of the risk-scoring tool Arachne.; recalls that ARACHNE is not yet fully fit for purpose for all CAP interventions and that the Commission will present in 2025 a report assessing its use and interoperability with the different national systems with a view to potentially broadening its use by the Member States;

Amendment 5 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that, from 1st January 2023, the budget of the CAP implemented under shared management will be subject to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 2021/2116 on the financing, management and monitoring (FMM) of the common agricultural policy;

Amendment 50 #

Camilla LAURETI, Clara AGUILERA, Attila ARA-KOVÁCS, Isabel CARVALHAIS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Ivo HRISTOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Believes that digitalisation and the adoption of more sophisticated IT tools c~~ould~~an improve the efficiency of the assurance process; supports the extension of the use of the risk-scoring tool Arachne. and particularly welcomes the references to this in the Financial Regulation revision proposal5a, referring to a single integrated IT system for data-mining and risk scoring; __________________ 5a Point (d) of Article 36(2), Article 36(6), Article 36(7) and Article 36(8)

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Believes that digitalisation and the adoption of more sophisticated and, at the same time, readily accessible IT tools could improve the efficiency of the assurance process; supports the extension of the use of the risk-scoring tool Arachne. designed to prevent and combat fraud;

Amendment 52 #