14 Amendments of Petri SARVAMAA related to 2017/2179(DEC)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to work in close cooperation with the Agencies Network and the individual Agencies when preparing its proposal for the post- 2020 Multiannual Financial Framework and examining alternative sources of financing for the Union’s decentralized agencies;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Court to speed up the preparation and advance the publication of the reports on the Agencies’ annual accounts, in order to simplify the current discharge exercise and to target the final discharge decision more towards year n+1;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that the Network provides for concrete added value in the relations between the Union Institutions and the decentralised agencies; considers that it would be an asset to support the management of the Network´s Shared Support Office in Brussels; strongly supports its request for one temporary agent post, whose cost would be shared amongst the agencies in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2019 budget request; encourages the Commission to include the extra post in its proposal for the 2019 budget;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Observes that the Network, via the Performance Development sub-Network (PDN), prepared in 2016 the agencies’ performance framework document, which describes the tools in place, including the use of indicators with a particular focus on the planning, measurement and reporting of efficiency; welcomes the fact that the PDN is currently working, together with the Commission, on the development of a maturity model for performance-based budgeting to guide each agency in its efforts to optimise its capabilities to plan, monitor and report on results and budget and resources used; notes room for improvement in some Agencies’ use of outcome and impact indicators in their KPIs; calls on the Network to report to the discharge authority on the measures adopted and their implementation;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that carry-overs aremay often be partly or fully justified by the multiannual nature of the agencies’ operational programmes, do not necessarily indicate weaknesses in budget planning and implementation and are theynot always at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality; acknowledges the fact that the carry-overs are usually explained by the multi-annual nature of operationsencourages the Agencies to consider using differentiated appropriations, where recommended so by the Court;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Highlights that the level of carry- over cancellations is indicative of the budget planning capacity and the extent to which the Agencies have correctly anticipated their financial needs and is often a better indicator of good budgetary planning than the mere level of carry- overs;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that, according to the Court’s summary,with concern that public procurement still remains an error-prone area; notes that EASO, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction (EMCDDA), the European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT Systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) did not fully comply with the public procurement principles and rules laid down in the Financial Regulation; calls on the Agencies to pay particular attention to the Court’s comments on public procurement;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Recalls that paragraph 27 of the inter-institutional agreement7 calls for a progressive reduction of staff by 5 % in all institutions, bodies and agencies to be effected between 2013 and 2017; notes that the decentralised agencies, following the Commission’s timetable8 , started the reduction one year later and plan to finish by 2018; welcomes the fact that most agencies have already met or exceeded the 5 % reduction; notes that, according to the Court’s rapid case review on the implementation of the 5 % reduction of staff posts, the decentralised agencies already reduced their number of establishment plan posts by a total of 279 in the period 2013-2017 against a target of 303 posts by 2018; points out that a horizontal target has not proven to be the most suitable solution for the decentralized agencies, as their tasks and operational needs differ significantly; _________________ 7 Interinstitutional agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1). 8 For decentralised agencies, the Commission’s communication COM(2013) 519 of 10 July 2013 applied the 5 % staff reduction target to the decentralised agencies over a 5 year period (2014-2018, with the reference year 2013).
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Notes with concern that the Commission applied an additional annual 1 % levy during the five-year period 2014- 2018 to create a “redeployment pool”, consisting of 218 posts in the period 2013- 2017, from which it would allocate the posts to the agencies with new tasks entrusted to them or in a start-up phase9 ; notes that most new posts were granted to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the European Police Office (Europol), EASO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); _________________ 9 Following the terminology used by the Commission to classify decentralised agencies as “start-up phase”, “new tasks” or “cruising speed” reflecting their stage of development and the growth of their EU contributions and staffing levels.
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Is particularly concerned that with the additional staff reduction, fulfilment of the agencies’ mandates and annual work programmes are proving increasingly difficult to deliver, particularly for the agencies classified by the Commission as “cruising speed agencies”; calls on the Commission and the budgetary authority to look into other options in order not to hinder the agencies’ ability to fulfil their mandate; calls moreover on the Commission to recognise the savings the Network and the individual agencies achieved by using joint procurement procedures, by increasing efficiency and human resources management, as well as to allow, where needed, for the staff reduction targets to adapt accordingly;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Observes that decentralised agencies increased the use of contract staff by 718 full-time equivalents to implement new tasks, in partial compensatation for the 5 % staff cut and the levy for the creation of the redeployment pool; notes that this mostly concerns Frontex, Europol, EASO and EASA, the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) and the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency (GSA); is of the opinion that the use of contract staff is not in line with the targets set to achieve the staff reductions and should be used omainly as a temporary measure, in agencies with the greatest demand for new staff due to an increase in workload; calls on the Commission to deliberate again on its plans for a further 1 % annual staff reduction;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Is concerned by a number of factors hindering the operational performance of justice and home affairs agencies, such as establishment plan cuts, limited human resources, difficulties in recruiting qualified people at given grades, a low correction coefficient in certain countries and the implementation of activities through a lengthy and administratively demanding grant process; acknowledgnotes from the Network that the grading of staff at the entry-level grades do not allow recruitment of appropriate personnel and that the very lowlow correction coefficient corrector for some countries results in the systematic use of higher grading in order to attract and retain suitable personnel; calls on the Commission to work on the revision of the formula used to calculate the correction coefficient in order to come tofind a more suitable solution for the agencies most affected by the low correction coefficient, to allow them to retain suitable personneldelicate balance between a tempting salary and the low costs of living;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Expresses its concern that onlyPoints out that 22 Agencies (71 %) have already adopted internal rules and guidelines on whistleblowing and reporting irregularities in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations; notes that, and the remaining nine agencies foresee adoption of the relevant rules and guidelines; calls on the Network to report to the discharge authority on the adoption and implementation of these measures per individual Agency;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Notes the agreement reached at the General Affairs Council of 20 November 2017 to move EMA and the European Banking Authority (EBA) from London to Amsterdam and Paris respectively; is concerned byaware of the potential impact of the United Kingdom’s departure from the Union on them, in terms of future costs and loss of expertise, causing a risk to business continuity; notes moreover the possible impact on the revenue and activities of several non-London based agencies, in particular EASA, the European Chemicals Agency, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, the European Securities and Markets Authority and GSA; calls on the Commission to keep the individual agencies and the Network fully aboard the Brexit negotiation process and the future preparations to minimize any negative impact that may occur;