Activities of Barbara SPINELLI related to 2016/2151(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
Amendments (12)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Shares the Court's assessment that the proliferation of financial mechanisms which are not directly funded by the EU budget nor audited by the Court poses risks both for accountability and the coordination of EU policies and operations1a. _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Annual report on the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2015, together with the institutions' replies, p. 74
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Requests the Court of Auditors to provide a specific assessment for spending under MFF Headings 3 (Security and citizenship) in the coming years.
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Notes the Court's assessment that the EU's external migration spending charged to the EU budget until 2014 could not be established in the course of the audit, nor was it clear whether expenditure had been directed in line with the intended geographical and thematic priorities; questions whether this was still the case for the year 2015. Shares the Court's view that relevant, coherent and timely indicators are an essential tool for guiding and assessing a policy and the related instruments. Notes in this regard that the Court found little evidence of precise and systematic indicators geared to each intervention level, and a lack of consistency between the indicators at the various policy levels. Calls therefore on the Commission to develop quality and result-oriented indicators aimed at assessing the quality and results obtained through the use of funds spent in its external migration policies1a . _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Special Report No 9/2016: EU external migration spending in Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Neighbourhood countries until 2014
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6 d. Notes the Court's assessment that Europe's two main spending instruments in the area of external migration, i.e. the TPMA and the ENPI, concentrated most of their activity on the prevention or detection of irregular immigration (including border control). Is concerned that security and border protection spending supersedes other objectives highlighted by the global approach, including the development of the link between migration and development, the development needs of countries of origin and migrants' rights1a. _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Special Report No 9/2016: EU external migration spending in Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Neighbourhood countries until 2014
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
6 e. Expresses concerns over the Court's finding that, while most of the audited projects did address human rights, directly or indirectly, in their objectives these were not always successfully implemented. Examples cited by the Court were the promotion of migrants' rights in Morocco and Algeria and the construction of migrant reception centres to comply with international standards in the Ukrainian readmissions programme. The Court also mentioned the SaharaMed project, which received 10 million euro in funding to improve capacity in tackling irregular immigration and preventing and intercepting irregular immigrants in the Mediterranean area, but did not include precautionary measures to guarantee respect for migrants' rights, either through activities or the purchase of equipment1a. _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Special Report No 9/2016: EU external migration spending in Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Neighbourhood countries until 2014
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)
Paragraph 6 f (new)
6 f. Notes the Court's assessment that anti-discrimination and anti-gypsyism have not been provided enough attention. Shares the Court's recommendation to Member States to include indicators and target values which deal with anti- discrimination and, more specifically, anti-gypsyism in line with the requirements of the racial equality directive1a ; _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Special Report No 14/2016: EU policy initiatives and financial support for Roma integration: significant progress made over the last decade, but additional efforts needed on the ground, pp.65-66
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 g (new)
Paragraph 6 g (new)
6 g. Notes the Court's assessment that the need for active participation by civil society organisations, in particular representatives of the Roma community itself, was not always taken into account in the selected Member States when National Roma Integration Strategies were being drafted. Shares the Court's recommendation to Member States to ensure that civil society organisations including Roma representatives are systematically consulted and included when Roma integration measures are being planned and implemented1a . _________________ 1aEuropean Court of Auditors, Special Report No 14/2016: EU policy initiatives and financial support for Roma integration: significant progress made over the last decade, but additional efforts needed on the ground, pp.65-66. Concerning the Italian National Roma Integration Strategy, see: http://www.agenziaradicale.com/index.ph p/diritti-e-liberta/4370-campi-nomadi-a- roma-la-montagna-ha-partorito-un- topolino
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 h (new)
Paragraph 6 h (new)
6 h. Believes the positive impact of the EU migration funds relies on processes at national and EU level to ensure transparency, effective monitoring and accountability. It is hence imperative to introduce monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in itinere and not only ex post which secure effective expenditure and assess whether the EU is attaining its policy objectives. Calls therefore on the Commission to ensure that result indicators and measurable targets based on the activities undertaken are defined at policy and project levels. Qualitative and quantitative indicators shall be established, be stable overtime and be comparable in order to measure the EU funds' impact and the achievement of their objectives. Quantified data should be systematically collected. Believes the European Court of Auditors should be monitoring throughout the project cycle and not only at the very end
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 i (new)
Paragraph 6 i (new)
6 i. Recalls that the fair and transparent distribution of funding between the different objectives of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund was a priority for Parliament during negotiations leading to the adoption of that fund; calls on the Commission accordingly to increase the number of budget lines under the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund to facilitate a better readability and transparency of how the financial resources allocated to the different objectives and thus to those budgetary lines will be spent; calls, in particular, on the Commission to separate expenditure on enhancing fair return strategies from expenditure on legal migration and from promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals in all future draft budgets as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2015 Budget1a ; _________________ 1a §12 of EP budget opinion 2015
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 j (new)
Paragraph 6 j (new)
6 j. Calls for EU development funds and humanitarian aid not be linked to partner countries' capacity and/or willingness to collaborate in migration control e.g. through readmission clauses