17 Amendments of Maria NOICHL related to 2020/2221(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that the concentration of agricultural income support is mainly driven by area-based direct payments; underlines the need for more targeted support and a better balance between large and small beneficiaries at Member State level; points out that the actual distribution of land and subsidies could be even more unequal, as the statistics available do allow any assertion to be made about the ownership and control of farms, for example by holding companies; underlines the potential for abuse where payment entitlements lie far above the national average in Member States without internal convergence of European direct payments;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises that existing statistical tools at EU level, such as the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), the Eurostat Farm Structure Survey and the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) gather data on different aspects of land tenure; underlines that comprehensive, up-to-date, transparent and high-quality data on land tenure, property structures, leasing structures, and price and volume movements on land markets at European level, have so far been lacking and, in some Member States, are collected and published only incompletely;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that the Member States are responsible for the EU agricultural funds under shared management with the Commission; considers the new delivery model and the new National Strategic Plans to be a great opportunity to reinforce Member States’ and the Commission’s controls pertaining to the distribution and management of funds and to raise awareness among the authorities responsible for awarding grants of the opportunities for fraud; stresses, in this context, the importance of exchanges between European law enforcement actors and funding release authorities in order to ensure the highest possible level of prior awareness of possible fraud;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to raise Member States’ awareness of organised crime engaging in tax evasion, corruption and illegal practices (such as ‘pocket contracts’) in connection with land transactions, and to support them in combating such crime;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists on greater resources for investigationequipment and investigations by OLAF, Eurojust and EPPO, as well as on stronger coordination between the Member States and EU bodies, to ensure that the fight against fraud in agricultural funds is effective; emphasises the need for a comprehensive fraud strategy with a robust fraud risk analysis. Underlines, in this context, that the budget allocated to Eurojust under the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 was frozen at the 2019 level, whereas the workload increased as a result of a greater number of cases and the corresponding additional effort required to prosecute crimes and liaise with the prosecution services of other Member States.
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses the importance of greater cooperation between European Member States and increased awareness among the competent national authorities, which in the recent past has led to a significant increase in the number of PIF cases and investigations against organised crime;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Deplores the fact that not all Member States choose to coordinate and initiate supranational prosecutions under Eurojust and that as a result many cases of organised crime at European level cannot be resolved;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Reiterates the transparency requirements for the CAP and cohesion policy, which require the competent authorities of the Member States to maintain a publicly accessible list of final beneficiaries; urges the Member States to publish this data in a single, machine- readable format and to ensure the interoperability of information; calls on the Commission to collect and aggregate the data and to publish the lists of the largest beneficiaries of each fund in each Member State;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Reiterates its call for the introduction of maximum amounts for the payments that a natural person can receive under the first and second pillars of the CAP and the cohesion funds; notes that beneficiaries can artificially split their undertakings or set up additional undertakings, all of which can receive the maximum amounts; criticises the fact that, at their special summit in July 2020, the European Member States unilaterally decided not to introduce maximum amounts for natural persons under the first or second pillars, pre-empting a decision in the trilogue negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
6e. Reiterates its concern that CAP subsidies continue to incentivise land grabbing and concentration by criminal and oligarchic structures, as well as abuse by organised crime; reiterates its urgent call on the Commission to ensure that complaint mechanisms for farmers and SMEs allow them to easily complain about land grabbing, serious misconduct by national authorities, irregular or biased treatment in tender procedures or the allocation of subsidies, pressure or intimidation by criminal structures, organised crime or oligarchic structures, or any other serious violation of their fundamental rights;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)
Paragraph 6 f (new)
6f. Underlines its concern that, despite the numerous legal instruments adopted in the field of asset recovery, judicial cooperation continues to be hampered by large differences between national legal systems and a lack of harmonised rules; underlines that a number of Member States still face obstacles to the execution of requests for judicial cooperation and European Investigation Orders, to the identification and freezing of proceeds of crime and to the recognition of confiscation orders issued by other Member States;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 g (new)
Paragraph 6 g (new)
6g. Stresses that the confiscation and recovery of criminal assets constitutes an essential element in the fight against organised crime and that this also has a deterrent effect by reinforcing the idea that ‘crime does not pay’; calls, in this connection, on the Member States to meticulously trace misappropriated European funds; points out that some have started to recruit specialised accountants to look into the financial aspects of criminal investigations in order to assist prosecutors;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 h (new)
Paragraph 6 h (new)
6h. Underlines the need for Member States, which remain responsible for operational measures in the field of police and judicial cooperation, to make greater use of cross-border and EU-wide cooperation, as organised crime has become increasingly interconnected, international and digital;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 i (new)
Paragraph 6 i (new)
6i. Stresses the need to monitor agricultural paying agencies in the Member States and to guarantee both their formal and informal independence and to bring their work in line with EU rules, in connection with which spot inspections, among other measures, may lead to a better control system;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 j (new)
Paragraph 6 j (new)
6j. Stresses that the EU Financial Regulation, in particular Article 61 thereof, must be respected and implemented in all Member States and applied to all payments of EU funds, including direct payments for agriculture;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 k (new)
Paragraph 6 k (new)
6k. Underlines the importance of a thorough investigation of cases of misuse of EU funds uncovered by journalists in EU Member States and of ensuring the recovery of EU funds used in violation of the rules;