14 Amendments of Martin HÄUSLING related to 2022/2020(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
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 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
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 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
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 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
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 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
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 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
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 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Supports the extension of the use of the data mining risk-scoring tools such as Arachne to help track beneficial owners, holding companies and oligarchs.
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls for increased action and sustained pressure on conflicts of interest and preventing the appropriation by oligarchs of public funds, in the interest of protecting EU taxpayers' money and to improve the reputation of the CAP, which may help it resist future demands for budget cuts.
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Notes that conditionality is made up firstly of existing Union’s laws, applicable to all citizens, but filtered for relevance to on-farm operations and environmental, phyto-sanitary and animal welfare risk, and secondly of good farming practices; notes the continued control rate of only one out of each hundred beneficiaries for conditionality, and the minimal levels of sanctions, and the relatively low sanctioning rate; expresses surprise that the new delegated acts following the FMM regulation give more lenient sanctioning rates than was agreed by co-legislators in the long and painful CAP reform process, and further expresses concern that in an already very flexible system with early warning letters and zero percentage sanctions, the deterrent effect is being further eroded.