2014/2234(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the cost of controls is currently estimated at EUR 4 billion at Member State level, and ~~are probably still rising~~is likely to rise with the implementation of the latest CAP reform , particularly ~~with~~ the introduction of ‘greening’ measures;

Amendment 100 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Favours the increased use of e- Government technology by the Member States in order to forestall errors in the application process; recalls that the reliable implementation of e-Government technologies requires Member States to develop, finance or co-finance such technology.

Amendment 101 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Favour~~Acknowledges the increased use of e- Government technology by the Member States in order to forestall errors in the application process; notes, however the difficulties of rolling out such technology particularly where adequate rural broadband networks or sufficient training for applicants has been lacking.

Amendment 102 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Favour~~Supports the increased use of e- Government technology by the Member States ~~in order to forestall errors in the application process~~, mindful of the difficulties this may pose for some farmers who lack technology expertise and some regions where broadband capacity is poor.

Amendment 103 #

Nicola CAPUTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls for a charter of rights for farmers at EU level in order to build trust that there is an equivalence of standards and implementation across the EU, and a shortening of the ‘control chain’ with a clear division of areas of competency between Member State and the EU institutions.

Amendment 105 #

Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Laurenţiu REBEGA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Momchil NEKOV, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on Member States to ensure that the governmental/regional bodies dealing with the new CAP implementation communicate and work together effectively to the benefit of farmers implementing the policy on the ground.

Amendment 106 #

Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Laurenţiu REBEGA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Momchil NEKOV, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the Commission and European Court of Auditors to develop a supportive audit regime which encourages not only proper achievement but surpassing of the objectives of CAP regulation.

Amendment 107 #

8b. Calls on the European Court of Auditors to acknowledge in its annual report on budget implementation by the Commission for 2015, the significant degree of change in the CAP –which could not apply retroactively – following the 2013 reform when it presents its error rate and accompanying remarks, and to highlight the degree to which Member States are responsible under shared management of funds.

Amendment 108 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Insists that in any risk-based audit strategy, the scope of risk be extended to include risk to the environment and to public health and their associated costs, in addition to the risk to public funds in the EU budget.

Amendment 109 #

Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Laurenţiu REBEGA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Momchil NEKOV, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Calls on all institutions and bodies responsible for implementation of the CAP to cooperate to overcome mistrust and anxiety linked to the considerable burden of audit and control which potentially puts at risk future development and innovation and the position of the EU agriculture sector in relation to other markets.

Amendment 11 #

B. whereas the cost of controls is currently estimated at EUR 4 billion at Member State level, and ~~are probably still rising, particularly~~may increase with the introduction of ‘greening’, as could error rates;

Amendment 110 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Calls on the Commission to improve its guidelines on inspections, so as to ensure consistency of checks.

Amendment 111 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 d (new)

8d. Recalls the European Court of Auditors recommendation to turn cross- compliance measures into verifiable standards, with expected impacts defined beforehand and then measured.

Amendment 112 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 e (new)

8e. Recalls that the cost of ensuring cross- compliance and greening is far lower than the cost of their weak implementation, whereby extra costs would be incurred to clean up environmental pollution and solve public health crises.

Amendment 113 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 f (new)

8f. Stresses that efforts to reduce the burden of controls should pay particular attention to the needs of smaller-scale and family farms in the auditing process, aiming to minimise the number of inspections as far as possible, whilst ensuring sound spending of EU funds and correct implementation of relevant EU legislation.

Amendment 114 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 g (new)

8g. Recalls that, under Article 4.1(h) of the Regulation No 1307/2013 on direct payments, ‘permanent grassland and permanent pasture’ can include land used to grow ligneous forage species, which can be grazed and which forms part of established local practices where grasses and other herbaceous forage are traditionally not predominant in grazing areas; calls on Member States to ensure that farmers grazing in upland conditions are not discriminated against in eligibility rules for permanent grassland and permanent pasture or the value of entitlements.

Amendment 115 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 h (new)

8h. Demands greater clarity in the delegated act defining ‘active farmers’, ensuring that smaller-scale farmers and family farms are recognized as such.

Amendment 116 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 i (new)

8i. Argues for a better integration of the polluter pays principle as concerns penalties for non-compliance.

Amendment 117 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 j (new)

8j. Recalls that the Water Framework Directive and Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive shall be part of cross compliance measures as soon as the last Member State has implemented the farmer relevant aspects.

Amendment 118 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 k (new)

8k. Argues for the setting up of specific thresholds for pesticides, taking into account the different problems facing individual river basins and ecologically sensitive regions.

Amendment 119 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 l (new)

8l. Calls for the Commission to submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the information communicated by the Member States in relation to the National Action Plans for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, as requested in article 4.3 of Directive 2009/128/EC1 a ; recalls that this report shall contain methods used and the implications concerning the establishment of different types of targets to reduce the risks and use of pesticides. ___________ 1a Sustainable Use of Pesticides

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas expenditure on controls is additional to expenditure on the management and distribution of aid, which makes it essential to achieve full transparency regarding the true administrative costs of the CAP both to the European Union and to the Member States;

Amendment 120 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 m (new)

8m. Stresses that much administrative burden, on both farmers and administrators, could be reduced simply by improving the interoperability of databases in IACS (integrated administration and control system) as currently already applied in some Member States; notes that all Member States should ensure adequate investment in such systems and their hardware and software components, whether through independent financing or co-financing alongside EU funds.

Amendment 121 #

Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Laurenţiu REBEGA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Momchil NEKOV, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 n (new)

8n. Requests that the Commission encourage the exchange of best practices, to ensure the smoothest controls and least disturbance for the farmers.

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas performance based controls may become a useful methodology, while stability and an enabling approach are needed on the part of administrative bodies in order to build trust with final beneficiaries; recalls however that a one- size-fits-all system cannot be imposed on the diverse types and scale of agricultural holdings in the EU;

Amendment 14 #

Estefanía TORRES MARTÍNEZ, Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas some Member States are trying to reduce the costs of red tape by eliminating some of the smaller beneficiaries of CAP subsidies;

Amendment 15 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Estefanía TORRES MARTÍNEZ

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas farmers are systematically denied any new budget heading, even when a crisis occurs, and it is absolutely out of the question to consider increasing the administrative costs of the CAP, including costs of controls;

Amendment 16 #

Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Laurenţiu REBEGA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Nicola CAPUTO, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Momchil NEKOV, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas the 2013 reform has resulted in significant changes in the data required from farmers to accompany applications and justify claims, with new requirements which risk bringing about a higher error rate in the initial learning and adaptation phase;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas controls cause a delay in the payment of aid and, if a beneficiary has requested an advance from the bank, the latter asks for it to be reimbursed;

Amendment 18 #

Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Laurenţiu REBEGA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Momchil NEKOV, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Recital C

~~C. whereas the current system has reached its limits and action is needed;~~deleted

Amendment 19 #

Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the current system ~~has reached its~~is subject to limits and action is needed;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas the cCommon aAgricultural pPolicy (CAP) has grown significantly in complexity in recent years without ~~any~~, so far, any visible reduction in the existing bureaucracy since the 2013 reform ;

Amendment 20 #

Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Laurenţiu REBEGA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Momchil NEKOV, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the current system has ~~reached~~to deal with an estimated 15 million transactions each year, paid to around 8 million beneficiaries, and includes a million on- the-spot-checks involving millions of reference parcels of land and consequently risks reaching its limits and action is therefore needed;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas at the same time the number of farmers is constantly declining, while the number of staff administering agriculture and the CAP is constantly rising;

Amendment 22 #

Jørn DOHRMANN

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas it is important that operators are not burdened with a disproportionate amount of inspections;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas farmers respecting the common rules of CAP and EU environment policy provide public goods such as landscapes, farmland biodiversity and climate stability, which are of intrinsic value to society and the environment;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas controls on environmental performance are a means to guarantee the continuation of the public goods provided by agriculture, recognizing their value by linking them to payments, reflecting the ‘public money for public goods’ principle;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)

Cc. whereas cross-compliance and greening measures provide a sound baseline for sustainability of EU agriculture;

Amendment 26 #

Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Laurenţiu REBEGA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Momchil NEKOV, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Recital C d (new)

Cd. whereas controls on effective implementation of these rules allow to minimise the costs externalised to other areas of public spending due to environmental damage or dangers to public health;

Amendment 27 #

Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the burden of controls is in proportion to the complexity of the CAP; calls, therefore, for complexity to be reduced in order to cut error rates, as well as reduceing the cost ~~to the taxpayer~~and administrative burden borne by the taxpayer and farmers, and at the same time ensure that the budget is correctly spent;

Amendment 28 #

Beata GOSIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the burden of controls is in proportion to the complexity of the CAP; calls, therefore, for the complexity and number of controls to be reduced in order to cut error rates, restrict the bureaucracy and reduce the cost to the taxpayer and at the same time ensure that the budget is correctly spent;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the burden of controls is often viewed as being in proportion to the complexity of the CAP; calls, therefore, for complexity to be reduced in order to cut error rates, reduce the cost to the taxpayer and at the same time ensure that the budget is correctly spent and in this regard calls for a new examination of the cost of controls compared to how much additional of funding could be safeguarded by such controls;

Amendment 3 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas reforms of the common agricultural policy ~~has grown significantly in complexity in recent years without any reduction in the existing bureaucracy~~reform have increased the complexity and bureaucracy for competent authorities and farmers ;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the burden of controls is in proportion, inter alia, to the complexity of the CAP; calls, therefore, for complexity to be reduced in order to cut error rates, reduce the cost to the taxpayer and at the same time ensure that the budget is correctly spent; recalls nonetheless that the complexity of the CAP is due to the diversity of farming in Europe, moreover that the aim of reducing the error rate must not be pursued to the detriment of the attainment of the objectives of the CAP, and that simplification must not result in a dismantling of the instruments that have been adopted;

Amendment 31 #

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI, Zbigniew KUŹMIUK, Stanisław OŻÓG, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the ~~burden of controls is in proportion to~~increase in the administrative burden of controls is directly related to an increase in the complexity of the CAP; calls, therefore, for ~~complexity to be reduc~~the CAP to be simplified in order to cut error rates, reduce the cost to the taxpayer and at the same time ensure that the budget is correctly spent;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the burden of controls is in proportion to the complexity of the CAP; calls, therefore, for ~~complexity to be reduced~~its simplification in order to cut error rates, reduce the cost to the taxpayer and at the same time ensure that the budget is correctly spent;

Amendment 33 #

Michel DANTIN, Angélique DELAHAYE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the burden of controls is in proportion, inter alia, to the complexity of the CAP; calls, therefore, for ~~complexity to be reduc~~its implementation to be simplified in order to cut error rates, reduce the cost to the taxpayer and at the same time ensure that the budget is correctly spent;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the burden of controls is in proportion to the complexity of the CAP; calls, therefore, for complexity to be reduced in order to cut error rates, reduce the cost to the taxpayer, improve the efficiency of delivery of CAP payments and at the same time ensure that the budget is correctly spent;

Amendment 35 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls, in order to assess the effectiveness of this simplification, for the full cost of controls, management and distribution of the CAP (all costs to all countries in the European Union and the Member States) to be assessed and the findings published;

Amendment 36 #

Peter JAHR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls, when use is made of the findings from checks and in the possible imposition of penalties, for a distinction to be drawn between unintentional omissions and cases of fraud, as omissions do not as a rule cause any financial damage to the taxpayer;

Amendment 37 #

Jan HUITEMA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for a less bureaucratic CAP with a view to reducing the error rate and expects strong measures from the better regulation programme in this respect;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for a less bureaucratic CAP with a view to reducing the error rate and for instruments to be established which will make it possible to distinguish between error and fraud;

Amendment 39 #

Tibor SZANYI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Marc TARABELLA, Laurenţiu REBEGA, Viorica DĂNCILĂ, Daciana Octavia SÂRBU, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Momchil NEKOV, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls for a less bureaucratic CAP with a view to reducing the error rate whilst ensuring that farmers are still able to deliver the vital food production which is at the heart of the policy and believes that continuing to tackle complexity and streamlining the operation of the CAP is one of the keys to attracting new entrants to agriculture and retaining them and their skills to ensure a thriving EU agricultural sector in the future;

Amendment 4 #

Vladimir URUTCHEV, Daniel BUDA, Andrey NOVAKOV

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas more complex rules lead to more errors on the ground;

Amendment 40 #