Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen

Maandag 7 september 2015 - Straatsburg

25. Bescherming van de financiële belangen van de EU: naar prestatiegebaseerde controles van het GLB (korte presentatie)

  President. – The next item is the report by Petri Sarvamaa, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on protecting the European Union’s financial interests: towards performance-based controls of the Common Agricultural Policy (2014/2234(INI)) (A8-0240/2015).

  Petri Sarvamaa, rapporteur.– Madam President, we need efficiency. Checking 40 million transactions and other common agricultural policy controls costs around EUR 4 billion a year. As the rules and regulations governing the CAP have only got more diverse and complex it is expected that monitoring costs of the almost EUR 58 billion CAP budget will only grow if nothing is done.

So as I said, the cost is currently estimated at EUR 4 billion at Member State level. The farmers face a never-ending mountain of paperwork which has to be submitted to national officials, with increasingly complex regulations and control measures.

A Finnish farmer illustrated the absurdity perfectly by displaying next to each other all of the official forms demanded annually by the national authorities. The documents ended up stretching over 33 metres in length. That is approximately the length of two full rows of EPP Members in this Chamber and that is a long, long line.

If we do not manage to streamline the CAP and ease the burden of controls on farmers, we cannot hope to attract new entrants to agriculture. It will be a struggle to even retain the current beneficiaries.

But this is not just a matter of agriculture. Complex rules and controls of those rules inevitably mean that taxpayers’ money is not spent efficiently. Even worse, with inefficiency comes uncertainty about correct and responsible use of EU funds. The promotion of performance-based controls can be an answer to some of those questions. The report at hand insists that the definition of performance in respect of controls should primarily entail the quality of the Member States’ checks and administrative systems: that is, the efficiency, consistency and reliability of the managing and certifying authorities.

In order to ease the burden on the beneficiaries, the authorities should aim to organise on-site checks in a way that would not subject the farmer to multiple annual on-site checks by the national authorities, the Commission or the Court of Auditors. This should be done by advancing and implementing the famous single audit scheme that we have been waiting for too long.

Furthermore, the report advocates identifying the best and worst performing Member States in its policy area, with the best performing States being rewarded with a reduction in controls. Now in some quarters this is being suspected of not being in accordance with the basic ideas of the Union, but let me underline that this fear is in vain: it is indeed in accordance with those ideas. And a key part of this approach is the sharing of experience and best practices with the worst performing States.

The key factor behind the thinking of the report is this: simplification is inevitable. The Commission is on this path and so should this Parliament be.

Your rapporteur has been driven by the ultimate desire to release farmers from behind their desks into the fields and simultaneously provide better control for taxpayers’ money.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Андрей Новаков (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, аз вярвам, че най-добрият ПР на тази институция са резултатите, които тя постига.

Нищо не говори по-добре от това от резултатите, които постигаме ние заедно тук и вярвам, че това, което прави г-н Сарвама е именно такъв резултат, защото програмен период 2007- 2013 ни научи на нещо много важно и то е, че дългите процедури, многото документи, дългите опашки не ни помагат.

Ако мога да обобщя стотиците си срещи с бенефициенти на европейски средства в няколко неща, то те ще са следните:

Трябва драматично да съкратим времето от подаване на документи до изплащане реално на средствата; трябва да базираме контрола върху риска – тези, които се справят добре, да бъдат проверявани по-малко, тези, които се представят зле, да бъдат проверявани повече.

Трябва да избягаме от хартията и да използваме колкото се може повече електронни услуги, така че да не се редят хората по опашки, а да подават документите си от вкъщи с по-малко чакане.

Вярвам, че с всичко това няма как да не оптимизираме и средствата за изразходване на управление, и контролиране на европейски проекти.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel corso dei due cicli di riforma della politica agricola comune, le norme sono divenute più eterogenee e complesse ed è noto che per regole più complesse determinano anche più errori.

Gli obiettivi della PAC possono essere correttamente attuati solo con un'efficace semplificazione e sburocratizzazione, riducendo al minimo il costo dei controlli, che già oggi ammonta a circa 4 miliardi di euro. Ho notato che troppo spesso gli organismi pagatori rendono dichiarazioni inesatte. La Commissione ha dovuto rivedere al rialzo i tassi di errore comunicati da ben 42 organismi pagatori su 68. Opportuno sarebbe elaborare proposte intese a sanzionare gli organismi pagatori.

(La Presidente chiede di parlare più lentamente)

Opportuno sarebbe elaborare proposte intese a sanzionare gli organismi pagatori, in caso di dichiarazioni false, fino a permettere alla Commissione di revocare il riconoscimento degli organismi pagatori in caso di gravi inesattezze. È necessario sviluppare criteri per definire quali Stati membri registrano le migliori performance e quali quelle peggiori, in modo da attuare un programma di diffusione delle best practice. Insomma, è necessaria una nuova PAC razionalizzata, una PAC orientata agli agricoltori. Solo in questo modo potremo efficacemente raggiungere i target che ci proponiamo.

  Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Noriu pasveikinti iniciatyvą, paraginti Europos Komisiją pasinaudoti bendros žemės ūkio politikos supaprastinimo procesu. Svarbu tai, kad šis supaprastinimas būtų naudingas ne sofos ūkininkams, o tiems, kurie gyvena iš žemės ūkio. Būtent toks gyvenimas parodo, koks svarbus yra žalinimas, nes jis susijęs su atsakingu ūkininkavimu – tokiu, kuriuo užsiiminėja kaime gyvenantys ir iš kartos į kartą žemę dirbantys žmonės. Kitas svarbus aspektas – svarbu atsižvelgti į tai, kad nauju laikotarpiu nemažai pasikeitė taisyklių, todėl manau būtina, kad Komisija paragintų agentūras ne tik naudotis baudomis, jei randama kokia nors klaida, o, priešingai, pradėti nuo daug švelnesnių priemonių: įspėjimo, mokymo ir visa kita.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η γραφειοκρατία και η πολυπλοκότητα της Κοινής Γεωργικής Πολιτικής πλήττουν τους αγρότες και είναι ένα από τα ζητήματα που πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Πρέπει να υπάρξει απλούστευση του συστήματος εάν θέλουμε να βελτιωθεί και να αυξηθεί η αποδοτικότητα των ενισχύσεων της Κοινής Γεωργικής Πολιτικής. Πρέπει να δοθεί λύση στα μεγάλα προβλήματα της γεωργίας. Στη χώρα μου την Ελλάδα, οι φτωχοποιημένοι από το μνημόνιο Έλληνες αγρότες αδυνατούν να ανταπεξέλθουν οικονομικά, καθώς τη χρονιά που πέρασε δοκιμάστηκαν από τις καταστροφές που έπληξαν την παραγωγή στην πατρίδα μου. Την ίδια στιγμή, η φοροεπιδρομή που βίωσαν και συνεχίζουν να βιώνουν με εντολές της Τρόικας επεκτάθηκε παράνομα και στις κοινοτικές ενισχύσεις που λαμβάνουν. Την τελευταία πενταετία, το εισόδημα των Ελλήνων αγροτών μειώθηκε κατά 1,5 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ ενώ οι φόροι αυξήθηκαν κατά 150%. Παράλληλα, η κρίση που έπληξε τη γεωργία λόγω του ρωσικού εμπάργκο κατέστρεψε οικονομικά τους Έλληνες αγρότες. Για τους λόγους αυτούς, πρέπει να υπάρξει άμεση αύξηση των ενισχύσεων στους φτωχοποιημένους από τα μνημόνια Έλληνες αγρότες.

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία πρόεδρε, συζητούμε ένα σημαντικότατο θέμα έχοντας ενώπιον μας την εξαιρετική έκθεση που συνέταξε ένας εξαιρετικός συνάδελφος, αγγίζοντας το πρόβλημα στην καρδιά του. Μετά από αυτά που είπε, δεν χρειάζεται εμείς να συνεισφέρουμε και να προσθέσουμε πολλά. Η λέξη κλειδί είναι η «αποτελεσματικότητα» και αντιλαμβανόμαστε τι σημαίνει εάν σκεφτούμε το πρόβλημα που αποτελούν 50 εκατομμύρια πράξεις που είναι έλεγχοι, που κοστίζουν 4 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ και που ουσιαστικά αντιστοιχούν στο 7% των χρημάτων που δίνουμε για την Κοινή Γεωργική Πολιτική. Με άλλα λόγια, από κάθε 100 ευρώ που δίνουμε, τα 7 ευρώ πηγαίνουν αποκλειστικά και μόνο σε ελέγχους. Αν, τελικά, δεν είμαστε διατεθειμένοι να αξιοποιήσουμε αυτή τη σημαντική έκθεση και να λύσουμε στη ρίζα του το πρόβλημα, τότε και η αγροτική οικονομία θα πλήττεται, και οι αγρότες μας θα ταλαιπωρούνται και κερδισμένη θα βγαίνει και πάλι η γραφειοκρατία που σκοτώνει κάθε προοπτική και κάθε ανάπτυξη. Είναι ευκαιρία λοιπόν να στηρίξουμε τους αγρότες μας, καταργώντας τον διοικητικό φόρτο και δίνοντας – θα εισηγηθώ μια καινοτόμο πρόταση – τη δυνατότητα αυτοελέγχου στον γεωργικό τομέα.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission.– Madam President, of course the simplification of the common agricultural policy is a way to reduce the number of controls on the spot. Simpler rules mean that it is going to be easier to implement them, easier for farmers to work with them and easier for authorities to check up on them.

As some of you have said, Phil Hogan has already started with this simplification exercise and it is well advanced. We have received many contributions from all stakeholders. Some changes have already been implemented and the Commission will present more proposals in the coming months.

However, we do not have to wait for new rules to impact on the number of controls farmers face. The current legislation allows Member States with reliable management and control systems to reduce the level of the spot checks. Some Member States have expressed interest in taking advantage of this possibility. The Commission services are working closely with them to ensure all conditions for this reduction are met. Of course we want simple rules and better application, but we also have a great responsibility in ensuring that taxpayers’ money is not misappropriated and does not end up where it should not.

Member States are also encouraged, in the current legislation, to organise their controls in a way that reduces the burden for farmers. Let us not forget either that only 5% of farmers are subject to on-the-spot checks for compliance with CAP rules. Most of the controls they are faced with result from national laws and from cross-compliance requirements, which do not originate from CAP legislation. Obviously, to most farmers it does not make any difference whether a rule comes from Brussels or from their own country: they are faced with rules and they want fewer of them. They are absolutely right. They should be farming and not involved in constant bureaucracy. But we believe that Member States could, in so far as possible, try to group their own controls with those resulting from CAP obligations, and perhaps they could also learn more from each other than they do today.

As I said, controls are, and will remain, necessary. If the EU legislator or the Member States has specified a conditional requirement to be respected before aid can be paid, then there needs to be a check that this condition or requirement has been met. The more numerous or complex the requirements, the more numerous or complex the controls. Taxpayers have the right to know whether subsidies from the EU budget are being spent according to the rules, and we will therefore not accept any proposal that might compromise the sound financial management of the EU budget.

Finally, we should ask ourselves whether an error rate of 2% is, per se, the appropriate benchmark for a complex policy such as the CAP and, more concretely, rural development. In that context, we should also raise the issue of the acceptable relation between the cost and the benefits of controls. Any reflection that does not attempt to tackle this question would really be a missed opportunity.

The common agricultural policy is, and will remain, a cornerstone of EU policies. It is in our common interest that this policy be as effective as possible and that it retain the support of farmers and citizens. Taxpayers will want to be sure that their money is well spent.

I would like to thank Mr Sarvamaa very much for his report, which will be added to the contributions to the ongoing debate about simplification of the CAP.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 September 2015.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Daniel Buda (PPE), în scris.– În UE trăiesc 12 milioane de agricultori, pentru care agricultura reprezintă o ocupație permanentă (agricultura și industria agroalimentară, care este dependentă de sectorul agricol pentru aprovizionare). 500 de milioane de consumatori din Europa depind de o sursă fiabilă de hrană sănătoasă și la un preț accesibil. PAC a fost creată pentru a ajuta fermierii din Europa, dar complexitatea acestei politici și birocrația aferentă au crescut în mod semnificativ în ultimii ani atât pentru autoritățile competente, cât și pentru agricultori.

Este nevoie de o PAC care să poată fi pusă în aplicare și interpretată în mod clar, pentru a se reduce rata de eroare. Este necesar să se dezvolte instrumente care să demonstreze erorile în cazurile de fraudă, asigurându-se, în același timp, că agricultorii pot continua livrarea producției de alimente. Mai mult, Comisia trebuie să aibă în vedere eliminarea diferențelor dintre agricultorii europeni, având în vedere că, în unele țări, subvențiile sunt sub nivelul UE, ceea ce constituie un imens handicap în competiția cu agricultorii din celelalte țări din UE. Inițiativa Comisiei de simplificare a PAC este binevenită, cu analizarea imediată a măsurilor care pot fi puse în aplicare, fiind în beneficiul agricultorilor, al agenților de plăți, al instituțiilor Uniunii Europene și al contribuabililor. Aceasta ar ușura sarcinile administrative care apar.

  Beata Gosiewska (ECR), na piśmie.– Cztery miliardy euro, które wydawane są obecnie na koszty kontroli oraz zapewnienie doradztwa zainteresowanym podmiotom i rolnikom, to stanowczo za dużo. To skandal, że tak dużo środków przeznaczanych jest na ten cel w obliczu kryzysu wywołanego przez rosyjskie embargo czy susze, które dotknęły Polskę i inne kraje Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. Niestety, ostatnia reforma wspólnej polityki rolnej (WPR) przyczyniła się do dalszego zróżnicowania przepisów, co w konsekwencji prowadzi do większej liczby błędów w terenie. Koszty te mogą jednak wzrosnąć w związku z realizacją ostatniej reformy, w szczególności ze względu na wprowadzenie środków dotyczących ekologizacji. Dlatego uproszczenie oraz odbiurokratyzowanie WPR powinno być dla nas zadaniem priorytetowym.

Popieram sprawozdanie posła Sarvamy, ponieważ uważam, że konieczne jest polepszenie jakości kontroli, a nie ich zwiększenie przez państwa członkowskie, Komisję czy Trybunał Obrachunkowy. Należy zmniejszyć biurokrację związaną z WPR oraz stworzyć system instrumentów umożliwiających faktyczne odróżnienie błędu od nadużycia.