17 Amendments of Joëlle MÉLIN related to 2015/2345(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is concerned that due to the procyclicalgiven the restricted nature of European public spending for the financial capacity and social mission of NGOs are severely challenged at times when they are most needed; period between 2014 and 2020, EU grants to NGOs under various EU programmes and structural funds represent significant sums that are difficult to quantify precisely, and takes the view that grants ought only to be made when strictly necessary to meet the needs of the people of Europe;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Emphasises, in particular, that EU grants to NGOs must not have the aim or effect of addressing, in full or in part, matters falling within the remit of a European institution and/or a national institution within a Member State;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that under EU programmes such as the EaSI, the ESF and the FEAD, cannot be implemented without NGO involvementlls for projects involving grants are open, in particular, to applications from NGOs;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls onEncourages the Commission and the Member States to ensure the independence of social NGOs and to provide funding to contribute to the independent assessment of policiesindependently assess EU grants to NGOs, taking account, in particular, of the following: (i) fulfilment by the NGOs receiving grants of the objectives set out in their framework grant agreements; (ii) the relevance of NGO programmes or projects in receipt of grants with regard to the wishes of the people of Europe;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Emphasises that all projects and programmes receiving EU grants must be subject to a prior framework agreement, setting out a number of objectives and the stages involved in achieving them, as well as to regular assessments, in particular a final assessment comparing the results achieved with the objectives set in the framework agreement;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that many NGOs have difficulties in accessing ESF funding and are disproportionately burdened by the complexity of programmes and reporting requirements; calls on the Commission and Member States to step up support in this Emphasises that the administrative formalities required in order to answer EU calls for projects help ensure that the selection procedure is rigorous, objective and transpareant;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that most EU funds available for social NGOs require minimal co- financing, and too high a share can be detrimental to the applicant NGO which may not be able to raise this amountmounting to 10% of the total cost of the project or programme, but that, in practice, the proportion of co-financing required amounts to around 40%, and that no co-financing is required in certain cases;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Emphasises that, according to a study by the Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union dated 31 January 2014, the majority of the NGOs consulted for the study were in favour of this principle of co-financing;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Emphasises that the co-financing of programmes or projects in receipt of EU grants makes it possible to guarantee the viability of those programmes or projects and the financial independence of NGOs that receive EU grants; emphasises, in addition, that obtaining co- financing from public or private partners helps demonstrate the relevance and/or interest of the activities of the NGO that is applying;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Emphasises that there ought to be an increase in the minimum threshold for co-financing required of NGOs;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. RegretEmphasises that sometimes under the EaSI only public administration bodies can apply for funding as lead partner; calls on the Commission to put forward a proposal to adapt the regula owing to requirements or restrictions so that NGOs can also be the lead partnerare specific to the financing concerned;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that many EU social NGOs work in areas covered by different Commission Directorates-General (DGs); calls on the Commission to make itmaintains that it should not be possible to combine operational grants from more than one DG;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Emphasises that the Financial Transparency System ought to be changed so that legal entities receiving funding can be classed as NGOs, thereby making it possible to identify the total amount granted by the EU to NGOs under all EU programmes in a given year;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Emphasises that Member States’ obligations as regards transparency need to be tightened up in the area of EU grants awarded by the Member States where there is shared management;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Emphasises that NGOs in receipt of EU grants ought to be politically non- partisan;