24 Amendments of Dominique BILDE related to 2015/2327(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Erasmus+ is one of the most successful Union programmes and the major tool to support, enjoying the greatest visibility among EU citizens with regard to activities in the fields of education, training, youth and sport;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the programme’s high political and economic relevance is reflected in the budget increase of 40 % for the programme period, although not operational until 2017, and the commitment rate of the foreseen budget which has reached nearly 100 % with a high number of applications;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas not all relevant data for a full quantitative and qualitative analysis of the implementation are yet available, whereas it is therefore too early to conduct a qualitative assessment of the programme’s impact; whereas feedback nevertheless helps to provide a global overview of needs to be met, positive aspects and aspects for improvement with regard to the previous programme, in particular helping to integrate students more fully into host universities, enabling them to make real progress in learning the language and customs and ensuring an optimum class timetable;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that a large majority of national agencies expect the Erasmus+ programme’s objectives in the fields of education, training and youth to be reached, despite the fact that, according to a study carried out by the Policy B department on the decentralised implementation of Erasmus+, 75 % of national agencies experienced administrative complexity when implementing the programme;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that the overall programme is more visible than its predecessor but that the different sectoral programmes lack visibility; recalls in this context that the specific features and characteristics of the different sectors have to be taken into account during the implementation of the programme, particularly with regard to Erasmus apprentices;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises that, according to reports from stakeholders at all levels, the first two and half years of programme implementation were difficult and challenging but, particularly for national agencies, half of which maintain that the new programme is more difficult to implement, despite the fact that certain improvements have been made in the meantime;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that despite the programme’sthe Erasmus+ programme enjoyed a significant overall budget increase, of EUR 14.7 billion between 2014 and 2020, representing a 40% increase compared to the previous programme; notes that the budgetary profile in the MFF indicates a limited increase for the first half of the programme period, which has lcontributed to the rejection of many high quality projects and hence a low success rate; notes also that the new programme structure currently seems to be working in favour of large projects, particularly under Key Action 2, and that these large projects also receive a larger proportion of the budget;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that the 12.7 % increase in the total budget in 2017 compared to 2016 and further annual increases in the remaining programme years willshould result in higher success rates and greater satisfaction among applicants; welcom, as these budget increases will be managed responsibly; notes the Commission’s intention to allocate an additional EUR 200 million for the remaining programme period, but stresses that increased funds alone will not be sufficient to ensure the efficiency of the programme, particularly with regard to the need for greater equality between small, medium-sized and large projects;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that virtual means armay be one way to support the dissemination and exploitation of results, but that personal contacts and face-to-face activities play a very important role in the success of a project and of the overall programme; stresses in this connection that 61.1 % of the national agencies surveyed said that the new programme has not improved support for individuals with specific needs, and believes that, for this group of people, personal contact is essential if their projects are to succeed;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the Student Loan Guarantee Facility was only launched in February 2015 after signature of the delegation agreement with the European Investment Fund (EIF) in December 2014, and that to date there are only three banks in France and Spain participating in this innovative tool; stresses that a cautious approach should be taken towards this facility and that care should be taken to ensure that it does not come to substitute the scholarship scheme in any way; notes that experiences with student loans in Europe and abroad have been inconclusive, meaning that there is a real risk of drawing speculative conclusions;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Regrets that organisations representing amateur sportspeople, and disabled sportspeople in particular, at local level are highly underrepresented as project participants in the implementation of grassroots sports projects; welcomes the introduction of Small Collaborative Partnerships with reduced administrative requirements as an important step in enabling smaller grassroots sports organisations to take part in the programme and enriching them further;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Asks the Commission to fully exploit the potential to foster and encourage cross-sectoral cooperation under Erasmus+, which is much higher than under the predecessor programmes, as cooperation is clearly defined and more easy to understand for national agencies and stakeholders, and to evaluate cross- sectoral cooperation in the programme’s midterm evaluation presented at the end of 2017;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers the long-standing brand names (Comenius, Erasmus, Erasmus Mundus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig and Youth in Action) as important tools in promoting the variety of the programme; calls on all stakeholders who wish to do so, and according to the results obtained on the ground, to continue to use them in order to maintain and strengthen the identity of the sectoral programmes, to ensure better recognition and to overcome any confusion among beneficiaries;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Encourages the Commission to continue its efforts towards an open, consultative and transparent way of working and to further improve its cooperation with partners at all levels of implementation; notes in this connection that nearly 19.4 % of national agencies are dissatisfied with cooperation with the Executive Agency and the Commission, and that this is particularly true for the national agencies responsible for the chapter on youth and the other types of national agency;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to ensure the regular exchange of information and good cooperation between the implementation bodies at European level and national agencies on both decentralised and centralised programme actions; notes with concern that 57.1 % of national agencies in northern Europe say that they are very dissatisfied with this cooperation and that the majority of national agencies are suffering from a total lack of collaboration with the Executive Agency;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Suggests that the organisational structure of the relevant Commission services be aligned with the structure of the programme, a prerequisite for the success of the programme;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for further improvement of the relevant IT tools, which have been criticised by more than 55.6 % of national agencies, and for the focus to be put on streamlining and improving connections between the different tools rather than developing new ones; notes that the opaqueness of IT tools puts small-scale candidates and small projects at a particular disadvantage, as they often have access to fewer economic and human resources with which to overcome administrative difficulties;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to develop further the eTwinning, School Education Gateway, Open Education Europe, EPALE, European Youth Portal and VALOR IT platforms in order to make them more attractive and, user-friendly, intelligible and accessible; asks the Commission to include an evaluation of these platforms in the Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the introduction of two types of strategic partnerships as a first and important positive step towards increasing the chances for small-sized organisations to participate in the programme; calls on the Commission to make further improvements in order to include more small-sized organisations in programme activities; highlights, however, the fact that many national agencies responsible for the chapter on youth are concerned about the removal of the ‘national youth initiatives’ sub-section, a decision which works in favour of transnational projects and to the detriment of local, regional and national projects, thus putting small projects or projects run by informal groups of young people at a disadvantage;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. WNotes that stakeholders have welcomesd the introduction of the unit cost system into the programme in order to minimise the administrative burden; welcomes also the adjustments made in 2016 and planned for 2017 by the Commission; considers the further increase in unit cost rates to be necessary to provide sufficient financial support for project participants, despite the emergence of the fact that the system could cause problems in the areas furthest away; notes also the adjustments made in 2016 and planned for 2017 by the Commission;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Asks the Commission to harmonisemake proportionate adjustments commensurate with specific situations within the different chapters and according to national demand for the indicated pre- financing rates as much as possible throughout the programme in order to give all beneficiaries the same advantages and to facilitate project implementation, especially for small-sized organisations;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to recognise the special nature of projects and mobilities involving people with special needs and people from disadvantaged backgrounds; encourages stronger promotion of the possibilities for people with special needs, particularly disabled people, and for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, particularly those from rural or mountainous areas, to engage in the programme and asks that their access thereto be facilitated;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls not only for the current budget level to be secured for the next programme generation under the new MFF, but considers a further budget increase to be an important step for the continued success of the programmeaccompanied by an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of the funds committed;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Commission to keep the separate chapters and separate budgets for education and training, for youth and for sport, bearing in mind their specific characters, in order to properly identify and clarify each chapter, as a guarantee of overall intelligibility;