Activities of Maria GRAPINI related to 2022/2081(DEC)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2021, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union for the financial year 2021, Section III – Commission and executive agencies
Amendments (53)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the findings of the European Court of Auditors (‘the Court’) that the consolidated accounts of the European Union for 2021 present fairly, in all material respects, the Union’s financial position; regrets that the estimated level of error in expenditure has increased up to 3% and recommends the European Commission to improve the monitoring of expenditures;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the last call for proposals of the CEF programme 2014-2020 was completed in 2021, selecting 77 actions, with a total CEF contribution of more than EUR 280 million, triggering an overall investment of more than EUR 500 million, nevertheless, regrets that the 1st CEF 2021- 2027 call for proposals was published only in September 2021 and the first commitments came in mid-2022 due to the delayed negotiations on the MFF 2021- 2027;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the funding of the TEN-T network revision shall well reflect and further focus on the extension of connection towards the Eastern Neighbourhood; in this regard insists to not further delay the acceptation of Bulgaria and Roman, Romania and Croatia to the Schengen Area to ensure seamless transport connection to the East to reduce the costs of companies outside the Schengen area;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. points out that the TEN-T makes a vital contribution to the achievement of the EU's political objectives in the accession and neighborhood policies, in particular through cross-border projects, and whereas the maintenance and strengthening of close transport links with third countries within the TEN-T and the further integration of the countries of the Western Balkans and the Eastern Partnership is therefore of significant importance for the EU;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. welcomes the fact that the CEF Digital Programme contains new very high-capacity network connections for socio-economic factors and very high- quality connections for local communities to ensure the digital transition, and that the CEF Digital Programme contributed EUR 4 284 billion to the budget in 2022 for climate 2021;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines the increasing need to ensure the transparency of NGOs and of their fundingintermediaries with regard to their funding and accountability, as they are important actors in the implementation of the Union budget, especially in the area of external action regarding direct and indirect management; demands the Commission to re-evaluate its identification of entities as NGOs, improving the reliability of information (making sure to have them registered as lobbyists, having clearly established whether they stand for the topics they claim they represent, and having insight into their financing); demands the disclosure of their financing be it private (e.g. NGOs financed by the industrial actors) or public; recalls that as regards public funding, the Union basic acts regulate how transparency and visibility in this regard need to be handled, therefore reminds the Commission about the responsibility it has to check the compliance with rules and procedures, especially rules and procedures on sub- granting to NGOs and intermediaries of financial institutions; moreover, demands that the Commission provides the discharge authority with clear information about the total amount of Union funds implemented by NGOs;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes the low amount of payment appropriations of 2 million of military mobility which operates with regrettable low financial envelope, therefore considers that it is necessary to provide a bigger budget for this field to meet the needs;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is concerned byNotes the findings of the Court in its first annual assessment of the RRF; considerunderstands that the implementation of the RRF takes place under time pressure, with however a much more straight forward delivery model that puts much, lighter requirements on the Commission, and reduces the control burden from the Commission towards the Member States, in particular in comparison with the cohesion policy; is therefore concerned by the types of findings of the Court which fundamentally calls into question whether the Commission can handle even this reduced control burden; calls on the Commission not to apply the performance based delivery model as used in the implementation of the RRF for other policies until the advantages and disadvantages are more clear, following the evaluation of the implementation of the RRF by 20 February 2024;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes the successful efforts of the Commission to raise funds on the financial markets to provide the financial means for the RRF; is concerned by the resulting debts, the rising interest rates and the resulting uncertain capacity to repay the loans and the risk this poses for the Union budget and agreed Union policies;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Expresses concern aboutNotes the limited number of cross- border projects under the RRF, which calls into question the Union added value of this instrument;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Expresses its support for the audit approach and methodology of the CourtUnderlines that, although the error rate calculated by the Court is a statistical summary providing a convenient single indicator of the lawfulness and regularity of EU spending, it does not offer a differentiated view regarding the nature and gravity of the various errors resulting; notes that the methodology of the Court is based on international audit standards requiring the testing of a random transaction sample and that a representative sample cannot be wholly risk-based; notes with concern the divergences between the error rates and risk at payment as calculated by the Court and the Commission; highlights that these differences do not occur in all expenditure areas; remarks the fact that the Commission’s estimates for risk at payment are consistently in the lower range or below the statistical estimations of the Court and; expresses its concerned that this represents a systematic underestimation of the existing error level by the Commission; is worried that the Commission, acting on potentially underestimated risks, is not able to effectively protect the financial interests of the Union; is also concerned by the confusion thi at the confusion that these two different methodologies creates for the discharge authority and Union citizens, as the Commission on the one hand embraces the Court’s error rate in areas whnd once more calls on the Court and the Commission to cooperate in ordere this is below the materiality threshold (natural resources), however presents its own estimated error at payment in areas where the Court’s error rate is above the materiality thresholdo attenuate the differences between their methodologies and the discrepancies in the error rates calculated by them on this basis;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Stresses that the general estimate regarding the level of error in the EU budget, as presented in the Court’s statement of assurance, is not a measure of fraud but an estimate of the amounts that should not have been paid because they were not used in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that the Court divides their audit population into high risk (mainly reimbursement based payments) and low risk (mainly entitlement based payments) expenditure; notes with concern however, that the Commission in its Annual Management and Performance Report categorises the expenditure into higher, medium and lower risk segments; emphasises that the use of different risk categories by the Court and the Commission impedes the work ofpresents a challenge to the discharge authority in making a comparative analysis of the respective reports; notes with concern theat this is causing a discrepancy between the Court’s calculation of high- risk expenditure as 63.2 % compared to Commission’s calculation of 22 %;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Notes that, despite the fact that the Court considers the RRF expenditure accepted in the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2021 as legal and regular in all material respects, there is one milestone in the 2021 payment to Spain that is not satisfactorily fulfilled, casting doubthe Court does not con the Commission’s assessment of the milestone and targets associated with the related RRF expendituresider to be satisfactorily reached; recalls that the only reason the identified error was not quantified was the absence of a methodology for partial payments by the Commission;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 a (new)
Paragraph 67 a (new)
67a. Notes that the Commission is supporting applicants under the Horizon Europe programme by means of communication campaigns and workshops tailored to more 'error-prone' beneficiaries such as small and medium- sized enterprises and startups;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 b (new)
Paragraph 67 b (new)
67b. Welcomes the introduction of two important measures to achieve further simplification under the Horizon Europe programme: increased use of flat-rate payments (following a successful Horizon 2020 pilot project) and a standard system for calculating the level of staff costs to be met from any grant; expects these measures to have a positive impact and asks the Commission to inform the Discharge Authority of their implementation;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 c (new)
Paragraph 67 c (new)
67c. Notes that, in 2021, specific support under the Single Market Programme produced results with regard to exchanges of good practice and success stories in supporting social economy initiatives at local and regional level and underpinning the European network of social economy regions; notes that, in 2021, the Commission ran a campaign to promote the 'Access to Finance' (A2F) website, a series of webinars on 'EU support instruments for SMEs' and a campaign dedicated to social communication platforms (Outreach to Businesses and Citizens) highlighting cross-border business support and opportunities for SMEs;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72 a (new)
Paragraph 72 a (new)
72a. Welcomes the increased take-up in 2021, when EUR 56 billion in ERDF/CF funding was disbursed from the EU budget, compared with an average of EUR 40.6 billion in previous years, resulting in a spending rate of around 75% at the end of November 2022 (compared to 67% at the end of 2021); notes with satisfaction that, by the end of June 2022, almost 1 million projects (988 000) had been selected on the ground;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72 b (new)
Paragraph 72 b (new)
72b. Points out that ERDF, CF and EUSF funding has played a central role in containing the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, encouraging convergence and ensuring that no one is left behind; notes the exceptional flexibility offered under the CRII+ and the resulting disbursement of around EUR 23 billion from the unallocated 2014-2020 budget appropriations; notes that additional REACT-EU funding of EUR 50.6 billion has also been earmarked for crisis repair and recovery measures up to 2023 to bridge the gap between initial crisis response and longer-term recovery;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72 c (new)
Paragraph 72 c (new)
72c. Notes with satisfaction that REACT-EU was the first NextGenerationEU instrument to channel effective support towards the European economy, businesses and workers on the ground and that it provided, inter alia, over EUR 4.6 billion in the form of grants by way of working capital for over 754 000 SMEs, EUR 4.4 billion being specifically earmarked for healthcare measures to combat the coronavirus pandemic and EUR 2 billion of this amount for the purchase of medical equipment for hospitals; notes that this essential funding has provided 13 200 ventilators and 12 500 hospital beds for intensive care units and that EUR 372 million in cohesion policy funding has gone to meet all vaccination costs, including 133 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the necessary refrigeration infrastructure;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72 d (new)
Paragraph 72 d (new)
72d. Welcomes the Commission's close cooperation with Member State authorities to speed up implementation on the ground, especially in the case of programmes considered to be in difficulty, and to help them address major problems in this respect; notes that the Commission provided early guidance to Member States to ensure that they had adequate time to prepare for the closure of the programming period and, in October 2021, adopted the relevant guidelines, which were transmitted to the Member States in the form of webinars and training courses;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82 a (new)
Paragraph 82 a (new)
82a. Notes that 2021 was the first year of the two-year CAP transitional period in which the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) packages forming part of the MFF 2021-2027 were used to implement the CAP under the transitional rules, while the rural development programmes for the period 2014-2020 were extended; notes also that EAGF funding of EUR 40.7 billion, budgeted for 2021 under the MFF 2021-2027, was committed and paid during the year; notes that, of the 2021 commitment appropriations for the EAFRD and NextGenerationEU (EUR 17.7 billion), an amount of EUR 624 million was paid in 2021, while EUR 14 billion of the 2021 payments related to commitments entered into before 2021;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82 b (new)
Paragraph 82 b (new)
82b. Notes that management and control systems have been adopted by the Member States to identify instances of dual funding and that procedures are in place to remedy such situations should they arise; notes also that, where weaknesses in controls and procedures are identified, the Commission may recommend improvements to the Member States and, where appropriate, make financial adjustments to protect the EU budget;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 96
Paragraph 96
96. Notes from the Commissioner’s replies to written questions that SMEs participate in calls from the EDF and make up 43% of the entities involved in selected proposals; notes that the Commission provides general technical support to potential beneficiaries of funds from the European Defence Fund through the Funding and Tenders Portal; notes further that the Commission considers that participation of SMEs in calls from the EDF are supported through simplified costs options, which benefit all participants, and organisation of info days; considers that for SMEs this might not be sufficient given the problems encountered by these enterprises, that mainly have to do with a lack of specific knowledge of Union funding and administrative capacity;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 96 a (new)
Paragraph 96 a (new)
96a. Notes with satisfaction that, in the first year of EDF calls for proposals (2021), 692 'single' entities from all Member States (except Malta) and Norway were involved in the final procedure leading to the selection of of 61 proposals, indicating both the high level of participation and the level of cross- border cooperation; notes also that, on average, entities from around eight Member States were involved in a proposal selected for funding;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 119
Paragraph 119
119. Takes note that the Court, in its Special Report 19/2022 “EU COVID-19 vaccine procurement” states that the Union has created a tailor-made procurement system for COVID-19 vaccines; welcomes that negotiations secured a diversified vaccine portfolio for Member States; notes that the Commission supported contract implementation, but had limited leverage to overcome supply challengewithout furnishing concrete statistics on the content of those contracts, showing a lack of transparency; the lack of answers providing concrete data on the content of contracts is creating increased discontent among European citizens and affecting their credibility in some EU institutions;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 119 a (new)
Paragraph 119 a (new)
119a. Views as regrettable the fact that the Commission has still not provided, in a transparent manner, information on the course of negotiations with vaccine manufacturers, hence leaving room for suspicion; welcomes, once again, the decision of the European Ombudsman to ask the President of the Commission for clear and concrete information on the course of negotiations with vaccine manufacturers, and for greater transparency in respect of the contracts concluded;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 119 b (new)
Paragraph 119 b (new)
119b. Considers it regrettable that the President of the European Commission did not come to the hearing with the specialised committees of the European Parliament so as to provide concrete answers to Members directly elected by the citizens of Europe, which represents a lack of provision of information to citizens;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121 – point a
Paragraph 121 – point a
a. report comprehensively on the COVID-19 related expenditure and report back to the discharge authority, including with a detailed overview of vaccine procurement contracts;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 121 – point a a (new)
aa. ask the President of the Commission to agree to participate in hearings at the European Parliament on negotiations and contracts with vaccine manufacturers;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 123
Paragraph 123
123. Notes the Commission’s activities to issue securities on the international capital markets necessary to fund the RRF, for which the Commission raised, by the end of 2021, EUR 71,0 billion of long-term funding and EUR 20 billion of short-term funding; notes the issuing of the first NGEU green bond with a value of EUR 12,0 billion, that requires implementation of reporting on the precise use of proceeds green bonds and on the impact of investments; recalls the issues concerning performance reporting identified by the Court and the reputational and financial risks that this can bring for the green bonds; considers that the first interest costs have been incurred for these borrowed amounts, including a negative interest rate of over EUR 20 billion in deposit at the ECB; notes the introduction of interest rate risk for the Union budget because of NGEU’s funding needs;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124
Paragraph 124
124. Notes the Court’s observation regarding the RRF in its 2021 Annual Report concerning the first payment request from Spain; notes that the Court assessed the Commission’s ex-ante work on all milestones associated with the payment to Spain in 2021; observes that it will not be possible for the Court to assess all milestones associated with future payments; nonetheless expects the Court to include, in its sample for 2022, the milestones and targets for all payments made in 2022;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128
Paragraph 128
128. Welcomes the agreement reached in the inter-institutional negotiations on RePowerEU on the bi-annual publication of the 100 biggest beneficiaries of RePowerEU and the RRF in each Member State by February 2024 at the latest; considers however that this does not replace the requirement to provide the list of all final beneficiaries and projects to auditors and the discharge authority for every financial year;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 131
Paragraph 131
131. Is concerned that differences in the quality of controls and the complexity of the control systems applied by the Member States result in a less effective internal control systemis liable to generate deficiencies in the internal control system, making this less effective for the funds available under the RRF; is concerned by repeated warnings bypoints out that OLAF, the EPPO, Europol and other competent bodies are warning that a less effective internal control system could attracts misuse, fraud and organised crime;
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 134
Paragraph 134
134. Notes the RRF scoreboard on which the Commission reports progress on the implementation of the RRF; considers the information presented useful; is however worried that it is not sufficient, but that it should be further developed to include indicators on the progress made to establish the actual performance of the RRF; considers that actual achieved progress on the indicators, not just budgeted or expected, should be presented;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
Paragraph 136
136. Considers that the element of Union funding being additional to national funding is not satisfactorily communicated by the Commission, and that it cannot be excluded with certainty that money from the RRF is used to replace national expenditure; considers an analysis of national expenditure is necessary to see if the funding made available through the RRFecovery and Resilience Facility is truly additional and was not used to substitute recurring national expenditure, in accordance with Article 5(1) of the RRF Regulation; considers ecovery and Resilience Facility Regulation; notes that the Commission has developed guidelines to define this regard that it is unclear what has happened with the paymentse interpretation of double funding and to ensure the exchange of clear information with Member States on how best to prepare their recovery and pre-financing received by Member States for which no investment related costs were incurred yetsilience plans in order to ensure synergies and avoid double funding; notes, furthermore, that the Member States report on the funding received from other funds for measures under the Recovery and Resilience Facility;
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 137
Paragraph 137
137. Recalls that keeping documentation in supporting of payments is an important principle of sound financial management; is very worried by the finding of the Court that the audit trail was insufficient to cover all elements considered relevant in the assessment process of milestones and targetsat the second milestone for the first payment request; recalls in particular the Court’s findings regardconcerning milestone 215 and the Commission’s reply to this finding, suggesting that there was at least an analysis performed Commission’s assessment was based on an in-depth analysis of the content of the DATAESTUR site, and that the Commission gathered screenshots from the DATAESTUR site in October and November 2021 which prove the conclusions of the Commission’s assessment; notes that the Commission acknowledges that the recording of such screenshots was not done in accordance with internal guidelines; recalls the written question of the discharge authority requesting this analysis and the staggering reply from the Commission that there was ‘no it had not drawn up a detailed report on this matter, so it could not furnish it with an ‘analysis’, but that ‘several Commission staff reviewhad consulted the DATAESTUR site and confirmed that the required information was present’; concludes that such method of walls on the Commission to ensure an adequate audit trail for recorkding is a flagrant violation of the principle of sound financial management; the assessment of the milestones and calls on the Court to follow up this issue as part of its future audits;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 138
Paragraph 138
138. NTakes notes that the declaration of assurance of the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs for 2021 is different from the declaration of assurance of all other Directorate-Generals; notes that the declaration concerns the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, which isare aligned with the other Directorates-General; notes further thate addition of ‘the implementation of Article 22(5) of the RRFecovery and Resilience Facility Regulation’, is added; notes the Commission’s reply to written questions from the discharge authority that ‘it is different only in format but not as regards the level of assurance provided’; questions why it was then necessary to explicitly limalso notes that in accordance with Article 22(5) of the Recovery and Resilience Facility Regulation, and in line with the assurance to Article 22(5) of the RRF Regulation, and not to provide assurance over Article 22 in its entiretyperformance-based approach, the obligation to protect the Union’s financial interests lies with the Member State; notes, moreover, the Commission’s reply that it ensures, both through an initial assessment of each recovery and resilience programme and through audits of the systems that Member States have put in place to protect the financial interests of the Union, that each Member State implements the necessary monitoring and control systems; concludes that the declaration of assurance by the Commission as guardian of the Treaty, in particular as regards protection ofng the Union's financial interests and accountability towards taxpayers, must be trustworthy and cannot leave any room for doubt thatof the Commission were to evadeing its responsibility through the diverging declarations of individual authorising officers;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 142
Paragraph 142
142. Notes the Court’s findings in its special report 21/2022 on “The Commission’s assessment of National RRPs - Overall appropriate but implementation risks remain”; does not consider the Court’s assessment to be based on a sample of six Member States: the four with the highest grant allocations in absolute terms and the two with the highest grant allocations relative to their gross domestic product for 2020;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 142 a (new)
Paragraph 142 a (new)
142a. Takes note of the Court’s conclusions that the Commission’s assessment of the recovery and resilience plans was that they were adequate overall, given the complexity of the process and the time constraints, that it was based on comprehensive internal guidance and checklists, and that the Commission provided support to Member States when drafting the recovery and resilience plans and issued guidance documents; notes, furthermore, that the Court identified a number of weaknesses in the process and risks for the successful implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 145
Paragraph 145
145. Notes the statements made by Commission representCourt’s observativeons that all payments will go towards the investments made under the RRF, so that after a certain time lag where instalments are paid out for reforms as well, by August 2026, the total amount of payments will have been spent on investments; recalls the Court’s finding thatdespite the differences in the frequency and severity of the weaknesses identified by the Commission, in its assessment of all National RRPs , gave a ‘B-rating’ for the cost estimatesthe Member States forming the subject of these investments Court’s sample, calling into question the accuracy of the amounts involved; underlines in the light of the Commission’s statement the problematic fact that of front-loading reforms and back-loading investments in the RRPs; reiterates its concern that this only amplifies the risk that Member States might not request the last payment tranche, and thus might fail to fulfil all reforms and investments after having received the largest part of their total financial support under the RRF; emphasises that the disch of them were given the same rating (‘B’); notes, furthermore, that these weaknesses range from a lack of information for some measures at the planning stage to underlying assumptions that arge authority cannot wait to receive full clarity on the proper use of Union funds until after the end of the RRFnot fully plausible for each measure;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 148
Paragraph 148
148. Is worried byNotes the finding of the Court that milestones and targets are often based on output and even input indicators, which limitsas well as its observation that impact indicators have by definition a longer time horizon, which may not be well suited to the limited timeframe for implementing the Recovery and Resilience Facility, notes the Court’s view that avoiding impact indicators will considerably limit the possibility of measuring the performance of measures and ultimately their impact on the Unionrather general EU policy objectives of the RRF;
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 150
Paragraph 150
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point d
Paragraph 153 – point d
d. apply additional vigilance, together with EUROPOL, the EPPO, OLAF and other relevant actors, to cases where there are signals of organised crime targeting the funds available under the RRF together with EUROPOL, the EPPO, OLAF and other relevant actors;
Amendment 330 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point e
Paragraph 153 – point e
e. make clear that all projects and measures describfinanced in any RRPs are to be considered as financed by European money from the RRF, and thus fall under the scope of the EPPO;
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point i
Paragraph 153 – point i
i. publish bi-annually on the RRF scoreboard the amounts borrowed to fund the RRF, and the interest incurred to pay for the borrowed amounts; also publish on the RRFin the Recovery and Resilience Facility the amounts of interest paid by the Member States to the Commission on the loans made available to them under the RRFecovery and Resilience Facility;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point k
Paragraph 153 – point k
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point l
Paragraph 153 – point l
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point n
Paragraph 153 – point n
n. closely monitor fulfilment of milestones and targets, given negativthe experience with the first payment request handled by the Commission, and the non- satisfactory fulfilment of one milestone, in particular also those where additional milestones were considered necessary for audit, monitoring and control purposes;
Amendment 357 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point q
Paragraph 153 – point q
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point r
Paragraph 153 – point r
r. addrnotess the tension between cohesion and the RRF, in particular concernat there is higher and easier absorption of RRF funding compared to cohesion funding; the involvement of local, regional, economic and social partners and civil society organisations, that makes it easier to absorb RFF funding in comparison to cohesion funding, by putting more emphasis on involvement of these actors in the implementation of the RRFlower absorption of cohesion funding is due to cumbersome procedures and the insufficient provision of information on accessing that funding; calls on the Commission to ensure a swifter and easier procedure for cohesion funding, such that there is increased involvement of local, regional, economic and social partners and civil society organisations;
Amendment 368 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153 – point t
Paragraph 153 – point t