19 Amendments of Inés AYALA SENDER related to 2016/2208(DEC)
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204
Paragraph 204
204. StatesEmphasises that the agencies are responsible for the multi-annual and annual programming as well as for the implementation (operational and financial) of their grant actions; finds therefore, that the agencies’' effective management of grant activities is crucial for the achievement of the Union's objectives and policies;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 207
Paragraph 207
207. Notes that an agency’'s strategic justification and choice of a funding tool could strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the tool and thereby the implementation of its tasks; highlights that inadequate follow-up of ex-ante evaluation could lead to agencies choosing inappropriate funding tools and poor grant design;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 207 a (new)
Paragraph 207 a (new)
207 a. Regrets the common broad descriptions of the agencies' grant activities and the vague output descriptions which lead to incomplete annual working plans;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 208
Paragraph 208
208. EncouragesNotes the importance of aligning the agencies' grant actions with their mandate and strategic objectives; encourages therefore all agencies to have specific guidelines and criteria to assist their choice of the specific funding tool, based on an analysis of the agencies’' needs, its resources, the objectives to be achieved, the potential beneficiaries to be targeted as well as the level of competition necessary and lessons learned from previous choices; objectives to be achieved, the potential beneficiaries to be targeted as well as the level of competition necessary and lessons learned from previous choices;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 208 a (new)
Paragraph 208 a (new)
208 a. Notes that agencies' work programmes should indicate which activities are to be implemented by grants, the specific objectives and expected results to be achieved by the grant actions, as well as the planned financial and human resources needed to implement grant actions;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 208 b (new)
Paragraph 208 b (new)
208 b. Considers that the setting of strategic objectives, targeted results and impacts, is of the utmost importance to achieve well-defined annual programming;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 209
Paragraph 209
209. NHighlights that the regulatory framework of some agencies forces them to use grant procedures; notes with concern however, that agencies did not systematically consider all funding options available to them and that grants were not always the most appropriate tool; further notes the Court’s observation that grant procedures use more restrictive eligibility criteria and weaker financial award criteria than procurement and should therefore not be the default funding option. Adds, however, that a careful balance should be maintained between these weaknesses of grant procedures versus the administrative costs involved in public procurement procedures, and does not therefore agree with the Court’s observation that public procurement should be the default option; points furthermore to the regulatory framework of some agencies which forces them to use grant procedures;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 210
Paragraph 210
210. Is concerned by the Court’s observation that the agencies involved failed to set up adequate monitoring systems and ex-post evaluations; calls upon agencies to develop ex-post evaluations to improve their monitoring and reporting on grant-funded activities;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 211
Paragraph 211
211. Emphasises that performance monitoring and results evaluation is essential to public accountability and to comprehensive information for policymakers; highlights that due to their decentralised character, this is even more relevant for agencies; calls upon agencies to set up grant monitoring and reporting systems based on results and impact- oriented key performance indicators as well as ex post-evaluation results; considers the role of key performance indicators crucial for monitoring and evaluating progress, impact and results;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 211 a (new)
Paragraph 211 a (new)
211 a. Notes with concern that key performance indicators continue to focus on inputs and outputs rather than results and impacts; calls upon agencies to develop their key performance indicators more strategically and to base them on results and impacts;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 211 b (new)
Paragraph 211 b (new)
211 b. Calls on agencies to develop and undertake a risk assessment evaluation of their annual working plans to improve efficiency through more accurate implementation, monitoring and evaluation;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 211 c (new)
Paragraph 211 c (new)
211 c. Recommends strategic allocation of financial tools for short-term objectives to improve accuracy of financing decisions;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 212
Paragraph 212
212. Calls upon the EU Agency Network to assist agencies in improving their funding procedures and, in particular, their procedures for performance monitoring in this respect;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 213 a (new)
Paragraph 213 a (new)
213 a. Calls upon agencies to apply specific grant procedures to establish formal internal procedures governing the principles of transparency and equal treatment, and safeguarding against the potential conflicts of interest; highlights that for this reason, agencies should strengthen their verification system regarding grant project implementation;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 355
Paragraph 355
355. WelcomesTakes note of the Court's report and endorses its recommendations;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 356
Paragraph 356
356. Welcomes the fact that the maritime transport has been growing in the Union in the last decade despite the considerable differences of utilisation between MS ports; considers that the Court's audit report did not take the economic situation sufficiently into account, nor the fall in traffic at many EU ports and, in particular, between several of the ports examined;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 356 a (new)
Paragraph 356 a (new)
356a. Regrets that the Court's audit did not take into account the crisis in the sector and the fall in international traffic, which has forced several of the main global shipping companies into bankruptcy and caused port overcapacity worldwide.
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 357
Paragraph 357
357. Underlines that Member States’ ports’ investment policy is established in accordance with political decisions taken at national level which can diverge from the Union strategy, also defined by those same Member States; is of the opinion that it is the Commission’'s primary role ought to be ensure the coherence of those decisionsing that national operations to finance infrastructure in the European Union are consistent with the EU's transport policy; regrets that the Commission does not have all the instruments at its disposal to ensure such consistency;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 358
Paragraph 358
358. Acknowledges that port infrastructure investments are long-term investments; regrets that in most cases the return on investment is however low and slow; is pleased to see that freight traffic in several of the ports analysed has grown considerably since the audit which calls some of the Court's conclusions into question;