18 Amendments of Tatjana ŽDANOKA related to 2015/2345(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is concerned that due to the procyclical nature of public spending the financial capacity and social mission of NGOs are severely challenged at times when they are most needed as unemployment, poverty and social exclusion are still unacceptably high throughout the EU; stresses the need for sufficient NGO funding even in times of tight budgets in light of their critical contribution in filling the gaps of public policies;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that EU programmes such as the EaSI, ESF and FEAD cannot be implemented without NGO involvementthe Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme, ESF, FEAD and EFSI cannot be implemented without NGO involvement at all levels and throughout the whole programme cycle; points out that the diversity of social issues requires the provision of funding for a wide range of NGOs, including the smaller ones, to cover the whole social spectrum;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers that capitalising on NGO's grass-root knowledge improves policy makers' understanding of the complex realities many people are facing in their daily lives, which is in particular the case for those people who are most vulnerable or socially excluded and are often unheard in the political debate;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Recalls that the Employment Guidelines demand their implementation in partnership with representatives of civil society; recalls that the EPSCO Council in 2015 invited the Member States and the European Commission to better involve civil society in discussions on how to improve job quality and ensure sustainable labour market inclusion;1a __________________ 1aCouncil Conclusions on inclusive labour markets, 9 March 2015
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure the independence of social NGOs at European, national, regional and local levels and to provide funding to contribute to the independent development, implementation and assessment of policies and services;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Points out that public financing of NGOs working with and for people in socially vulnerable situations is important also because they have lesser access to other types of funding such as members contributions or income from profit- making activities;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Strongly regrets the decrease in EU funding for European social and equality NGOs under EaSI, compared to the previous PROGRESS programme, and under Europe for Citizens; and the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme1b, compared to the previous PROGRESS, Daphne and Europe for Citizens programmes; calls therefore on the Commission to clarify the criteria for granting funding to projects and organisations, as well as for more transparency on the reasons for reducing or refusing funding for certain organisations and projects; __________________ 1bFor example, the previous stand-alone funded Daphné Programme to combat violence against women, young people and children, was integrated into the current Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme, which resulted in an overall decrease of funding in comparison to previous funding
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that many NGOs, in particular the small ones, 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 area, reduce administrative burden and simplify procedures, and consult with NGOs to identify the best ways to report and share both impact and experience;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to focus social and equality NGOs funding programmes on operational grants beyond one year, in order to ensure continuity and sustainabilityrather than on action grants, in order to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of their work and staff, strengthen and develop capacities and skills, fulfil their long-term missions, and allow decision makers to build relationships with them as reliable partners; calls on the Commission to continue to develop operational funding through Framework Partnership Agreements and for a multi-year period as is currently the case with the EaSI programme;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that most EU funds available for social and equality NGOs require co- financing, and too high a share can be detrimental to the applicant NGO which may not be able to raise this amount is concerned that this is leading to some key NGOs being excluded; calls for reducing the amount of co-financing required or for taking into account other means for calculating this amount which could be monetarised and is still subject to audit, such as volunteer time or contributions, through an appropriate change to the financial regulations; calls also for the rules on co-financing to be applied to the various NGOs in a consistent way;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets that sometimes under different programmes like 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 regulations so that NGOs can also be the lead partner;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that many EU social and equality NGOs work in areas covered by different Commission Directorates-General (DGs); calls on the Commission to make it possible to combine operational grants from more than one DG;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for the publication of the outcomes of the EaSI scoring mechanism that is used to analyse and assess the conformity and potential of submitted proposals and for the publication of the qualifications of the assessors;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. PConsiders that when dealing with public money it is important that stringent reporting requirements are in place and that NGOs fulfil them within a given timeframe; points out that in the social field full policy impact is difficult to identify and measure within one year or when too many quantitative indicators are used; calls on the Commission to better balance the measuring and reporting of output and impact, to apply more qualitative indicators and to ensure that the requirements fit the objectives for which funding was received;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. CDeplores the cases where the Commission asked social NGOs for clarification on submitted funding reports only a few weeks prior to the end of the time the Commission had to review the report before authorizing final payments; calls on the Commission to handle social NGOs’ funding applications and reports without delay and to ask for additional information in good time in order to avoid suspension of payment. which can have a detrimental impact on the organisation's cash flow;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls for representatives of social NGOs to be represented in the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Calls on the Commission to put forward a proposal for clear and transparent guidelines and procedures for civil dialogue with European social NGOs to allow for meaningful involvement that goes beyond mere consultation of the full range of EU-level stakeholders.