2016/2208(DEC) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)

- having regard to the unusual fact that the ECA Statement of Assurance is split into two parts, a) Audit of the reliability of the accounts, and b) Audit of the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Highlights that some of the reforms indicated in the programmes (i.e. reform of labour markets) can ~~only~~ lead to results in competitiveness only in the very long term~~, while assistance programme seek mainly~~ and even then, can lead to lowering of labour rights and conditions, while assistance programmes, in the main, are more short-sighted, seek more immediate, short-term results;

Amendment 100 #

Miroslav POCHE, Vladimír MAŇKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 354

354. Is shocked by the Court’s findings that Commission’s assessment of the respective financing plans and detailed decommissioning plans for the 2014-2020 financing period, i.e. of the second and third ex-ante conditionalities respectively14 , was inadequate; asks who shoulders the financial responsibility for this failure in the Commission; in this context, wants to be informed about the completed action plan which remedied the discovered weaknesses. _________________ 14See COM(2011) 783 final, Council Regulations (Euratom), No 1368/2013 and No 1369/2013 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 5449deleted

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 354

354. Is shocked by the Court’'s findings that the Commission’'s assessment of the respective financing plans and detailed decommissioning plans for the 2014-2020 financing period, i.e. of the second and third ex-ante conditionalit~~ies~~y respectively~~14 ,~~ was inadequate at the beginning of the 2014-2020 financing period; asks who shoulders the financial responsibility for this failure in the Commission; in this context, wants to be informed about the completed action plan which remedied the discovered weaknesses~~. _________________ 14See COM(2011) 783 final, Council Regulations (Euratom), No 1368/2013 and No 1369/2013 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 5449~~; notes however that the Commission's assessment of the respective financing plans and detailed decommissioning plans for the 2014-2020 financing period has been duly performed later in all three concerned countries in 2016. The assessment proved that all three countries' financing and work plans are robust, realistic and well prepared, thus the second and third ex-ante conditionality were duly fulfilled;

Amendment 102 #

Algirdas SAUDARGAS, Zigmantas BALČYTIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 354

354. 354. Is ~~shocked by~~concerned about the Court’'s findings that Commission’'s assessment of the respective financing plans and detailed decommissioning plans for the 2014-2020 financing period, i.e. of the second and third ex-ante conditionalities respectively(14 ), was inadequate; asks who shoulders the financial responsibility for this failure in the Commission; in this context, wants to be informed about the completed action plan which remedied the discovered weaknesses. __________________ 14) See COM(2011) 783 final, Council Regulations (Euratom), No 1368/2013 and No 1369/2013 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 5449

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 354

354. ~~Is shocked by the Court’s findings~~notes that thate Commission’'s assessment of the respective financing plans and detailed decommissioning plans for the 2014-2020 financing period, i.e. of the second and third ex-ante conditionalities respectively14 , was inadequate; asks who shoulders the financial responsibility for this failure in the Commission; in this context, wants to be informed about the completed action plan which remedied the discovered weaknesses. _________________ 14See COM(2011) 783 final, Council Regulations (Euratom), No 1368/2013 and No 1369/2013 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 5449 was completed in October 2016; underlines that the assessment concluded that the overall cost estimations of the three programmes are appropriate, and further Union financing is needed.

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 355

355. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the Court's report and ~~endorses~~ its recommendations;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

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

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 ensur~~e the coherence of those decisions~~ing 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 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 357

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
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;

Amendment 11 #

Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Regret~~Notes that the programmes have been mainly based on the side of expenditure (reforms on labour markets, pension and unemployment schemes, reduction of local entities etc.) as well as cuts to public programmes ~~(education, social security and health programmes) which have had an impact not only on vulnerable citizens, but also on depressing growth opportunit~~; understands that these cuts have been made in order to reform the financial markets of the assisted countries;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 361

361. Regrets that Member States do not provide data on the capacity of core ports, which hinders the Commission’s capacity monitoring; stresses the importance of an improvement of the situation so that the Commission can put forward a Union-wide port development plan; calls on the Commission to lay down a clear reporting system for data from Member States;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 364

364. Recommends that, with the support of the Commission, ~~the Member States,~~ in the current CAP period, the Member States should develop and set up a framework for assessing the cost of running and updating of their LPISs. This should enable the Member States to measure the performance of their LPISs and the cost-effectiveness of system improvements.

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 365

365. Recommends that the Member States ensure that, using their LPISs, they reliably identify ~~and~~, register, and ~~then~~ effectively monitor, ecological focus areas, permanent grassland and new categories of land. They should also ~~assess the cost versus benefits of~~do a cost/benefit analysis, including in their LPISs all landscape elements protected under cross-compliance or agri-environmental schemes, in order to further enhance the monitoring and protection of such elements beneficial for the environment and for biodiversity.

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 371

371. Asks that for the CAP post-2020 ~~that,~~ the Commission ~~envisages to~~should ameliorate the rules regarding cross-compliance on- the- spot checks and will call on the Member States to carry out their existing administrative checks in an efficient way by a) using all relevant information available, and b) reducing the number of agencies involved in such checks to a minimum, thus ensuring that farmers are not placed in a situation as currently prevails in Ireland for example, where several different agencies are involved, all of which can have their own priorities, all of which can call at any given time, and all of which are ultimately subjective. This would allow a more effective targeting of key control points.

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 373

373. Encourages the Commission to develop a standard methodology of assessing cross-compliance with a view to reducing subjectivity/inspector bias in those assessments, this standard is to be developed across all Member States; further encourages the Commission to also develop a standard methodology to measure the costs of cross-compliance after the report on the performance of the CAP due by the end of 2018.

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 373 a (new)

373 a. Suggests inclusion of qualitative indicators and more concrete goals to be set for cross-compliance measures; Recommends easy, fast and simplified application method for the beneficiaries.

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 374

374. Recommends that for the CAP post-2020, the Commission encourages a more harmonised application of penalties at Union level by further clarifying the concepts of severity, extent, permanence, reoccurrence and intentionality, but also taking into account the specific conditions in the different Member States. To achieve this objective a minimum conditions should be introduced at Union level.

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 383

383. Notes that the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has no formal process to respond effectively to requests for assistance; believes such a situation to be intolerable;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 385

385. ~~Regret~~Notes that Member States have not acted collectively to speed up the joint procurement of the pandemic influenza vaccine ~~and~~; recognises that influenza is an issue that affects health services in individual Member States on an annual basis but recommends that, given the cost of the annually-changing vaccines, a comprehensive fully independent (especially of the drug companies themselves) study should be carried out on the effectiveness of those vaccines. A co-ordinated approach across Member States will benefit the health of Union citizens and reduce costs;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Highlights that financial 'assistance' provided to the Member States in difficulties took the form of loans borrowed on the capital markets using the Union budget as a guarantee; regrets that in the case of Ireland particularly these loads were originally given at exorbitant rates, the EU making excessive profit off the back of a Member State's misery; considers that the role of the Parliament as budgetary authority in these programmes has been undermined, thus further reducing the democratic legitimacy of the financial assistance provided;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Considers it of major importantce to study the role of the European Central Bank during the crisis, to study in particular the assertions and accusations, confirmed by IMF representatives who were involved at the time, of coercion by the ECB in its dealings with the then Irish government; further, to study the role of the ECB in indirectly helping Member States to meet their objectives and on the wider support to the financial architecture of the Union during the time of the financial programmes;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Considers that at the onset of the crisis it was difficult to have predicted some abrupt imbalances with devastating effects in some Member States; considers further that a major cause of the crisis was the incomplete nature of the euro as a currency at its launch, lacking as it did even the most basic currency support structures; highlights the difficulty of predicting the magnitude and nature of the 2007-2008 global financial crises which was unprecedented;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Shares the Court’s view that the attention paid to the pre-crisis surveillance legal framework was not adequate in identifying the risk in the underlying fiscal positions in times of severe economic crisis and that as a result of this lack of oversight and surveillance the ECB must accept responsibility for its role in the cause of the crisis;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Welcom~~Notes the approval by the legislators of the 'six' and 'two' pack introduced as a result of the financial crisis which partially addressed the surveillance weakness that the crisis revealed; considers however that the reform of the Union Economic governance framework in the past years has not lead to a complete phase- out of the crisis and calls on the Commission to further analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the new framework compared to other similar economies (i.e. US, Japan and other OECD countries) and to propose new reforms, if necessary;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls on the Commission to follow the Court's recommendation to further improve the quality of its macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts, which have been consistently wrong to an unacceptable degree;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Takes note of the Court’s conclusion that the Commission achieved in difficult time constraints and limited experience ex novo duties to manage the financial assistance programmes~~; highlights the Court's conclusion that~~ but takes note also that a) had the proper support structures been in place for a new currency right from the start the crisis, if it had occurred at all, would not have been as severe, and b) notes also that with proper foresight and planning all such problems would have been foreseen and planned for; nevertheless, accepts the Court's conclusion that given the circumstances that DID prevail, this was an achievement taking into consideration the environmental constraints;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Welcomes the decision to allow the management of financial ~~assistance~~loans to be the responsibility of the Commission instead of other financial partners, allowing tailored ~~assistance~~loans that takes into consideration particularities and ownership of the Member States;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Takes note of the findings and recommendations of the Court of Auditor’s (the “Court”) Special Report No 18/2015: Financial assistance provided to Member States in difficulties; believes this should be given its proper title, Financial loans provided to Member States, given that all that 'assistance' must be repaid and with interest;

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Underlines that in the early phase of the programmes, the Commission was operating under severe time and political pressure in the face of uncertain risks that challenged the stability of the whole financial system with unpredictable consequences in the economy; underlines also that the affected Member States were similarly under severe time and political pressure; points out that as a result of all the pressure decisions were taken which now, in retrospect and at more leisure, can and should be revisited, decisions such as the €31bn Promissory Note bank- debt assumed by Ireland in 2010 to bail out two insolvent non-systemic banks and thus prevent a domino-effect bank collapse across the EU, at a time when none of the necessary currency pillars (such as Single Resolution Mechanism or the ESM) were in place;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Considers that, whilst not having prior experience on financial assistance, the Commission 'learnt by doing' and managed to properly put in place relatively quickly those programmes and improved its management for the later ones, though the very real cost of that inexperience was borne - and is still being borne - by the Member States affected;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Notes that at the time this working document is being drafted, the Commission has already presented its proposal for the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP); welcomes that the Commission has evidently taken the recommendations from the Court into consideration and hopes the SRSP will emerge as a strong tool for TA based on the lessons learned from the TFGR; notes that in drawing its lessons and conclusions, the TFGR makes no effort to include the social cost of the various programmes on the people of Greece, which has been considerable;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. Regrets that the beneficiary Member State as well as the task force did not provide the Commission with regular activity reports; points out that the Commission should insist on receiving quarterly activity reports without excessive delay and a comprehensive final report in the form of an ex-post evaluation within a reasonable timeframe after the conclusion of the work of the TFGR; requests the Commission to monitor the implementation of TA systematically in order to adjust for a results-oriented TA; requests further that the TA and the TFGR should include in their various reports an accounting of how and where exactly the so-called 'bailout' funds for Greece were disbursed;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Considers ~~also~~ necessary also the strengthening of the political and policy dialogue, aid conditionality and the logical chain framework in order to ensure both the coherence between decision and preconditions of payments or disbursements in financing agreements by clearly linking payments to the achievement of actions and results as well as the relevance of selected objectives and indicators;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the connection between evaluations and policy formulation is effective by taking into account all lessons learned in the decision- making process;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70

70. Recognises the importance of rural infrastructure investments supported by Union funds ~~and~~, especially by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for needs, whose benefits go beyond agriculture, which otherwise may have not been funded given significant economic challenges and scarcity of financing faced by rural areas;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71

71. Notes that EAFRD funding to infrastructure projects is based on shared manage -ment where Member States are responsible for management, monitoring and control as well as for selection and implementation of projects, while the role of the Commission is to supervise the proper functioning of the management and control systems in Member States, believes that these roles should be more clearly defined so that beneficiaries are clear as to which areas monitoring bodies have competence over; underlines that both the Commission and Member States must respect the principles of sound financial management;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73

73. Strongly recommends that the EUnion investments in rural infrastructure are targeted ~~explicitly to~~at projects that allow improvement of public services and/or contribute to ~~jobs’~~the creation of jobs and economic development in rural areas, and for which there is a demonstrable need for public support and which deliver added value, while also ensuring that these funds are additional investments, and are not used as a replacement of national funding to essential services;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83

83. Requests that Member States to set a reasonable timeframe for processing grant and payment applications and respect it, as in most cases beneficiaries have already drawn down bridging loans to complete works;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that the Court has not included in this report all the Member States that received financial ~~assistance~~loans since the beginning of the financial crisis, including the programme for Greece, in order to facilitate a comparison;

Amendment 30 #

Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98

98. Highlights that eutrophication is one of the key threats to reaching a good ecological status of the Baltic Sea and emphasises the importance of combatting the eutrophication of one of the world’s most polluted seas; therefore, ~~underlines that the effectiveness of the Union macro regional strategy for the Baltic Sea Reg~~regrets that limited progress has been made on nutrient reduction oin the ~~reduction of nutrients is difficult to evaluate and regrets that limited progress has been made on nutrient reduction; and~~frame of HELCOM's nutrient reduction scheme which allocates nutrient reduction targets to each Baltic country; regrets that the Union directive has been only partially applied by some Members States;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113

113. Emphasises that a multiannual grant agreement between the EIT and the KICs and the multiannual strategy of the KICs should not ~~be a~~ stand in the way ~~for an~~of the KICs' annual reporting ~~of the KICs~~;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 118

118. Understands the EIT’s mission to promote cooperation among higher education, research and innovation; takes the view that companies may be in the end the main beneficiary as being the legal owner of the innovate product being brought to the market and have the financial profits; stresses the need in this situation to incorporate in the cooperation- model a structure in which given funds will flow back to the EIT, along with an agreed (suggested equal share) of the profits;

Amendment 33 #

Petri SARVAMAA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 118

118. Understands the EIT’s mission to promote cooperation among higher education, research and innovation; ~~takes the view~~notes that companies may ~~be in the end~~often be the main beneficiary as, being the legal owners of ~~the~~ innovative product ~~being~~s brought to the market and ~~have the~~receiving financial profits; stresses the need in this situation to ~~incorporat~~consider the possibility of incorporating a structure in the cooperation-model ~~a structure~~ in which given funds ~~will~~could, at least partially, flow back to the EIT;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122

122. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Court's report~~, endorses~~ and its recommendations and is pleased that the Commission accepts these and will take them into account in future;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124

124. Stresses that the services market has not achieved its full potential and that the impact on growth and jobs of successful implementation of the Services Directive is high; ~~while~~notes, however, that essential services such as water provision - how it is supplied and how it is paid for - should be a matter for individual Member States, and that keeping it in public ownership is the preferred option; notes further that the potential economic benefit or otherwise of full implementation of the Directive is still not known, and that the Commission should ~~develop a~~order a fully independent study in order to estimate the output gains or losses in the most ~~possibly~~ reliabley quantitative terms;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125

125. EWhere marked by the result of an independent study of the full implications and possible outcomes of a more complete imposition of the Services Directive, where it is shown to be socially beneficial, encourages subsequent inclusion of more sectors in order to achieve a broader removal of sectorial obstacles to market integration with a final goal of removing of barriers in the internal market for services and developing full Union potential for growth, competitiveness and job creation;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 126

126. Considers that Member States could have made better use of the measures provided by the Commission to support transposition, implementation and enforcement specially by sharing the problems faced in the different stages of the procedure, discussing possible common solutions and exchanging best practices, especially where those best practices suggest a move away from the privatisation of essential services back towards public ownership;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 152

152. Considers ~~the~~ rail freight transport one of the key aspects of the single market for goods and ~~invit~~given its massive positive potential in terms of climate change targets and reducing road transport usage, urges the Commission to give it a new impetus within the single market strategy; asks for a rail freight transport strategy to be put in place;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 160

160. Calls on the Commission to evaluate all of the Court’s observations and to take the requested measures to avoid making the same mistakes during 2014- 2020 migration policy; calls for application of all the Court’s recommendations;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Draws attention to the fact that the Court limited the audit to the very short term and concrete scenario of financial ~~assistance~~loans as decided by the Council without taking into consideration other potential solutions to the fiscal imbalances that were already part of public and academic debate, such as the mutualisation of sovereign debt or debt relief; regrets the fact that the Court failed to draw attention to the fact that had the fundamental structures necessary for any new currency been in place when the euro was launched (ESM, Single Supervisory Mechanism, Single Resolution Mechanism, Banking Union etc), it would have prevented many of the bank collapses that subsequently happened;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161

161. Believes that the use of funds should be guided by improved monitoring and evaluation systems based on baseline indicators, progressive benchmarks and measurable and realistic objectives, all of which should ultimately have the best interests of those most affected - the migrants - at heart; calls on the Commission to review all indicators, benchmarks and objectives provided by the actual migration programs;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 164

164. Calls on the Commission to engage constructively for a better coordination between instruments, mechanisms and relevant stakeholders, including in particular representatives of the migrants themselves, to achieve migration crisis prevention;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 166

166. Believes, in this context, that due care should be given to the appropriate targeting of aid to different and evolving external migration’s issues while also ensuring the adequacy of oversight of disbursed funds in order to avoid the risk of misappropriation of funds and double financing;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 167

167. Considers that there is a crucial need to reconcile the demand onfor better results with the availability of sufficient funds to ensure a high level of ambition in the design of the Union’s comprehensive and sustainable response to current and future challenges induced by the migration crisis; believes that the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) mid-term revision is the appropriate forum to address these challenges, with a view to increasing the budget for those funds;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 179

179. ~~Welcom~~Notes the findings and recommendations of the Court Special Report N° 10/2016 on further improvements needed to ensure effective implementation of the excessive deficit procedure;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 180

180. Recommends that the Commission should ~~improve transparency of~~dispense with the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) ~~through regular communication of its country assessments on compliance with structural reforms proposed under EDP and through greater transparency in the application of the rules~~, given that its implementation has been patchy at best, discriminatory at worst, with the Union's larger economies given free rein; given also that EDPs are simply an extension of the so-called two-pack and six-pack economic strait-jacket;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 181

~~181. Believes that following consultation with Member States, the Commission should regularly report to the European Parliament on the progress of country-specific EDPs;~~deleted

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 182

182. Recommends the Commission to continue its progress of involving national fiscal councils and ensure that the European Fiscal Board takes a formal role under the EDP; takes note that transparency under the EDP has improved in recent years and recognises that certain information of a politically sensitive nature cannot always be put into the public domain;deleted

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 183

183. Recommends that the EDP should focus more closely on the reduction of government debt; notes that as of end- 2014 only 13 Member States had debt-to- GDP levels below 60%; points out that several Member States now find themselves heavily indebted, despite the fact that the EU is benefiting from a modest recovery and public debt levels are higher now than they were in 2010;deleted

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 186

~~186. Considers that the Commission should ensure that the application of EDP rules should be closely coordinated with structural reform measures agreed through the European semester.~~deleted

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 196

196. Welcomes that the Commission has established projects focused on civil society organisations; calls on the Commission to continue this practice and to establish strong relationships with the local NGOs;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 198

198. Notes from the Court that although many of the projects were well-managed, the results were not always sustainable or even achieved; further notes that the projects did not always fall into a coherent approach towards strengthening administrative capacity building; calls on the Commission to improve strategic planning and to secure sustainability and viability of the projects by setting it as a pre-condition of the projects;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204

204. ~~States~~Emphasises 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

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)

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

208. ~~Encourages~~Notes 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)

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)

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

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

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 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Regrets that the report limits its focus to the management of the ~~assistance~~loans but does not analyse, nor question, the programme's content and the conditions negotiated for financial ~~assistance~~loans;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 230

230. Notes that the projects partially contributed towards strengthening of public administration, however they were not always in line with the Moldovan administration’s needs or objectives; calls on the Commission to focus the projects more specifically in line with the concrete national needs;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 239

239. Points out that the integration of Roma depends on their inclusion and the extent to which they can enjoy the same rights as the entire body of European citizens, of which Roma fully faorm part;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22

Part XXII – Special Report No 17/2016 of the Court of Auditors entitled “The EU institutions can ~~for~~do more to facilitate access to their Public Procurement”

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 279

279. Calls onfor increased transparency of public procurement within Union institutions, as well as at national level, through public availability of documents and data on public procurement; considers that the visibility of the Union institutions’ procurement activities on the internet is poor, the information is insufficient, unclear and spread over many different websites;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Takes note that the objectives of the financial ~~assistance~~loans programmes - all of which are to be repaid - were for the assisted countries to return to financial markets, achieve sustainable public finances, and return to growth and reduce unemployment; regrets that the Court's findings has not fully analysed the results of the programme against these objectives;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 300

300. Notes with regret that the Commission’s recognition procedure does not take account of some of the key aspects of sustainability and fair trade, such as a) mega trade deals (CETA and TTIP being just two examples) that will lead to decreased localised production, increased centralised production and thus increased produce transport and also increased air pollution, b) land tenure conflicts, c) forced or child labour, d) poor working conditions for farmers, e) dangers to health and safety and the impact of indirect land- use changes, all of which in different contexts are considered extremely relevant; considers this to represent an inconsistency in the Commission´s policies; calls on the Commission to redevelop its assessment procedures in a more comprehensive manner and to include these aspects in its verification procedure for the voluntary schemes; calls on the Commission to require voluntary schemes to report once a year on the basis of their certification activities and relevant information concerning the abovementioned risks;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 307

307. Welcomes the fact that the Commission issues guidance notes to the voluntary schemes which contribute to promoting best practice and to increased effectiveness; notes, however, that the notes are not binding and are not fully implemented; invites the Commission to ~~consider making~~make the guidance notes binding for the voluntary schemes in order to ensure that the requirements are fulfilled;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 309

309. Reiterates that the data submitted by the Member States are often not comparable, because of varying definitions, basically making it impossible to ascertain the real situation; invites the Commission to harmonise the definition of waste substances not previously included in the RED list used for the production of advanced biofuels in installations existing before the adoption of Directive (EU) 2015/1513 amending the RED;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 314

314. Stresses the high levels of management costs and fees compared to the actual financial support to final recipients; suggests setting tax ceilings for financial intermediaries; points out that specific ERDF and ESF funds sizes should be revised to take~~, wherever possible,~~ advantage of the significant economies in the cost of operating funds wherever possible;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 314

314. Stresses the high levels of management costs and fees compared to the actual financial support to final recipients; points out that wherever possible, specific ERDF and ESF funds size should be revised to take~~, wherever possible,~~ advantage of the significant economies in the cost of operating funds;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 315

315. Considers that the Commission is in a privileged position to provide additional guidance to Member States on how to set up such financial instruments within Member States or at Union level (which are managed directly or indirectly by the Commission); stresses the importance of ~~the importance of~~ ensuring that financial instruments are not subject to unacceptable tax avoidance schemes;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 317

317. Shares the view that lessons learnt from the audited programming period (2007-2013) be reflected when setting up ~~the~~ financial instruments for the European Structural and Investment Funds; considers in particular that proposals should be oriented towards performance and results rather than mere compliance; Considers the need for the projects to add more value to regional specialisation and economic development of the European regions.

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 317

317. Shares the view that lessons learnted from the audited programming period (2007-2013) be reflected when setting up the financial instruments for the European Structural and Investment Funds; considers in particular that proposals should be oriented towards performance and results rather than mere compliance;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 319

319. Endorses that the leverage effect should illustrate the extent to which private funding has been attracted by both the Union's and Member States’ initial financial contributions; regrets that the findings from Court’s Special Report show that the financial instruments in both shared and central management were not successful in attracting private capital; considers that Member States’ co- financing of FIs should be seen, together with the Union contribution, as a part of public funding;deleted

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 320 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Recommends further efforts by the Member States on data gathering, management and sharing on the financial instruments' revolving effect.

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the Court primarily focused its conclusions on the Commission as the manager of the financial ~~assistance~~loans, but considers that for a better understanding, further attention should have been brought to the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank (ECB) which initially supported the Commission in the preparation and monitoring of the programmes;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 323 a (new)

323 a. Recommends a pro-active approach and technical assistance on the ground by the managing authorities and the Union institutions on the better use of financial instruments in the regions.

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 324

324. Strongly supports that the Commission should carry out a comparative analysis of the implementation costs of grants and financial instruments (in central and shared management) for the 2014-2020 programme period with a view to establishing their actual levels and impact on the achievement of Europe 2020 goals and the 11th thematic objectives of the cohesion policy; notes that such information would be particularly relevant in view of preparing the legislative proposals for the post-2020 period; asks for a complete performance evaluation before the end of 2019 in order to consider the future of such instruments.

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 338

338. SPartly supports the recommendations of the Court~~, of which the Commission fully accepted the majority~~;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 340

340. Underlines that nuclear safety is of prime importance, not only for the Member States concerned but for the population in the whole Union and its neighourhood;

Amendment 84 #

Algirdas SAUDARGAS, Zigmantas BALČYTIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 343

343. Reminds the Commission that the Slovakian Supreme Audit Office had scheduled an audit in JAVYS13 for 2015; asks to be informed about the findings of this audit; in this context, calls on the competent Bulgarian and Lithuanian authorities to audit ~~also~~ the decommissioning processes in Ignalina and Koszloduy; _________________ 13 Jadrové vyrad'ovacia spoločnost' (JAVYS): The owner of the nuclear power plant and responsible for the decommissioning of the Bohunice nuclear power plant

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 344

344. Is worried about delays in works on facilities for the storage of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste; calls on the Commission to update Parliament’s competent committee on progress made before the 2015 Commission discharge vote in parliament;deleted

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 344

344. ~~Is worried about~~Considers the assessment of the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme to Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia in 2015 and previous years, (1) that the objectives that were due by the reference date for reporting were achieved on schedule according to the baseline, is still concerned about possible delays in works on facilities for the storage of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste; calls on the Commission to update Parliament’'s competent committee on progress made before the 2015 Commission discharge vote in parliament; 1) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the work under the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme to Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia in 2015 and previous years COM(2016) 405 final

Amendment 87 #

Georgi PIRINSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 344

344. ~~Is worried about~~Takes note of the issue raised by ECA regarding delays in works on facilities for the storage of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste~~; calls on the Commission to update Parliament’s competent committee on progress made b~~, as well as of the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the work under the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme to Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia in 2015 and previous years COM(2016) 405, which established that the objectives which were due by the refoere ~~the 2015 Commissi~~nce date for reporting were achieved on disch~~arge vote in parliament~~edule according to the baseline;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 344

344. ~~Is worried about delays i~~Stresses on the delays experienced in the construction works on facilities for the storage of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste; calls on the Commission to update Parliament’s competent committee on progress made before the 2015 Commission discharge vote in parliament;

Amendment 89 #

Georgi PIRINSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 346

346. ~~Recall~~Considers that the ~~Court estimated the decommissioning costs~~ issue as to the ways and means for covering the ~~three Member States, including~~costs of high-level waste and spent ~~nuclear~~ fuel disposal a~~t EUR 11 388 million; considers that the costs of decommissioning should not include the costs for high-level waste and spent fuel disposal, which falls in the responsibility of~~nd the sharing of responsibilities between the nuclear decommission program and the Member States ~~and~~ should be ~~covered by national funds;~~decided upon after detailed evaluation of the resources required.

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Shares the view of the Commission that the role of the Council and other partners has been underestimated in the establishment and management of the programme; asks the Court and Commission to analyse the relevance of the measures adopted by the Council, and the role of the ECB, and whether these were appropriate to meet the objectives of the programme and contributed to the Union's objectives, including phasing out of the economic crisis, more jobs and growth; further, asks the Court and the Commission to analsyse the effect on all eurozone countries of the catastrophic absence of even the most basic of support structures for a new currency, structures that now, after the fact and after the collapse of multiple banks and the collapse or near-collapse of several eurozone national economies, are in the process of being added, viz. Single Supervisory Mechanism, Single Resolution Mechanis, ESM, Full Banking Union, Full Monetary Union, etc etc.

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 348

348. Calls on the Commission to work together with the Member States in order to explore options for identifying geological drepositories ofor high-level ~~nuclear waste, if the waste cannot be recycled~~radioactive waste.

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 348 a (new)

348 a. Underlines that the closure of Nuclear Power Plant was the condition set forward by the Union for the accession of Lithuania in exchange for Union support for its closure, decommissioning and mediation of social and economic impact, as defined in Protocol No. 4 of the Accession Treaty. Takes note that Lithuania has kept its obligations as regards the closure of Ignalina's NPP nuclear reactors on the agreed schedule, is, however, concerned about the delays in its decommissioning and therefore suggests a more thorough scrutiny of the respective process by Union authorities;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 348 a (new)

348a. Points out that EU financing for the decommissioning of the Ignalina nuclear power plant is provided for under Protocol No 4 to the EU Accession Treaty, whereby the Union undertook to continue the decommissioning assistance beyond the Community Financial Perspectives in force at that time;

Amendment 93 #