18 Amendments of Monika VANA related to 2016/2304(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas there should be, in some cases, there is a clear link between the level of funding available for each Member State and the level of awareness of local EU-funded programmes; whereas it is equally important to point to the benefits of cohesion policy funding for all regions, also where funding levels are low;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the multi-level governance model and the partnership principle implying enhanced coordination among public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society can effectively contribute to better communicating EU policy objectives and results;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas a coherent communication line is essential in order to avoid that a more popular and positive image of ESI Funds spending could be jeopardised by an overall negative communication on the EU and EU policies;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Considers that the quality of projects funded under the ESI Funds and their tangible results are a pre-requisite for positive communication on ESI Funds; Underlines therefore that highest ambitions must remain in project selection, implementation and finalization as well as to continue focusing on achieving results in order to create publicity;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Draws attention to the challenge, that misuse or mis-allocation of ESI Funds, failed projects or wasteful spending may also give rise to increased visibility of cohesion policy; Emphasises that all efforts must be mobilised to avoid this kind of negative visibility by constantly investing in improving the quality of ESI Funds spending;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that ensuring the visibility of cohesion policy investments should remain primarily the responsibility of local and regional authoritmanaging authorities and beneficiaries, as they constitute the most effective interface of communication with citizens by bringing Europe closer to them;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes in this context the uneven progress registered across Member States towards streamlining administrative procedures in terms of the broader involvement of local partners including from civil society;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points to the increase in Euroscepticism and in anti-European propaganda that distorts information on Union policies; stresses therefore the urgent need to develop communication strategies that are capable of conveying an accurate and coherent message to citizens on the added value of the European project for their quality of life and prosperity;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Acknowledges the limitations of the legal framework as regards ensuring that cohesion policy has adequate visibility; stresses that, as a result, communication on its tangible achievements has not so far been a priority for the different stakeholders; especially deplores the factnotes that the technical assistance of the ESI Funds contains no dedicated envelope for communication, which negatively impacts on both the scale and quality of the dissemination process;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates the imperative of finding a proper balance between the need for simplification of the rules governing the implementation of cohesion policy and the need to preserve sound financial management and fight against fraud while properly communicating this to the public;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that it is essential to increase ownership of the policy on the ground in order to ensure efficient delivery and communication of the results; appreciates that the partnership principle adds value to the implementation of European public policies, as confirmed by a recent Commission study, but points out that mobilisre efforts and resources need to be invested ing partners remains rather difficult on account of their diversity and, somehip involvement, exchange of experience among partners and dialogue platforms for them also in view of making them multipliers of EU funding opportunitimes, conflicts of inter and successest;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the initiative of the V4 countries on the externalities of cohesion policy in EU-1517 and calls on the Commission to draft a broader study at EU-28 level; further urges the Commission to differentiate its communication strategies towards net contributor and net beneficiary Member States, while highlighting the specific benefits that cohesion policy brings in terms of the real economy, fostering entrepreneurship and innovation and creating growth and jobs in all EU regions, both through direct investments and direct and indirect exports (externalities)ex-post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2007-2013 by the Commission which provide an excellent sources of communicating on results achieved and impacts realised; takes note of the initiative of the V4 countries on the externalities of cohesion policy in EU-1517 and calls on the Commission to draft a broader study at EU-28 level; _________________ 17Report prepared within the Ex post evaluation and forecast of benefits to EU- 15 countries as a result of Cohesion Policy implementation in V4 countries, commissioned by the Polish Ministry of Economic Development and entitled ‘How do EU-15 Member States benefit from the Cohesion Policy in the V4.
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the managing authorities to identify ways to facilitate access to information, in order to increase the transparency and visibility of funding opportunities and to ensure an effective exchange of information and knowledge for beneficiaries; points to the need to better capitalize on existing experience;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Suggests, furthermore, that the monitoring and evaluation of current communication activities be improved and proposes setting up a taskforcestrategy on communication that involves multilevel actors;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Underlines that the partnership principle needs to be strengthened in the upcoming funding period and the engagement of partners pro-actively encouraged; asks to introduce clear minimum requirements for partnership involvement also applicable in the preparation phase of the programmes; considers important that contributions of partners to draft programmes are published and followed-up by the managing authorities in writing; demands that partners most concerned, alongside partners most representative, are involved in the monitoring committees; considers that all partners shall have voting right;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to increase the attractiveness of EU cohesion policy funding through further simplification and flexibility measures, as well as through reducing the numbercomplexity of regulations;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Taking into consideration how EU cohesion policy contributes to positive identification with the European integration project, calls for the introduction of a compulsory percentagcreased use of technical assistance set aside for communication, both at programme and project level, and also of a mandatory project selection criterion linked to the quality of the communication activities proposed by each project promoter;