17 Amendments of Petra KAMMEREVERT related to 2015/2328(INI)
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Creative Europe Programme, in particular, its Culture Sub- programme, is seriously underfinanced; and is consequently struggling to meet high expectations;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the funding quotas for some funding lines of both sub- programmes are so low that the work involved in submitting an application is out of proportion to the chances of its being approved;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas the ‘cooperation projects’ funding area of the Culture Sub- programme takes up around 70 % of the sub-programme’s budget, is highly popular among cultural operators and is aimed at common approaches on a cross- border basis, allowing an open formulation of unpredictable, highly innovative and creative projects, which are explicitly welcomed;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas the Creative Europe Desks (CED) are the crucial intermediary between the Commission, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) and the applicants, and whereas they should be more closely involved in theinformed about the ongoing decision making process;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas the registering companies within the European Commission Authentication Service (ECAS) system is reported as problematic; whereas, however, the e-form (NING) is very positively welcomed;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recommends that the Commission maintainexamine the existing structure with two very different sub-programmes and use the potential of the cross-sectoral strand more effectively;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to verify whether the Guarantee Fund in the programme is fully effective or whether it could operative even more efficiently if it was implemented as part of the COSME programme;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the Commission to further simplify the application and reporting procedures by limiting the number of guidelines and other documents, making the time sheet less rigid and drawing up a standard formtemplate for the cooperation agreement;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Underlines that, in an aggressive and evolving international market, European audiovisual production still needs to be supported by extending training to cover more actions and by paying due attention to trainers’ curricula, particularly during the project development phase, by extending training to cover more actions;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Acknowledges that European online platforms are still not competitive at international level despite the support provided for online distribution and that European content on existing platforms is difficult to find and to access;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Underlines that the support of independent TV producers for fiction series seeking to compete at world level is ongoing, in particular in order to provide authentically European responses to the current strong demand for high-quality series, even if the best results seem to beo far have been achieved in the documentary and children’s sectors;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Insists that European Networks which are stable and highly representative of one of the sectors of Creative Europe should be supported with a mix of grants: operational grants aimed at ensuring the institutional activities and project grants;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Asks the Commission to guaranteseek to achieve a geographic and sectoral balance in the Guarantee Facility, evaluate its impact and examine possibilities as regards the development of synergies with EFSI and other programmes and, before continuation of the programme after 2020, to examine whether this Guarantee Facility could be used more efficiently as a separate cultural and creative section in the COSME Programme;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Stresses the request from the CED to be involved in the decision-making process and for greater account to be taken of their expertise in the fieldgiven more information about ongoing decision-making processes; points out that the confidential sharing of evaluation reports, even negative ones, can help improve their capacity;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Recommends that Creative Europe be continued in 2021-2028, but that its continuation as a programme with two sub-programmes and a cross- sectoral strand be reviewed, including training, audience development, access to markets, social inclusion, international cooperation, cross- sectoral and cross-over projects, as well as communication, studies, a Guarantee facility and CED support;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Calls on the Commission, in the revision of the MEDIA sub-programme, to examine whether the support given could be made more efficient by assigning smaller action lines to the production, festivals, cinemas and distribution programme strands;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. UrgesCalls on the Commission to assess whether it would make sense, given the multiplicity of the creative industries and the need to comply with the subsidiarity principle, to create a European observatory on culture and creativity comparable to the European Audiovisual Observatory, with standards comparable to those of the European Audiovisual Observatory, and, if so, calls on it to elaborate criteria corresponding to the specific nature of the sectors;