Vertaling van "Manage programming " (Engels → Nederlands) :

(2b) In its resolution of 8 June 2011, the European Parliament, further emphasised the need of developing better synergies between different funds and programs and points to the fact that the simplification of management of funds and allowing cross-financing enable the allocation of more funds to common objectives, welcomed the Commission's intention to reduce the total number of budgetary instruments in home affairs in a two-pillar structure and where possible under shared management and expressed its belief that this approach should contribute significantly to an increased simplification, rationalisation, consolidation and transparency of the current ...[+++]funds and programmes. It stressed however the need to ensure that the different objectives of home affairs policies will not be mixed up.

22. Deplores the fact that research funding is still very fragmented in Europe, with multiple sources of funding from the Member States and the Community applying different priorities, evaluation criteria, definitions and procedures, leading to unnecessary overlap, confusion, error and lack of critical mass; asks the Commission and the Council to put the issues of cooperation and coordination between the various EU and national programmes at the top of the agenda; calls on the Commission to carry out an analysis to improve the link between European and national actions, including possible coordination in the phases of formulating calls for proposals and evaluating projects, as well as the identification of national rules or laws that hind ...[+++]er or complicate the financial management of international research cooperation projects; asks that calls for proposals, including those of July 2011, be issued in consultation with the Member States, not duplicating or competing with national initiatives but complementing them; in this respect, considers that the ERA-Net scheme should be strengthened as a tool to support excellence and the development of criteria for quality indicators which constitutes the basis for coordination between programmes or joint ventures; suggests that FP7 should complement the efforts of actors managing national programmes involved in joint programming in order to move the RDFPs away from project management thinking towards programme management thinking, but without neglecting the management of small projects; believes that for Joint Programming to be successful, projects should be selected on the basis of excellence, tailored to the characteristics of each sector, the coordinating role of the Commission should be strengthened, and participating Member States should honour their financial commitments; asks that the last three years of FP7 be devoted to helping structure the European Research Area;

22. Deplores the fact that research funding is still very fragmented in Europe, with multiple sources of funding from the Member States and the Community applying different priorities, evaluation criteria, definitions and procedures, leading to unnecessary overlap, confusion, error and lack of critical mass; asks the Commission and the Council to put the issues of cooperation and coordination between the various EU and national programmes at the top of the agenda; calls on the Commission to carry out an analysis to improve the link between European and national actions, including possible coordination in the phases of formulating calls for proposals and evaluating projects, as well as the identification of national rules or laws that hind ...[+++]er or complicate the financial management of international research cooperation projects; asks that calls for proposals, including those of July 2011, be issued in consultation with the Member States, not duplicating or competing with national initiatives but complementing them; in this respect, considers that the ERA-Net scheme should be strengthened as a tool to support excellence and the development of criteria for quality indicators which constitutes the basis for coordination between programmes or joint ventures; suggests that FP7 should complement the efforts of actors managing national programmes involved in joint programming in order to move the RDFPs away from project management thinking towards programme management thinking, but without neglecting the management of small projects; believes that for Joint Programming to be successful, projects should be selected on the basis of excellence, tailored to the characteristics of each sector, the coordinating role of the Commission should be strengthened, and participating Member States should honour their financial commitments; asks that the last three years of FP7 be devoted to helping structure the European Research Area;

19. Regrets the fact that the provisional organisation chart of the EEAS does not include all existing units dealing with crisis response planning and programming, conflict prevention and peacebuilding with the CSDP structures in line with the Madrid agreement; calls in this context for the organisation of regular meetings of a crisis management board to be composed of the CMPD, the CCPC, the EUMS, the EU SITCEN, the peace-building, conflict prevention, mediation and security policy units, the Chair of the PSC, the geographical desks ...[+++] and other policy departments concerned, placed under the authority of the VP/HR and the executive Secretary-General and with the participation of the Commission humanitarian aid, civil protection and internal security structures according to the circumstances; such meetings would be coordinated by the Managing Director for Crisis Response; calls on the VP/HR and the Commission to equip the board with an efficient alert and emergency system and a large unified operations room, located within the EEAS, so as to enable surveillance to be carried out 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, hence avoiding the present operational overlapping, which hardly squares with the need for a proper surveillance and rapid reaction system to deal with crises; considers that regular coordination and exchange should be ensured between this system and the European emergency response centre currently being developed by the Commission to guarantee appropriate synergies while respecting each other’s competencies;

The Strategic Programming and Planning (SPP) system and Activity Based Management (ABM), as well as Activity Based Budgeting (ABB), which were introduced following the White paper on the so-called Kinnock reform in 2000, all sought to remedy this situation by fundamentally changing the way EU Institutions identify, prioritise and evaluate the various policies (political objectives to achieve) and clearly identify the overall resources (operational + administrative) needed. Basically, the improvements aimed for can be summarised as fol ...[+++]lows:

In addition to defining a NUTS territorial breakdown approved by the Commission, these countries have still to allocate responsibilities for the programming and management of the Structural Funds (inter-ministerial cooperation, designation of the managing and paying authorities, clarification of the role of the regions, etc), in order to prepare the first programming documents.