74. Welcomes the introduction as of 1 January 2012, of the new Results Measurement Framework (REM) for all its operations outside the Union which will provide for an ex-ante assessment of the expected contribution to Union and country development objectives (pillar 1), the expected quality and results of operations, including economic, social, environmental and institutional outcomes of the project (pillar 2), and the expected additionality of the EIB relative to market alternatives (pillar 3), as well as for monitoring of indicators until such time as the project is fully implemented and operational and the first development outcomes ar ...[+++]e measurable; expects the EIB to provide for the first assessment of the functioning of the REM in the context of the discharge procedure for the year 2012;

73. Welcomes the introduction as of 1 January 2012, of the new Results Measurement Framework (REM) for all its operations outside the Union which will provide for an ex-ante assessment of the expected contribution to Union and country development objectives (pillar 1), the expected quality and results of operations, including economic, social, environmental and institutional outcomes of the project (pillar 2), and the expected additionality of the EIB relative to market alternatives (pillar 3), as well as for monitoring of indicators until such time as the project is fully implemented and operational and the first development outcomes ar ...[+++]e measurable; expects the EIB to provide for the first assessment of the functioning of the REM in the context of the discharge procedure for the year 2012;

8. Takes note that according to the Agency, in 2011, the Agency carried out 1 195 payment requests, of which 140 (11,72 %) were carried out with some delay, and the result of the audit findings was highly influenced by some very particular transactions in large amount e.g. transfers of unused funds to the Union and highly complex grant agreement payments and in addition, due to the small size of the Agency, payments during holiday periods could easily be delayed due to the lack of back-ups in some key operational and administrative positions; acknowledges that the Agency had implemented improved financial circuits from April 2012 with an aim to reduce payment delays to the minimum and calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority if that had led to ...[+++] expected results;

This relates in part to the fact that more and more complex issues are being addressed but also to a need to refine and sharpen the expected results, the timetable for such results and the means of monitoring their implementation.

10. Welcomes the proposal for a European Endowment for Democracy (EED), which is a timely response to the clamour for democracy by the populations of our neighbouring countries; underlines that it should be a flexible, fast and targeted mechanism for support and should complement already existing EU instruments and the exemplary work of longstanding European political or non-political foundations and civil society organisations, bearing in mind that tangible results should be an objective of this initiative; stresses that the Endowment should not hinder or duplicate the action already being taken by these foundations, or as part of exi ...[+++]sting European programmes, such as the EIDHR; stresses that its scope and organisation should be clearly defined and that its structures and procedures should be light and straightforward; calls upon the EEAS, the Commission and the (Polish) Presidency to present a clear demarcation of the competences of a future EED in relation to these instruments and frameworks; insists on a right of scrutiny and the involvement of the European Parliament in its governance structure, to help determine the annual objectives, priorities, expected results, and financial allocations in broad terms and to be part in the monitoring of activities; expresses some concerns about the fact that this future fund could be financed, fully or in part, outside of the EU budget and reaffirms the right of the budget authority to monitor and scrutinise the implementation of this fund; requests therefore, a clarification from the Commission and the Council on the issue;

Projects are evaluated and awards made on the basis of: the conformity of the proposed action with the Commission's annual work programme, the quality of the proposed action (design, organisation and expected results), the amount of Community financing applied for and the link between the actions, the objectives and the expected results.