23 Amendments of Philippe BOULLAND related to 2011/2035(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
- having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Fifth Cohesion Report’, adopted on 1 April 2011,
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Approves the intention of developing new macro-regional strategies and calls for steps to be taken to identify and combat regional disparities, such as in access to training, employment and education;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the cohesion and structural policies have proved flexible in crisis situations and have made a defining contribution to various national recovery and training programmes, and whereas it is important to maintain this flexibility,
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies and plays an important part in boosting social inclusion, particularly for the most disadvantaged groups such as the Roma people;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas, however, a significant threshold effect exists between regions with comparable levels of development but benefiting from very different levels of aid – growth regions exceeding the threshold of 75% of average per capita GDP for the EU in receipt of more financial support than stagnating regions above that threshold – and whereas this represents a real problem in terms of fairness between Europe’s regions,
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas a comprehensive European cohesion policy continues to be essential, given the significant imbalances between regional economies and in social terms and the geographical disadvantages of certain regions (particularly the outermost regions), as well as specific structural problems and geographical disadvantathe need to adapt to new challenges, and it is also a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty,
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Commission to improve the visibility of ESF action and to make the ESF more accessible and capable of providing more support for integration into the job market, particularly by setting upintroducing in-school guidance based on local and regional job opportunities and lifelong training to help workers adapt their skills to the needs of the job market;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for this partnership principle to be further strengthened; and the political debates in the Council and Parliament to be further strengthened with a view to promoting transparency, accountability for all and an evaluation of the effects of cohesion policy;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that particular attention should be paid to developing innovation and the capacity to create SME and independent entrepreneur projects, which are some of the main job creators;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and in some Member States are actually growing – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on evening out differences between regions’ levels of developmentreducing disparities and implementing harmonious development for all Europe’s regions;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environmeor demographic situation or specific constraints; reiterates its call for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (outermost regions, northernmost regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions), and in particular the additional specific allocation granted to the outermost regions under the ERDF;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of trans-regional potential and adopt a joint approach to shared challenges stemming from the natural environment, e.g. in relation touch as environmental protection; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU structural funds;
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises that the core components of the EU 2020 strategy (innovation, education and training, energy, environment, employment, competitiveness, skills and combating poverty) are already integral to the cohesion and structural policies; takes the view that the EU 2020 challenges can be integrated very easily into the system of three objectives (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation), which has proved its effectivenessarchitecture of the cohesion policy;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls for a dependable and appropriate phasing-out arrangement for areas formerly eligible for maximum support underthe creation of a new intermediate category for regions with per capita GDP between 75% and 90% of the EU average, in order to resolve political problems (unequal treatment of regions in spite of their similar situations) and practical problems (difficulty of managing degressive funding) linked to the current phasing-out arrangement; considers that the creation of such a category will be made possible by the fact that a large number of regions have passed the threshold of 75% of the EU average per capita GDP and will thus automatically cease to be covered by the convergence objective; stresses that this change to the architecture of the cohesion policy should neither penalise regions currently benefiting from the Cconvergence objective (convergence regions)and the competitiveness objective, nor lead to an increase in the cohesion policy budget; considers that this new category will make it possible to strengthen the justice and solidarity which are the fundamental principles of the cohesion policy;
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter- regional and trans-national) and calls for the relevant share of the structural funds to be increased to 7%; calls for the allocation of funding for each territorial cooperation programme to be based on harmonised criteria in order to provide a strategic and integrated response to the needs and specificities of each geographical territory and area concerned; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the EU 2020 objectives; considers that there is a need for closer linkage with the TEN networkto increase the coordination of the TEN networks and their subsidies – in line with European priorities – and with cross-border infrastructure, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Calls for the ESF, as a component of cohesion policy, to continue to foster social integration, economic growth and employment; regards the ESF as the Union’s most important labour-market and employment-policy tool; attaches particular importance to developing skills and mobility, enhancing equality of opportunity between the sexes, – with priority being assigned to training which meets local needs –, enhancing equality of opportunity between the sexes and people with disabilities, integrating and socially reintegrating people who are disadvantaged and supporting SMEs and the self-employed;
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to integrated development planning – to be facilitated; calls, furthermore, for better synergies between the EDF and the ERDF;
Amendment 399 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls for the funding under investment partnerships to be made conditional on the implementation of reforms by the Member State, for Member States to be called upon to implement reforms, in order to ensure that it is used efficiently in areas directly related to cohesion policy; considers it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering procedures, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform;
Amendment 416 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 506 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Calls on the Member States/regions to designate authorities that will assume exclusive responsibilityle for the proper administration of monies from the structural funds;
Amendment 512 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
Amendment 534 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Supports the Commission’s proposal that national authorities should not receive reimbursement until the EU funding has been paid out to the beneficiaries; envisages that this will speed up payment procedures and will be a crucial incentive to carry out stringent national auditing; notes, however, that cashflow problems could potentially arise at Member State or federal-stateregional level and that appropriate hedging arrangements will have to be made;