A4-0159/98

Resolution on the Commission¨s annual report on the Cohesion Fund 1996 (COM(97)0302 - C4-0482/97)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission¨s annual report, COM(97)0302 - C4-0482/97,

- having regard to the Court of Auditors¨ annual report concerning the financial year 1996 ((OJ C 348, 18.11.1997.)),

- having regard to its resolutions of 29 June 1995 ((OJ C 183, 17.7.1995, p. 36.)), 19 April 1996 ((OJ C 141, 13.5.1996, p. 265.)) and 26 June 1997 ((OJ C 222, 21.7.1997, p. 55.)) on successive Commission annual reports on the cohesion financial instrument and the Cohesion Fund,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinions of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0159/98),

A. whereas budgetary implementation of the Cohesion Fund was, according to the Court of Auditors¨ report for 1996, 100% of commitment appropriations and 97.5 % of payment appropriations,

B. whereas an overall balance was achieved at Community level between the two sectors of Cohesion Fund intervention, the environment and trans-European transport networks, which received 49.89% and 50.11% of commitment appropriations respectively in 1996,

C. whereas, without affecting this overall balance, marked imbalances are continuing to be observed in some Member States such as Ireland in favour of transport infrastructure, which is continuing to absorb 54% of the commitment appropriations allocated to that Member State; whereas the corresponding figures for the 1997 financial year, which have already been forwarded by the Commission, confirm the trend towards balance between the two sectors over the period 1994-1999,

D. whereas, in the case of trans-European transport networks and compared with previous years, there has been a disproportionate concentration of aid on financing roads, which absorbed 78.4% of total commitment appropriations allocated to the transport sector in 1996, while those intended for railways were barely maintained (18.12% of the total) and the aid for ports (1.9%) and airports (1.3%) fell substantially,

E. whereas, in the case of the environment, financing has continued to concentrate on water supply and treatment projects and, though to a lesser extent, waste treatment; whereas this type of project accounted for 96.3% of environment aid in Portugal, 99.5% in Greece and 96.7% in Ireland, whereas this concentration of aid has grown substantially in the case of Spain, rising from 65.23% in 1995 to 82% in 1996,

F. whereas the essential purpose of the Cohesion Fund is to contribute to economic and social cohesion, meaning the reduction of social and regional disparities, and whereas these disparities are still seriously affecting the beneficiary Member States which, while they have increased per capita earnings over the last ten years from 66% to 74% of the Community average, have nevertheless in terms of employment seen a rise in the percentage gap separating them from the Community average, most alarmingly in the cases of Greece and Spain,

G. whereas, although the Cohesion Fund does not have the direct aim of combating unemployment, investment projects that it finances do possess a marked capacity for creating jobs, since the Commission estimates that for every million ecus invested in improving transport infrastructure an average of 21 jobs will be created, while investment projects in the environmental sector may create up to 26 jobs per million ecus invested,

H. whereas one of the main objectives of the Fund is to support the budgetary efforts of the beneficiary Member States in fulfilling the criteria of nominal convergence for the single currency and whereas, for this reason, it is subject to a conditionality clause,

I. whereas 1996 was the first year of application of the conditionality clause, under which the beneficiary Member States are required to follow a programme leading to full compliance with the conditions for economic convergence in accordance with Article 104c of the Treaty concerning public deficits; whereas in 1996 the public deficits of the Member States concerned stayed within the margin of the recommended objectives, with the exception of Greece, which slightly exceeded them,

J. whereas the conditionality clause, as its name implies, makes continuance of the Fund conditional upon fulfilment of the recommended objectives, and whereas the single currency will bring advantages to all regions of the Union; whereas, however, accompanying measures should be taken to ensure that the aims of monetary union and cohesion do not detract from one another,

K. whereas an interim review was carried out in 1996 under Article 2(3) of the Cohesion Fund Regulation, which provides that the Fund¨s beneficiary countries will continue to be able to receive aid from the Fund provided that after the review their GNP is still less than 90% of the Community average; whereas none of the four beneficiary countries exceeded that limit at the time of the review,

1. Considers budgetary implementation of the Cohesion Fund for the 1996 financial year to have been satisfactory, as also the progress made in securing a total balance between the Fund¨s two intervention sectors;

2. Considers, however, that the efforts of some beneficiary Member States must be stepped up to achieve proper balance between the two sectors;

3. Considers the effort made by the four beneficiary states to have been generally satisfactory with regard to the funding of projects in line with the Commission¨s declared strategy of increasing the concentration of investment in the environmental sector on implementing Community directives on the supply and treatment of water and treatment of waste;

4. Expresses once more its interest in the financing of small-scale environmental projects, in view of the fact that their contribution to improving the environment is proportionately greater than the total cost of financing them;

5. Welcomes the Commission¨s efforts to review the efficiency of investment in the environmental sector, in terms both of quality and quantity, and suggests that the Commission should be creating instruments, by developing environmental indicators, to make it possible to demonstrate environmental improvements in quantitative terms, the contribution to sustainable development and also introduce some comparability;

6. Expresses its satisfaction at the importance given in 1996 to almost all the ultra-peripheral regions which, because of their special situation and conditions, deserve particular attention in the case of both the environment and transport; with regard to the trans-European transport networks, points out that Article 129b of the EC Treaty calls for particular attention to be given to the need to link island regions with each other and with peripheral regions, and considers that this provision is receiving priority treatment in the Cohesion Fund¨s financing of the transport sector in the ultra-peripheral regions;

7. Greatly welcomes the improvements in road infrastructure carried out with aid from the Cohesion Fund; repeats the view expressed in paragraph 9 of its resolution of 26 June 1997 referred to above that the concentration of transport aid on road transport is excessive and contradicts the aim of incorporating the environmental dimension in Community transport policy; regrets that the Commission and the Member States have further increased aid for road transport projects, have not increased aid for railway construction and have reduced the aid earmarked for ports and airports; recognizes, however, that the quality of roads in the Cohesion Fund Member States is still significantly below the European average, with consequent effects on competitiveness and safety; also recognizes the importance of transport in the Cohesion Fund objective of opening up peripheral and poorer areas to the benefits of the single market;

8. Considers that the attention paid to ultra-peripheral areas is the right approach but there is a need for actual projects; points out that many areas of the Cohesion Fund countries are among the outermost areas of the Community, and that greater attention should be paid to sea and air transport, including ports and airports as transport nodes, and appropriate modern traffic management systems;

9. Points out that all the projects implemented under the Cohesion Fund should be accompanied by objective prior and ex post evaluation of their impact on the environment carried out by persons who are not associated with the planning or implementation of the projects;

10. Points out that one of the purposes of the Cohesion Fund is to support the beneficiary states in their efforts for convergence, which is why the successes that have been made must continue to be supported to that end;

11. Considers that the Cohesion Fund has not yet brought about real convergence among all Member States: some countries in receipt of Cohesion Fund assistance have achieved nominal convergence making them eligible to join the monetary union but they are required, until the date laid down in the relevant regulation, 31 December 1999, to remain beneficiaries of the Cohesion Fund, whose primary objective is to achieve real convergence;

12. Calls on the Commission to submit to Parliament the study it commissioned on the overall socio-economic impact (point 4.5.3 of the annual report), so as to meet the call for democratic involvement of Parliament and enable a broad debate to take place on the economic effects of use of the Cohesion Fund;

13. Points out, further, that under the Treaty the Cohesion Fund is a financial instrument mainly intended to bring about economic and social cohesion and, as such, should continue its activity for that purpose until the date laid down in the relevant regulation, 31 December 1999, without prejudice as to whether a beneficiary state achieves the conditions required to join the EMU, particularly since to do so does not mean that regional and social disparities have disappeared, as is shown in all its starkness by the conclusions of the first three-yearly report on cohesion; notes that the Commission is proposing to retain the Cohesion Fund in its present form; supports the retention of a cohesion fund;

14. Calls on the Commission and the Council to extend the period of application of the Cohesion Fund beyond 1999, (though only for Member States that are not participating in EMU), so as to achieve a major reduction in regional imbalances and create a larger number of jobs, in particular for young people, women and the long-term unemployed;

15. Believes that it is necessary to pay greater attention to those regions of Member States with the most serious imbalances so that the objective of cohesion is not limited merely to securing a balance between the Member States but also within them;

16. Appreciates the efficient work of the monitoring committees, in particular the efforts made to ensure that the regional and local authorities and the social partners participate in them, albeit with varying success from country to country;

17. Considers that this principle of partnership is bound to emerge in stronger guise from the present process of reform, and accordingly proposes that the Commission take it into account from the start of the planning process, not only to improve its efficiency but also to ensure that its activities are more conspicuous;

18. Expresses its concern at the comments by the Commission on the slowness of implementation generally observed in the case of projects presented by regions or local authorities;

19. Supports measures that use the involvement of local and regional authorities to coordinate cohesion projects more closely with structural measures under the other EU funds, and considers this essential if Community monies are to be used more effectively;

20. Welcomes the fact that no instance of fraud was detected in the area of Cohesion Fund projects in 1996, but expresses its concern at the repeated instances of administrative irregularity or negligence detected by the Commission;

21. Considers it unjustifiable that the Commission still has not adopted the rules for financial checks referred to in Article 12(5) of the Cohesion Fund Regulation;

22. Draws attention to the Cohesion Fund¨s important contribution to creating jobs in the beneficiary states and values very highly, without prejudging the long-term assessment, the Commission¨s estimates that put the number of direct and indirect jobs generated in 1996 by projects financed by the Cohesion Funds at more than 57 000 and 17 100 respectively; calls for priority to be given in the remaining period of intervention by the Cohesion Fund to measures that will create long-term jobs;

23. Requests the Commission to draw up a study examining the extent to which the allocation of Cohesion Fund appropriations is in accordance with the environmental objectives laid down in the Fifth Action Programme on the Environment, particularly as regards sustainable development;

24. Considers that as part of the ex-post evaluation programme for completed projects that have received assistance, a specific question which should be looked into is the extent to which completed projects are linked in with the trans-European networks and can contribute to achieving sustainable mobility;

25. Considers that great attention should continue to be paid to the overall socio-economic impact of Cohesion Fund assistance and expects regular reports from the Commission on this matter;

26. Stresses the need to make progress with a more vigorous policy to show public opinion the very positive effects of Cohesion Fund action in the beneficiary states and improve the information on the opportunities for financing by the Fund supplied to those for whom it is ultimately intended, especially local authorities;

27. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and Council.

15