A4-0163/96

Resolution on development problems and structural measures under Objectives 1, 2 and 5b in Spain (1994-99)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission Decisions of 29 June 1994 on the establishment of the Community support framework for Community structural assistance for the Spanish regions covered by Objective 1 (C4-0053/96) ((OJ L 250, 26.9.1994, p. 5.)) and of 30 December 1994 on the approval of the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in the regions concerned by Objective 2 in Spain (C4-0054/96) ((OJ L 384, 31.12.1994, p. 101.)),

- having regard to the Single Programming Document for Objective 5b regions in Spain,

- having regard to the Commission Communication on the new regional programmes under Objectives 1 and 2 of Community structural policies (COM(95)0111),

- having regard to the Regional Development Plan for Spain's Objective 1 regions and the Regional and Social Conversion Plan for Spain's Objective 2 regions,

- having regard to Petitions Nos 387/91 and 584/91,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment (A4-0163/96),

A. whereas the Structural Funds are merely one of the instruments for combating regional disparities within the Union; whereas the goal of strengthening economic and social cohesion, which must be taken into account in all Community policies and the economic policies of the Member States, requires that these funds should be increased,

B. whereas the Structural Funds produce slow and uneven convergence,

C. whereas there are major disparities between the regions of Spain which have not diminished substantially after the first programming period (1988-93) despite the fact that the national average per capita GDP has moved significantly closer to the Community average,

D. whereas, in the period 1994-99, implementation of the Structural Funds in Spain will take place against a background of budgetary austerity including the plan for convergence towards the single currency,

E. whereas unemployment is the most pressing problem facing the Spanish economy,

F. having regard to the large percentage of the working population employed in the industrial sector, as well as the low population density in rural areas,

G. whereas improved regional communications, through the construction of infrastructure, remains a priority for combating the obstacles to socio- economic development, in particular in the Objective 1 regions,

H. whereas a high degree of political and institutional decentralization is a feature of the Spanish regional system,

I. having regard to the key role in achieving efficiency which must be played by regional and local authorities and the social partners in the programming, evaluation and monitoring of structural measures,

J. having regard to the debate held in the Committee on Regional Policy during the public hearing on structural measures in Spain, in which representatives of national, regional and local administrations took part, together with trade union and employers' representatives,

1. Notes that a salient feature of the new Community support frameworks for Objectives 1 and 2 and the Single Programming Documents for Objective 5b, for the period 1994-99, is an underlying continuity with the previous programming period;

2. Welcomes the fresh emphasis placed by the Community support framework for Objective 1 upon improving and adapting the productive system and human resources and improving the quality of life (34.5% and 33.4% of resources respectively) at the expense of infrastructure, which, at least as far as transport is concerned, will in any case be receiving support from the Cohesion Fund in the current period;

3. Welcomes the emphasis placed on human resources development, particularly as regards the Community support framework for Objective 1, on the grounds that it is only by increasing skill levels in the working population that jobs can be created and the extremely high unemployment in these regions reduced; supports in this context the emphasis placed on technical- professional training, especially in the technological sphere;

4. Believes, as part of a skill-raising policy and as a means of combating youth unemployment, that it is important that ESF intervention assist with the goal of ensuring that all young people by the age of 18 possess a vocational training qualification as set out in the 1990 vocational training law;

5. Believes that the allocation of substantial resources for transport networks in the programming for Objective 2 (40% of all ERDF measures in 1994 and 1995 and 25% in 1996) should not be at the expense of the economic redevelopment priorities set for Objective 2 areas;

6. Criticizes the fact that a greater share of the investment in transport networks has been granted to road rather than rail infrastructures, along with a higher rate of financing for road-building as opposed to the improvement of rail infrastructures - measures which run counter to the guidelines laid down in the fifth action programme on the environment and sustainable development;

7. Is surprised at the scant attention paid by the Objective 1 Community support framework to management of water resources in view of the scale of the water problem in many of the regions covered by this objective for financial and political reasons;

8. Calls on the Commission to check the economic assessment techniques used for water resources management projects so as to ensure that funding is not provided for projects that are economically questionable or harmful to the environment and to promote investment that will reduce losses from water distribution networks and improve the conservation of water resources;

9. Stresses the importance of secondary transport networks for regional links and for a regional development that strikes a balance between large, medium- sized and small centres; believes that investment in transport infrastructure should provide for integration between national and interregional networks and local transport networks, as well as for interconnections between the various modes of transport;

10. Regrets the lack of participation by local authorities in the planning stage and believes that their presence on the monitoring committees should be increased;

11. Deplores the management and information difficulties which have beset local authorities' involvement in Community planning;

12. Believes that the division of resource management between the central administration and the autonomous regional administrations should have taken account of the powers held by the latter;

13. Believes that there should be greater participation by regional governments and local authorities in Objective 5b regions too and that priority should be given to measures which create stable employment in the region concerned;

14. Welcomes the active involvement of the social partners during the planning and CSF negotiations stages; believes that they also have a crucial role to play in programme implementation and is gratified to see, at least as far as ESF-financed programmes are concerned, that social partners are represented on monitoring committees; is unhappy, however, that social partner participation does not extend to monitoring committees in the other funds;

15. Repeats that a key factor for efficiency and transparency is the provision of maximum information to potential recipients of structural aid and calls, therefore, on the regional and national authorities to use their official journals to publicize key points of operational programmes and decisions to approve projects;

16. Regrets that a full report on the results of the first Community support frameworks was not available at the start of the present planning period and calls on the national and regional authorities and the Commission to make meaningful adjustments, in the light of these results, via the monitoring committees;

17. Deplores the low degree of integration between the various funds which weakens structural measures in Spain, due primarily to the excessive compartmentalization of the various government departments in Spain; nevertheless considers that integrated approaches to structural intervention would be assisted by improved cooperation between the Commission's DGV and DGXVI and with the Spanish authorities;

18. Considers coordination between the Structural Funds and other Community financial instruments to be inadequate and regrets in particular the lack of firm forecasts for the contributions to the Objective 1 Community support framework to be made by the EIB and the Cohesion Fund, given that the latter, under Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) 2081/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5.)) (Structural Fund framework Regulation), must also contribute to a doubling in 1999 of appropriations for regions covered by this objective;

19. Considers satisfactory the increase in the percentages of Community cofunding in Objective 1 areas, adapted to take account of the socio- economic situation of the region concerned, particularly when account is taken of the context of budgetary austerity in which the new programming will be applied and the fact that these percentages are still much less than the maximum limit authorized by the Regulations;

20. Calls on the Commission carefully to review those infrastructure investments which pose a threat to important nature conservation sites, including those which have qualified for special protection under the directives on wild birds and habitats, and, if necessary, to use all means at its disposal to find alternative project solutions;

21. Considers that, as regards compliance with Community policies and in connection with environmental protection, steps should be taken to ensure that the Advisory Council on the Environment receives adequate information on projects financed by the Structural Funds whenever it so requests, in accordance with Directive 90/313/EEC on the freedom of access to information on the environment ((OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.)); such information should include environmental concerns and questions relating to economic viability; measures should also be taken to ensure that environmental experts take part in the monitoring committees;

22. Reaffirms the need to continue and to increase measures under the Structural Funds and recalls that their contribution to combating regional disparities within the Union will be effective only if economic and social cohesion is used as a yardstick for the formulation and implementation of all Community policies;

23. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Spanish Government and the two Houses of the Spanish Parliament.