WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/02

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR), Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR)and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Report by the Netherlands Central Planning Bureau on the effectiveness of the European Union's cohesion policy

Has the Commission received a copy of a study drawn up by the Netherlands Central Planning Bureau (CPB) which demonstrates a lack of effectiveness in the way in which the EU's cohesion policy is being implemented? A large proportion of the subsidies benefits the comparatively wealthy regions which do not need the money. It is claimed that a policy change would help toward the attainment of an annual economic growth rate of 0,5 % in the poorest regions. The report also refers to the need for policy reform in connection with the accession of new Member States.

What measures and initiatives does the Commission have in mind with a view to improving the general effectiveness of the cohesion policy? If the Commission has decided not to take any measures, can it justify its decision?

Is the Commission aware of the recommendations set out in the CPB report with a view to improving the policy's effectiveness, i.e. either increasing Commission control over the funds or allowing the Member States themselves to determine the projects to which they allocate the funds?

Does the Commission intend to follow the CPB's recommendations? Can it indicate which of the two recommendations it favours? If it does not select the first option, does that mean that the Commission believes that it has adequate control over the cohesion policy?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

The concentration of the resources available on the most affected areas and problems is a basic principle of the Structural Funds. Accordingly, some two-thirds of the resources are available concentrated on just 22 % of population in the regions eligible under Objective 1. Concentration was reinforced for the current period, 2000-2006, compared to the previous period, 1994-1999, and the population eligible under all of the regional objectives of the Structural Funds has been reduced from 49,8 % to 41,3 %.

With regard to the matter of the control of the Structural Funds, the key principles in this respect are those of partnership between the Commission and the authorities in the Member States and decentralisation of responsibilities. In the management of the current generation of regional development programmes, this has meant the selection of individual projects is a responsibility that is decentralised to the Member States, once the broad strategic priorities of the programmes have been agreed in partnership with the Commission.

The Commission is aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Members. With the help of independent experts it has studied the impact of structural interventions for the 2000-2006 period, using an input-output model, which suggests a clear positive macro-economic impact of the Community cohesion policy. Annual average growth increases of 0,4 % are estimated for Greece and Portugal over this period, while they are 0,3 % and 0,2 % respectively for the regions of the Mezzogiorno and the Germany's new Länder. So, in general, the Commission does not share the conclusions that emerge from the analysis in the Netherlands Central Planning Bureau (CPB) report.

The Commission is constantly seeking to improve the efficiency of cohesion policy instruments, without compromising the financial control of expenditure, for which it remains responsible. A mid-term review of Structural Funds programmes is foreseen by the end of 2003, which will provide an occasion to assess how far objectives have been achieved half-way through the current programming period. Moreover, a performance reserve has been introduced for the Structural Funds, whereby 4 % of allocations are reserved in order to be disbursed depending upon performance. The objective is to ensure that actions genuinely add value, which is assessed both ex-ante and ex-post. Finally, simplification of programming and implementation continues to be at the forefront of the Commission's agenda.

Looking to the future beyond the end of the current programmes in 2006, the Commission has already begun its reflection on the reform of Cohesion policy. Concrete proposals for reform will be presented in the third Cohesion report at the end of 2003. The second cohesion report adopted in January 2001, launched a wide-ranging debate on the future of cohesion policy.