Resolution on the Annual Report of the Commission on the cohesion financial instrument (1993/1994)
Date: 1995-06-29
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financial instrument, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, activity report, common transport policy, environmental policy, financial aid, transport infrastructure













EUR-Lex - 51995IP0126 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995IP0126

Resolution on the Annual Report of the Commission on the cohesion financial instrument (1993/1994)  


Official Journal C 183 , 17/07/1995 P. 0036 





A4-0126/95Resolution on the Annual Report of the Commission on the cohesion financial instrument (1993/1994)The European Parliament,- having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 of 30 March 1993 establishing a cohesion financial instrument, in particular to Article 10 and Annex II thereof ((OJ L 79, 1.4.1993, p. 74.)),- having regard to the Annual Report of the Commission on the cohesion financial instrument (1993/1994) (COM(95)0001 - C4-0028/95),- having regard to its opinion 11 March 1993 on the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a cohesion financial instrument ((OJ C 115, 26.4.1993, p. 161.)) and its resolution of 24 March 1994 embodying its recommendations on the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a cohesion fund ((OJ C 114, 25.4.1994, p. 38.)),- having regard to the Commission White Paper, COM(93)0700,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, Committee on Transport and Tourism, and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0126/95),A. whereas Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 gives details as to the substance of the report to be submitted by the Commission, pursuant to Article 10 of the Regulation, on operations under the cohesion financial instrument,B. whereas, bearing in mind that entry into force of the Treaty on European Union was certain to be delayed, the Heads of State or Government, meeting in Edinburgh on 12 and 13 December 1992, decided to anticipate the provisions concerning the future Cohesion Fund by agreeing to grant the same financial aid to the beneficiary countries under a temporary financial instrument established on the basis of Article 235 of the EEC Treaty,C. having regard to the speed at which the legislative procedure was completed and the cohesion financial instrument brought into force; having regard, further, to the shortness of the period covered by the Commission Report, in which provisional arrangements were applied; whereas those arrangements, not having a legal basis in the Treaty on European Union, were precarious by definition,D. having regard to the enacting terms of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93, in particular the implementing provisions laid down in the standard decision governing projects,E. whereas the Court of Auditors has submitted a special report (No 1/95) on the cohesion financial instrument, covering the same period as the Commission Report,F. whereas the fifth programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development ((OJ C 138, 17.5.1993.)) spells out the aims of Community environmental policy,G. having regard to the Commission communication entitled 'The future development of the Common Transport Policy' (COM(92)0494) and to the work carried out in the field of trans-European networks,1. Congratulates the Commission on the rapidity with which it brought the cohesion financial instrument into force;2. Notes with satisfaction that, according to the Commission Report, there have been no notified cases of irregularity or fraud concerning approved projects funded by the financial instrument and that special report No 1/95 by the Court of Auditors does not contradict the above finding;3. Considers that budget outturn for the 1993 financial year was satisfactory, especially bearing in mind the difficulties stemming from the belated entry into force - on 1 April 1993 - of the Regulation establishing the instrument; believes that no conclusions can be drawn as regards the 1994 financial year since only a brief period of the year was covered by the instrument;4. Notes that the Commission report is incomplete to the extent that it provides no information about the funding under the financial instrument for projects in Objective 1 areas in the beneficiary country whose territory is not entirely covered by that objective; believes that it is consequently not possible to gauge the progress made towards the target of doubling the financial contribution paid to Objective 1 regions from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund;5. Deplores the fact that the balance has been shown to be weighted too heavily against environmental projects; reiterates the importance of maintaining an appropriate balance in terms of the assisted sectors - transport infrastructure and the environment; and considers that the Commission must bring this about as quickly as possible;6. Calls on the Commission to allocate more substantial resources to smaller- scale environmental projects, since, in relative terms, the resulting benefit as regards improvement of the environment far exceeds the volume of funding required;7. Believes that in future, the Cohesion Fund must seek to encompass large- scale projects and combine projects in the two sectors it is intended to assist;8. Approves of the priority assigned by the Commission to environmental projects giving effect to Community Directives on drinking water supply or waste water or solid waste treatment; likewise welcomes the fact that the Commission based its selection criteria on the fifth programme on the environment and sustainable development, thus anticipating the priorities laid down, at Parliament's request, in the definitive Cohesion Fund Regulation;9. Expresses disquiet at the undue priority accorded to road transport infrastructure, which accounted for 72.2% of the total, thus serving to marginalize other environmentally more acceptable modes of transport; also calls on the Commission to give greater attention to advance assessment of the environmental impact of projects and priority to expansion of inland waterway and rail networks and intermodal systems combining the foregoing;10. Voices its concern at the modest number of projects financed in the more remote regions and accordingly calls on the Commission substantially to increase the quantity of projects in those regions so as to comply with the priorities set out in Article 129b of the Treaty;11. Believes that, in order to make for openness and cooperation, regional and local authorities and the two sides of industry will have to play a more active part in years to come in preparing for and implementing assistance under the Cohesion Fund;12. Underlines that where projects were agreed without a proper environmental impact assessment this is blameworthy and is not to be repeated; environmental impact assessment reports have to be ready before the decision on which alternative to choose is made, and the work can only start afterwards;13. Urges the Commission to keep up contacts with the departments responsible for trans-European networks, and in particular with the 'Christophersen Group', with a view to working out ways of enhancing operations under the Cohesion Fund by mobilizing private investment;14. Reiterates that the scale of projects must be assessed with reference to the criterion of 'significant impact', as laid down in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93, and believes that small-scale projects can have a significant impact in the field of transport infrastructure as well as on the environment, especially on islands and in outlying regions;15. Considers that the Commission has not sufficiently taken into account, analysed and assessed the projects and their impact on the basis of respect for the convergence criteria referred to in Article 104c of the Treaty on excessive public deficits, whereas this kind of conditionality will have ever-greater influence on the granting of finance by the Cohesion Fund;16. Supports the Commission's interpretation of Article 7 of the Regulation whereby different stages of the same project may be financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund; is aware, however, of the resulting need to coordinate the various instruments in the proper way and accordingly believes that a mere reference to the average total chargeable to the Cohesion Fund in the period from 1994 to 1999 cannot be considered an adequate means of providing coordination with the Community support frameworks;17. Believes that the European Investment Bank has performed a useful role in assisting the tasks of assessment and monitoring and considers the cooperation agreement signed by the Commission and the Bank to be particularly valuable in that it should set a precedent for the Structural Funds;18. Questions whether the budget resources available to the Cohesion Fund will be enough to provide sufficient assistance to the Member States concerned to enable them to meet the convergence criteria;19. Considers that governments have to supply clear and detailed information to the public about the investments financed by the Cohesion Fund;20. Deplores the fact that, with the exception of Ireland, the Monitoring Committees were set up late and is unable, therefore, give a verdict on their activities; notes, however, that in one Member State, regional and local authorities were invited to serve on them and calls on the Commission and the beneficiary Member States to continue that practice under the new Cohesion Fund Regulation, given that Article F(3) of the implementing provisions expressly permits this form of involvement;21. Calls for elected regional and local authorities to be represented on the Monitoring Committees, thereby avoiding the appointment of current government representatives holding regional administrative offices;22. Calls for the Monitoring Committees, with the composition referred to above, to be given additional powers in future, in particular in the areas of project selection and financial management;23. Deplores the fact that inspections could not be arranged until 1994; stresses the need for technical monitoring by, among others, scientific consultants to be carried out on a regular basis;24. Believes that assessment of projects from the economic point of view needs to be improved, especially where the environment is concerned, and calls on the Commission to continue its studies on the subject;25. Points out in addition that, as far as the environment is concerned, measures to control erosion and hence contain desertification in endangered regions must be regarded as a matter of fundamental importance;26. Considers that more effective efforts must be made to implement measures providing for monitoring, immediate assessment, and proper supervision of the use to which Fund resources are put;27. Believes that the Commission must improve the system for giving effect to the Cohesion Fund proper, drawing on the experience of the cohesion financial instrument; considers it essential to use better methods for economic assessment of environmental projects;28. Calls on the Commission to report to Parliament as soon as possible on the likely impact, given the current economic prospects of the Member States to which the Cohesion Fund applies, of the conditionality rules adopted at the 1992 Edinburgh Summit and which will come into effect on 1 November 1995;29. Expresses disquiet on the question of observance of Community legislation on public contracts and environmental impact and calls on the Commission to do its utmost to ensure compliance; calls on the Commission, likewise, to heed the comments of the Court of Auditors on use of the ECU and of advances and such interest as might accrue;30. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and Council.