OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the fifth Annual Report on the Implementation of the Reform of the Structural Funds 1993
Date: 1995-10-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Structural Funds, activity report, fight against unemployment, implementation of the budget, regional development













EUR-Lex - 51995AC1158 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AC1158

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the fifth Annual Report on the Implementation of the Reform of the Structural Funds 1993  


Official Journal C 018 , 22/01/1996 P. 0025 





Opinion on the fifth Annual Report on the Implementation of the  Reform of the Structural Funds 1993(96/C 18/07)On 19  July 1995 the Commission decided to  consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article  198 of the Treaty establishing the  European Community, on the above-mentioned report. The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for  preparing the Committee's work on this subject, adopted its Opinion on 4  October 1995. The  Rapporteur was Mr van Dijk. At its 329th Plenary Session of 25 and 26  October 1995 (meeting of 25  October 1995), the Economic  and Social Committee adopted unanimously the following Opinion. 1. Introduction1.1. This is the fifth Annual Report since the decision was taken in 1988  to reform the Structural Funds. In this report a start has been made on assessing the reform. In  1994 new arrangements were made regarding the Structural Funds. The former Objectives 3 and 4 were  combined in a new Objective 3. A new Objective 4 was to be concerned with supporting projects to  prevent unemployment. 1.2. The present report was published on 20  March 1995 and concerns the year 1993. 2. Contents2.1. The report consists of five chapters. In the first chapter the Commission gives  an initial assessment of the 1988 reforms. In chapter 2 the Commission takes a closer look at  developments by Objective and Member State. The report also gives a summary of Community  initiatives. Chapter 3 covers budget execution. Chapters 3 and 4 contain the Commission's  assessment of the major projects and its outlook for the new programming period, and describe the  action taken in response to the comments of the EP and the ESC. 2.2. According to the Commission the ESC particularly wanted the fourth Annual Report to pay  attention to the assessment of actions. The Commission has taken account of this in the present  report. It has also paid attention to the role of the social partners. In the report on the year  1992 the Commission clearly did not go sufficiently into additionality and the use of technical  assistance. This has been taken up in the present report. 3. General comments3.1. The Economic and Social Committee regrets that the 1993 Annual Report  has been published only now, in 1995. It appears that the Commission does not consider such reports  to be of much value. The ESC feels that such reports should play an important role in the further  implementation of programmes and projects, and for this to happen adequate and rapid reporting is  necessary. Of course, with the development of the new programme period the ESC expected the 1993  Annual Report to be prepared quickly so that it could still play a role in developing the  programmes for the years 1994-1999. 3.2. The ESC has the impression that the Commission only wants to use the report for giving  information about the period which has passed. The ESC recommends that the report contain more  chapters incorporating analyses which can influence future policy. 3.3. The ESC thinks that the Commission has not taken proper account of its Opinion on the fourth  Annual Report, which called for attention to be paid to the following: - the coordination of the Member States' and the Community's regional policy, the relationship  between regional policy and other Community policies and the consequences for the environment  (3.4.1); - the principle of partnership (4.1); - the involvement of economic and social groups (4.1.3-4.1.6); - additionality (4.2); - concentration (4.3); - assessment of the impact of Structural Funds' operations (4.4); and- the impact on other  policies (4.5). 3.4. In its annual report the Commission states that it has only considered some of these aspects.  The ESC is disappointed at this, especially as these matters are still of great importance, even  for the future impact of the Structural Funds. 3.5. The ESC still attaches some importance to its involvement in the drafting of future reports,  but fears that the Commission does not: for despite the Commission's statements the ESC has still  not been sufficiently involved in defining the structure and presentation of this annual report. If  the ESC had been involved, this might have made the report more readable. 3.6. The ESC is positive about the report. The report is rich in information and provides a  treasury of data about the current state of affairs concerning the Structural Funds. It especially  applauds the account of the role of the social partners, which it asked for in earlier Opinions. 3.6.1. However, the ESC thinks that the Commission has made insufficient use of the enormous  potential in information which is available. The content of the report should have been less  descriptive and more analytical. 3.6.2. There must be an evaluation of the programme for the years 1989-1993. Only then will it be  possible to carry out a real analysis of the improvements for the period 1994-1999. 3.7. As regards the report's readability, the ESC recommends that a summary be made of it to be  added on later. 4. Specific comments4.1. The ESC has great difficulty in determining on the basis of the present  report how much has been done about the requests regarding additionality and concentration. The  Commission states that additionality has only been adequately respected in Objective 1 regions.  Assessment of other Objectives is still awaited (2.5). 4.2. As regards concentration, the ESC thinks that the report gives no real assessment of the  results achieved. The Commission limits itself in its report to listing the projects which came  into consideration for the different Objectives without reporting on any developments or effects  (2.2). 4.3. Attention is paid in the report to the co-ordination of regional policy with other European  policies. The report suggests that there are still various problems in this area. In particular,  the following-up of European environmental measures still leaves a lot to be desired (chapter 4,  paragraph 2.2). 4.3.1. There is a major problem here: should European regional policy be adapted to other European  policies or should just the general framework be assessed of the European policy into which the  Structural Funds policy has to fit? The ESC does not wish to comment on this here but intends to  deal with the matter later in an Own-initiative Opinion. 4.4. Involvement of the social partners can take place on various levels: European, national and  regional. The ESC has the impression that involvement at European level takes place as agreed. But  there are still some questions to be asked about the following of these principles at national, not  to mention regional level. 4.4.1. For the ESC this proviso is of crucial importance. More attention must be paid here in the  new programme period, but the impression remains that Member States are less conscientious about  these rules. The ESC would like to see more emphasis on enacting these rules in the next report.  Attention should also be paid to the point in time at which the social and economic partners are  involved and to exactly what is done with their involvement. Governments must state in their report  what consultations have taken place and what has been their result. Attention must be paid here to  each relevant level. The Commission must give an account in its report about these experiences so  as to prevent them becoming just an empty formality. The ESC urges the Commission to consider these  demands as an important criterion when deciding on the financing of a given project, especially in  view of the new framework regulation. 4.5. The Commission has made no comments in the report about the coordination of national and  European regional policies. The ESC wants such coordination to take place because it feels it is a  necessary precondition for an effective regional policy. A summary could have been given in the  report of the choice for regions which the Member States have made and the choice of the  Commission. This can give some idea of the measure of appreciation for European regional policy.  The Commission does issue a report every three years on the socio-economic situation and  development of the regions in the Community. 4.6. In chapter IV, paragraph 1.8, the Commission says that when reforming the Structural Funds  there must be some clarity about the capital costs of each job created. Unfortunately, the ESC has  looked in vain in the report for an assessment of this aspect. It hopes that a future version can  provide more information. The ESC regrets that there is no systematic presentation of facts and  data in this chapter. Done at Brussels, 25  October 1995. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER