Resolution on development issues and Objective 1 structural measures in Portugal
Date: 1996-09-05
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: Portugal, Structural Funds, less-favoured region, regional development













EUR-Lex - 51996IP0087 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996IP0087

Resolution on development issues and Objective 1 structural measures in Portugal  


Official Journal C 277 , 23/09/1996 P. 0037 





A4-0087/96Resolution on development issues and Objective 1 structural measures in PortugalThe European Parliament,- having regard to the Commission Decision of 25 February 1994 on the establishment of the Community support framework for Community structural assistance for the Portuguese regions concerned by Objective 1, namely the whole country (C4-0035/96) ((OJ L 78, 22.3.1994, p. 38.)),- having regard to the Code of Conduct of 13 July 1993 on the implementation of structural policies by the Commission ((OJ C 255, 20.9.1993, p. 19.)),- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy (A4- 0087/96),A. whereas, during the first CSF for Portugal (1989-93), more than ECU 17 billion was invested in structural measures amounting to 27% of total investments in Portugal; whereas of these investments, ECU 8 billion came from the Community's Structural Funds, representing 3% of Portugal's annual GDP,B. whereas the implementation of the first CSF achieved considerable results in reducing economic and social disparities due to positive and above EU average growth figures in Portugal as well as an increase in job creation,C. whereas the proposed CSF for 1994-99, apart from being in accordance with the governing Structural Fund regulations, clearly seeks to consolidate results and further develop basic economic infrastructures and productive investments,D. whereas Portugal will still suffer from basic structural weaknesses as it derives an important part of its GDP from regions with a considerable number of traditional industries and a lesser contribution from services and economic activities with leading-edge technologies, putting Portugal at a disadvantage compared to its main competitors,E. whereas Portugal also suffers from internal socio-economic disparities because of unbalanced regional development, notably between south and north - and between the interior and the coastline, as well as uneven development between towns and major cities, and indeed a lack of communication links - to its outermost islands, disparities which have deepened despite the overall effects of the first CSF,F. whereas, moreover, both during the first CSF and when the development plan currently in force was drawn up, the participation of local authorities was limited and the majority of regional authorities (five out of seven) lacked adequate representation,1. Considers that, overall, the Structural Fund appropriations earmarked for Portugal have been used without departing from the objectives drawn up in advance and approved by the Community authorities;2. Welcomes the fact that Portugal has put forward a development plan for structural funding which appears to be comprehensive and well integrated into the country's overall development plan and which, at least at face value, seems geared to the differing regional socio-economic fabric, including not only infrastructure works but also, and in particular, to tourism, education and environment sectors;3. Notes that the CSF plan overall, and where possible, has indicated both qualitative and quantitative objectives for investment, thus facilitating ex-ante and ex-post evaluation as well as undertaking proper monitoring during the implementation phase; calls on the Portuguese authorities, in cooperation with the Commission, to take note of the comments of the Court of Auditors in this regard;4. Observes that, according to Portuguese official data available to date, the rate of implementation in the first two years of the second CSF was lower than that in the corresponding period of the first CSF; hopes, therefore, that it will be possible in the period remaining to achieve the full implementation of the objectives laid down;5. Recognizes that Portugal is faced with a difficult choice between prioritizing investments in sectors which require more basic physical and economic infrastructures such as energy, transport and telecommunications and those more dominant in the service sectors such as new technologies, education, tourism, environment, management and others; calls on the Commission, on the basis of Chapter 10 of the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, to influence this decision in such a way as to ensure that investments are used to develop new employment initiatives - especially those which contribute to an improvement in the quality of life - and that they conserve environmental resources;6. Stresses, therefore, that the local authorities, democratically elected regional authorities and all the social partners should be involved in the decisions to be taken and the general management and monitoring of the second CSF;7. Points out that Portugal, compared to its EU partners, suffers from particularly severe gaps in most of its education and training sectors and therefore considers it essential for the investments planned for these sectors to be reviewed so as to enable Portugal to embark on a real 'catching-up' process which would be vital for taking up the challenge of further competition;8. Underlines in this connection the ever increasing challenges stemming not only from the internal market but also from the process of moving towards EMU, which could put severe strains on Portugal's public budgets, which are the primary source of finance;9. Would perhaps have welcomed a larger proportion of the Structural Funds being allocated to the education sector and a greater role for teaching staff throughout the system, as this has been highlighted as a particularly weak link;10. Has noted the seemingly very ambitious objectives established for connecting most of the country to public water supplies on the one hand and waste water treatments as well as treatment of other residual waste on the other; very much welcomes this policy as playing an essential role in improving living standards but questions whether the goals can be achieved in their entirety and throughout the country on schedule and within the level of funding involved;11. Underlines in this connection the severe and serious water supply problem and hopes that negotiations with Spain may lead to successful results;12. Points further to the substantial vulnerability Portugal is facing owing to its high dependency on energy supplies, in particular oil products, and calls for a fundamental review of energy policy, with a view to giving greater consideration to other options currently being pursued, particularly gas, making the use of renewable energies viable and studying the implementation of energy-saving measures;13. Underlines the need, as has been recognized in more advanced Member States with whom Portugal has to compete, to develop SMEs in respect of their competitiveness and employment potential;14. Suggests, therefore, that more resources should have been allocated to productive investments in areas of traditional industrial strength, including providing and improving management skills, production processes with a higher content of new technologies and improved distribution and marketing systems, all of which are areas where it has been recognised that improvements could take place;15. Notes that the orientation of the Structural Funds, particularly as regards appropriations under the Social Fund and those earmarked for scientific and technological support, has not been designed to prevent the continuing exodus of people from the most disadvantaged areas to urban areas which provide more favourable living prospects;16. Notes, however, that there are regional imbalances that have worsened (having a particular impact on the whole of the interior, coastal areas outside the major urban conurbations and the outermost island areas) and therefore stresses the importance of paying particular attention to these regions, specifically by stepping up investment in basic infrastructures and productive structures which help to stabilize the population and prevent the growing trend of depopulation;17. Recalls the need to combat regional disparities systematically through measures taken under the responsibility either of the European Union or of the Member States; reiterates its particular concern regarding the outermost regions since, given their particular geographical and socio-economic features, identified in the Declaration annexed to the Treaty on European Union, it is vital to adopt measures which take account of these features; considers it necessary, with a view to greater regional equilibrium, to enhance small and medium-sized towns, particularly in regions in the interior of the country;18. Recognizes the apparent widening gap between the richest and poorest regions within Portugal and stresses, in particular, the important role local and regional communities could play in formulating economic strategies and developing local potential; calls on the bodies responsible for strengthening the regional economic base to work in line with the European strategy to support local development and employment initiatives drawn up by the Commission;19. Stresses further the importance of setting up or improving cross-border cooperation between the eastern and northern Portuguese regions and their Spanish counterparts, particularly by improving accessibility;20. Welcomes the CSF for Portugal as a coherent document and hopes that the ambitious objectives that the Government set, after extensive consultation with social partners and regional representatives, are achievable; points out that the social partners should be directly involved in the work of the monitoring committees and that this should be demonstrated convincingly to the Commission;21. Stresses the need to ensure effective cooperation between the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund within the framework of the objectives set out in the CSF for Portugal in order to prevent inconsistencies in infrastructure investment;22. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.