Resolution on the Commission's Seventh Annual Report on the Structural Funds - 1995 (COM(96)0502 C4-0020/97)
Date: 1997-06-26
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: EAGGF, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, FIFG, Structural Funds, activity report, regional development













EUR-Lex - 51997IP0210 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997IP0210

Resolution on the Commission's Seventh Annual Report on the Structural Funds - 1995 (COM(96)0502 C4-0020/97)  


Official Journal C 222 , 21/07/1997 P. 0058 





A4-0210/97Resolution on the Commission's Seventh Annual Report on the Structural Funds - 1995 (COM(96)0502 - C4-0020/97)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Seventh Annual Report, COM(96)0502 - C4-0020/97,- having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5.)), in particular Article 16 thereof, and Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 20.)), in particular Article 31 thereof,- having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors for 1995,- having regard to the First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Budgetary Control (A4-0210/97),A. whereas 1995 is a significant year in that it was the first full year of implementation of assistance for the period 1994-1999; whereas 1995 was also the year in which the Union was enlarged to include Austria, Finland and Sweden and when most of the programmes for the new Member States were adopted,B. having regard to the disturbing under-implementation of the appropriations allocated to the Structural Funds, together with the appreciable differences in terms of implementation between the various funds, objectives and states,C. having regard to the profusion of Community initiative programmes (more than 400) submitted by the Member States and the excessive administrative burden involved; whereas 80% of the programmes for the 12 Member States were adopted in 1995 together with 45% of those intended for the new Member States,D. whereas the informal Council of Ministers for Regional Policy and Regional Planning held in Venice in May 1996 recognized the problems caused by the profusion of programmes and the ensuing complexity, particularly as regards Community initiatives, and acknowledged the need to remedy this situation,E. whereas the Seventh Report accords particular importance to the compatibility and complementarity of the Structural Funds with other Community policies, particularly environment policy, which is dealt with as a horizontal issue throughout the report,F. whereas the prime objective of the Structural Funds is to assist economic and social cohesion within the European Union and whereas the Treaty also makes cohesion a horizontal policy to which all other Community policies must contribute,G. whereas unemployment continues to be the most serious economic and social problem facing the Union and whereas the Structural Funds are the basic financial instrument available to the Union for combating unemployment, without prejudice to the key contribution which it must continue to make to the removal of regional and structural imbalances,H. whereas additionality, an essential principle in the application of the Structural Funds, is still the main guarantee that Community structural policies offer added value with regard to national regional development efforts and thus contribute to achieving economic and social cohesion,I. having regard to the difficulties encountered in verifying whether the principle of additionality has genuinely been observed in certain Member States and the obstacles the Commission has faced in seeking to obtain the data necessary for such verification,J. having regard to the difficulties in applying the principle of partnership in the case of local authorities and social partners,Implementation1. Expresses concern at the alarming scale of budgetary under-implementation of the Structural Funds; notes, however, that the figures for 1995 indicate a considerable improvement over the previous year; welcomes in particular the satisfactory implementation recorded in Objective 1 regions in the four cohesion states;2. Notes that the phenomenon of under-implementation does not affect the different funds, objectives and states to the same extent and calls on the Commission in its next annual report to provide an analysis of the reasons for the delays in implementation, the situation in the various Member States and the effect of the problem on the prospects for the full implementation of the overall package for the period 1994-1999;3. Expresses, in particular, its alarm at the poor rates of European Social Fund budgetary implementation and considers that, in future, the Commission and the Member States will have to make a much greater effort to remedy this state of affairs; notes with concern the poor rates of implementation in some Member States and calls on the Commission to bring forward additional proposals to improve the situation in these Member States;4. Calls also on the Commission to provide information in future annual reports on the evolution of outstanding appropriations, particularly those entered annually in the budget;5. Criticizes the Council for its attempts to deal with problems in the utilization of resources by making reductions in the annual estimate;6. Reminds the Member States that the appropriations allocated to the Structural Funds within the framework of the financial perspective represent not only a spending authorization but, more importantly, a spending target, and urges the Commission to take the steps necessary to comply with the Edinburgh agreements and the provisions laid down in Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) 2081/93 mentioned above;7. Expresses concern at the enormous bureaucratic workload both at Member State and Commission level involved in the programming exercise, which was one of the main causes of the poor financial implementation in the year in question; takes the view that, in the future, serious consideration should be given to more streamlined procedures and calls on the Commission to reassess its computer operations systems for applications;8. Draws attention in this context to the multiplicity of funds (4), objectives (7) and Community Initiatives (13) involved in the management of EU structural resources;9. Notes that the form of presentation of the budget for structural policies and in particular the Structural Funds is not manifestly consistent with the legal framework, which provides for programming on the basis of objectives and an approximate breakdown of total appropriations among the objectives and Member States; is of the opinion that, as matters currently stand, it is difficult to assess the discrepancies between the programming provided for under the Edinburgh decisions and its implementation in budget terms;10. Reiterates the view expressed in its resolution of 5 September 1996 on the Sixth Annual Report of the Commission on the Structural Funds ((OJ C 277, 23.9.1996, p. 29.)) that the worrying budget implementation shortfall is due in some cases to the difficulties being experienced by certain Member States in applying the new arrangements;11. Notes that the successive adjustments to category 2 of the financial perspective every year since 1995 have created a snowball effect whereby an additional amount of at least ECU 1 738 billion, compared with the ceiling on commitment appropriations initially laid down at Edinburgh, will have accumulated in 1999 (the final year of the programming period); fears that that amount might increase on account of implementation shortfalls in the next two years;12. Believes that, should uptake difficulties remain at the end of the programming period, solutions will have to be found which will allow reallocation of resources in favour of those Member States who showed a capacity to absorb EU resources made available during the current programming period, so as to avert the need for Community resources to be paid back to the Member States;13. Notes that the implementation shortfall in 1995 was accounted for essentially by Member States not covered by the Cohesion Fund and that certain Cohesion Fund States even exceeded the financial outturn forecast;14. Draws attention in this connection to its resolution of 28 March 1996 on the allocation of the reserve for Community initiatives ((OJ C 117, 22.4.1996, p. 70.)) and its abovementioned resolution of 5 September 1996, and in particular:- the request that, when the preliminary draft budget is being adopted, the Commission submit an annual report to Parliament on financial outturn under each Community support framework and initiative;- the call for a report to be submitted before July 1998 on the general situation as regards implementation of the different components of the Structural Funds, containing proposals to the budgetary authority on the possible adjustments and additions to be made to the various financial plans previously approved;15. Confirms that the breakdown of the multiannual total appropriation among the Member States, as provided for in Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) 2081/93 mentioned above, is intended for guidance only and accordingly calls on the Commission to take such steps as might prove necessary to achieve the targets set at Edinburgh, not least where Community expenditure is concerned;Complementarity with other Community policies16. Welcomes the way the Commission has dealt with the environmental dimension of the Funds in its report, treating it as a horizontal issue; also welcomes the Commission's willingness to make wider use of the possibility offered by Article 13 of the Structural Funds framework regulation in order to differentiate the level of Community funding for the environment; firmly believes, however, that there is currently much room for improvement as regards the environment - opportunities which could, inter alia, allow for major reform and modernization of the rules relating to environmental impact assessment;17. Welcomes the concern shown by the Commission to ensure that the funds are compatible with and complement other Community policies, since this helps to highlight the fact that the Structural Funds are the largest financial allocation available to the Union for implementing its priorities in a wide range of policy areas; points out once again, however, that the basic objective of the Structural Funds is still to help achieve economic and social cohesion by combating persistent regional and social disparities; requests that in future reports the Commission include in its analysis an assessment of how far other policies are compatible with the basic objective of the Structural Funds, namely cohesion;18. Calls on the Commission to draw up a study, with a view to the 1999 reform, on the new policies which must be adopted in order to reduce still further the gap between the more developed regions of the Union and those which suffer from natural disadvantages (such as the islands, mountainous areas and border regions);19. Notes that the Community's policy of equal opportunities for men and women, to which the Structural Funds are supposed to make an active contribution, is not being properly taken into account; regards this as a major shortcoming of the report and calls on the Commission to examine this issue closely in subsequent assessments;20. Notes that, despite its clear establishment as a joint priority at European level, support for SMEs in some Member States, outside specific SME programmes, must be regarded as extremely weak; notes also that the Commission has not adequately assessed the impact of this joint priority as an effective indirect strategy for combating unemployment and poverty within overall possible direct and indirect support measures, and therefore calls on the Commission to take greater account in future reports of the development of SMEs and any obstacles thereto;Additionality21. Regrets that the Commission is unable to ensure respect for the principle of additionality, which, following the 1988 reform, is one of the basic pillars of the Union's structural policies; reaffirms the importance of the additional nature of the Structural Funds compared to national efforts, which is vital if they are to contribute effectively to achieving cohesion;22. Considers it vital to strengthen the additionality of the Structural Funds and asks the Commission, when the regulations are next reviewed, to consider including an aid suspension clause linked to compliance with the additionality principle and the provision by the Member States of the information needed to verify such compliance; welcomes the fact that the Commission has already included a clause of this kind in some single programming documents of the second stage of Objective 2;23. Rejects the application of the conditionality principle to the Structural Funds by making them subject to compliance with the convergence criteria or with the budgetary constraints envisaged in the future stability pact;24. Notes that during the first programming period the Commission is still unable to verify compliance with the additionality principle in seven Member States, a fact which is all the more disturbing given that verification during the second period is based on data from the first, which by any standards is inadequate;Assessment and monitoring25. Regrets that the analysis of the achievements of the first programming period is not yet complete and, in particular, that there has been no full and comprehensive report; also regrets the fact that the data have been provided in piecemeal fashion in successive annual reports, a fact which does nothing for the transparency or visibility of Community cohesion policies;26. Commends the new assessment system proposed by the Commission and accepted by the Member States at the informal Council of Ministers in Madrid, providing for the involvement of independent experts; is concerned, however, at the delay in appointing these experts; believes, nevertheless, that the system will have to be implemented very carefully and in particular that these experts will have to be chosen on the basis of objective criteria and subject to some form of supervision;27. Approves the efforts made by the Commission with regard to monitoring, particularly the drawing up of the 'Common guide for monitoring'; points out that the over-complexity of the criteria and procedures for the Structural Funds is one of the obstacles to effective monitoring and calls for a radical simplification of the rules when the regulations are next reviewed;28. Believes it is also important to make a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the results achieved by the Structural Funds, in particular the Community initiatives, and an analysis of the reasons for the various results;Coordination29. Is concerned at the relative decline in EIB loans granted to Objective 1 regions and believes that a better mix of subsidies and loans is needed, particularly for revenue-generating projects;Principle of partnership30. Notes that the application of the principle of partnership with the regional authorities has improved considerably; regrets, however, the shortcomings detected in the application of this principle with regard to local authorities and social partners; calls, therefore, on the Commission, in the next few annual reports it produces, to analyse and assess the operational limitations and obstacles to the principle of partnership between social interlocutors, local authorities and other, higher levels of government, and to devise proposals directed at the Member States to ensure better structuring, and insists that all regional authorities should be electorally representative;31. Believes it essential, in order to improve the workings of the monitoring committees, that the economic and social partners be given the opportunity to take part in training courses to enable them to acquire the same grasp of the subject as full-time specialists;32. Considers that cooperation with the local authorities could be considerably improved if greater efforts were made in the information sector; with this in mind, recalls its proposal that the operating programmes should be fully and systematically published in official national or, where appropriate, regional publications; believes in any case that the local and regional authorities and the two sides of industry must be fully informed of the possibilities available, particularly as regards Community initiatives and innovatory activities, and that the various projects and activities must be included in the relevant programmes on the basis of real requirements and objective criteria;33. Welcomes the suggestions made by the Commission for strengthening the principle of partnership when the regulations are next reviewed and, in addition, the proposal from the Committee of the Regions that programming documents should be signed jointly by the state and region;34. Commends the Commission for establishing a permanent dialogue with the Committee of the Regions which goes beyond the compulsory consultation required by the Treaty;35. Reaffirms its belief in decentralization as a method of managing the funds, but notes that the existing system contains a contradiction which has serious consequences, since although the task of management falls almost totally on the Member States, responsibility for management lies with the Commission, which does not have the necessary human resources to monitor performance in detail; considers that the next review of the regulations should address this problem by introducing clear decentralization of management, while giving the Commission genuine powers of sanction;Agriculture36. Believes that Structural Fund measures are a key component of income support for farmers and the rural population during the current process of adapting to the new situation arising from the reform of the CAP and international trade obligations, that they are also playing a growing role in preserving rural employment and in protecting nature and the environment and that, to make them more efficient, their administration should be simplified and disbursement procedures made more flexible;37. Believes that, as advocated in point 9 of the declaration issued by the Cork Conference, there should be greater decentralization of Structural Fund measures, especially those affecting agriculture, and that, to avoid the dangers of renationalizing the CAP, the rules governing participation and defining the responsibilities of regional administrations should be clearly laid down, the latter being responsible in most Member States for implementing the CAP;38. Is convinced that legislative complexity militates against transparency and can encourage fraud, especially in non-regionalized Objective 5a measures, and hence that there is an urgent need to simplify rules, clarify the definition of investment eligible for subsidy and rationalize management methods if structural policy is to be modified by the turn of the century to meet current needs and those which will result from enlargement;39. Believes that, despite the efforts made so far, measures to provide more information on available opportunities and to disseminate skills in rural society need to be extended, by making full use of modern communications technologies; welcomes in this connection the creation of the European Observatory of Rural Innovation and Development and calls on the Commission to give it full support; believes that the Commission should also urge the governments of the Member States and regional governments to improve the dissemination of information on measures cofinanced by Community programmes;Employment40. Believes that better coordination should be achieved between national and EU labour market and regional policies, not least by giving regional authorities and the social partners a greater role in planning, managing and monitoring EU cofinanced projects; suggests that the multiannual programmes should be taken into account;41. Is dissatisfied with progress in monitoring and assessment procedures, and particularly with the lack of common evaluation criteria in relation to human resources and calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve the workings of the Monitoring Committees;42. Welcomes the support the ESF gives to national labour market policies by reinforcing and developing action in favour of particularly vulnerable societal groups and calls on the Commission and Member States to improve ESF distribution in the promotion of equal opportunities for men and women;43. Criticizes the failure to provide information on the compliance of projects financed under the Community Initiatives (ADAPT, EMPLOYMENT) with the principles of transnationality, innovativeness and local development, which should be the distinctive features of these programmes;44. Notes the success of the regular dialogue between the Commission and the Working Group of the Parliament's Employment and Social Affairs Committee and commends this structure to all other parliamentary committees responsible for structural funds;Legislative procedure45. Repeats its demand to have colegislative powers as regards the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and hence for the codecision procedure to be used for adopting the relevant regulations;46. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the Committee of the Regions and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.