Resolution on development problems and structural measures in Belgium (C4- 0107/97)
Date: 1997-12-04
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: Belgium, Flanders (Belgium), Province of Hainault, Structural Funds, Walloon region (Belgium), exchange parity, less-favoured region, regional aid













EUR-Lex - 51997IP0321 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997IP0321

Resolution on development problems and structural measures in Belgium (C4- 0107/97)  


Official Journal C 388 , 22/12/1997 P. 0040 





A4-0321/97Resolution on development problems and structural measures in Belgium (C4- 0107/97)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Single Programming Document (SPD) for Community structural assistance in Hainaut concerned by Objective 1 in Belgium,- having regard to the Single Programming Documents (SPDs) for Community structural assistance in the regions concerned by Objective 2 in Belgium,- having regard to the Single Programming Documents (SPDs) for Community structural assistance in the regions concerned by Objective 5b in Belgium,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A4-0321/97),A. whereas economic and social cohesion policy is one of the main objectives of the European Union,B. whereas the Structural Funds are one of the principal means of attaining this objective,C. whereas, although Belgium is one of the Member States whose per capita GDP is higher than the Community average (113%), disparities in levels of development range from 77% for Hainaut to 137% for the Antwerp region and 183% for the Brussels region,D. whereas the total Structural Fund allocation to Belgium is ECU 2 billion, or approximately 3% of all Structural Fund appropriations (1994-1999),E. whereas total Community aid to Belgium has almost trebled, from ECU 864 m (1989-1993) to just over ECU 2 billion (1994-1999),F. whereas in 1994 Hainaut was for the first time granted Objective 1 status, and the programme for it is the largest of all the programmes under this Objective (ECU 740 m),G. whereas there has been a substantial increase in the appropriations allocated to Objective 2 regions (ECU 321 m in 1994-1999 as against ECU 214 m in 1989-1993) and the appropriations allocated to regions eligible under Objective 5b have doubled (from ECU 33 m in 1989-1993 to ECU 77 m in 1994- 1999),H. having regard to the influence which the guiding principles of Community action have had on the development of regional policy in Belgium, as regards both its substance (seeking synergy, stressing aid to enterprises, training, cleaning up of industrial sites, environmental protection) and its implementation (partnership, evaluation),I. whereas some areas eligible for Objective 5b support are geographically restricted to a small area of a single town,J. whereas, although Structural Fund measures have had an undeniable impact, they have still not been enough to reduce the existing disparities and unemployment in the worst affected regions,K. whereas at mid-term, the rate of final utilization (actual expenditure) for the Structural Funds in Belgium as a whole is in many cases inadequate and worrying,L. having regard to the growing flight from the land which exacerbates structural factors such as population growth and economic development,M. whereas it is therefore essential both to improve the implementation of Community structural policy in Belgium and to give it new guidelines to render it more effective,N. having regard to the conclusions which emerged from the public hearing on the use of the Structural Funds in Belgium organized by the Committee on Regional Policy on 7 July 1997,1. Notes that the development of Hainaut has been lagging behind considerably for many years because of the burden of traditional industrial specialization (textiles and iron and steel) and structural inadequacies such as insufficient economic diversification, insufficient technological potential and in many cases poorly skilled labour;2. Stresses that, according to current mid-term assessments, despite positive aspects, there is no guarantee that Community structural policy will enable Hainaut, an Objective 1 region, to move significantly closer to the Community average per capita GDP by 1999;3. Considers that the same overall verdict applies to most Objective 2 and 5b regions in Belgium;4. Considers it essential, therefore, to improve the implementation of structural policy in Belgium and revise some of its guidelines in the interests of effectiveness;Better implementation of structural policy5. Is seriously concerned at the very low rate of final utilization (actual expenditure), the mid-term figures being a mere 17% of total ERDF appropriations for Hainaut, an Objective 1 region, 5% to 25% for Objective 2 regions despite all the appropriations having been committed, and less than 10% for Objective 5b regions, because of an inadequate level of commitment of available appropriations (around 12%);6. Admits that this alarming situation is due partly to the inherent complexity of implementing numerous large projects and to the initial delay in the approval of the Objective 1, 2 and 5b SPDs;7. Welcomes the success and quality of the Objective 3 programmes and notes a shortage of resources for financing the many projects proposed; regrets the systematic exclusion of local authorities as initiators of operations to integrate high-risk groups and calls for them to be treated in the same way as private promoters;8. Notes the satisfactory results achieved with the socio-professional integration methods and endorses the idea of personalized counselling and the formation of consortia; calls for the approval in principle of longer- term integration initiatives to safeguard the planning and continuity of human resources policy;9. Notes dramatic under-utilization of the appropriations provided for the implementation of Objective 4; calls for implementation of this new objective to be speeded up by raising the awareness of firms, especially SMEs, of employee training; calls on the authorities concerned and the Commission to provide, when undertaking the mid-term evaluation, for the transfer to Objective 3 of resources not spent on Objective 4;10. Considers, however, that a judgment on the results of the SPDs as a whole will be made at the end of the period for taking into account expenditure on measures related to operations covered by the SPDs, which has been set at 31 December 2001;11. Urges the Commission and the regional and local authorities concerned, therefore, to take the necessary measures to remedy without delay the manifest budgetary under-utilization of appropriations, this situation being liable to compromise the proper functioning and effectiveness of European economic and social cohesion policy in Belgium;12. Draws the attention of the Belgian authorities, in particular, to the fact that the rate of commitment of Community appropriations as at 1 January 1999 should serve as a reference basis for the calculation of the amounts allocated after 1999, and strongly urges them to use such appropriations to the maximum;13. Calls on regional and local authorities, accordingly, to do everything in their power to:- render administrative procedures less cumbersome, so that they cause less delay to the implementation of programmes in terms both of the decision- making process and of the disbursement of funds;- provide without delay the public counterpart funding which is essential to the implementation of some projects, particularly infrastructure projects;- introduce a better system for the management (appointment of a programme leader/coordinator) and independent evaluation of SPDs; notes the efforts already made to achieve this;14. Calls likewise on the Belgian authorities to increase their efforts to speed up transfers of Community funds to their intended recipients, as the present slowness with which they are forwarded often discourages project managers (SMEs, associations) who are compelled to find advance financing for projects;15. Stresses, on the other hand, the observation by the Court of Auditors that unfortunately in reality there is often no definition of the eligible SMEs, and that where such a definition exists it is not always selective; is concerned that even where there are support measures specifically aimed at SMEs, certain exceptions and derogations are permitted, so that undertakings of any size can be funded;16. Regrets that the appropriations which should have been entered in the budgets of the regional authorities, such as those necessary for the completion of a road already partially built, have been allocated in part to structural aid, a budgetary transfer which does not guarantee any additional development for the area;17. Calls on the Commission to:- ensure that the criteria for selecting projects eligible for aid are stringently applied,- ensure that the Operational Programmes give priority in the selection of programmes to SMEs,- step up technical assistance and give operators and bodies responsible for the implementation of measures more complete information;18. Believes that the Commission should play a more active role in monitoring measures, in order to ensure greater respect for the priorities adopted, particularly growth, employment and vocational training, and greater coherence (avoiding duplication of effort) and dynamism in the measures undertaken, while taking sufficient account of specific regional differences;19. Considers that a reduction in the size of the areas potentially eligible for European aid under Objective 5b (Westhoek coastal municipalities) must not lead to these towns being divided into districts some of which are eligible for aid while others are not, precisely in view of the small size of these areas (Ostend, Bredene, Middelkerke) since this implies unnecessary restrictions on the proposals which might emerge from these areas;New directions in Community structural policy in Belgium20. Fears, in the light of the results achieved to date, that, despite the volume of resources deployed, Community structural policy pursued since 1994 in Hainaut will succeed only in compensating for the impact of industrial restructuring, without significantly alleviating the region's underdevelopment in comparison with the Community average per capita GDP;21. Is convinced that local development and employment initiatives are an essential precondition for any sustainable development and that such initiatives contribute not only to improving living conditions in rural areas, but also provide an appropriate framework for the creation of long- term jobs and conservation; considers it essential, therefore, to set up decentralized local development agencies to promote the revival of rural areas, active participation of and dialogue among citizens and local and regional authorities, as well as in providing an administrative framework for programmes based on technical self-help;22. Notes also that the development gaps and disparities between districts in the province of Hainaut subsist and regrets that Community contributions have not helped to redress them;23. Calls on the Commission and the regional and local authorities of Hainaut, therefore, to redirect their present development strategy particularly in the worst affected areas, so as to achieve better results in terms of growth, development and employment;24. Notes with satisfaction the desire of the regional authorities concerned to exceed substantially the initial objective of creating 5000 jobs in Hainaut by 1999, as indicated by the SPD;25. Considers it vital, in particular, to create by 1999 a far more higher net number of new, lasting and skilled jobs in Hainaut and to attain a significantly higher level of vocational training;26. Calls on the Commission and regional and local authorities, therefore, to do everything in their power between now and 1999 to promote employment, particularly in Hainaut:- by making aid to enterprises more dependent on the genuine creation of lasting jobs and strict monitoring of their continued existence,- by devoting more attention and resources to projects conducive to the creation of skilled jobs in sectors open to new technologies,- by giving priority to small and medium-sized enterprises in view of their job-creating potential;27. Expresses its concern at the low number of projects funded in rural areas; recalls the European Union's wish for an integrated rural development policy and stresses the need to diversify programmes for the creation of jobs and businesses in rural areas;28. Notes that the task of economic development at local level is generally entrusted to intercommunal structures which each defend their own sub- regional projects without any concern for synergy or complementarity with the projects of other intercommunal bodies or of the region as a whole;29. Notes that this results in a wide spread of small projects aimed more at pleasing local politicians than at ensuring sustainable development;30. Is concerned, likewise, about the relocation of companies based in ineligible regions close to regions eligible for aid, which are attracted by the windfall effect of Community subsidies; considers that these artificial relocations, which often benefit large companies, seriously damage the real effectiveness of regional policy, and calls on the Commission to remedy this by monitoring very strictly the granting of aid and imposing penalties in the event of unfair competition;31. Considers it essential for Community initiative programmes such as LEADER to be better targeted;32. Urges the Commission to ensure that detailed studies are carried out on the effect of the subsidies granted on the relocation of enterprises, and to take action accordingly;33. Is astonished that, in some Objective 1 regions in other Member States, the target in terms of jobs to be created, sometimes using far less financial resources, is far higher than in the Hainaut region of Belgium; calls on the Commission, therefore, to establish clear and harmonized indicators to assess and make worthwhile comparisons of regions with reference to net job creation and the average cost of each job financed from Community funds;34. Stresses in general, both for Hainaut and for all regions eligible under Objectives 2 and 5b in Belgium, that a more active endogenous development strategy should be adopted without delay, the priorities of which should be economic diversification, promotion of research and dissemination of new technologies, and vocational training; the same applies to the cleaning up of disused sites in industrial and urban areas and improving the natural and man-made environment (including tourism programmes), aspects which are essential with a view to rendering the regions in question more attractive; this strategy should involve reducing the currently excessive number of measures in each SPD; considers, however, that the principle of giving priority to the cleaning up of already built-up or exploited areas should be integrated into industrial development policy;35. Asserts, for the future, despite the financial constraints arising from plans for enlargement, that it will be necessary to continue Community efforts to assist seriously underdeveloped regions and areas in Belgium;36. Urges the regional authorities to see to it that measures are taken to clear the government funding backlog so as to enable European funding, on the basis of co-financing, to reach its destination;37. Considers, however, that resources will have to be concentrated geographically on the worst affected subregions of Hainaut (e.g. Mons, Charleroi, the Borinage) or other regions such as Wallonian Western Brabant, the Basse-Sambre area around Namur or the Meuse-Vesdre Basin and that there must be a more operational thematic targeting of the programmes as a whole, which are too numerous and in some cases relate to excessively small areas, even in the case of Objective 5b;38. Calls on the Commission to enable the regional authorities to be more closely involved in the choice of these regions and to consider interpreting the territorial requirement more flexibly, for example, by reducing the percentage to be invested by promoters and beneficiaries from adjoining municipalities on condition that this benefits the development of the assisted region; also believes that in such cases it may be better to opt for thematic or sectoral objectives that are not geared to specific areas;39. Believes that the participation of women in ESF integration programmes must be improved as far as possible; recommends the authorities in Belgium, therefore, to place greater emphasis on the development of SMEs and the service sector; regrets that in some regions the movement to the public and quaternary sectors and to socio-economic projects is not taken into account in the employment standard;40. Emphasizes the importance of the supervisory committees not only for the monitoring and implementation of the programmes but also for the development of dynamism for the regions concerned; believes that the two sides of industry, local government and private integration initiatives must also be involved;41. Regrets the Commission's lack of flexibility in negotiating and monitoring the implementation of the programmes; believes that the regions and communities should be more closely involved and take more responsibility in the establishment and implementation of the programmes as regards both the identification of priority operations and the territorial definition of the regions that qualify for assistance; believes that the Commission's evaluation options must be strengthened through the establishment of objective and measurable procedures and indicators that make comparisons possible;42. Reasserts that any decision which might result in a new approach to regional development problems in Belgium after 1999 must not entail a sudden halting of Community financing - which would be incoherent and counterproductive - but must be accompanied, over a sufficiently long period, by all the necessary substantial transition measures;43. Urges the Commission and Council to ensure that the preparatory activities for the forthcoming programming phase are completed in good time so that the SPD negotiating phase may be concluded by the time the new programming period takes effect in 2000;44. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the Federal Government and Parliament of Belgium and the governments and parliaments of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital.