European Parliament resolution of 28 October 2015 on the European Structural and Investment Funds and sound economic governance: guidelines for the implementation of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (2015/2052(INI))
Date: 2015-10-28
Institutions: Committee on Budgets, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, European Investment Fund, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, investment policy, job creation, regional disparity, sustainable development








C_2017355EN.01004501.xml










20.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/45





P8_TA(2015)0385
European Structural and Investment Funds and sound economic governance
European Parliament resolution of 28 October 2015 on the European Structural and Investment Funds and sound economic governance: guidelines for the implementation of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (2015/2052(INI))
(2017/C 355/06)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission communication on the guidelines on the application of the measures linking effectiveness of the European Structural and Investment Funds to sound economic governance according to Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 (COM(2014)0494) (hereinafter ‘the Guidelines’),










—


having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in particular Articles 4, 162 and 174 to 178 and 349 thereof,










—


having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) (hereinafter ‘the CPR’),










—


having regard to the Commission’s statement on Article 23, included in the Statements relating to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 (2),










—


having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2013 on effects of budgetary constraints for regional and local authorities regarding the EU’s Structural Funds expenditure in the Member States (3),










—


having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the contribution of the Cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU2020 objectives (4),










—


having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2014 on the European Commission’s 7th and 8th progress reports on the EU Cohesion Policy and the Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013 (5),










—


having regard to its resolution of 22 October 2014 on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2014 priorities (6),










—


having regard to the Commission’s sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, entitled ‘Investment for jobs and growth: promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities’, of 23 July 2014,










—


having regard to the Commission’s Cohesion policy strategic report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013, of 18 April 2013 (COM(2013)0210),










—


having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 12 February 2015 on the guidelines on the application of the measures linking the effectiveness of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) to sound economic governance,










—


having regard to Parliament’s study of January 2014 entitled ‘European Economic Governance and Cohesion Policy’ (Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies),










—


having regard to Parliament’s briefing of December 2014 entitled ‘The European Structural and Investment Funds and sound economic governance: guidelines for the implementation of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation’ (Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies),










—


having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0268/2015),










A.


whereas cohesion policy is a TFEU-based policy and an expression of European solidarity, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU, and in particular at reducing disparities between regions, promoting a balanced and harmonious socio-economic development; whereas it is also an investment policy contributing to achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;










B.


whereas the current legislative framework for cohesion policy, while establishing links with the EU strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the European Semester and the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines, as well as with the relevant country-specific recommendations (CSRs) and Council recommendations, is nevertheless subject to very specific missions, objectives and horizontal principles;










C.


whereas the current legal framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) aims to reinforce coordination, complementarity and synergies with other EU policies and instruments;










D.


whereas there is evidence that good governance and efficient public institutions are essential for sustainable and long-term economic growth, job creation and social and territorial development, although less evidence is available about the macroeconomic factors which affect the way cohesion policy operates;










E.


whereas economic and financial unpredictability and legal uncertainty may result in decreasing levels of public and private investment, putting at risk the achievement of the goals of cohesion policy;










F.


whereas the Guidelines concern the first strand of measures linking the effectiveness of the ESI Funds to sound economic governance under Article 23 CPR; whereas this relates to a reprogramming and a suspension of payments which are not compulsory, unlike the second strand of Article 23 CPR, which requires the suspension of commitments or payments where Member States fail to take corrective action in the context of the economic governance process;










G.


whereas the Member States’ track record of implementing the CSRs is low, on the evidence of the Commission’s assessments of implementation progress concerning the 279 CSRs issued in 2012 and 2013, showing that 28 CSRs had been fully addressed or showed substantial progress (10 %) and 136 (48,7 %) had achieved some progress, but for 115 (41,2 %) limited progress or no progress was recorded;






Linking effectiveness of the ESI Funds to sound economic governance










1.


Emphasises the importance of cohesion policy instruments and resources in maintaining the level of European added-value investment in Member States and regions for enhancing job creation and improving socio-economic conditions, especially where investment has fallen significantly owing to the economic and financial crisis;












2.


Believes that the achievement of the ESI Funds’ policy objectives and goals should not be hindered by the economic governance mechanisms, while acknowledging their relevance in contributing to a stable macroeconomic environment and an efficient, effective and result-oriented cohesion policy;












3.


Considers that Article 23 of the CPR must only be used as a last resort to contribute to an efficient implementation of the ESI Funds;












4.


Emphasises the multiannual and long-term nature of programmes and objectives under the ESI Funds, as opposed to the annual cycle of the European Semester; in this context, points out the need to ensure the clarity of the mechanisms for implementation of the latter, and calls for close coordination between these two processes and between the bodies responsible for their respective implementation;












5.


Stresses the need for the Commission to submit a white paper taking account of the effects of public investment in the long term and establishing a typology of quality investments, so that those which produce best effects in the long term can be clearly identified;












6.


Recalls that cohesion policy has played a vital role and has shown significant responsiveness to macroeconomic and fiscal constraints in the context of the current crisis, through the reprogramming of more than 11 % of the available budget between 2007 and 2012, in order to support the most pressing needs and strengthen certain interventions; stresses, in this connection, that in several Member States cohesion policy represented more than 80 % of public investment over the period 2007-2013;












7.


Asks the Commission to provide further analytical data on the impact and significance of the macroeconomic mechanisms for regional development, for the effectiveness of cohesion policy and for the interaction between the European economic governance framework and cohesion policy, and to provide specific information on how cohesion policy contributes to the relevant CSRs and Council recommendations;












8.


Calls on Member States to make best use of the flexibility existing under the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact;






Reprogramming under Article 23 CPR



General considerations









9.


Recalls that any decision regarding reprogramming or suspension under Article 23 CPR must only be used in exceptional situations, and must be well-weighed, thoroughly justified and implemented in a cautious fashion, with indication of the programmes or priorities concerned in order to ensure transparency and allow for verification and review; emphasises, moreover, that such decisions should not increase the difficulties that regions and Member States face as a result of the socio-economic environment or of their geographical location and specificities in the sense of Articles 174 and 349 TFEU;












10.


Considers that the partnership agreements and programmes adopted in the current programming period have taken account of the relevant CSRs and the relevant Council recommendations, ensuring good grounds for avoiding any reprogramming in the medium term unless the economic conditions should worsen substantially;












11.


Stresses that frequent reprogramming would be counter-productive and should be avoided in order not to disrupt fund management or undermine the stability and predictability of the multiannual investment strategy and to prevent any negative impacts, including on the absorption of the ESI Funds;












12.


Welcomes the cautious approach of the Commission with regard to reprogramming and its intention to keep it to the minimum necessary; calls for an ‘early warning’ approach in order to inform Member States concerned of the launching of the reprogramming procedure under Article 23 CPR, and emphasises that any reprogramming request should be preceded by consultation of the monitoring committee;












13.


Asks the Commission to carry out, in close cooperation with the Member State concerned, a comprehensive analysis of all available options other than the application of Article 23 CPR to address issues that may trigger a reprogramming request;












14.


Deplores any disproportionate increase of the administrative burden and subsequent cost for all levels of administration concerned, given the tight deadlines and the complexity of the reprogramming procedure under Article 23 CPR; warns against any overlapping of reprogramming procedures under Article 23 CPR with subsequent European semester cycles; calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of reassessing the application of the deadlines as per the review provided for in Article 23(16) CPR;





Horizontal principles under the CPR









15.


Expresses its concern that the Guidelines do not make explicit reference to the general and horizontal principles provided for in Articles 4 to 8 of the CPR, and recalls that the reading of Article 23 CPR must take account of and comply with these principles, in particular with those of partnership and multi-level governance, and with the Regulation and the Common Strategic Framework as a whole; calls on the Commission, in this context, to clarify how these principles will be specifically taken into account in the application of the provisions of Article 23 CPR;





The sub-national dimension of Article 23 CPR









16.


Emphasises that the increase in the public debt stems principally from the policies pursued by Member State governments, and is seriously concerned that the inability to properly address macroeconomic issues at national level may penalise subnational authorities and the beneficiaries of and applicants for ESI Funds;












17.


Recalls that the thematic concentration rules provided for by the 2014-2020 cohesion policy allow for a certain degree of flexibility in addressing Member States’ and regions’ needs, and notes that the application of Article 23 CPR may restrict this flexibility; recalls the need to take account of key territorial challenges, as well as the principle of subsidiarity as provided for in Article 4(3) CPR;












18.


Asks the Commission to evaluate, in close cooperation with Member States and partners as stipulated in Article 5 CPR, the impact and cost-efficiency at regional and local levels of any measures adopted under Article 23 CPR;












19.


Stresses the need for local and regional authorities to be actively involved in any reprogramming exercise, and is of the opinion that since the ESI Funds are linked to sound economic governance, the European Semester should be given a territorial dimension by also involving those authorities;












20.


Asks the Commission to read Article 23 CPR in line with the principle of proportionality, by taking into account the situation of those Member States and regions which face socio-economic difficulties and where ESI Funds represent a significant share of investment, which is even more evident in a crisis context; stresses that Member States and regions, and in particular the lagging ones, should not be further impacted;





Institutional coordination, transparency and accountability









21.


Recalls that strong institutional coordination is essential for ensuring the right policy complementarities and synergies, as well as a proper and stable interpretation of the framework of sound economic governance and its interaction with cohesion policy;












22.


Calls for an adequate flow of information between the Commission, the Council and Parliament, and for the holding of a public debate at the appropriate political level to ensure a common understanding as regards the interpretation of the conditions of application of Article 23 CPR; recalls, in this context, the need for a specific Council configuration dedicated to cohesion policy in charge of the decisions under Article 23 CPR;












23.


Considers it essential to ensure transparency and accountability by giving Parliament democratic oversight of the system of governance in the context of Article 23 CPR, which introduces important limitations in the bottom-up approach which is an important feature of cohesion policy;






Suspension of payments










24.


Recalls that the suspension of payments is a matter decided by the Council on the basis of a proposal that the Commission may adopt in the event that the Member State concerned fails to take effective action; underlines the important legal safeguards established by Article 23 CPR to ensure the exceptionality of the suspension mechanism;












25.


Emphasises the penalising nature of any suspension of payments, and asks the Commission to use its discretionary power to propose the suspension of payments with utmost caution and strictly in line with Article 23(6) CPR, after due consideration of all relevant information and elements arising from and opinions expressed through the structured dialogue;












26.


Welcomes, in the context of the criteria for determining the programmes to be suspended and the level of suspension under the first strand, the cautious approach adopted in the Guidelines whereby account will be taken of the economic and social circumstances of Member States by considering mitigating factors similar to those envisaged in the suspensions under Article 23(9) CPR;












27.


Calls on the Commission to establish a timescale for the lifting of the suspension under Article 23(8) of the CPR;






The role of Parliament in the framework of Article 23 CPR










28.


Regrets that the Guidelines do not make any reference to the role of Parliament, despite the fact that the CPR was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure and despite the consistent calls of Parliament to reinforce democratic accountability and control in the context of economic governance;












29.


Considers that the involvement of Parliament, as the principal democratic guarantor for the correct application of Article 23(15) CPR, should be formalised by way of a clear procedure allowing Parliament to be consulted at all stages as regards the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments;












30.


Stresses the need for constant, clear and transparent collaboration at interinstitutional level, and considers that such a procedure should include, at least, the following steps:






—


the Commission should immediately inform Parliament of the CSRs and Council recommendations that are relevant in the context of the ESI Funds, as well as of the programmes of financial assistance, or respective modifications, that may trigger a reprogramming request under Article 23(1) CPR;










—


the Commission should immediately inform Parliament of any reprogramming request under Article 23(1) CPR or of any proposal for a decision suspending payments under Article 23(6) CPR, allowing Parliament to state its position in the form of a resolution before taking any further steps;










—


the Commission should take into account the position expressed by Parliament and any elements arising from or opinions expressed through the structured dialogue under Article 23(15) CPR;










—


the Commission should be invited by Parliament to explain whether Parliament’s opinions have been taken into consideration in the process, as well as any other follow-up given to the structured dialogue;










—


the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee should be informed of and heard on reprogramming requests;










—


Parliament, the Council and the Commission should establish a dialogue in the context of the application of Article 23 CPR, by ensuring interinstitutional coordination and a proper flow of information, allowing for the monitoring of the application of any of the procedures under Article 23 CPR;
















31.


Calls on the Commission to report on the impact and results achieved in the application of Article 23 CPR, in the context of the review of its application in line with paragraph 17 of that Article, including by detailing to what extent any reprogramming request was based on the implementation of the relevant CSRs or Council recommendations or has enhanced the growth and competitiveness impact of the available ESI Funds for Member States under financial assistance programmes, as well as by providing the data on any suspended amounts and the programmes concerned;




o
o o








32.


Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and the Member States and their regions.






(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320.

(2)  OJ C 375, 20.12.2013, p. 2.

(3)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0401.

(4)  OJ C 161 E, 31.5.2011, p. 120.

(5)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2014)0132.

(6)  Texts adopted, P8_TA(2014)0038.