Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-15-Speech-4-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000615.4.4-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". – (
) Ladies and gentlemen, in turn, I would like to express the great interest with which I read Mr Turco’s report and congratulate him on the precision and competence of his work. I would also like to say to him that, beyond the observations, criticisms and proposals addressed to me as the new Commissioner for Regional Policy, a post which I have held for quite a few months now, this reading is also extremely useful for the future.
With regard to control, the Commission broadly shares your assessment of the complexity of the current Structural Fund system. Once again, however, improvements have been made since 1997, in particular within the scope of the SEM 2000 initiative, and I would like to thank Mr Bradbourn for pinpointing them. The establishment of rules on the eligibility of spending for co-financing is covered by an implementing regulation for the new period. The financial control standards that the Member States must observe will also be covered by a regulation. The guidelines relating to the implementation of net financial corrections are also being translated into an implementing regulation for this new period. Furthermore, I would like to remind you that fund legislation for the new period – which Mr Musotto judged to be insufficient earlier on, I noted – provides for intervention monitoring systems to be simplified.
With regard to control, the new legislation also gives the Member States direct responsibility for controls concerning programmes carried out on their territory. As you know, ladies and gentlemen, it is the Commission that is responsible for ensuring that the control systems are sufficiently sound and reliable.
Naturally, it is a complex business. Recently, I even heard calls for less of the Brussels bureaucracy, for fewer complications. I will give some thought, clearly and objectively, to all the ways in which matters could be simplified. In particular, I will think about this in the joint discussions on the nature of the new regional policy for 2006-2013. In the meantime, I am bound by a general regulation, with which you have been familiar since Berlin and which I must apply. I must therefore find, in conjunction with my staff, the optimum balance between and coordination of, on the one hand, the desire expressed by some of you earlier for greater decentralisation, greater trust in the Member States and the regions and, on the other, your requirement for rigour, which is also required of me by the Court of Auditors, in order to be able to be accountable to the taxpayers.
What I can say on this subject, in particular to Mrs Hedkvist Petersen who discussed the matter with me the other day when I was visiting her region, is that I will search for the best balance. But try to understand that I am torn between your demand for increased decentralisation and the need to present accurate accounts to the European Parliament, public opinion and the Court of Auditors.
Your rapporteur quite rightly remarks that in 1998 the Commission did not carry out enough on-the-spot checks. Actually, Mr Turco, in spite of the importance attached by the Commission to proper financial management of the programmes and to reliable controls, I must point out that the resources at my disposal did not enable us to carry out as many controls as we would have wished.
Finally, I would like to point out the negotiations underway for a framework agreement between our two institutions, which answers some of Mr Bradbourn’s concerns. Moreover, this framework agreement has now been definitively finalised regarding the transmission of documents to Parliament and it is on this basis that the Commission will provide your Parliament with all the documents you would like.
Many of you, including Mrs Attwool and Mr MacCormick, have raised the matter of additionality. I would like to specify that the new legislation seems to me to substantially improve the possibilities of verifying additionality, as this will be verified for two types of programme. For Objective 1 programmes, as was formerly the case, but also for Objective 2 and 3 programmes, taken together, this verification will be carried out on the basis of samples and will concern solely the active measures of the labour market.
This new system will make it possible to have an overall view of the implementation of the additionality principle, including for Objective 2, which as you know, presented great statistical problems during the previous period. The Commission had also proposed a link between the verification of this additionality and the allocation of the performance reserve, but, as you also know, this link has not been adopted by the legislator. I would, however, like to remind you of my desire to verify the reality of this additionality and I would also like to say – as I have said to several Member States – that the verification of this principle, the reality of additionality will be a criterion for the admissibility and approval of new programmes.
You asked me about your draft Article 5. To be honest, ladies and gentlemen, I must ask you to understand that I cannot approve this Article 5 whatever the good intentions behind it. Once again, I am bound by Article 11 of the general regulation on Structural Funds which, at least until 2006, does not allow the decentralisation or delegation of the executive powers of the Commission to sub-national bodies, as you call them: the Autonomous Communities, Regions, and
. I am forced to comply with the general regulation on the Structural Funds, at least as laid down until 2006.
The principle of partnership is one which the Commission hopes to make as comprehensive as possible. Progress has already been observed, in 1998, in particular with the setting up in 1997 of territorial pacts for employment involving regional and local partners and both sides of industry. But the Commission goes much further with the new legislation for 2000-2006. The partnership is now actually being extended to new operators, who to date were not really, or very rarely involved, and I would like them to be involved from now on. The economic and social partners, the associations, some non-governmental organisations, in particular in the fields of the environment and equal opportunities. Furthermore, the new legislation brings the partnership into play at all stages of the programming from the initial drawing-up of plans by the Member States to the evaluation of the programmes.
I would like to devote my speaking time to responding as precisely as possible to each one of you on the most important points and, first of all, on the implementation of the Funds for 1998. Your rapporteur, Mr Turco, expressed his relative satisfaction with regard to the overall implementation of the Funds for 1998, when 100% of the appropriations available for the year were committed and 100% disbursed.
Fourthly, complementarity with other Community policies. Mrs Flesch, Mr Turco yourself, Mrs Schroedter, Mr Mastorakis, you stressed this point. I would like to note that Parliament, which questions the efforts of the Commission to intensify the synergy between structural policies and other Community policies, should know that this is also of concern to me and my staff. This is how the cross-sector theme in their annual report for 1998 should be considered, for example, the actions supporting local development and, I would like to announce, actions in favour of equal opportunities and sexual equality in the report for 1999.
A substantial amount of effort recently has been put into improving the coherence of the Structural Funds with other Community policies, particularly, Mrs Flesch, with State aid. This is a field in which the Commission adopted, in 1998, a communication reconciling the map of regional State aid with the map of regions eligible for the Structural Funds and on this subject, I regularly have constructive dialogues with Mario Monti, my fellow Commissioner with responsibility for such matters.
This is also the case for the environment, within the scope of the new programmes for 20002006. Let it be clear that here too, ladies and gentlemen, there is no question of turning the Structural Funds into instruments of other policies. The Structural Funds answer one policy: that of cohesion, reducing the disparities between regions and countries.
The objective of the fund is to support the development of the weakest regions in order to step up economic and social cohesion within the Union, and you stressed the lack of progress made in this area. Therefore, we must simply ensure – and this is no small matter – that structural interventions take sufficient account of sectorial Community policies, but also, in return, ensure that the other sectorial policies of the Union embrace or support the aspect of cohesion.
I am thinking in particular – in response to Mr Sanchez García and Mr Theonas – of the outermost regions. You know, ladies and gentlemen, of the personal interest that I will continue to take, within the Commission, in the future and the development of the outermost regions. You had proof of this when the Commission’s report on these regions was published: I took a personal interest. I would also echo Mrs Sudre’s comments on this.
My comments on the subject of the outermost regions and the need for adequate cohesion and coherence between various policies also applies to the most disadvantaged regions, whether these are urban regions, which are increasing in number, or island or maritime regions, to reply to Mr Ripoll y Martinez de Bedoya who questioned me on this subject.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your attention and say a few words about the annual report and its role as I see it. Ladies and gentlemen, it is right for Parliament to make demands on the Commission with regard to the implementation of the Structural Funds and their impact, and you have presented new requirements. I would go along with Mr Stockmann’s question regarding the inclusion in future reports of a specific paragraph or chapter in order to reply precisely to the remarks or criticisms of the Parliament with regard to the Commission.
The draft resolution reflects this wish, this requirement, by asking the Commission to provide yet more information in the annual report. However, for a few years we have chosen to make the annual report more concise, which, moreover, was formally requested by the European Parliament at the time. The document must remain readable for the citizens, not just for MEPs or specialists- and it is not yet completely so, if I have understood Mr Turco correctly. I am very attached to this quest for readability, proximity and explanation by the Commission in the field for which I am responsible.
We shall therefore continue our efforts in favour of readability and the task of explanation, while being more precise in order to respond to your requests. These are the two aspects – readability and precision – on which I intend to concentrate in order to present a top quality annual report.
Beyond this observation – which, I think it only fair to mention, is the fruit of the work of my predecessor, Mrs Wulf-Mathies, and my colleagues, who were also hers –I can also tell you that at the end of 1999, which is also the last year of the programming period 1994-1999, 99% of the appropriations were committed and 75% disbursed: results which are, of course, still insufficient, but which, all the same, mark a step forward in the direction you advocate.
However, it is true that the situation of Community Initiatives is somewhat different and this is due to the specific characteristics of their implementation. There is the innovative aspect of most of the programmes, a new approach based on partnership and the inherent difficulty in implementing transnational programmes, by both national and regional authorities. In spite of everything, ladies and gentlemen, a very clear improvement was noted in 1998 and confirmed in 1999, in particular following the redistribution of resources between the various initiatives, as the European Parliament wanted. At the end of 1999, 95% of the appropriations for the period had been taken up under Community Initiatives and 57% had been paid.
With regard to implementation, Mr Esclopé, since you mentioned the inequality between the different Member States regarding implementation, I think I am right in saying that part of the explanation you are looking for lies in the inevitably different nature of the programmes and projects according to the countries or regions. We are well aware that it is the countries and regions that propose the projects which, I repeat, are very different. Therefore, I would put some of your observations down to the differences between these programmes and projects.
If we compare the implementation of the commitments with the financial perspectives determined in Edinburgh, I agree with you that they almost match. However, ladies and gentlemen, I have taken note of the criticisms and remarks saying that we can do better. Mrs Schroedter or Mr Markov have noted disparities that are still unacceptable. I would, however, point out that it is possible to prove the effectiveness of the Structural Funds, since divergences between States have been reduced. Nevertheless, you are correct, and I myself am concerned by this observation, the gaps between the regions – Mrs Sudre clearly and eloquently stated the figures – prove that the Structural Funds are not yet allocated in a sufficiently efficient or concentrated manner. There are still unjustified, unacceptable gaps between regions, and between the group of the poorest regions and the group of the richest regions.
On the same subject, I would also like to say that I am taking great care that this social divide, as it has been called, this economic divide between the group of the richest regions and the group of the poorest regions is not exacerbated by another divide linked to the new economy – I am thinking of some extremely worrying figures relating to this subject – that I could call the digital divide, that is to say the democratic access of the most remote citizens, the poorest citizens, the most disadvantaged citizens, to the new technologies and to the opportunities provided by these new technologies.
As to my second point: monitoring, evaluation and control. In your resolution, Mr Turco, you recognise the importance of monitoring, assessing and controlling Structural Fund interventions. With regard to monitoring and evaluation, in all sincerity, significant progress has been observed and I would like to cite three examples of this. Firstly, finalising a harmonised methodology. Secondly, completing the interim evaluation, which ended during 1998 and which has led to restructuring within the programmes, occasionally very significant in financial terms. Finally, thirdly, completing thematic cross-sector evaluations, in particular with regard to small and medium-sized businesses, equal opportunities or partnership. I have noticed that these evaluations are gradually bearing fruit, in particular the new programmes for the period 2000-2006.
There is still progress to be made in this area, but it must be noted that the evaluation culture seems to me to be more prevalent today in all the departments of the Commission and also among the programme managers. I have also noticed that at the beginning of last June, when I had organised a seminar for the first time between the Member States and the programme managers, the management authorities for all the regions and all the countries. I had also invited the chairman of your committee, Mr Hatzidakis, and Mrs Theato, chair of the Commission on Budgetary Control, to participate in this seminar. To be frank, it showed that the evaluation culture, which is a modern, necessary culture, is making progress."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"FR"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples