Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-15-Speech-4-231"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000615.10.4-231"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". – (
) Mr President, thank you for allowing me to speak, as I wanted to say a few words on this report, which is extremely important. It concerns a subject which is of great interest to me personally, given the commitment of the European Union in favour of the countries which are furthest behind in development and which are catching up with the support of European solidarity.
Having talked about content, I would like to say a word or two about form, and first of all reply to the comments of your rapporteur on the study on the socio-economic effects of the Cohesion Fund ordered by the Commission. It seems to me that these comments are based on a misunderstanding, which I would like to clarify. The five years cited by your rapporteur refer to the period between the commencement of the projects evaluated and the final evaluation. The consultants chosen by the Commission first of all developed an evaluation methodology and then evaluated the projects concerned. It is not unusual for a large project and the
evaluation of its results to take five years to complete. The Commission, which has just received this study, is currently analysing it, and in any case, it will be sent to you as soon as possible.
I would now like to bring up the issue of consistency between the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds as raised by your rapporteur. I am particularly interested in this issue. This is why the Structural Funds programmes currently being negotiated by the Commission with the Member States of cohesion include indicative sums for both Cohesion Fund aid and European Investment Bank aid. The information requested by Parliament is available in the individual programming documents.
In addition, I would like to emphasise that the recent restructuring of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy brings together the geographical teams and power within the same units for Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, so that Cohesion Countries, which are eligible for Structural Funds in most cases, will have the same contacts within this Directorate-General. This seems to me to be a more consistent approach for these countries.
But consistency between the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund also means observing the specificity of these two instruments, in accordance, moreover, with the general regulation on the Structural Funds. It would in fact be inappropriate to use the Cohesion Fund for the same purposes and in the same way as the Structural Funds. From the point of view of financial management, it is not the right time to abandon the specificity of each instrument. In any case, I am not in a position to alter the scope of the Cohesion Fund, which stems directly from the Treaty.
Mrs Schörling, you spoke of the matter of additionality. Allow me, so as not to waste your time, to refer back to what I said earlier on the subject of Mr Turco’s report. I clearly expressed my wish to verify additionality and what is true for Mr Turco’s report is also true for the Cohesion Fund. I even said that the reality of this additionality would be one of the points which would enable me to validate or approve programmes and projects.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that the annual report is a particularly useful tool for the analysis, assessment and reflection that regularly takes place on the implementation of regional policy. This report is even more useful in that it is comprehensive. As I agree that there are advantages in releasing the annual report as soon as possible, I can assure you that my staff will do their best to speed up publication as much as possible in future.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that our reflection is not only linked to these annual reports. I can also assure you that beyond our regular meetings, the report on cohesion that I shall present to you at the end of this year will respond to a lot of the questions, criticisms and proposals raised by your rapporteur with regard to the pursuit of solidarity regarding countries benefiting from the Cohesion Fund, particularly in view of the perspective that concerns us all: enlargement.
Today, four countries are directly concerned by the objective of cohesion. We are talking about a budget of almost EUR 17 billion for the period now beginning, 20002006. But if we look back over the last ten years, including the year cited in this report, 1998, I would say to the Members here and to all those listening to us that the four countries that were the furthest behind, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal, have gained ten points in ten years in relation to the Community average gross domestic product. If there is one policy – and fortunately there are others – whose efficacy can be shown, it is the cohesion policy. I would like to say this at a time when citizens and taxpayers sometimes wonder about the importance and usefulness or efficacy of the European Funds.
So the subject dealt with by Mr Ripoll y Martinez de Bedoya in his report is an extremely important one. I would like to thank him for his clear-sightedness, precision and competence. Furthermore, several speakers from all parties have thanked him. The form of the report is just as important as its content.
With regard to content, ladies and gentlemen, on the subject of the investment allocated to transport, your rapporteur argues for a better balance in favour of sustainable transport, in particular in favour of railways. He may be sure that the Commissioner for Regional Policy, who was once Minister for the Environment in his own country, is extremely supportive of this move and will oversee it personally, particularly in the programming of the Cohesion Fund for the next six years. I share this concern. It has also been highlighted by Mrs Schörling and Mrs Damião, and you may rest assured that I will endeavour to increase the tendency towards sustainable transport, in particular railways, that has been noted over the past few years. But this tendency is not enough: I want to emphasise it further over the next six years.
With regard to the other investments that can contribute to the objective of sustainable transport, I am referring to ports and airports, the Commission – let me be frank – wants to see a certain amount of caution concerning air transport and certain forms of maritime transport. In any case, we want to look into matters in detail and modify the rate of cofinancing to take account of the commercial nature of the activities and revenue generated, which is the least we can do. Having said this, the tendency in favour of sustainable transport is one that the Commission will support with all its might.
With regard to the environmental aspect, your rapporteur highlights the need – as Mr Mastorakis also said so emphatically – to pay more attention to the serious problem of the treatment of solid waste and household refuse. To date, the Fund has focused on three sectors which are the subject of Community directives: the treatment of drinking water, the treatment of waste water and the treatment of solid waste. The priority was to allow the Member States to respect the deadlines set in implementation of the directive on waste water, and we are well aware that the problems that I have just mentioned, in particular the matter of waste or water treatment, are problematic in the countries concerned. I have been able to see this personally in the Azores and I know that the situation is the same in the Greek islands, to use these two examples: these problems are particularly difficult in the case of remote, outermost or isolated island regions.
Also, with regard to the specific problems concerning the environment and thinking of islands in particular, I would like to express my wish to support investment in favour of renewable energy, and I have made this known to the Member States.
More specifically with regard to solid waste, 14% of the total budget appropriation was earmarked for its processing, which represents a significant increase in relation to the 1993-1997 period. However, I share your rapporteur’s wish to use the most modern environmentally-friendly technologies for this purpose.
Earlier today, Mrs Schörling expressed the satisfaction of the Group of the Greens that an amendment to paragraph 9 proposed by her group had been approved. This was not by chance, Mrs Schörling. I deliberately wanted to record the Commission’s agreement to using the Cohesion Fund in favour of biodiversity and protecting nature, not just anyhow or for just anything. This tendency has been realised in the approval of this amendment. You will also see my continuing desire, under Objectives 1 and 2 and the Cohesion Fund, for part of the loans to be used to benefit biodiversity."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"FR"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples