Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-19-Speech-3-111"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Cohesion Fund (1999) – Structural Funds (1999)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010919.8.3-111"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-19-Speech-3-1122
lpv:speaker	lp:Adriana Poli Bortone2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Alleanza nazionale (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; UEN (1999-07-22--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; AGRI (1999-09-09--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there is absolutely no doubt about the major role that has been played by the Cohesion Fund in the development of trans-European networks and in environmental operations in the four beneficiary States, and it is certainly very important for the convergence of the economies of the European Union. The results achieved, however, are not the same across the board, and it is worth exploring the reasons for this. In reality, strangely, there are bureaucratic problems and mechanisms which are still poorly defined, particularly as regards the time frames for the disbursement and use of the funds: this applies to the Cohesion Fund, of which all the appropriations for 1999 were not used, and it applies to the Structural Funds, which did not achieve the 100% expenditure target both because the majority of the resources were committed only just before the end of the programming period and because of the slow rate of disbursement of the appropriations available. These factors make the process much more burdensome for those implementing the programmes. The delays certainly do not contribute to the overall improvement in socio-economic and employment conditions in the regions concerned. In this sense, a crucial moment for both funds is the evaluation, not just an analysis but also, most importantly, an evaluation, which is no use if it is not carried out within the correct time frame, the correct time frame being before the programming of the subsequent operations, which cannot be carried out rationally if the final evaluation of the previous programmes cannot be taken into account. Moreover, the evaluation is necessary in order to verify that the principle of additionality is being respected according to the clear indications of the Court of Auditors, which should be observed. Linked to this is the point that it would be beneficial if the Commission were to provide clearer, more comprehensive information of an essentially social and economic rather than accounting nature on the evaluation of projects, highlighting whether the aim of reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions has been achieved; the European Parliament needs to receive this information in due time, not – as has happened this time with regard to the Cohesion Fund – two years late, for that clearly makes it impossible to correct shortcomings and reprogramme operations in useful time. And this is an operation that is becoming still more necessary in view of the now impending enlargement. Finally, we must demand a more active role for Parliament in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the operations and the goals pursued."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"ex ante"1 "ex post"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph