Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.9.2-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the problem of the ever growing reservoir of commitments outstanding in the framework of Structural Funds policy seems to have become a permanent feature now. The content of the reservoir is no less than EUR 92 billion and therefore approximately equivalent to the whole of the EU budget for a year.
The 'n+2' rule is a first necessary step in order to reduce the level of this reservoir. However, the ultimate goal is, of course, for this Structural Funds policy to be better aligned to its objectives. This question is even more pressing in the light of the pending enlargement.
The Commission has tabled a number of proposals which should deal with the problems involved in implementing the policy and make it more effective. A first requirement seems to be to reduce the complexity and cut back on the endless decision-making procedures. A clarification of the rules and improving coordination will equally have a positive impact.
We still have not tackled a number of fundamental problems, though. I would like to mention the fact that an important share of aid still ends up in relatively prosperous regions. The situation in Italy provides very clear evidence of this. The south remains poverty-stricken while the north is immensely rich. And this while Italy’s GDP as a whole is around the EU average.
In 2002, the Central Planning Office in the Netherlands presented a study identifying the possible causes of the ineffectiveness of Structural Funds policy. In summary, the researchers concluded that the Structural Funds policy cannot be effective until the four conditions have been met. They are, first of all, sound institutional quality; secondly, low inflation; thirdly, transparent and reliable government policy, and fourthly a low level of corruption.
It is sad to say, but remarkably enough, the four largest recipients of funds from the Structural Funds score very badly in terms of the above criteria. Consequently, the institutional quality in those countries will need to be improved as a matter of priority. This also applies to the EU’s future Member States. If not, we will be fighting a losing battle, and a renewed increase in the level of the reservoir would loom from May 2004 onwards.
European policy that aims to promote economic growth in poor regions and narrow the prosperity gap should be more coherent. We would therefore suggest that Structural Funds policy should focus on Objective 1, for which only the poorest regions qualify. Other forms of structural policy, especially those that benefit relatively prosperous regions, very often seem to frustrate labour mobility or lead to distortion of competition. What also happens regularly is that national or regional authorities submit their least effective projects for application for European aid. We should put a stop to the recycling, or transfer, of European funds between the rich Member States.
With its proposals, the Commission has made a start on improvement. However, we need thorough reform, so that the poorer regions can actually make progress. The added advantage is that more coherence and greater clarity in the policy allow for outgoings to be monitored more efficiently. Finally, the Member States will also be able to submit a reliable estimate prior to the drafting of the budget. After all, the reservoir of payment appropriations is mainly the result of excessive levels of commitment appropriations. If we no longer want this reservoir, we will need to tackle the problem at source."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples