Activites

• 2001/03/01 Final act published in Official Journal
• 2000/06/15 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
  • T5-0280/2000 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Maurizio TURCO (TDI, Italy) on the Commission's 10th Annual Report on the structural funds. Parliament declared itself satisfied with the Structural Fund implementation rates in 1998, but noted that efforts were still required, especially in the area of Community Initiatives, to commit all resources by the end of the programming period. It called on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary steps to avoid a sluggish flow of resources in the initial stages of Structural Fund implementation and thus to ensure that, in the 2000-2006 period, the programme is implemented evenly in each individual year. The report does not contain any indication regarding the average duration of the procedure for the consideration of funding applications by the Commission. Parliament considered it unacceptable that in certain cases relating in particular to the Community Initiatives, the consideration of such applications has taken over a year. On coordination with other Community policies, Parliament believes that there must be a clear link between ESF and other structural fund measures and NAPs in the new programming period. Given the importance of territorial pacts, the Commission needs to ensure that the Parliament is fully informed about the state of the pacts, especially for employment purposes, and the use of appropriations by the wide range of operators concerned. With regard to the principle of additionality, the Commission is required to find instruments for improving verification and to assess additionality more comprehensively. The Member States are urged to ensure that the additionality principle is strictly upheld. Parliament must be provided as soon as possible with details of checks on full compliance with the principle and also a list of the punitive measures to be imposed in cases where statutory requirements have not been met. With regard to evaluation and control, Parliament regrets that unsuitable and inadequate evaluators have frequently been employed. The Commission is required to strengthen controls over implementation by means of considerably more on-the spot checks and to lay down objective criteria for assessing their quality. Parliament should be informed of all cases of irregularities, and the Commission should ensure that its annual report ncludes a section on the measures which it has adopted in response to criticisms expressed by Parliament in previous years.�

• 2000/05/23 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A5-0138/2000
• 1999/12/17 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 1999/10/15 Non-legislative basic document published
  • COM(1999)0467 summary

    PURPOSE : Presentation of 10th Annual Report of the Structural Funds 1998. CONTENT : Structural fund activities in the field of economic and social cohesion can be summarised under four main headings: - Adoption of the remaining programmes: 25 new assistance packages were adopted during the year, the majority being global grants under Objective 1. 29 programmes were also adopted under the Community Initiatives, the most significant in financial terms being the Interreg II C programme to combat drought in Spain. The monetary value of these new programmes represents only a tiny share of the total spend of the Fund during 1994-1999. - Acceleration of financial execution: execution of CSFs/SPDs accelerated during the year. By the end of the year, 80% of the total assistance available over the period had been committed and 61% had been paid, in line with the financial perspective for1994-99 Objectives 1 and 3 have the highest implementation rates. The lowest rates were in Objectives 5 (a) and (b) and Objective 4 is considerably behind. As in 1997, The Member States with the best implementation rates in terms of appropriations were the least prosperous and the main beneficiaries of the Funds: Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal. The Community Initiatives also saw implementation speeding up. By the end of the year, 72% of assistance had been committed but only 45% of assistance had been paid out. In terms of appropriations, the situation was an improvement on 1997: 93% of commitment appropriations available were committed while 93% of payment appropriations were paid out. - Increased attention to priority themes: safeguarding and promoting employment received special support. The Structural Funds, particularly the ERDF and ESF, will take account of the national action plans put forward by Member States under the European Employment Strategy launched by the Luxembourg European Council. Promoting equality between men and women also received increased support and the Funds have been gradually incorporating this theme. Mid-term impact evaluations under Objectives 1 and 6 were conducted. The Mid-Term Review report adopted in January 1999 confirmed the positive impact of the Funds both in macro-economic terms and in terms of reducing disparities in the areas of transport, telecommunications infrastructure, environment and energy. The report's recommendations gave rise to some adjustments of funding allocations within the programmes and similar adjustments affected the Community Initiatives. The document lists a number of other thematic priorities that were given closer study during the year. - Preparations for the 2000-06 programming period: The General Regulation on Structural Funds, adopted by the Council on 21 June 1999, translates into legislation the policy options set out in Agenda 2000. These include reduction of priority Objectives to three; concentration of assistance to smaller populations and concurrent adoption of transitional support for regions which will cease to be eligible; reduction of the Community Initiatives to three, later widened to four; simplification of programming and clarification of monitoring and evaluation. The Commissionalso drew up guidelines designed to help the national and regional authorities in preparing their development plans under the new Objectives 1, 2 and 3. These are geared to three main goals: improving regional competitiveness; promoting employment; and integrating urban and rural development. In keeping with previous years, the report picks out a theme relevant to all four Structural Funds. For 1998, the theme is local development. The aim is to highlight the Commission's role in mobilising forces to encourage local development and improve the local employment situation.�

  • DG [{'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/regional_policy/index_en.htm', 'title': 'Regional and Urban Policy'}],

Documents

• Non-legislative basic document published: COM(1999)0467
• Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A5-0138/2000
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0280/2000

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)