In adopting the report by Mrs Arlene McCARTHY (PSE, UK) and Mr Konstantinos
HATZIDAKIS (EPP, Gr) Parliament approved the Commission proposal seeking to allocate
0.46% of the Union's GNP annually for structural actions during the period 2000-2006. It
considered, however, that an annual growth of EU GNP of about 2.5% was very optimistic.
It considered that the EAGGF guarantee section resource (agricultural expenditure) used under
Objective 2 should be considered, even under Heading 1, as an expenditure target and as non
compulsory expenditure. However, Parliament did not state a position on the 'performance
reserve' proposed by the Commission, amounting to 10% of total structural funds and intended
to benefit regions which had the most effective development projects.
- Objective 1 (less-favoured regions): Parliament took the view that regions covered by Objective
1 should be regions corresponding to level NUTS II, whose per capita GDP is less than 75% of
the Community average and the most remote regions and sparsely populated northern regions.
Parliament considered that two-thirds of the appropriations from the Fund should be devoted to
this aim.
- Objective 2 (regions undergoing restructuring): Parliament stressed that the figures concerning
population covered by Objective 2 were only indicative and referred to the level of the European
Union. They should represent about 10% of the population in the case of the industrial areas, 5%
in the case of the rural areas, 2% in the case of the urban areas and 1% in the case of the fisheries
areas.
It considered that the proposed eligibility criteria did not reflect the structural weaknesses of
regional economies and proposed adopting a menu of supplementary indicators such as wealth
disparities within regions, low GDP, decline in working age population, geographical handicaps
(peripheral, island, mountain status) and environmental situation. Parliament considered the
unemployment criterion to be fundamental. It was also important to take account of conurbations
and also small and medium-sized urban areas.
- Objective 3: Parliament considered that actions under Objective 3 of the European Social Fund
should be horizontal in nature, i.e. they should cover all the regions of the Member States. It
welcomed the Commission's proposal for a 1% special local Social Capital Fund and specifically
support for voluntary sector organisations.
- Fisheries: Parliament proposed the drawing up of a horizontal regulation bringing together the
structural measures for the fisheries sector within a single legal framework.
- Transitional measures: given the reductions from seven to three, Parliament asked that, during
a transitional period, all the regions formerly eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5b should benefit
from a transitional support fund and that consideration should be given to extending the ERDF
financial support until 2006 in order to consolidate projects in progress.
- Complementarity and partnership: Parliament made a series of requests, including:
. recognition of the significant role played by local and regional authorities within the partnerships
and the role of the NGOs;
. participation by the most representative environmental NGOs in the preparation, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation of programmes;
. the right of the social partners to vote in the monitoring committees;
. reinforcement of the implementation of the partnership principle.
- Programming and coordination: Parliament called for the guidelines to be defined, in cooperation
with the Commission, Council and Parliament, stating the common priorities for each objective.
It called on the Commission and the Member States to ensure (at the planning and implementation
stage of the measures associated with the structural funds) that equality of opportunity for men
and women was promoted. It called for further consideration to be given to how large projects
and projects which crossed the boundary of eligible regions could be supported.
- Community Initiatives: Parliament welcomed the Commission's proposal to reduce to three the
fields of Community Initiatives: crossborder, transnational and inter-regional cooperation, rural
development and action to combat all forms of discrimination and inequalities in access to the
labour market. It considered that the main priority was INTERREG which should have a special
strand on interregional cooperation with and between islands. It stressed the need to continue and
step up the efforts made to revitalise and open up rural areas through the Community Initiative
LEADER. It reaffirmed its opinion on maintaining the Community Initiative URBAN (urban
regeneration) which should cover both conurbations and small and medium-sized towns.
It hoped to see the continuation of coordinated ERDF and ESF measures which made it easier
for women to gain access to the labour market and childcare facilities and to set up companies.
It called for the creation of a new kind of Community initiative to respond to economic crises and
economic restructuring at European level which has resulted in job losses. It called for 6% of the
total allocation of the Structural Funds to be attributed to Community initiatives.
It considered that the financing of permanent and common administrative activities of the
Commission by the Structural Funds' technical assistance resources must be exceptional and
should be restricted; it called on the Commission to transmit clear information to the budgetary
authority on the management costs for the Structural Funds.
- Financial contributions by the funds: Parliament considered that apart from the cases provided
for in the regulation, Community contributions could rise to 80% or more of the total eligible
costs for all the regions whose per capita GDP is below 70% of the Community average. It called
for the maximum rate of contribution to be raised to 65% of the total eligible cost for measures
in declining rural areas under Objective 2. It called for the planned advance payment at the time
of first commitment of appropriations to be increased from 10% to 20% in order to eliminate the
risk of an unacceptable financial burden for the beneficiaries. It considered lastly that the new
'managing authority' proposed by the Commission should be a decentralised authority.
Lastly Parliament called on the Member States systematically to put up signs which indicated
clearly the part played by European funding and the European logo.
In conclusion Parliament called for the opening of the conciliation procedure with the Council
with a view to the various recommendations made by Parliament under the assent procedure being
taken into account.
�