Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.4.2-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
While Article 158 of the EC Treaty aims to promote the harmonious development of all of the Communities, we must say that the goal of eliminating disparities is still a long way from being fulfilled, or rather in some cases, as with Italy’s Objective 1 zones, paradoxically, disparities are being exacerbated, particularly because of the continuing weak approach of the structural apparatus to Community procedures and the persistent muddle of procedures; despite the changes to the rules, the Community structures have not yet been streamlined. In the first place, if administrative procedures are not simplified, it will be hard to attain Community objectives on reform, with a view to greater efficiency and concentration. In this respect, the Commission document has shortcomings, as it makes no recommendation to the Member States to simplify procedures and national legislation for the presentation and examination of projects by the national authorities, and for their funding, execution and monitoring. SMEs, micro-enterprises and craft businesses in particular are still “weak operators”, given that it is precisely for them that the regulatory and administrative constraints imposed by some Member States, including Italy, are major obstacles to accessing Structural Funds.
A considerable stumbling block is the fact that the regions and other operators find it impossible and are incapable of making plans in time. In view of this, in accordance with the decision on the 97/99 guidelines (Howitts report), the Commission should have consulted Parliament in time. In fact
it found a sort of convenient excuse in the shortening of the programming stage in the Member States, and it published the guidelines back in July 1999, even before the new Parliament had taken up its legislative duties, thereby preventing Parliament itself from having any influence on the current content of the guidelines. This is why the mid-term review, provided for under Article 42 of Regulation 1260/99, will be of considerable importance.
In general, the current guidelines cannot be considered as clear or transparent. They merely touch on the – nevertheless important – issue of the possibility of assessing the progress made in relation to
verifiable objectives which are completely consonant with the strategies followed in Community policies, and they do not pay enough attention to the implications of enlargement, so much so that they do not contain specific provisions or clarifications as regards either regional and national authorities, or candidate countries. That said, the differing approach adopted in the guidelines, which are not geared to geographical objectives, but rather to policy areas, can be considered as positive. While in theory this may meet the need for concentration and therefore the efficiency of interventions, we cannot help wondering whether the current situation of the Objective 1 zones allows, in practice, a policy of integrated
interventions, for which an operational instrument to coordinate the appropriations is necessary. We could then, theoretically, also support the Commission’s call for a management unit for structural assistance in the Member States, with the task of coordinating the implementation and administration of structural assistance there
provided that this unit does not become a centralising instrument at supranational level, but guarantees real help for those zones – and I stress this once again – which, owing to a whole string of converging negative factors, have not yet harnessed Structural Funds to sufficient levels, with the result that replacing the geographical objective with policy areas could, in fact, amount to a negative intervention.
The guidelines, as adopted by the Commission, are very limited because, instead of meeting the aim of providing guidance, they are providing a shopping list of possible measures, a shopping list which, as it fails to set priorities in ascending order, could even put the Member States on the wrong track by guiding them towards a series of proposals that is at odds with the desired concentration.
We could say that, in this state of affairs, we have once again missed the opportunity to really strengthen sustainable urban development by ring-fencing ever-increasing urbanisation and, hence the destruction of the countryside. There has been no appropriate assessment of the importance of the global grant instrument, which could prove to be extremely useful in redressing the balance between urban and rural zones and, moreover, would accord proper status to local bodies which, being independent, could bring about the conditions for territorial development more quickly, and make a practical contribution to the efforts to reform the Structural Funds and to achieve the objectives of efficiency, concentration and administrative reform. Rural areas must truly be seen as a resource which should be increasingly invested in, by encouraging young people to remain in rural areas in order to prevent their economic and social disintegration.
It is now a fact that in order to attain this goal, rural areas need to see the creation of new jobs, which are no longer solely connected with agriculture, in the traditional sense – although this sector is important for the protection of the environment and the preservation of biodiversity – but also, for instance, in rural tourism, sport and cultural activities, environmental projects, SMEs, services, and so on.
A genuine flaw in the guidelines are specific guidelines for the orchestration of coordination between the ESF and employment strategy. The fact that this coordination is being put into effect for the first time during the 2000-2006 programme period implies that the Member States really do need "guidelines". I must also stress that once again the Commission is, in fact, skirting the issue of practical action on equal opportunities. In conclusion, the document is not particularly satisfactory, and in some aspects is disappointing."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples