Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-19-Speech-3-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010919.8.3-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission report dealing with the activities of the Cohesion Fund in 1999 proves that, as in previous years, it is continuing to pursue the most immediate objectives for which it was created, which are to provide the so-called cohesion countries, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Ireland, with economic infrastructures in the areas of the environment and transport. In these two areas, for example, the Cohesion Fund has been crucial to the creation of infrastructures that are essential to the development of my region. Only in 1999, it funded the extension of Madeira’s airport and a major solid waste treatment plant.
We have further grounds to be satisfied with the activity of the Cohesion Fund in 1999. The physical and the financial execution of the projects that have been supported, the distribution of appropriations between the environment and transport, compliance with Community environmental legislation and the distribution of appropriations by beneficiary countries have all continued to respect the Fund’s operational rules. Furthermore, no situation involving fraud or duplication of funding between the Cohesion Fund and any other Community fund was uncovered. Because everything ran to plan in 1999, because this is the last year of the 1993-1999 programming period and because the Commission report provides a broad overview of developments that have taken place during this period, I feel it is more important to focus my speech on the contribution of the Cohesion Fund to achieving economic and social cohesion, of which it is a fundamental instrument.
It should be pointed out, incidentally, that the principle of solidarity, a real pillar of the project of European integration, has seen better days, specifically as a result of the two duplications of financial resources granted to structural policies in 1986 and 1992, whose aim was to enable the cohesion countries to better cope with the pressures unleashed by the huge internal market and by Economic and Monetary Union.
In June 1999, however, when the Heads of State and Government had to decide at the Berlin Summit on the Structural Funds to be allocated for the 2000-2006 period under what came to be known as Agenda 2000, there were no further duplications. There was even a visible decrease. It was at that Summit that national self-interest supplanted the European interest of a more cohesive and balanced Europe, which had such tireless champions in Jacques Delors and Helmut Kohl.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today, however, the proximity of enlargement and the need to correct the enormous regional imbalances we will see as a consequence make it imperative that we give new impetus to economic and social cohesion policy. We are convinced that the Commission and, in particular, Commissioner Michel Barnier are equal to this challenge. We must also consider the fact that giving new impetus to cohesion policy is necessary, not only to deal with the countries that are expected to join the European Union in the near future, but also, even following enlargement, to maintain the fight against the lack of cohesion that still exists in the current European Union of fifteen countries. As a matter of fact, regional disparities within the current Europe of fifteen could even increase as a result of the pressures produced by the enlargement process, specifically in the relationships between countries on the periphery of the Union and those at its centre. In other words, countries such as Portugal, for example, may become more peripheral and the current centre, which includes London, Paris and such places, may be increased even further because it will become the centre of a Europe that is economically integrated from the west almost to the eastern border. We must remember that excessive regional imbalances constitute an economic and political threat to the European Union. They are an economic threat because, unless we are able to take full and more efficient advantage of the resources of the most depressed regions, the entire European Union will lose out. They are a political threat because the European Union cannot succeed if it is underpinned by stark territorial and social inequalities. Europe must have cohesion or it will not work. Not enabling Europe to work is the great risk that we would run if we went ahead with the totally unacceptable idea of renationalising cohesion policies.
We therefore feel that the creation of the Cohesion Fund by the Treaty of Maastricht has been fully justified. This is, as a matter of fact, clearly demonstrated by the balance of the first operational period of the Cohesion Fund between 1993 and 1999. The Cohesion Fund, we can now say, has been a major factor for real convergence, and has provided a strong incentive for the beneficiary countries to comply with the nominal convergence criteria laid down at Maastricht. We must, therefore, oppose any attempt to abolish the Cohesion Fund. We must also draw the lessons of this first period of operation to improve the effectiveness of the Cohesion Fund even further."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples