(a) RESOLUTION A3-0388/91

on the Commission's third progress report on the Integrated

Mediterranean Programmes (IMPs) (1989)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the motion for a resolution by Mr Welsh

on the Commission's third progress report on the Integrated

Mediterranean Programmes (IMPs) (1989) (B3-1056/91),

- having regard to the Commission's third progress report on

the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (IMPs) (1989)

(SEC(91) 0553),

- having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2088/85 of

23 July 1985 concerning the Integrated Mediterranean

Programmes,

- having regard to its resolutions of 26 May 1989 on the

Commission's first progress report (1986/87) and 14

December 1990 on the Commission's second progress report

on the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (1988),

- having regard to the Court of Auditors' special report No.

4/90 on the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (IMPs),

- having regard to its resolution of 14 February 1992 on the

Integrated Mediterranean Programmes,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional

Policy and Regional Planning (A3-0388/91),

A. whereas Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2088/85

concerning the IMPs stipulates that a detailed report on

the implementation of the IMPs shall be drawn up each year

as from 1987, covering both the financial aspects of their

implementation and an economic and social assessment of the

results obtained,

B. recalling that the IMPs were designed as an instrument to

help certain regions deal with the problems which would

result from the 1986 enlargement and that the programmes

have a maximum duration of seven years,

C. recalling that 1989 was the first year of implementation

of the reform of the Structural Funds,

As regards the report

1. Takes the view that the third progress report is

appreciably superior to its predecessors in respect of its

presentation, which makes it easier to read, and its

contents, which are more comprehensive and more relevant

to the subject of the report; welcomes the spirit and the

sometimes self-critical tone of the report and the

Commission's desire to resolve the problems which have

arisen;

2. Expresses a degree of satisfaction at the effort which the

Commission has made to meet the European Parliament's

request to assess more precisely the economic and social

results obtained and place greater emphasis on the

practical impact of the programmes;

3. Notes, however, that the report on 1989 sets out in

considerable detail the practical measures which have been

financed by the French IMPs, but is much less specific on

the subject of the Greek IMPs and gives no information

whatsoever regarding the practical measures financed by the

Italian IMPs;

The implementation of the programmes

(i) general implementation

4. Notes with concern that the problems connected with the

implementation of the IMPs highlighted in the previous

reports persist; notes that the overall implementation of

the IMPs in 1989 must be regarded as unsatisfactory,

primarily due to the poor implementation of the Italian

programmes and the difficulties in implementing the

Information Technology programme under the Greek IMPs;

(ii) budgetary implementation

5. Notes that the 29 IMPs approved by the Commission prior to

31 December 1989 entail expenditure totalling ECU 8.8

billion, including ECU 3.8 bn in Community assistance,

which represents 92.3% of the allocation from the Community

budget (ECU 4.1 bn) provided for under Article 10 of

Regulation (EEC) No. 2088/85;

6. Deplores the fact that only 44% of the commitments entered

against Article 551 (Additional contribution) have been

utilized and notes that, by comparison with 1988, when the

take-up rate was almost 100%, 1989 is disappointing from

that point of view; recognizes, however, that this poor

rate is primarily due to the non-utilization of the

appropriations for Italy;

7. Regrets that, during the 1989 financial year, the

utilization of EIB loans incorporated directly into the IMP

programmes fell far short of estimates, only 30% of the

total of ECU 2500 m having been taken up; recalls the

remarks it made on this subject in its resolutions on the

two previous reports and regrets that the figures for 1989

reveal scant progress between 1988 and 1989; calls on the

Commission and the EIB to inform Parliament of the results

of their cooperation, if there has been any, on this

matter;

(iii) administrative activity in 1989

8. Notes with satisfaction that in 1989 the Commission has

been highly active in its administration of the IMPs,

completing the negotiation of the second phase of the

French IMPs, adjusting the Greek IMPs, and taking a number

of measures in respect of the Italian IMPs;

Implementation of the partnership arrangements

9. Notes that the Commission seems satisfied with the

administrative operations of the IMP Monitoring Committees,

with certain exceptions in Italy, despite the various

material difficulties which arose in Greece and Italy, and

declares itself satisfied with the manner in which the

Monitoring Committees have overcome financial and

administrative problems and have given impetus to the

programmes, despite the reservations held by certain

governments;

10. Regrets, however, the way in which certain Monitoring

Committees operate in breach of the spirit of the basic

regulation and, therefore, do not fulfil the task conferred

on them, this being the case as regards the implementation

of certain French IMPs, such as that for the region of

Corsica;

France

11. Expresses its satisfaction at the successful implementation

of the French IMPs and congratulates the Commission on its

exhaustive report on the practical aspects of these

programmes, which enables it to assess the genuine impact

of the IMPs in France; questions, however, the purpose of

these programmes in relation to the general objectives set

when the IMPs were launched and is concerned at the fact

that there has been a willingness to use programmes which

often produce questionable results as the basis for

introducing Structural Fund reform;

Greece

12. Welcomes the fact that, in overall terms, the

implementation of the Greek programmes was satisfactory in

1989; notes, however, that the best-implemented measures

are those connected with infrastructure provision;

13. Notes the references made by the Commission to the

shortcomings of certain bodies, such as EONMEX (SMUs) and

EOT (tourism), which have hampered the implementation of

the SMU subprogramme;

14. Deplores the fact that the Monitoring Committees in Greece

have not always had the necessary resources, particularly

in respect of staff, to carry out their role effectively;

Italy

15. Deplores the persistent delays in the implementation of the

Italian IMPs, and notes that, in 1989, the lack of progress

in their implementation was such that the Commission felt

unable to give a qualitative assessment of the Italian

programmes, and thus confined itself to reporting on the

financial aspects of their implementation and providing an

assessment of the monitoring and evaluation arrangements;

16. Is puzzled that there appears to be a disparity between the

funding earmarked under the Italian IMPs and the actual

commitment and payment appropriations;

17. Notes with concern that in the Mezzogiorno three main

factors have combined to delay the launch of the IMPs:

- the division of political and administrative powers and

responsibilities at regional level, which has sometimes

led to delays on the part of local decision-makers,

- the budgetary conditions for implementing the IMPs have

not always been met in good time (delays in the

adoption of the regional budget, difficulties in

incorporating the relevant IMPs into the regional

budget),

- the lack of advance funds to speed up the flow of

resources to the final recipients;

18. Regrets that the programmes furthest behind schedule are

those in Calabria, Sicily, Campagna, Sardinia and Apulia,

regions which are among the poorest in the Community;

19. Acknowledges that implementation has been relatively

satisfactory in the central/northern regions and that some

delays could be made up later; expresses surprise that the

main problem affecting the central/northern regions is the

lack of available national counterpart funds;

Measures taken by the Commission to remedy the situation

20. Acknowledges that the Commission has taken several

political and administrative measures vis-à-vis the Italian

authorities in order to remedy the poor utilization of

appropriations for the IMPs, but notes that the report on

1989 does not state whether these measures have proved

successful;

21. Notes with concern that the report also expresses doubts

as to the capacity of the Italian IMPs to take up the

appropriations allocated to them; notes that these

difficulties have prompted the Commission, in 1991, to

allocate appropriations originally intended for the Italian

IMPs to other IMPs whose take-up rate was superior;

Future measures

22. Notes the Commission's conclusions, that 'ongoing

evaluation has revealed three types of problem of a more

general nature':

- the impact of financing procedures on programme

implementation,

- difficulties relating to new operations incorporated

into a programme,

- obstacles to the initiation of a regional development

process in the least-favoured areas;

23. Urges the Commission to act on its analysis of the

fundamental problems; awaits with interest the proposals

which the Commission will put forward on the basis of its

experience in implementing the IMPs, particularly with

regard to the following aspects:

- improvement of financial and administrative channels,

- utilization and value of the various forms of technical

assistance,

- benefits which the IMPs have brought to SMUs, on the

basis of the French programmes which seem, according

to the report, to have proved very successful;

24. Notes that the third progress report confirms certain

remarks made in the report on 1988, particularly with

regard to the impact of the disputes between regional

authorities and central government as regards the

implementation of programmes and, hence, the progress made

with them;

25. Takes the view that it is not possible, on the sole basis

of the experience gained with the IMPs, to draw general

conclusions, but instructs its committee responsible to

consider the impact of various systems of government and,

in particular, the structure of regional and local

administration on the implementation of regional

development programmes, including the IMPs;

26. Stresses that, under the circumstances, it would be

dangerous to maintain this approach for other Community

action programmes;

27. Calls on the Commission to examine the synergetic effect

of the IMPs and the other Community policies (such as, for

example, the adverse environmental impact of certain IMP

projects);

o

o o

28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the

Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member

States and the authorities of the regions concerned by the

IMPs.

9(b) RESOLUTION A3-0340/91

on the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the special report of the Court of

Auditors on the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes,

- having regard to the IMP progress report for 1989 submitted

by the Commission,

- having regard to Rule 121 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary

Control (A3-0340/91),

A. whereas the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes have marked

a turning-point in Community structural policy to the

extent that funding of individual projects has been

abandoned in favour of programming of assistance,

B. whereas the programme-based approach is the corner-stone

of the reform of the Structural Fund, for which the IMPs

can consequently be said to provide the essential

groundwork,

C. whereas, therefore, the problems which have arisen in

drawing up and implementing the IMPs should be investigated

and solutions sought with an eye both to the above

programmes and to related experiences with the reform of

the Structural Funds,

1. Notes with concern that the IMPs have been affected by

serious delays in their implementation and that there has

been no appreciable improvement over the last few financial

years;

2. Points out that if expenditure could not be committed

within the time-limit laid down in the programme contracts,

the system set up under the IMP regulation, Regulation

(EEC) No. 2088/85, would cease to apply and any subsequent

commitments would be adopted not on the basis of

programmes, but within a non-integrated operational

framework;

3. Points out that the immediate causes of the delays

(innovative nature of the programmes; initial difficulties

in reconciling the expectations of the regions with the

financial resources actually available) have been

accompanied by other structural causes related to the

efficiency of the authorities, as well as to political

differences of opinion and demarcation problems involving

national, regional, and local bodies;

4. Considers, however, that the above remarks do not cast

doubt on the soundness of the concept of partnership

between the Community and the regions, but rather imply a

need for regions running behind schedule to be encouraged

to perform their role and for national authorities to be

obliged to cooperate in a constructive way;

5. Calls, therefore, on the Commission to make use of its

option of transferring appropriations from regions running

seriously behind schedule to those which have already

completed their programmes and are in a position to submit

further programmes;

6. Points out that the IMPs have led to delegation of

responsibilities to regional and local bodies and that such

delegation must be offset by an increased Community

presence provided in the form of supervision of

implementation and checks on the regularity, soundness, and

continuity of the assistance measures;

7. Regrets that supervision has proved inadequate, thereby

prejudicing efficient management, since the monitoring

committees do not have a proper computerized monitoring

system or any physical indicators by which to measure

progress and, moreover, are unable to exert any kind of

beneficial influence over the various bodies concerned;

8. Calls, therefore, on the Commission:

- to take the steps required to bring the computerized

system into operation, together with accompanying

physical indicators to measure the progress of

activities specifically with a view to affording an

insight into the excellence and permanence of the

achievements brought about by the IMPs;

- to ensure that agreements with national, central, and

regional authorities provide for the monitoring

committees to have the powers of decision and control

over the various managing authorities;

9. Believes that more transparent budgetary management of the

IMPs entails the following requirements:

- the system of advances, which could distort the outturn

figures, must operate in conjunction with the above-

mentioned set of physical indicators of operations

actually completed;

- commitment of expenditure by annual tranches must be

backed up by details of the potential charges incurred

under the decisions concerning the programmes;

10. Calls on the Commission to provide for closer coordination

of assistance between the individual Structural Funds and

between the Funds and the EIB;

11. Points out that EIB loans play virtually no role in IMP

funding mechanisms, as can be seen from the very modest take-

up rate of the ECU 2.5 billion ceiling provided for in

Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2088/85;

12.Calls, therefore, on the Commission and the EIB to

investigate ways of improving coordination of their

respective activities, in particular by:

- including EIB loans in the financing plans,

- investigating the possibility of providing undertakings

with guarantees against exchange risks and granting them

interest rebates,

- increasing the involvement of EIB representatives in the

activities of the monitoring committees;

13. Notes that the additionality of assistance, implied in

Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2088/85, has been found

wanting in Italy and in Greece, where the funding has often

constituted a replacement for state aid, and believes that

this fact sets a worrying precedent for the proper manner of

giving effect to the above principle under the reform of the

Structural Funds; believes that when programme contracts or

Community support frameworks lay down arrangements with

Member States regarding the national budgetary resources to

be made available to the regions concerned, then it will be

possible to speak of genuine additionality of assistance;

14. Rejects the Commission's argument that it cannot undertake

impact assessments until three to five years after programmes

have been completed and calls on it to allow independent

interim assessments to be carried out in the future; these

assessments should examine the economic, social and

environmental impact of the programmes;

15. Considers that the Commission has so far failed to increase

its on-the-spot checks in proportion to the scale of

delegation of responsibilities brought about by the IMPs;

16. Calls, therefore, on the Commission to step up its on-the-

spot checks with a view to attaining at least the critical

threshold of 10% of funded operations;

17. Calls on the Commission to take account of these

recommendations in its proposals concerning the reform of the

structural funds and the Delors financial package;

18. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the

Commission, the Council and the Court of Auditors.