A3-0388/93

Resolution on the Commission's fifth progress report on Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (IMPs) - 1991-1992

The European Parliament,

-having regard to the Commission's fifth progress report on Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (IMPs) 1991-1992 (COM(93)0485 - C3-0466/93),

-having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2088/85 on Integrated Mediterranean Programmes,

-having regard to its resolutions of 26 May 1989 on the first progress report (1986/1987), 14 December 1990 on the second progress report (1988), 14 February 1992 on the third progress report (1989) and 22 January 1993 on the fourth progress report (1990) by the Commission on Integrated Mediterranean Programmes,

-having regard to the Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 4/90 on Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (IMPs),

-having regard to the Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 3/92 on the environment (particularly the examination of environmental impact in respect of Structural Funds operations);

-having regard to the report by the Committee on Regional Policy and Regional Planning and Relations with Regional and Local Authorities (A3-0388/93),

A.whereas Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2088/85 on IMPs provided that a detailed report on implementation should be drawn up each year as from 1987, covering both the financial aspects of implementation and an economic and social assessment of the results obtained,

B.whereas the regulation entered into force on 1 August 1985 and will expire on 31 December 1993, the final date for commitments of expenditure in respect of IMPs,

C.whereas from the beginning of 1994 the Commission intends to conduct an ex post facto assessment in each of the recipient countries in order to make an objective appraisal of the overall impact of the programmes and gain a definitive view of the value of IMPs,

The report

1.Notes that the report for 1991 and 1992 gives, for the first time, a definitive breakdown of the maximum amount of Community aid (ECU 4.1 billion); notes, furthermore, that the report basically confirms the trends already set out in the four earlier reports in respect of budgetary and financial implementation;

2.Notes that, by the end of 1992, almost all of the Community funds for France and Greece had been committed, with a large proportion having been paid to the regional authorities while, in Italy, substantial sums had yet to be committed in respect of most of the programmes;

Budgetary implementation of the programmes

3.Notes that, as at 31 December 1992, ECU 3.453 bn (84%) of Community resources earmarked for IMPs had been committed; regrets, however, that the necessary speeding up of the commitments to absorb the extra appropriations in the reserve which were allocated to France and Italy has not been achieved;

4.Welcomes the fact that the rate of implementation of commitments under Item 551 (additional contribution) has improved considerably, and that as at 31 December 1992, 88.4 % of commitments and 75.2% of payments had been implemented; regrets, nonetheless, that it proved impossible to achieve the 100% commitment rate planned for the programmes' last year and notes that the problem was mainly caused by delays in the implementation of twelve Italian IMPs;

5.Notes that despite the problems with implementation, the Commission expects that, with commitments continuing in 1993, it will be possible for IMP appropriations to be taken up in full within the deadlines stipulated in the regulation;

Loans

6.Regrets that during the 1991 and 1992 financial years, as in previous financial years, the effective take-up of EIB loans directly included in IMP programmes was low compared with the figure of ECU 2 500m quoted in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2088/85 as an estimate of the loans which IMPs could attract during their seven-year implementation period; notes that loans totalling only ECU 512m were taken out over the two-year period, to add to total loans of ECU 550m between 1986 and 1990;

7.Notes that the Commission restates its view that full take-up of the ECU 2 500m in loans depended on demand on the part of the operators and draws attention to the fact that in 1991 and 1992, 31% and 23% respectively of EIB financing in the IMP areas was in keeping with IMP objectives without actually being incorporated in the programmes;

8.Finds these explanations unsatisfactory; considers that the explicit inclusion in the regulation of an amount in respect of the loans shows that the legislative authority intended this amount to be actually lent under those IMP programmes which basically come within the framework of the overall budget; regrets that, as in previous years, the report does not reflect the cooperation between the Commission and the EIB that Parliament had called for as a means of stimulating take-up of the loans;

9.Regrets, in particular, that certain programmes have been drawn up as a priority with a view to absorbing appropriations in the form of subsidies, without taking account of the loan opportunities offered by the regulation; calls on the Commission and the EIB to cooperate closely in future, to ensure that EIB loan opportunities are used;

10.Recommends to the EIB that, in order to be able to operate in the regions concerned, it should in future try to find suitable correspondent banks on the spot, as it has just done in Brittany (France) with the financial institution 'Crédit Mutuel de Bretagne';

11.Proposes that if in future the EIB shows a lack of interest in fulfilling its tasks in respect of economic and social cohesion, the Community should try to find, together with regional and local banks involved in regional development, preferably mutual banks, ways of promoting loans with greater commitment and energy;

Financial and administrative channels

12.Notes with satisfaction that the Commission has been able to use the findings of a survey of national financial and administrative procedures; hopes however that, though the good offices of the Commission, Community assistance will in future be differentiated from national resources, which is unfortunately still not the case in some Member States today;

13.Regrets the inadequacy of the information supplied in respect of administrative channels, which is the undoubted cause of certain anomalies in the financial procedures;

Implementation of the partnership

14.Notes with satisfaction that all the monitoring committees (including those for the Italian programmes) were operational in 1991, while deploring the delays in their establishment; regrets the lack of assessment reports for some regions; welcomes the Commission's decision to appoint a paid independent expert adviser to act as assessor for Campania but notes that an expert adviser has not yet been appointed for the Basilicata programme;

15.Believes there is a whole range of problems - not dealt with in this report - relating to the operation of the monitoring committees which do not seem to come within the scope of the various surveys commissioned by the Commission; notes that the right of MEPs to attend committee meetings and be given all the information they require for the purposes of parliamentary scrutiny is not recognized in all the Member States which receive funds under the IMPs;

16.Calls on the Commission to ensure genuine internal cooperation so as not to give the impression that certain representatives on these committees might, in the future, undermine the principles which governed the reform of the Structural Funds;

17.Reminds the Commission that although, in accordance with the principle of partnership, when programmes are being drawn up, its role has to be restricted to ensuring the eligibility of schemes put forward, it is also its responsibility to verify the use made of Community funds for which it is accountable and answerable to Parliament;

18.Continues to be concerned at the existence of parallel monitoring committees where the real decisions are taken and believes this to be incompatible with the genuine transparency as called for in another connection by Parliament;

Measures taken by the Commission in respect of Italy

19.Regrets that the Commission was forced to reduce the appropriations allocated to Campania, but recognizes that this step appears to have been inevitable given the delays in implementation; notes that this was the first time that the Community has reduced appropriations allocated to an operational programme on the grounds of unsatisfactory implementation, and hopes that the example thus set will ensure that such a situation does not happen again;

20.Notes that the report once again highlights the difference, in respect of implementation of the programmes, between the regions of the Mezzogiorno and those of the Centre-North, where greater progress was made;

Future progress

21.Notes that, from the beginning of 1994, the Commission intends to conduct an ex post facto assessment in each country in order to make an objective appraisal of the overall impact of the programmes and gain a definitive view of the value of IMPs;

22.Considers that this last report should not simply assess budgetary implementation, but should study closely:

-the concrete impact of IMP operations in the recipient regions and the manner in which Community funds have been used,

-any environmental problems which cropped up and the solutions found to them,

-how the different systems of government (particularly the regional and local government structures) have affected the implementation of operational programmes,

-the synergy between IMPs and other Community policies,

-cooperation with the EIB

-how the monitoring committees operate;

23.Asks the Commission to specify what criteria it will use in the ex post facto assessment to meet Parliament' requirements as set out above;

24.Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States, and to the authorities by regions concerned by IMPs.