Brussels, 21/04/2010 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 20 April, in Strasbourg, the European Parliament discussed the report by Evgeni Kirilov (S&D, Bulgaria) on the proposal for a regulation setting out general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Structural Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund, concerning simplification of certain provisions on financial management. MEPs rallied to the text and gave their support to cohesion policy that, as they acknowledged, can help European regions and individuals living there thanks to various instruments. The Kirilov report will be voted on during the plenary session on 5 and 6 May in Brussels.
Speaking on behalf of the rapporteur (who was absent due to air traffic disruption), Constanze Krehl (S&D, Germany) said that amendment to the regulation is “an essential element of the joint effort, with European and national plans, aiming to overcome the consequences of the economic crisis, along the lines of the documents adopted in 2009”. She invited the Commission and Council to work toward simplifying the rules applying to structural funds in order to facilitate access to the funds when member states need them the most. She recommended, moreover, that the excessive administrative burden should be reduced, as well as red tape and rules lacking in clarity, in order to strengthen transparency, improve control and eliminate irregularities.
This report, which Regional Policy Commissioner Johannes Hahn sees as the sign of fruitful dialogue between the EP, Council and Commission, shows that one can play out the Community method. He raised three questions, giving the answers: 1) What do we wish to achieve? Lasting facilitation for access to regulations and short term simplification. “We support and accept the Council's proposals and the majority support of the EP to act rapidly so that these proposals are adopted”, Hahn said. - 2) What is the joint objective of this initiative? It is to simplify the programme and contribute to it. - 3) What should be done to address the crisis? There are thresholds for major funding projects of €50 million, and simpler rules are needed for amending operational programmes whenever necessary. As for the problem of liquidities for the five countries most targeted (Romania, Hungary, and the three Baltic States), it is necessary to speed up the rate of credit absorption thanks to a contribution that is supple and more flexible. “With means of €750 million, which are a preliminary payment, many projects could be implemented”, the commissioner said, pointing out that, in 2009, €6.3 billion were already paid out as advance payment.
Speaking on behalf of the employment committee, Regina Bastos (EPP, Portugal) noted that the system will be more effective but that the cohesion programmes should be more targeted on SMEs and companies that generate jobs. She went on to underline the need to have a sustainable economy with quality jobs.
Sophie Auconie (EPP, France) asserted: “Today, we respond on the ground as we are expected to respond. This text gives us greater flexibility and greater solidarity in Europe”. Karin Kadenbach (S&D, Austria) gave her group's support to the rapporteur, saying: “Structural funds can be the firefighters of the crisis for rapid action”. She went on to highlight the need for early payments that “are made rapidly to improve the situation of the regions concerned and job creation”. Elisabeth Schroedter (Greens/EFA, Germany) noted that, for projects below €50 million, the Commission will not make a cost analysis. For the SMEs, the Greens consider that the sustainability clause must remain at a 5 year duration (and not 3 years as in the proposal). “If our amendment has not been accepted, we shall not agree with the report”, she said. Oldrich Vlasak (ECR, Czech Republic) backed the Hungarian declaration which states an instrument of financial engineering must be used in cohesion funds for areas such as renewable energy, housing and energy efficiency. Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL, Germany) took a stance in favour of simplifying structural funds. Her group withdrew the amendment re-establishing the original Commission proposal (100% ESF funding), giving as her reason for this that there was no chance of it being adopted during plenary vote.
Johannes Hahn reassured Elisabeth Schroedter, saying: “We shall not make the control mechanisms disappear by reviewing thresholds for large projects upwards. No, control mechanisms remain in place at local and national levels”.
As for the N+3 rule, Johannes Hahn warned that one should not be lax and rest on one's laurels for a “more restrictive” vision of things. “Regions must make a double effort and undertake to use resources that are made available to them”, he noted, saying: “On condition that the budget is sufficient, one should not have problems for helping regions as part of the Regional Fund framework. Consequently, I believe that seeking to review structural funds downwards and foreseeing sanctions in the context of structural funds, sanctions that have no structural effectiveness, would be quite out of place in periods of crisis”. (G.B./transl.jl)