– having regard to its resolution of 16 March 2006 on the Commission's 2005 enlargement strategy paper(1),
– having regard to the Commission's Communication of 8 November 2006 on Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2006 – 2007, including the special report annexed thereto on the EU's capacity to integrate new members (COM(2006)0649),
– having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2006 on the Commission's Communication on the enlargement strategy and main challenges 2006–2007(2),
– having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2006 on the institutional aspects of the European Union's capacity to integrate new Member States(3),
– having regard to the Commission's Communication of 3 May 2006: 'Enlargement, Two Years After - An Economic Success' (COM(2006)0200),
– having regard to its resolution of 28 September 2005 on the opening of negotiations with Turkey(4),
– having regard to the Conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 3 October 2005 on the opening of negotiations with Croatia(5),
– having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 15 to 17 June 2006(6),
– having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2006 on Turkey's progress towards accession(7),
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(8),
– having regard to the Commission's Third report on economic and social cohesion of 18 February 2004 (COM(2004)0107),
– having regard to the Commission's Communication of 12 June 2006 on the Growth and Jobs Strategy and the Reform of European cohesion policy: Fourth progress report on cohesion (COM(2006)0281),
– having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 21 and 22 June 1993 in Copenhagen and of 16 and 17 December 2004 and 14 and 15 December 2006 in Brussels,
– having regard to Article 49 of the EU Treaty and Article 158 of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0087/2007),
A. whereas, under Article 2 of the EU Treaty, social, economic and territorial cohesion is an important objective of the European Union and provides citizens with a visible sign of European solidarity,
B. whereas the European Union's cohesion policy has enjoyed considerable successes in terms of achieving the objective of social, economic and territorial cohesion, as is shown in particular in the Commission's Fourth progress report on cohesion,
C. whereas the EU's past enlargements have contributed to ensuring peace, security, stability, democracy and the rule of law, as well as growth and prosperity in the Union as a whole, benefits that have helped the EU to become a more competitive and dynamic economy and which therefore must be borne in mind when deciding on future enlargements,
D. whereas further significant efforts will, nonetheless, be needed to achieve the convergence of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, since their economic point of departure was lower than that of acceding states in previous enlargements, while at the same time a radical change had to take place in their political and economic systems,
E. whereas the effects of globalisation impede the process of convergence and also give rise to new business location problems for the Union as a whole,
F. whereas, as a result of future enlargements, the EU will have to tackle three major challenges in cohesion policy, namely the aggravation of disparities in development, the displacement towards the east of the centre of gravity of cohesion policy and the inequalities which persist within EU-15,
G. whereas pressure on government budgets is increasing, whereas many Member States are infringing the stability criteria and whereas demographic trends will place additional demands on budgets and weaken economic growth,
H. whereas the EU should remain an open community and structural policy issues must not stand as an obstacle to future enlargement, provided that necessary reforms guarantee integration capacity,
I. whereas, since October 2005, the Community has been holding open-ended accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia, and in December 2005 the European Council granted the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia candidate status; whereas the other states of the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia (including Kosovo)) are regarded as potential candidates for membership; whereas the reform process in all these countries is already receiving support from pre-accession programmes containing structural policy components,
J. whereas, with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, special rules entered into force on claiming appropriations from the Structural Funds, and the full effects of this accession on structural policy have yet to be determined,
K. whereas all countries receiving EU pre-accession aid as well as the fully consideration of Romania and Bulgaria would require an additional EUR 150 billion in the current funding period on the basis of the structural policy scheme in force, whereas, however, the accession of all countries receiving pre-accession aid will not happen simultaneously,
L. whereas the accession of Romania and Bulgaria increased the area of EU-25 eligible for EU structural funding by 9% and its population by 6% and decreased its per-capita GDP by 5%; whereas the accession of Croatia would increase the area of EU-27 by 1.3% and its population by 0.9%, while it would decrease its per-capita GDP by 0.6%; whereas the accession of Turkey would increase the area of EU-27 by 18.3% and its population by 14.7%, while it would decrease its per-capita GDP by 10.5%; whereas the accession of the other Western Balkan states would increase the area of EU-27 by 4.8% and its population by 4%, while it would decrease its per-capita GDP by 3,5%,
M. whereas there is an urgent need for institutional, financial and political reform of the institutions of the European Union which underpin the EU's integration capacity; whereas accession to the EU is fully dependent on meeting the Copenhagen criteria and thus on democratic development in the countries mentioned in recital I,
N. whereas, in a 34-member state European Union, Croatia would account for only 7% of this additional structural funding, calculated under existing rules, and the other Western Balkan states currently receiving pre-accession assistance for 9.2%, while Turkey alone would receive 63%,
O. whereas the accession of the Western Balkan states taken individually, even during the current financial framework, would not give rise to any statistical effect on the eligibility of Member State regions, nor would it lead to any dramatic financial impact on the cohesion policy of the current Union of 27 Member States due to their size, population and economic development; whereas, Croatia, with which negotiations are the furthest advanced and which is even more developed in socio-economic terms than some current Member States, would, in comparative terms, represent the smallest financial burden for the Union, given the country's size, population and level of economic development and would not give rise to any statistical effect in relation to the eligible areas at regional and national level, even in the current financial period,
P. whereas the accession of Turkey would lend an entirely new scale to EU cohesion policy, which has never yet been applied to a country of such a size, with such a low level of economic development and such large regional disparities,
Q. whereas, the Presidency Conclusions of the June 2006 European Council pointed out that, in accepting new Member States, the EU should remain in a position to maintain the dynamic of European integration and 'that every effort should be made to protect the cohesion and the effectiveness of the Union',
R. whereas, in its Communication of 8 November 2006, the Commission calls for the effects on the EU budget to be examined in detail ahead of any further enlargements, taking into account the future development of relevant policy areas such as agriculture and cohesion policy,
S. whereas regional policy, as one of the largest EU budget items, will come under particularly intensive discussion – not least as regards efficiency criteria – in the review of the EU financial framework scheduled for 2008-2009,
T. whereas, in a still enlarging Union, the efficiency of Community policies is needed more than ever, the effectiveness of cohesion policy and its demonstrated genuine added-value being heavily dependent on the financial resources available; whereas, therefore, the utmost attention should be paid to the review of the Community's system of own resources,
1. Considers that the integration capacity of the European Union means in particular that it must be in a position, in the light of budgetary realities, to pursue the objective of social, economic and territorial cohesion; considers therefore that it is necessary at the time of the accession of every candidate country to decide whether the EU is capable of integrating the state in question;
2. Considers that institutional, financial and political reform is also necessary in the context of a review of the EU financial framework; in this connection, believes that a comparison should be made between the effects of the various main funding instruments (European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) on the development of EU-27, thus enabling appropriate budgetary decisions to be taken;
3. Considers that future enlargements must not lead to ever more regions ceasing to be eligible for cohesion policy funding under the current Objective 1 as a result of the statistical effect and without existing disparities really being eliminated;
4. Stresses that an honest and efficient cohesion policy is impossible without an increase in EU spending to 1,18 % of EU GNI, as was stated by Parliament in its resolution of 8 June 2005 on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013(9);
5. Regrets, therefore, that, in its Communication of 8 November 2006, the Commission does not offer any in-depth analysis of the financial consequences of future enlargements;
6. Calls on the Commission to present a detailed impact analysis in order to enable due assessment of the full effects on structural policy of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria;
7. Calls also on the Commission, in connection with forthcoming enlargements, regularly to calculate, showing separate figures for each state, the regional policy expenditure which the EU would be likely to incur, using the current as well as the amended and extended criteria, and what consequences this would have on the existing eligibility for funding of the regions; in this respect, notes that the databases and analytical instruments of ESPON could also be used; believes that consideration should also be given to improving the integration of the various EU funding instruments;
8. Considers that there is a need for ongoing studies that are based on experience gained with previous enlargements and that include the socio-economic improvements that will take place during the current programming period, in order to develop scenarios for the future financing of EU cohesion policy;
9. Stresses the importance of a very strict approach in terms of quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the use of the Structural Funds entailing sound management and appropriate monitoring in order, in the interests of Union citizens, to optimise the cost-benefit ratio of the EU's cohesion expenditure;
10. Calls on the Commission to devote a chapter in its new, 4th cohesion report to its view of the sustainability of current cohesion policy and to the future measures that might, where appropriate, impact on cohesion policy;
11. Considers that, in view of the current state of the EU's resources system, it would be difficult to finance any future enlargement without jeopardising the effectiveness of current cohesion policies;
12. Urges the Commission to issue a communication setting out a proposal for a graduated model for cohesion policy, making it possible to draw a further distinction between pre-accession assistance and membership and enabling potential accession candidates to receive effective support for regional development, subject to their political progress, prior to possible membership of the European Union;
13. Calls for a graduated approach to Turkey in particular, concentrating more closely on the funding of specific thematic areas (such as industry clusters, institution-building and equality) and regions, so as to avoid the unthinking adoption of the usual accession-related financial measures and achieve more targeted effects on cohesion and growth;
14. Notes that a graduated approach to regional policy dependent on the political progress of the candidate state could be presented as a special form of EU membership or an enhanced 'EEA+' membership;
15. Asks to be involved in the co-decision procedure for the evaluation and reform of pre-accession assistance from 2010 onwards;
16. Calls on the Commission to define in more detail what it means by 'reinforcing the neighbourhood policy', and in this context to give more thought to structural funding instruments;
17. Considers it essential for the effectiveness of cohesion policy that the individual responsibility of the Member States should be increased in future by means of higher national rates of co-financing, particularly in regions that have already received EU funding in many programming periods;
18. Proposes, in the context of the debate on future cohesion policy, that the EU should make greater use of the leverage effect of loan financing - particularly in regions that have already received EU funding for many years - in order to improve the effectiveness of Community support, albeit without replacing it;
19. Considers in this connection that more favourable conditions should be set for the financing of loans and grants for the least developed regions of the EU;
20. Calls on the Commission to devise proposals for a future cohesion policy tailored more closely to the actual needs of the regions, since regions which have been receiving aid from EU funds for 10, 20 or 30 years have clearly achieved a different level of development than those which have not yet received any funding; believes that greater differentiation may possibly be the answer to the future challenges facing EU cohesion policy;
21. Expresses concern at the fact that in some regions EU aid is poorly targeted, as a result of which the situation in those regions is failing to improve despite many years of financial support, meaning that Community resources are being wasted; calls for the introduction of a maximum period of time during which regions may receive structural funding, with a view to avoiding situations in which regions that have received EU support for many years still remain at the same low level of development;
22. Calls for more use to be made of private funds as a source of co-financing structural funding, and for the private co-financing of projects and programmes under the Structural Funds to be significantly simplified in line with best practice;
23. Calls for future structural funding to be geared so as to avoid displacement effects as well as the EU funding of company relocations, and considers that the Commission must look critically, in the context of cohesion policy, at whether subsidies given to firms are effective in influencing business decisions regarding location, taking into account the size of the firms in question;
24. Notes that the success of cohesion policy is linked to national economic policies and that in this connection the implementation of the National Action Plans for the Lisbon Strategy has a particular influence on the success of cohesion policy;
25. Calls, therefore, on the Commission and Council to consider linking the award of funds under future cohesion policy to a favourable sustainable national growth policy, to be defined by measurable quantitative and qualitative indicators covering more than just per-capita GDP, so as to boost the effectiveness of cohesion policy;
26. Urges the Commission to ensure that, in the framework of future programmes for regional competitiveness and for territorial cooperation, funding is concentrated more closely on the Europeanisation of the regional economy and on infrastructures of European importance;
27. Calls for greater use to be made of the Structural Funds in future in order to cushion the effects of demographic change and resulting regional migration;
28. Considers that greater use should be made in future of the European Social Fund as a horizontal instrument, among other things, to help regions cope with the social challenges of globalisation as well as the effects of demographic change;
29. Stresses that the results of cohesion policy can only be reviewed if the award of Structural Funds takes place in a transparent manner, and therefore calls for the European Union to employ very stringent transparency criteria for the award of funding;
30. Calls for tougher sanctions in the event of proven abuse of funding and more effective procedures for the recovery of funds;
31. Notes that successful measures to combat corruption, and the building of administrative capacity to implement Structural Fund programmes efficiently and transparently, are crucial preconditions for the receipt of structural funding; calls for consistent and rigid application of the control instruments;
32. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider all these points when conducting its mid-term review of the EU's current financial framework;
33. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions.
I. Parameters and definition of the term "future enlargements"
This own-initiative report is concerned with how future enlargements of the EU will impact on the effectiveness of the cohesion policy and how that policy should be shaped in future to continue to achieve the desired effects in terms of equilibrium and growth.
In its recent report on enlargement strategy the European Parliament issued an appeal, with the support of a number of political groups, for greater account to be taken of the Community's absorption capacity in connection with further enlargements.(1) This must be taken to include the Union’s ability to pursue the objective of social, economic and territorial cohesion in the light of budgetary realities.
Structural policy also needs to be considered in the light of the review of the EU budget scheduled for 2008/2009 (Commission review report due in early 2009). Now that efficiency has been made an issue in the Interinstitutional Agreement on the budget 2007-2013, structural and regional policy, as one of the largest budget items, will be subject to particularly intensive discussion.(2) It is therefore important to start thinking of ways and means to boost the efficiency of cohesion policy.
This report will start by looking at the accession of Romania and Bulgaria on 1 January 2007 as challenges for the future. These accessions do not strictly speaking count as “future enlargement”, since this round of enlargement has already been incorporated in the new financial perspective for the 2007-2013 programming period. However, it is significant from the point of view of regional and structural policy that the statistical effect of these economically weak countries regarding the eligibility of other regions has not yet been calculated and will only make itself felt from 2014 onwards.
The term “future” enlargements also covers those countries with official candidate status with which the European Union has already begun accession negotiations, albeit on an open-ended basis, namely Turkey and Croatia.
The other countries of the Western Balkans (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia (including Kosovo)) also count as potential candidates, and are also – like the candidate countries – in receipt of the IPA (Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance). Macedonia applied on 22 March 2004 for accession to the European Union and is currently the only country of the Western Balkans to enjoy candidate status.(3)
The above-mentioned nine acceding and candidate countries will hereafter be referred to collectively as the ACC-9. This report concerns the ACC-9 as a whole, all of which could become members of the EU in the medium term, though not necessarily at the same time. However, the material on which this report is based distinguishes between the various ACCs, which are dealt with together in groups depending on their negotiating status.
Other states with which the EU has concluded partnership agreements (Ukraine, Russia) or which are included in the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), are not covered in this report, since they only have a very long-term prospect of being potential candidate countries.
II. Framework for future regional policy
Progress on convergence in the EU
European cohesion policy has achieved major successes, most notably in its support for the southern enlargement of the EU. Thanks to the cumulative effects of the Structural Fund, GDP in Greece, Portugal and Ireland rose between 1989 and 1999 by 10% from 63.5% to over 70% of the EU average.(4) Many of the former candidate regions have now passed the 75% or 90% thresholds.
The results of eastward enlargement are rather more modest. However, it also represented an incomparably larger challenge: the point of departure for economic convergence was lower and at the same time a radical change had to be made to the political system. The enlargement from 15 to 25 Member States meant that the EU grew by 23% in area and by 20% in population, but by only 5% in terms of added value. While the average income of the EU-10 managed to rise from 44% of EU-15 average income in 1997 to 50% in 2005 (5), the Commission does not expect convergence of living standards (75% threshold) to be achieved until 2040. Some economic institutes think that the growth of some EU-10 states may significantly fall off, thus slowing down the convergence process even more.(6)
Even within the EU-15, however, many structural problems have still not been resolved, and new problems with business location are arising as a result of globalisation. Many regions have been affected by business closures and high unemployment. The above-mentioned convergence of the EU-10's economic performance with that of the EU-15 is partly the result of a relatively weak growth in the “old” EU-15.
In most Member States, economic convergence is fraught with budgetary problems. Six of the new Member States (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Malta and Cyprus) have infringed the Stability and Growth Pact(7) , while the larger Member States, such as Germany and France, have in recent years been running budget deficits exceeding Stability Pact limits. This will have a negative impact on the extent to which many Member States are able and willing to make contributions to the EU budget and thus to cohesion policy.
This is compounded by the prospect of the public expenditure occasioned by demographic change. A communication of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers of 13 February 2006(8) predicts a 4% increase in average EU expenditure on the elderly as a proportion of GDP accompanied by significant fall in the average growth rate for the EU-25 from 2.2% in the 2004-2010 period to 1.4% between 2030 and 2050.
Absorption capacity and the challenge of future enlargements
A decision of the EU Presidency(9) states that that the European Union, in accepting new Member States, should remain in a position to maintain the dynamic of European integration and “that every effort should be made to protect the cohesion and the effectiveness of the Union”. In other words, in relation to cohesion policy, absorption capacity means that "old” regions/countries should not lose their eligibility for funding as a result of the statistical effect without improvements in their competitiveness and structural situation have changed for the better.
The loss or prospective loss of structural funding was already a problem for many regions of the EU-15 as a result of the eastward enlargement. If the ACC-9 joined today, the European Parliament’s research unit estimates that more than a third of the current regions eligible for structural funding would lose their Objective 1 status.(10) Only the Baltic states and Slovakia would escape the loss of eligible regions. The worst affected would be Italy, Germany, Malta, Spain, Greece and France. Greece, Cyprus and Slovenia would be excluded from the Cohesion Fund (90%). The Czech Republic would not fall far short of the 90% threshold.
However, expert calculations have shown that, if all the ACC-9 joined the EU now, a budget of EUR 150.2 billion would have to be made available to them to permit the structural fund investments which are presently regarded as essential to take place.(11) This amount is totally out of proportion to the potential contribution of the ACC-9 to the structural budget (a 4% increase).(12)
An increase of this magnitude in the structural fund appropriations is politically unrealistic. A consequent linear reduction in funding for existing recipients would also make little sense: this would mean Poland, for example, having to accept a reduction of nearly 50% in its current structural funding.
These enlargement scenarios will not, of course, all take place at the same time. The only thing which is certain at present is that the statistical effects of Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession in 2007 will be felt in the next funding period. But all the countries receiving pre-accession assistance are seeking early EU membership. Neither the time-frame for the accession of the individual countries nor the economic development of the EU can be precisely predicted at present. The assumed 4% absorption of structural funds is also not likely to take place immediately for every country. Nevertheless, the scale of the forthcoming accessions, given existing structural policy regulations, needs to be made clear. Even this simplified picture shows that the Community would be overwhelmed by the prospective new members taken as a whole, under current structural policy conditions.
However, the calculations also show that the individual accessions would differ significantly in their effects on the EU. Turkey is a special case in every respect. It is estimated that, if Turkey were now an EU Member State, it would be receiving 27.3% of Structural Fund appropriations, an annual amount of € 16 billion, corresponding to Commission estimates – based on growth rates of 4.5% for 2024 accompanied by a 4% absorption rate – of an annual contribution of € 22.4 billion.(13) According to other estimates, by 2025 Turkey would be receiving up to € 26 billion annually for Structural Policy measures alone. (14)
III. Rapporteur’s observations
The development forecasts set out above show that the accession of the potential candidate countries would once more greatly widen regional discrepancies in terms of wealth within the enlarged EU. The resulting challenge for a cohesion policy seeking to achieve regional equilibrium will be compounded by an overstretched budget and increasing global competition even within the EU-27. At the same time, expectations are growing for European structural policy to make an effective contribution to the Lisbon strategy. As a result the challenges to European Regional Policy will outstrip the funds available. The current aims of cohesion policy can only be achieved by a graduated approach to the enlargement process and by reforms to boost the efficiency of existing instruments.
Graduated regional policy models
In order to cushion the impact on the EU and at the same time to hold out to potential candidate countries an attractive prospect independent of full EU membership, the Commission should develop graduated models permitting a further differentiation between pre-accession assistance and full membership of the cohesion policy, particularly for Turkey. Structural funding plans to this effect should be drawn up in the light of the economic and political progress made by the candidate countries and could reflect a special type of EU membership or an enhanced EEA+ membership. It must also be possible to reverse or suspend structural policy measures. In addition, the structural policy component of the “reinforced neighbourhood policy” should be more defined, in greater detail.
Components of an efficient regional policy
The effectiveness of regional policy might be maintained or even enhanced by the leverage effect of loan financing, even when the margins for financial manoeuvre are limited. Greater effectiveness for European funding might also be achieved through higher national co-financing shares and simplified arrangements for private co-financing of European programmes. Consideration should also be given to the link between the effectiveness of cohesion policy and national economic policies. The Community might therefore link the award of appropriations to a favourable national growth policy.
A radical rethink should also take place on the substance of funding priorities. In particular programmes for promoting regional competitiveness should concentrate more closely on the internationalisation of the regional economy and on building up key international infrastructures with a view to giving greater incentives to growth. It is also essential that the structural funds play a more important role in cushioning the impact of demographic change and globalisation. The effectiveness of business subsidies, on the other hand, should be subjected to critical examination, since they probably do not play a decisive role in determining business location.
Finally, there needs to be greater transparency in the award of appropriations. Only when there is sufficient clarity about how and where the money from the structural funds is being spent will it be possible to review the list of political objectives. It is also vital to fight corruption and abuses and this must be an absolute precondition for membership of the European cohesion policy.
Criteria for the further development of cohesion policy will have to be discussed in the review of the 2008/2009 budget as well as in future assessments of cohesion policy and pre-accession assistance.
“Report on the Commission's 2005 enlargement strategy paper” P6_TA(2006)0096, plenary vote of 16 March 2006; “Resolution on the Commission communication on Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2006 – 2007”, P6_TA-PROV(2006)0568, based on A6-0436/2006, plenary vote of 13 December 2006; Resolution on the institutional aspects of the European Union's capacity to integrate new Member States P6_TA-PROV(2006)0569, based on A6-0393/2006, plenary vote of 13 December 2006.
“Die aktuelle Wirtschaftslage in den Länder Mittel-, Ost- und Südeuropas”, [The current economic situation in the countries of Central, Eastern and Southern Europe], Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, July 2005; data from Eurostat, 2006.
"The impact of ageing on public expenditure: projections for the EU-25 Member States on pensions, health care, long-term care, education and unemployment transfers (2004-2050)", European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and financial Affairs, Special Report n° 1/2006, 13.2.2006.
"Die Auswirkungen der zukünftigen Erweiterungen auf die EU-Regionalpolitik, Berechnungen und Erläuterungen zur zukünftigen Verteilung der Strukturfonds", [Effects of future enlargements on EU regional policy, calculations and observations on the future distribution of the Structural Funds] GEFRA Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Regionalanalysen, November 2006.
“Der EU-Beitritt der Türkei: Wie teuer wird die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik", [Turkey’s EU membership: How expensive will it be for agricultural policy?] Harald Grethe. Humboldt Universität Berlin, Agrarwirtschaft 54 (2005) Heft 2/ 2005.
OPINION of the Committee on Budgets (25.1.2007)
for the Committee on Regional Development
on the consequences of future enlargements on the effectiveness of cohesion policy
The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
1. Notes that, as a result of future enlargements, the European Union will have to tackle three major challenges in cohesion policy, namely the aggravation of disparities in development, the displacement of the centre of gravity of cohesion policy towards the east and the inequalities which persist within the EU-15;
2. Recalls that, for the Financial Perspective 2007-2013, the Commission proposed a budget of € 16.5 bn (comprising € 11.858 bn for the Structural Funds and € 4.643 bn for the Cohesion Fund) for regional policy measures in Bulgaria and Romania for the period 2010-2013(1);
3. Considers that the Commission and the Council must present preliminary financial scenarios for cohesion policy before deciding to embark on negotiations with a candidate country, as well as detailed financial scenarios during the process of negotiations with a candidate country;
4. Stresses the importance of a very strict approach in terms of quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the use of the Structural Funds entailing sound management and appropriate monitoring in order, in the interests of European citizens, to optimise the cost-benefit ratio of the EU's cohesion expenditures;
5. Stresses the importance of the reports of the Court of Auditors and the activity reports of the Commission as instruments which contribute to assessments of the sound management of the Structural Funds and intends, if appropriate, to take the necessary measures in the context of the annual budget procedure;
6. Considers that, in view of the current state of the EU's resources system, it would be difficult to finance any future enlargement without jeopardising the effectiveness of the current cohesion policies;
7. Stresses that the mid-term renegotiation should take account of the prospect of possible further enlargements and estimate their economic and budgetary impact.
Consequences of future enlargements on the effectiveness of cohesion policy
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Richard James Ashworth, Reimer Böge, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi, Janusz Lewandowski, Mario Mauro, Nina Škottová, László Surján, Herbert Bösch, Brigitte Douay, Neena Gill, Catherine Guy-Quint, Jutta Haug, Vladimír Maňka, Dan Mihalache, Gianni Pittella, Yannick Vaugrenard, Ralf Walter, Gérard Deprez, Nathalie Griesbeck, Anne E. Jensen, Jan Mulder, Kyösti Virrankoski, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Wojciech Roszkowski, Gérard Onesta.
Substitute(s) present for the final vote
Paul Rübig, Hans-Peter Martin.
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Committee responsible Date authorisation announced in plenary
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary
Not delivering opinion(s) Date of decision
Enhanced cooperation Date announced in plenary
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed
Markus Pieper 2.5.2006
Discussed in committee
Result of final vote
Members present for the final vote
Elspeth Attwooll, Tiberiu Bărbuleţiu, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Rolf Berend, Jana Bobošíková, Antonio De Blasio, Vasile Dîncu, Gerardo Galeote, Iratxe García Pérez, Eugenijus Gentvilas, Ambroise Guellec, Pedro Guerreiro, Gábor Harangozó, Marian Harkin, Alain Hutchinson, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Gisela Kallenbach, Tunne Kelam, Evgeni Kirilov, Jamila Madeira, Miroslav Mikolášik, Jan Olbrycht, Maria Petre, Markus Pieper, Wojciech Roszkowski, Elisabeth Schroedter, Stefan Sofianski, Grażyna Staniszewska, Dimitar Stoyanov, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Oldřich Vlasák, Vladimír Železný
Substitute(s) present for the final vote
Jan Březina, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Ljudmila Novak, Zita Pleštinská, Richard Seeber, Czesław Adam Siekierski, László Surján, Károly Ferenc Szabó
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote