INTERIM REPORT on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund

2.6.2005 - (COM(2004)0492 - 2004/0163(AVC))

Committee on Regional Development
Rapporteur: Konstantinos Hatzidakis

Amendments

• 001-004 (PDF - 81 KB)
• 001-004 (DOC - 84 KB)
• 005-006 (PDF - 78 KB)
• 005-006 (DOC - 78 KB)
• 007-007 (PDF - 74 KB)
• 007-007 (DOC - 21 KB)
• 008-008 (PDF - 69 KB)
• 008-008 (DOC - 22 KB)
• 009-011 (PDF - 79 KB)
• 009-011 (DOC - 80 KB)
• 012-022 (PDF - 98 KB)
• 012-022 (DOC - 108 KB)
• 023-023 (PDF - 75 KB)
• 023-023 (DOC - 43 KB)
• 024-027 (PDF - 84 KB)
• 024-027 (DOC - 85 KB)
• 028-034 (PDF - 95 KB)
• 028-034 (DOC - 96 KB)
• 035-039 (PDF - 87 KB)
• 035-039 (DOC - 86 KB)
• 040-040 (PDF - 76 KB)
• 040-040 (DOC - 43 KB)
• 041-041 (PDF - 75 KB)
• 041-041 (DOC - 73 KB)
• 042-046 (PDF - 87 KB)
• 042-046 (DOC - 86 KB)
• 047-047 (PDF - 71 KB)
• 047-047 (DOC - 72 KB)
• 048-049 (PDF - 79 KB)
• 048-049 (DOC - 77 KB)
• 050-050 (PDF - 74 KB)
• 050-050 (DOC - 44 KB)
• 051-055 (PDF - 91 KB)
• 051-055 (DOC - 89 KB)
• 056-056 (PDF - 70 KB)
• 056-056 (DOC - 43 KB)
• 057-057 (PDF - 73 KB)
• 057-057 (DOC - 72 KB)
• 058-058 (PDF - 71 KB)
• 058-058 (DOC - 72 KB)
• 059-059 (PDF - 78 KB)
• 059-059 (DOC - 73 KB)
• 060-062 (PDF - 76 KB)
• 060-062 (DOC - 79 KB)

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund

(COM(2004)0492 - 2004/0163(AVC))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (COM(2004)0492 – 2004/0163(AVC)),

– having regard to Article 161 of the EC Treaty,

–    having regard to its resolution of 22 April 2004 on the third report on economic and social cohesion [1],

–    having regard to Rule 75(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–     having regard to the interim report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets, Committee on Budgetary Control, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Committee on Transport and Tourism, Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A6‑0177/2005),

1.    Considers the draft regulation to be in overall accordance with it resolution of 22 April 2004 and makes no further direct endorsement, therefore, of the Commission proposals, but calls nevertheless, with particular reference to the debate in Council, on the Commission and the Council to take account of the following specific recommendations;

2.    Requests that during the new period, whenever referring to economic and social cohesion, reference be made in addition to the concept of territorial cohesion and that special attention be brought to bear with a view to developing this new concept;

3.    Rejects any significant modification to the overall architecture of the Commission proposal and in particular any attempt to renationalise all or part of the Union's regional policy (Title 1);

4.    Rejects any attempt to diminish the importance of a strong Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective and approves of its concentration on accessibility, research and development, education and training, employment and social inclusion and the information society; calls for these priorities to be closely coordinated with other Community programmes and policies, and in particular the Lisbon Strategy;

5.    Calls for the extension of eligibility of the natural effect regions also to apply to ‘convergence’ objective actions, without any corresponding increase in Community funds intended for these regions (Article 6, paragraph 2);

6.     Underlines the importance of having a structure of three strands in the new European territorial cooperation Objective, comprising transnational, cross-border and interregional cooperation; calls, therefore, for the inclusion of interregional cooperation as an independent component of this Objective similar to the current INTERREG IIIc programme;

7.     Believes that the overall budget for the European territorial cooperation Objective should be maintained and welcomes, in this context, the emphasis that was given in the Commission proposal on cross border co-operation;

8.    Opposes the imposition of an arbitrary 150 km limit for defining maritime regions eligible for cross-border cooperation programmes and calls, moreover, for special measures to be taken to ensure that regions at the periphery of EU territory can participate in these programmes;

9.    Rejects any weakening of the principle of partnership as envisaged in the original proposal, especially in terms of strategic planning and monitoring of the programmes; calls particularly for the maintenance of the list of appropriate bodies (Article 10, paragraph 1, indent c);

10.  Calls on the Member States to strengthen links with regional, local and urban partners in order to make optimum use of their specific knowledge both in the preparation of programmes and in their implementation; advocates in this context, moreover, maximum decentralisation of powers in order to avoid excessive administrative work (Article 10);

11.  Calls for an extension of the principle of equality between men and women so as to ensure non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, and that, in particular, accessibility for disabled persons is a condition of benefiting from the Funds and is monitored during the various stages of implementing the Funds (Article 14);

12. Calls for the evaluation of the funds also to include indications of the progress achieved in promoting equality between men and women and social inclusion, as well as in the fight against all forms of discrimination;

13. Calls for all attempts to adjust the proposed financial framework, including both global resources and the breakdown of resources between the various objectives and their components, to be rejected most vigorously and, irrespective of this point, considers that the amounts proposed by the Commission for the allocation of resources between the various objectives represent a fair balance of interests (Articles 15-22);

14. Considers that, given the serious need for structural funding for many EU regions in the new programming period, all resources allocated to cohesion policy should be spent for this purpose; calls, therefore, for the possibility of re-using unspent resources due to the N+2 rules within Sub-heading 1b for the regions that are in a position to absorb them on the basis of the principles of effectiveness and fairness;

15.  Calls for special compensation mechanisms to be established for those regions or Member States that face substantial financial losses, due to the disparities caused by the implementation of the Commission proposal regarding the allocation of financial resources;

16.  Takes the view that once the next financial perspective has been adopted the Commission will either confirm the figures set out in the proposal for a regulation or submit adjusted figures to the European Parliament and the Council for their approval, thus ensuring compatibility with the ceilings;

17.  Points out that the funds are subject to the provisions of the financial regulation and emphasises the need for the Commission and Member States to apply the transparency and sound financial management rules ;

18.   Calls for the maintenance of clear and comprehensive Community strategic guidelines on cohesion which must be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 161 of the EC Treaty; calls moreover for any mid-term review to be carried out under the same procedure unless the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe has come into force, in which case Article III-223 must be used so as to allow for the legislative codecision of the European Parliament (Article 23 – 24);

19.  Calls for the inclusion of the Decisions on the trans-European transport network (‘TEN-T’) (Decision No 884/2004/EC and Decision No 1692/96/EC), at Article 23(3);

20.  Calls for the general Regulation to include a stronger link to the European sustainable development strategy (Article 23); calls, in this context, for Member States to demonstrate in the national strategic framework how they intend to finance the needs of the environment, in particular supporting the Natura 2000 network, implementing the Water Framework Directive and achieving Kyoto targets, from Community resources or from own resources (Article 25);

21.  Reiterates its demand for a balanced and fair financial treatment for areas suffering from severe and permanent natural, climatic or demographic handicaps such as islands, mountainous and border areas and sparsely populated regions, particularly the very thinly populated northern areas of the Union (Recital 12); Calls also for the inclusion of a reference to these areas under the thematic and territorial priorities to be specified in the strategic section of the national strategic reference framework (Article 25);

22. Calls for the new Member States of Malta and Cyprus, in order for them to face specific problems they are confronted with as islands on the periphery of the European Union, to receive adequate financial support on the basis of insularity, peripherality, and the principle of equal treatment;

23. Strongly supports the special action of 1.1 billion euros for the outermost regions proposed by the Commission, as well as the possibility of financing operating aid, as provided in Article 11 of the draft Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund; calls for full practical expression to be given to the requirement laid down in Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty for the outermost regions to be treated as a special case as regards their access to the Structural Funds, including those regions whose GDP has already risen above 75% of the Community average;

24. Calls for the maintenance of a national strategic reference framework which is prepared in close cooperation with the partners referred to in Article 10 and which must remain the subject of a Commission decision negotiated in the framework of the partnership (Article 26);

25. Calls for the inclusion of the possibility for the national strategic reference framework to be revised (Article 26);

26. Calls for a simplification of the strategic follow-up so that there is reporting by the Member States and the Commission every two years (Articles 27 and 28); calls in this context for a debate every two years in a strategic forum involving the European Parliament, the Commission, the Committee of the Regions and the Member States (Article 29);

27. Calls in the context of the single fund per programme approach, for an increase from 5% to 10% as a limit up to which either the ESF or the ERDF may fund measures falling within the scope of the other fund (Article 33); however, suggests that in certain circumstances the Commission may grant approval for the same management authority to preside over more than one intervention, but that the 10% limit should still apply;

28. Calls, in order to highlight the urban dimension and in particular sustainable urban development, for structural fund financed operational programmes under the Convergence and Regional competitiveness and employment objectives to maintain the requirement for information to be submitted on the approach to the urban issue, including the list of urban areas chosen and the procedures for sub-delegation; calls for such procedures to be placed in the context of regional and local partnership; considers that the level of funding must be at least equivalent to that to which urban areas are eligible under the current regulation (Article 36);

29. Calls for the three Funds to take account of the priorities of small and micro enterprises, particularly craft enterprises, given their importance for cohesion and regional development and their contribution to growth and employment, and to support the implementation of the principles and action lines of the European Charter for Small Enterprises adopted by the Feira European Council in 2000;

30.  Considers that Member States should specify the arrangements for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of national strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes, and ensure timely Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of the major infrastructure projects; further calls on the Commission to ensure that major infrastructure projects do not conflict with the protection and improvement of the environment; [Articles 38 to 40];

31. Calls for a coherent approach and the maintenance of Structural Funds procedures when the current neighbourhood programmes are transformed into programmes under the new cooperation instruments for the external borders of the Union (ENPI and IPA);

32. Calls for the retention of the proposal for a Community reserve for quality and performance as a mechanism for rewarding progress including the Cohesion fund; calls, however, for fair, objective, transparent and jointly adopted criteria to apply, so as to ensure that it genuinely achieves this purpose (Article 48);

33.  Calls for an explicit requirement and recognition of the principle and practice of accessibility for disabled persons in the strategic guidelines and in the evaluation process required by the strategic guidelines;

34. Calls for Member States which so wish to be able to make provision for a national contingency reserve and recommends that greater flexibility be introduced into the means of its implementation (Article 49);

35.  Rejects pressure to change the proposed co-financing rates (Article 51), but calls for a doubling of the permitted increase to 10 percentage points for those areas suffering from more than one of the geographical or natural handicaps defined in the proposal (Article 52);

36.  Strongly supports all the incentives that are given for the mobilisation of private capital and the promotion of public private partnerships in the new programming period (Articles 50(d) and 54); considers that the calculation of the Community co-financing rate as a percentage of only the declared public expenditure constitutes an important simplifying proposal of this Regulation and better ensures the application of the principle of additionality; calls, at the same time, for the maintenance of the flexibility provided by the calculation of the co-financing rate for each priority and not for each measure (Articles 51 and 76); stresses, however, that the calculation of the co-financing rate should not be such as to prejudice the participation of NGOs and other not-for-profit organisations in Structural Fund activities;

37.  Considers that the Commission proposal to impose financial corrections on firms that relocate their activities is an indispensable measure, in order not to put in jeopardy the consolidation of economic, social and territorial cohesion in the affected regions; proposes the establishment of monitoring systems in order to quantify the economic and social costs of any relocation so that appropriate penalties may be set accordingly; calls, at the same time, for the adoption of all necessary legal measures to ensure that firms which receive Community funding do not relocate for a long and predetermined period;

38.  Calls for a provision whereby co-financing of operations, which result in substantial job losses or the closure of plants in their existing locations, will be ruled out;

39.   Calls for the inclusion of a reference to the need for a high level of project management skills and qualifications as an essential element in ensuring that projects are delivered on time and on budget (Article 57);

40.  Calls for the proportionality principle to be applied effectively to programming (Articles 31 to 37), evaluation (Article 45) and management, monitoring and controls (Articles 57 to 73) in accordance with the size of the programmes; considers, moreover, that in these areas the principle of simplification must be applied to all programmes in the interests of all the Member States;

41.   Notes that the Commission and the Member States have joint responsibility for the Structural Funds; calls on the Member States to make annual declarations of assurance that EU taxpayers' money has been spent in a regular, legal and transparent manner; calls for these declarations to be signed by the finance minister of each Member State;

42.  Calls for the spirit of the proposed limits in respect of proportional control arrangements (33% cofinancing and EUR 250m cost) below which no systematic controls are undertaken by the Commission to be maintained; calls nevertheless for the specific characteristics of the different funds to be taken into account (Article 73);

43.   Rejects any change to the proposed pre-financing amounts (Article 81);

44.   Rejects any further weakening of the N+2 rule for the structural funds other than the flexibility already proposed for major projects, since the benefits of this rule have been demonstrated through its effectiveness in improving the efficient implementation of funds over the current programming period (Article 93); calls, however, for greater flexibility to be allowed for the Cohesion Fund;

45.   Calls for greater flexibility to be introduced so as to extend the proposed two month deadline for Member States to challenge financial corrections by the Commission; calls for this time-limit to be varied in accordance with the seriousness of the problem at issue (Article 100);

46.    Rejects any attempt to introduce expenses which do not relate to investment such as housing costs, as eligible expenditure for the purposes of calculating Community co-financing; considers, however, that expenses which relate to renovation of social housing with a view to saving energy and protecting the environment should be included within eligible expenditure;

47.   Rejects any reduction in the ceilings for State aids to convergence regions, including those subject to the statistical effect; calls, therefore, for all regions covered by the convergence objective also to be given equal treatment in terms of aid rules and to come under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty; calls moreover for a gradual transition in aid ceilings for the natural effect regions; stresses the need for the maintenance of territorial differentiation, with particular regard to natural or geographical handicaps, in the application of State aids to regions outside of the convergence objective;

48.   Instructs its President to request further discussion with the Council pursuant to Rule 75(3) of its Rules of Procedure;

49.   Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and the Council.

• [1]  OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p. 1000.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Introduction

This interim report follows on from the report and resolution adopted by the European Parliament on the Commission’s third report on economic and social cohesion[1] and from the working document prepared by your rapporteur in December 2004.[2]

Its aim is to not to restate the arguments laid out in the previous two documents, but rather to advance, as concisely as possible, Parliament’s priorities for the reform of the European structural funds. Thus, the resolution is intentionally limited to concrete “recommendations” for inclusion in the general regulation. No recitals or broad statements of principle have been included, only calls for action.

These relate both directly to the Commission’s proposal and to the information received by the rapporteur as to the ‘state of play’ within the Council of Ministers. With regard to the Commission proposal, there is clearly a high degree of conformity between it and the positions already adopted by the European Parliament. Nevertheless, a number of calls for change or addition have been made. In the case of the Council, Parliament may recommend a similar course of action, where the debate appears to be moving in the right direction. However, where that is not the case Parliament may, in the first instance, seek to deter unwelcome developments by indicating its rejection of them, but might ultimately have to refuse its assent were the Council’s position to be considered politically unacceptable.

What therefore is the bottom line?

Political Priorities

The European Parliament has on numerous occasions stressed the need for a minimum credible budget in order to implement the future cohesion policy. It thus rejects any notion that Europe’s regional policy can be considered as a variable that can simply be adjusted during the adoption of the 2007-2013 financial perspectives. The financial stability proposed by the draft regulation at 0.41% of Community GNI (0.46% including EAFRD and EFF) must be considered as acceptable, given the huge increase in the population eligible for the Convergence objective, following an enlargement process without precedent. It must therefore be considered as constituting the minimum necessary for putting into place the proposed architecture.

Moreover, in order to make a true political and economic success of enlargement it will be crucial to guarantee an equitable balance between the needs of regions from the new Member States eligible for the Convergence objective, the poorest regions of the old Member States, the statistical effect regions and those regions subject to phasing-in. Many proposals have been presented to increase or decrease all part of the financial envelope.

The rapporteur makes two specific proposals regarding cohesion policy funding. The first concerning the possible recycling of funds lost as a result of the strict implementation of the N+2 rule. He proposes that these appropriations be re-entered in the budgets of the wealthier Member States as is now the case but that they be kept in the cohesion budget for allocation to those regions able to use them. The second proposal concerns the need for compensatory arrangements for those regions and Member States which lose out heavily in financial terms following the allocation of Community funds in accordance with Commission recommendations.

With regard to the Convergence objective, your rapporteur considers, in principle, that the full eligibility for the regions affected by the statistical effect might be seen as a relatively inexpensive means of achieving a sustainable and harmonious equilibrium. However, the full eligibility of these regions will in practice mean an increase in the 0.41% of Community GNI proposed by the draft regulation. The rapporteur will accordingly submit a proposal along these lines, having first discussed the matter with this colleagues.

Concerning the ‘natural effect’ regions eligible for transitional funding under the ‘regional competitivity and employment’ objective, the rapporteur takes the view that they should be eligible for ‘convergence’ measures, since they may prove more effective for completion of the as yet unfinished convergence process in these regions. For example, while such regions may be looking to tourism for their development, the measures taken relate only to the ‘convergence’ and not the ‘regional competitivity and employment’ objective. The rapporteur is in no way insinuating that Community funding for these regions should be increased.

With regard to the rest of the Community’s territory, Parliament has consistently supported a balanced Europe-wide polycentric model for sustainable development which will drive forward the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies. It rejects, therefore, any notion of a renationalisation of cohesion policy and in particular of the regional competitiveness and employment objective as is still, even now, being suggested by certain Member States. In this context, your rapporteur considers that there must be a strict respect of the Commission's proposals for the phasing-in regions and for those with natural or geographical handicaps. In the latter case, he believes that the 5% extra co financing envisaged, should be doubled where a region suffers from the cumulative effects of more than one such handicap.

With regard to the future Objective 3 on cooperation, there should be greater flexibility, particularly with regard to maritime boundaries and due account must be taken of the need to provide for the connectivity of peripheral areas.

Concerning the governance of the future regional policy, the Parliament has always insisted that a balance must be struck between the urgent need for simplification on the one hand and the effective use of funds on the other, taking account of the particular nature of the structural funds (partnership arrangements, EU co-funding of programmes etc). Cohesion policy should not be transformed into 25 or 27 ‘blank cheques’, but must rather form part of a coherent approach to the achievement of Europe’s major strategic objectives: solidarity, competitiveness and sustainable development. This can only occur through a close cooperation between strategy at Community, national and regional level. Hence, importance is attached to the maintenance of the Community strategic guidelines, the national strategic reference frameworks and the principles of partnership and non-discrimination. Moreover, the strategic approach must contain the priorities that will enable European objectives to be translated into action on the ground in an equitable manner at the level of regional programming. Thus, a reference to island, sparsely populated and mountainous areas should already be made under the thematic and territorial priorities specified in the national strategic framework.

In this context, therefore, Parliament has already been resolute on the need for its involvement in the proposed annual strategic debate. However, it would seem more appropriate to ensure the inclusiveness of this debate through the organisation of a strategic forum encompassing the Parliament, the Commission, the Member States and the Regions, which could then be held on a biennial basis. Such a forum could consider:

-          the effective contribution of regional policy to the Lisbon strategy and on the means of evaluation necessary to improve it;

-          the effective application of the subsidiarity, proportionality and partnership principles;

In this context, it is necessary to stress the importance of all regional and local players being closely associated with the implementation of the policy. Thus, the urban dimension must be highlighted so that the role of cities is properly defined and a coherent approach to the urban issue is put in place. For this, it would seem that regional partnership provides the most appropriate framework. In this regard also, although Parliament has supported and continues to support the mono fund approach to programming, it would seem appropriate to allow for increased cross-funding (up to 10%) between the ERDF and the ESF.

Concerning the reserves, the rapporteur believes that both have a role to play and that they should both be maintained. However, both require modification. This is particularly true in the case of the Community reserve which is expected to give an incentive to Member States to improve their performance and to achieve real growth. The current system, which simply rewards the best programmes within a Member State, cannot really provide a true motive to make substantial progress concerning absorption rates, growth or performance. Therefore, the criteria that apply to the allocation of these resources should be both fair and objective, so as to eliminate any suspicion that the money will only go to the richer EU states. As far as the national contingency reserve is concerned, the necessity of putting money aside for times of local or sectoral crises is quite self-evident. However, an element of flexibility needs to be introduced regarding the use of this reserve.

With regard to the financial contributions from the funds, the proposed rates of co-financing proposed by the Commission, rising to 80% in the case of the Convergence Objective in Cohesion countries, are well in line with the calls made on many occasions by the European Parliament. Your rapporteur is aware of suggestions in some quarters that a maximum rate of 85% should be applied. This would however, change the balance of the proposal as a whole and would risk the funds being seen as a simple money transfer or as a tool of development aid.

A strong case may be made, however, for regions in the Regional competitiveness and employment objective suffering from a natural or geographical handicap, which should, under the proposals, receive an additional 5% in co-financing. In this case it would be logical that where these regions suffered from more than one such handicap, the increase could be doubled to 10%. This would be relatively inexpensive and need not contradict the provision that the increase for areas with a geographical or natural handicap must not result in the total support granted for a priority exceeding 60% of public expenditure on that priority. This proposal by the rapporteur is consistent with the new previsions of the draft Constitution.

No reference is made to the ultraperipheral regions in the resolution as the rapporteur considers them to be adequately covered by the Commission's proposals.

Your rapporteur agrees with the Commission proposal that Community co-financing shall be calculated in relation to total public expenditure only and not take into account private commitments.

However, the rapporteur is in favour of adopting the Commission proposal for many reasons. Firstly, it will simplify the calculation of Community co-funding, since public funding provides a stable point of departure while private funding, in the absence of guarantees, remains an imponderable. Furthermore, the proposal ensures that the principle of additionality will be applied, requiring the authorities to indicate from the outset the funding to be earmarked for a project, thereby obviating the danger of public funds being diverted.

Moreover, the Commission proposal provides for considerable flexibility, calculating Community co-funding by priority area rather than by measure as over the current programming period, leaving open the possibility of a project being funded entirely by private backers, thereby, in the rapporteur’s opinion, underpinning private-public partnership arrangements and achieving increased transparency. The draft regulation also provides a number of private investment incentives.

The rapporteur is also opposed to the introduction of VAT receipts or lodging costs for the purposes of calculating Community co-financing. Community funds should be used for investment and not to reimburse the public purse.

Notwithstanding the different proposals that are currently under consideration, the rapporteur supports, in principle, the application of the N+2 rule. In fact this rule constitutes a constant demand of the European Parliament. Its application has proven to be beneficial not only for the community budget, as it provides for greater clarity and transparency in its execution, but also for the regions and the Member States. That is because this rule has, in itself, acted as an incentive for the efficient implementation of funds and programmes within the framework of regional policy.

The Commission's proposals make no reference to the link between regional policy and competition policy unlike the previous regulations relating to the 2000-2006 programming period. In particular, no indication is given concerning the relationship with the future guidelines governing regional state aids. This is indeed compatible with the view previously expressed by Parliament that the General Regulation on the Structural Funds is the inappropriate legal framework in which to treat the question of the coherence between competition and regional policy.[3] However, it means that an important element governing future ability to tackle structural problems is left undefined.

It is thus vital, that a concerted reflection is undertaken as quickly as possible between the Commission directorates-general concerned, so as to guarantee in particular the maintenance of the principle of territorial differentiation in the ceilings permitted for regional state aids in the Union of 27. Any approach that reduces these ceilings in Convergence regions must be rejected. Outside of this objective, it will be necessary to take account of the principle of territorial cohesion and provide more favourable treatment for those regions suffering from natural or geographical handicaps.

• [1]  Report on the Third report on economic and social cohesion (COM(2004) 107 – C5‑0092/2004 – 2004/2005(INI))Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism Rapporteur: Konstantinos Hatzidakis Text adopted, P5_TA-PROV(2004)0368
• [2]  Working Document on a proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund replacing Regulation 1260/1999 (COM (2004) 492final) Committee on Regional Development, Rapporteur: Konstantinos Hatzidakis 16 December 2004
• [3]  Interim Report on a Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (COM(98)0131 - C4-0285/98 - 98/0090(AVC), A4‑0391/98, 4 November 1998

OPINION of the Committee on Budgets (24.5.2005)

for the Committee on Regional Development

on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004)0492 – 2004/0163(AVC))

Draftswoman: Nathalie Griesbeck

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The Committee on Budgets intends to adopt an opinion on COM(2004)0492. The Committee on Regional Development is the committee responsible for the proposal (rapporteur - Mr Kostas Hatzidakis) and will submit an interim report on the Commission proposal to Parliament with a motion for a resolution (adoption of report scheduled for 24 May 2005).

This proposal for a Council Regulation is the subject of an assent procedure in the European Parliament. Rule 75(3) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure states that 'where Parliament's assent is required for a legislative proposal, the committee responsible may decide, in order to facilitate a positive outcome of the procedure, to present an interim report on the Commission proposal to Parliament with a motion for a resolution containing recommendations for modification or implementation of the proposal. If Parliament approves at least one recommendation the President shall request further discussion with the Council. The committee responsible shall make its final recommendation for the assent of Parliament in the light of the outcome of the discussion with the Council'.

Proposal COM(2004)0492 has been drafted as part of the cohesion policy legislative package, covering:

· general provisions (COM(2004)0492);

· the European Social Fund (ESF) (COM(2004)0493);

· the Cohesion Fund (COM(2004)0494);

· the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (COM(2004)0495);

· and an entirely new proposal creating the framework for a cross-border authority to manage cooperation programmes (EGCC) (COM(2004)0496) - no COBU opinion.

Solidarity, economic and social progress and reinforced cohesion form part of the Community objective of 'reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions', as laid down in the Treaty establishing the European Communities.

This draft regulation is the European Commission's proposal for the next generation of cohesion policy programmes. It constitutes the basis on which, in accordance with Article 55 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999/EC of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1), the Council is to review that regulation by 31 December 2006 at the latest. The Commission emphasises the need to adopt the regulations in 2005 so that 2006 may be devoted to the work of programming for the period 2007-2013.

Within the Structural Funds, the current financial programme covering the period 2000 to 2006 involves the implementation of four instruments: the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. With a view to the financial perspective for 2007-2013, the Commission is proposing to take fisheries and rural development out of the Structural Funds package.

The draft defines the context for the cohesion policy, including the method for fixing the Community's strategic guidelines for cohesion policy, the national strategic reference framework and the annual examination at Community level. It also lays down the principles and rules on partnership, programming, evaluation, management (including financial management), monitoring and control on the basis of a sharing of responsibilities between the Member States and the Commission.

As regards the new architecture of EU cohesion policy after 2006, the Commission proposes that actions supported by the cohesion policy should focus on a limited number of Community priorities, in accordance with the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas, with a view to producing an economic leverage effect and bringing significant added value.

Strategy and resources will be organised around three objectives:

· Convergence: this objective concerns Member States and regions whose per capita GDP is less than 75% of the Community average. The key objective is to promote growth-enhancing conditions and factors leading to real convergence. The strategies used will enable long-term competitiveness to be enhanced and will foster job creation. Today's data suggest that around 78% of the funding (or EUR 264 billion) will be concentrated on this objective. Financed through the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund.

· Regional competitiveness and employment: Outside the least developed Member States and regions, the Commission is proposing a two-fold approach: first, regional development programmes will help regions to anticipate and promote economic change by strengthening their competitiveness and attractiveness; and second, interventions will aim to foster job creation and gear skills more closely to economic change. It is suggested that around 17% (or EUR 57.9 billion) be used for this objective. As regards the operational programmes financed by the ESF, the Commission proposes to underpin the implementation of the employment recommendations and to strengthen social inclusion, in line with the objectives and guidelines of the EES. Financed through the ERDF and the ESF.

· European territorial co-operation: Supporting cooperation between regions at cross-border, transnational and interregional level with a view to furthering the harmonious and balanced integration of the Union's territory is at the core of the third objective. Around 4% of the funding (or EUR 13.2 billion) will be spent on this priority.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

According to the Commission's proposal the resources available for commitment from the Funds for the period 2007 to 2013 will stand at EUR 336.194 billion at 2004 prices, with the following annual breakdown:

Table 1: Annual breakdown

(EUR millions – 2004 prices)

2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2007-2013
46 333	47 168	47 879	48 024	48 163	48 923	49 704	336 194

Source: COM(2004)0492, Annex, p. 87.

Table 2: Breakdown by objective

Objective	Allocation (EUR billions)	Percentage of resources
'Convergence'	264.0	78.54%
'Regional competitiveness and employment'	57.9	17.22%
'European territorial cooperation'	13.2	3.94%

Source: COM(2004)0492, Articles 16 to 18.

The proposal is for the future enlarged European Union of 27 Member States. The budget is equivalent to 0.41% of the gross national income of the 27-Member State European Union.

CONCLUSIONS

Draftswoman's recommendations

The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following recommendations in its report:

The European Parliament,

1.  Points out that the appropriations set out in the proposal for a regulation cover only the period starting with the 2007 financial year and are for guidance only until such time as an agreement is reached on the financial perspective covering 2007 and the following years;

2.  Takes the view that, once the next financial perspective has been adopted, the Commission will either confirm the figures set out in the proposal for a regulation or submit adjusted figures to the European Parliament and the Council, for their approval, thus ensuring compatibility with the ceilings;

3.  Stresses the European Parliament's role as a budgetary authority;

4.  Points out that the Funds are subject to the provisions of the Financial Regulation and emphasises the need for the Commission and Member States to apply the transparency and sound financial management rules;

5.  Takes the view that technical assistance should be available in accordance with the rules and conditions established by the budgetary authority;

6.  Considers that the rules for the performance and quality reserve (Article 20) should be reviewed in consultation with the European Parliament ;

7.  Draws attention to the positive outcomes of the application of the n+2 rule, welcomes its retention as the rule to be applied in principle in this draft, and proposes that the Commission should expedite an economic impact assessment of the n+2 rule;

8.  Points out, in connection with comitology, that the European Parliament's approach favours the advisory role of the committees chaired by the European Commission.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
References	(COM(2004)0492 – C6-0000/2004 – 2004/0163(AVC))
Committee responsible	REGI
Committee asked for its opinion   Date announced in plenary	BUDG
Enhanced cooperation	No
Draftswoman   Date appointed	Natalie Griesbeck 20.9.2004
Discussed in committee	11.4.2005	23.5.2005
Date amendments adopted	23.5.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:		19 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Gérard Deprez, Valdis Dombrovskis, Markus Ferber, Nathalie Griesbeck, Catherine Guy-Quint, Ville Itälä, Anne Elisabet Jensen, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk, Janusz Lewandowski, Vladimír Maňka, Mario Mauro, Gérard Onesta, Antonis Samaras, Esko Seppänen, László Surján, Ralf Walter
Substitutes present for the final vote	Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Constanze Angela Krehl, Robert Navarro
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

OPINION of the Committee on Budgetary Control (22.4.2005)

for the Committee on Regional Development

on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004)0492 - 2004/0163(AVC))

Draftsman: Jan Mulder

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

As regards this Committee's responsibilities for financial control, the present proposal, together with the proposal on the financing of the common agricultural policy, form the core parts of the legislative proposals for the financial perspectives 2007-2013.

At the starting point of the new financial perspectives period, the draftsman considers a fresh approach to horizontal financial control issues to be essential. Major differences such as non-differentiated expenditure in agriculture and differentiated expenditure in structural operations obviously limit the range of possible comparisons. However, the draftsman takes the view that some aspects concerning the functioning of shared management in agriculture and structural operations apply horizontally. This is particularly true for the concept of ex ante annual disclosure statements by Member States. The concept of disclosure statements aims at remedying specific difficulties arising from the split responsibilities in shared management. It is currently being developed in this Committee's discussions on the 2003 Commission discharge.

The Commission's proposal would oblige Member States to communicate to the Commission descriptions of their financial management and control systems ex ante. Nevertheless, in the light of the European Court of Auditors' findings on persistent weaknesses of Member States' supervisory and control systems[1], the draftsman remains concerned. The proposed measures may not be sufficient. Therefore he recommends to introduce an additional political commitment, i. e. an annual disclosure statement.

The draftsman welcomes the proposed Commission's cooperation with national audit bodies. In his view enhancing cooperation and coordination between the Commission and national audit institutions as well as between national audit bodies themselves would be a further step towards a Community internal control framework[2].

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Budgetary Control calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[3]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Article 12, paragraph 2 a (new)
	2a. Without prejudice to the obligations laid down in paragraph 1, each Member State shall issue, prior to receiving Community funding in year N and on an annual basis, an ex ante disclosure statement declaring that the financial control structures required by Community law are in place and functioning. The disclosure statement shall be signed by the Member State's highest level political and managing authority (finance minister).
Amendment 2 Article 45, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2
Evaluations shall aim to improve the quality, effectiveness and consistency of Fund assistance and the implementation of operational programmes. They shall also appraise their impact with respect to the strategic objectives of the Community, to Article 158 of the Treaty and to the specific structural problems affecting the Member States and regions concerned, while taking account of the needs of sustainable development and of the relevant Community legislation concerning environmental impact and strategic environmental assessment.	Evaluations shall aim to improve the quality, effectiveness and consistency of Fund assistance and the implementation of operational programmes. They shall evaluate local, national and Community costs and benefits respectively. They shall also appraise the impact of those programmes with respect to the strategic objectives of the Community, to Article 158 of the Treaty and to the specific structural problems affecting the Member States and regions concerned, while taking account of the needs of sustainable development and of the relevant Community legislation concerning environmental impact and strategic environmental assessment.
Amendment 3 Article 46, paragraph 3, subparagraph 3
Ex-ante evaluation shall aim to optimise the allocation of budgetary resources under operational programmes and improve programming quality. It shall identify and appraise medium- and long-term needs, the goals to be achieved, the results expected, the quantified targets, the coherence, if necessary, of the strategy proposed for the region, the Community value-added, the extent to which the Community's priorities have been taken into account, the lessons drawn from previous programming and the quality of the procedures for implementation, monitoring, evaluation and financial management.	Ex-ante evaluation shall aim to optimise the allocation of budgetary resources under operational programmes and improve programming quality. It shall identify and appraise medium- and long-term needs, the goals to be achieved, the results expected, the quantified targets, the coherence of the strategy proposed for the region, an analysis of local and Community costs and benefits, the Community value-added, the extent to which the Community's priorities have been taken into account, the lessons drawn from previous programming and the quality of the procedures for implementation, monitoring, evaluation and financial management.
Amendment 4 Article 75, paragraph 3
At the latest by 31 January every year, the Member States shall send the Commission an update of the payment request forecasts for the current financial year and the subsequent financial year.	At the latest by 31 January every year, the Member States shall send the Commission an update of the payment request forecasts for the current financial year and the subsequent financial year. The forecasts should reflect a realistic assessment of Member States' spending abilities during the periods concerned.
Amendment 5 Article 92, paragraph 3 a (new)
	3a. The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council every three years, starting in 2007, an analysis concerning the effectiveness of the rules on automatic decommitment.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
References	COM(2004)0492 - 2004/0163(AVC)
Committee responsible	REGI
Committee asked for its opinion   Date announced in plenary	CONT
Enhanced cooperation	No
Draftsman   Date appointed	Jan Mulder 22.9.2004
Discussed in committee	16.3.2005
Date amendments adopted	19.4.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:		19 1 1
Members present for the final vote	Inés Ayala Sender, Herbert Bösch, Mogens N.J. Camre, Paulo Casaca, Petr Duchoň, Szabolcs Fazakas, Christofer Fjellner, Ingeborg Gräßle, Ona Juknevičienė, Nils Lundgren, Hans-Peter Martin, Edith Mastenbroek, Véronique Mathieu, Jan Mulder, István Pálfi, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Kyösti Tapio Virrankoski, Terence Wynn
Substitutes present for the final vote	Jens-Peter Bonde, Daniel Caspary, Ashley Mote

• [1]  European Court of Auditors' Annual Report concerning the financial year 2003, paragraphs 5.67-5.69.
• [2]  European Court of Auditors' Opinion No 2/2004.
• [3]  Not yet published in OJ.

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS (22.4.2005)

for the Committee on Regional Development

on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004)0492 – 2004/0163(AVC))

Draftsperson: Jacek Protasiewicz

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs asks the Committee on Regional Development, in order to facilitate a positive outcome of the procedure, to present an interim report on the Commission proposal to Parliament containing recommendations for modification of the proposal, included in this opinion.

New challenges for the Union

On 10 February 2004 the European Commission presented its Communication on the new financial framework for the period after 2007. On 18 February 2004, the Third Cohesion Report was approved. Draft regulations to govern the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007-2013 were published by the European Commission on 14 July 2004.

In the context of an enlarged European Union which has set itself the objective of becoming the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, these draft regulations have the potential to influence the effectiveness of programmes and strategies which Member States follow in pursuit of this objective

The enlarged Union will have to address three major challenges:

1)     a significant widening of disparities across the enlarged Union; disparities between the richest and poorest regions of the Union have doubled, while the EU average per capita income decreased by 12.5%;

2)     an acceleration of economic and social restructuring, both as a result of globalisation and of the development of the knowledge-based economy and society;

3)     the rapid ageing of the Union's population; the contraction in the labour force will have important implications in terms of employment and growth potential.

The Union needs to tackle the above mentioned challenges. To this end, the Lisbon agenda for sustainable development, full employment, greater productivity, strengthened social cohesion and environmental protection, provides the policy framework.

Remarks on the Framework Regulation on the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (hereinafter: the Committee) has discussed the draft framework regulation on the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, with a particular focus on the European Social Fund and other matters related to its competences.

The Committee welcomes the strengthened strategic approach to cohesion policy in the draft Regulation and acknowledges the stated desire of the European Commission to simplify the procedures concerning the Funds. However, our Committee is concerned that these new procedures may increase bureaucracy and that there may be a risk of duplication as far as the draft ESF implementing regulation is concerned.

The Committee considers that more simplification should be achieved. The draft framework regulation should not be too prescriptive or unnecessarily detailed; thus there should be an appropriate balance between the framework regulation and the implementing regulations. In particular, the framework regulation should take full account of the nature and size of ESF activities. The Committee stresses that different rules may be appropriate for ESF operations compared with ERDF operations.

The Committee considers that the ESF should ensure support to Member States policies aiming to achieve full employment, improve productivity and quality of work and promote social inclusion and the reduction of regional employment disparities and thereby the European Social Model.

The Committee recalls the role that the ESF plays in promoting social inclusion by helping to integrate disadvantaged people into the labour market. Our Committee believes that social inclusion activities funded by the ESF improve employment opportunities.

Finally, concerning the coordinating committee referred to in Article 104 of the draft framework regulation, the Committee requests the European Commission to ensure appropriate coordination with the ESF Committee.

CONCLUSIONS

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following proposals in its motion for a resolution:

1.      Takes the view that this proposal has been drafted as part of the cohesion legislative package. The package consists of a Regulation on the European Social Fund, a Regulation on the Cohesion Fund and a Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund. It defines the objectives to which the Structural Funds are to contribute, the criteria for Member States and regions to be eligible under those Funds, the financial resources available and the criteria for their allocation;

2.      Considers in the light of the above mentioned and of the direct relevance of this framework Regulation for the ESF, that the procedure chosen by the Commission (AVC) unduly limits the Parliament's role;

3.      Draws particular attention to the fact that all EU policies must contribute to the objective of economic and social cohesion and that international trade policy is also committed to this objective and must not be regarded as an exception; calls for trade policy to be designed to avoid producing shock effects on regions and draws particular attention to the fact that the relocation of undertakings or production units represents a serious danger for regional development (COM(2004) 0492, recital 48);

4.      Calls for efforts, both in rural and urban areas, to build on the success achieved, particularly as regards employment, by promoting cultural development, improving the quality of the physical and cultural environment and the qualitative and cultural aspects of the conditions in which people live, and developing tourism, and calls for the importance of these factors in enhancing the attractive power of regions to continue to be taken into account (Article 3(3));

5.      Rejects any weakening of the partnership principle and calls for a list of the relevant bodies, which should also include any recognised non-governmental organisations which have a representative role in the field of non-discrimination pursuant to Article 13 of the EC Treaty; calls, in addition, for the partners to be fully informed, for their opinion to form part of the evaluation document and for training measures to be made available to them under technical assistance in good time to enable them to carry out their tasks (Articles 10, 43 and 44);

6.      Calls on the Commission to fully incorporate in Article 14 Parliament's resolution of 3 July 2003 on gender budgeting[1], and in particular points 8, 14 and 20 thereof;

7.      Stresses that the European Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and also the funds allocated to rural development must be deployed in a manner that is consistent with achieving the objectives of the national strategic reference framework, and consequently that the objectives of rural development must be incorporated into that reference framework; calls for the national reference framework to incorporate the results of forums on independent regional development involving, or organised by, local employment pacts, and calls for them to be provided with funds under the technical assistance budget before the reference framework is drawn up (Articles 21, 43 and 44);

8.      Calls for the deployment of all employment funding to be substantiated on the basis of the national reform plans or regional sub-plans agreed at the European Council of 22 and 23 March 2005 in Brussels;

9.      Regards the requirement for annual examination as excessively bureaucratic and, in view of the decisions taken at the European Council of 22 and 23 March 2005 in Brussels, outdated, and therefore calls for reports to be submitted every three years;

10.    Calls for undertakings that have received funding, depending on the amount, to be prohibited for at least 15 years from relocating or partially relocating to another development region unless they pay back the contribution received (Article 55);

11.    Calls for it also to be possible for the requisite national cofinancing for ESF projects to be substantiated on the basis of a flat-rate payment of up to 25% of co-financing at programme level, provided that sum is calculated on the basis of recognised and on-the-record procedures such as random sampling (Articles 66 and 67);

12.    Calls for the decisive rejection of any attempts to adjust the proposed financial framework with regard to either the total amount of resources or how they are distributed between the various objectives and components and considers, regardless of any such attempts, that the Commission's proposals concerning the approximate scale of funds to be allocated to the various objectives strike a fair balance between competing interests;

13.    Believes that the Parliament should not be made to take a decision on such an important legislative proposal by means of a single vote and with no possibility to table amendments. Therefore, our committee asks the committee responsible to decide to apply article 75(3) of the European Parliament Rules of Procedure and in order to facilitate a positive outcome of the procedure includes its recommendations for modification in the Annex (Recitals 2, 3, 12, 13, 15, 26, 27, 41 and Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 14, 17, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36, 43, 44, 45 and 51).

ANNEX

recommendations for modification

Text proposed by the Commission[2]	Recommendations by Parliament
Recommendation 1 Recital 2
(2) Cohesion policy should contribute to increasing growth, competitiveness and employment by incorporating the Community’s priorities for sustainable development as defined at the European Councils in Lisbon and Göteborg.	(2) Cohesion policy should contribute to increasing growth, competitiveness, social cohesion, employment and social inclusion by incorporating the Community’s priorities for sustainable development and combating exclusion as defined at the European Councils in Lisbon, Nice and Göteborg.
Justification
Cohesion policy should also be geared towards social inclusion, which is recognised as one of the Union’s overarching objectives. When setting out the principles which form the framework for the proposal, it is essential to mention all elements of the third pillar system (competitiveness, social cohesion and sustainable development).
Recommendation 2 Recital 3
(3) Economic, social and territorial disparities at both regional and national level have increased in the enlarged Community. Competitiveness and employment should therefore be increased throughout the Community.	(3) Economic, social and territorial disparities at both regional and national level have increased in the enlarged Community. Competitiveness, employment and social inclusion should therefore be increased throughout the Community.
Justification
Cohesion policy should also be geared towards social inclusion, which is recognised as one of the Union’s overarching objectives.
Recommendation 3 Recital 12
(12)     The northern areas of the Union, which are very thinly populated, require appropriate financial treatment to offset the effects of that handicap.	(12)     The northern areas of the Union, which are very thinly populated, and the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla with a high population density and high rates of unemployment require appropriate financial treatment to offset the effects of that handicap.
Recommendation 4 Recital 13
(13) In view of the importance of the urban dimension and the contribution of towns and cities, particularly medium-sized ones, to regional development, greater account should be taken of them by developing their role in programming to promote urban regeneration.	(13) In view of the importance of the urban dimension and the contribution of small, medium-sized and large towns and cities to regional development, greater account should be taken of them by developing their role in programming to promote sustainable urban development, which includes enhancing competitiveness, employment and social inclusion.
Justification
The contribution made by urban areas to growth, innovation and social and economic cohesion should be taken into account; in order to do so, sustainable urban development measures should be developed, and this includes urban regeneration.
Recommendation 5 Recital 15
(15) Action for areas with a natural handicap, i.e. certain islands, mountainous areas and areas with a low density of population, should be strengthened to cope with their particular development difficulties, as well as for certain border areas of the Community following its enlargement.	(15) Action for areas with a natural handicap, i.e. certain islands, mountainous areas, areas with a low density of population, and the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla should be strengthened to cope with their particular development difficulties, as well as for certain border areas of the Community following its enlargement.
Recommendation 6 Recital 26
(26) In order to ensure a genuine economic impact, contributions from the Structural Funds may not replace public expenditure by the Member States under the terms of this Regulation. Verification, through partnership, of the principle of additionality should concentrate on the regions under the “Convergence” objective because of the extent of the financial resources allocated to them and may result in a financial correction if additionality is not respected.	(26) In order to ensure a genuine economic impact, contributions from the Structural Funds may not replace public expenditure by the Member States under the terms of this Regulation.
Justification
Verification of the principle of additionality should apply to regions benefiting from the Funds under all three of the objectives foreseen by the Regulation and not only under the "Convergence" objective.
Recommendation 7 Recital 27
(27) In the context of its effort in favour of economic and social cohesion, the Community promotes the goal of eliminating inequalities and promoting equality between women and men as enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty.	(27) In the context of its effort in favour of economic and social cohesion, the Community promotes the goal of eliminating inequalities and promoting equality between women and men as enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty, and between persons with and without disabilities.
Recommendation 8 Recital 42
(42) The Member States, regions and managing authorities should organise, within the operational programmes co-financed by the ERDF under the “Convergence” and the “Regional competitiveness and employment” objectives, sub-delegation to the urban authorities for the priorities concerning the regeneration of towns and cities.	(42) The Member States, regions and managing authorities should organise, within the operational programmes co-financed by the ERDF under the “Convergence” and the “Regional competitiveness and employment” objectives, sub-delegation to the urban authorities for the priorities concerning the sustainable development of urban areas.
Justification
The contribution made by urban areas to growth, innovation and social and economic cohesion should be taken into account; in order to do so, sustainable urban development measures should be developed, and this includes urban regeneration.
Recommendation 9 Article 1, paragraph 3
This Regulation defines the context for cohesion policy, including the method for fixing the Community’s strategic guidelines for cohesion policy, the national strategic reference framework and the annual examination at Community level.	This Regulation defines the context for cohesion policy, including the method for fixing the Community’s strategic guidelines for cohesion policy, the national strategic reference framework and the triennial examination at Community level.
Justification
Annual examination would entail enormous administrative expenses both on the part of Member States as well as the Commission.
Recommendation 10 Article 2, point 6 a (new)
	6a) 'Accessible': guarantees full and equal access for all people, including people with disabilities; this definition is applicable to all areas covered by the scope of this Regulation.
Justification
The Structural Funds are an important tool in promoting and creating an accessible environment for disabled persons in relation to goods and services including in the field of information communication technologies, transport and the built environment. It is very important that Structural Funds do not lead to the creation of further access barriers for disabled people. It is important to provide an explicit definition of the term “accessible” in relation to the needs of disabled persons in order that the term is fully understood to mean the removal of access barriers also faced by disabled persons in society.
Recommendation 11 Article 3, paragraph 2, point (b)
b) the “Regional competitiveness and employment” objective shall, outside the least-developed regions, be aimed at strengthening regions’ competitiveness and attractiveness as well as employment by anticipating economic and social changes, including those linked to the opening of trade, through innovation and the promotion of the knowledge society, entrepreneurship, the protection and improvement of the environment, and the improvement of accessibility, the adaptability of workers and businesses as well as the development of inclusive job markets.	b) the “Regional competitiveness and employment” objective shall, outside the least-developed regions, be aimed at strengthening regions’ competitiveness and attractiveness as well as employment by anticipating economic and social changes, including those linked to the opening of trade, through innovation and the promotion of the knowledge society, entrepreneurship, stimulating creativity, recovery, the development and modernisation of small enterprises and micro-enterprises, including traditional activities, the protection and improvement of the environment, and the improvement of accessibility, the adaptability of workers and businesses and their organisations, as well as the development of inclusive job markets,
Justification
It is important to consider the essential role of small businesses and micro-enterprises and craft industries in job creation. In addition to approaches targeting specific sections of the public, it is necessary to create a horizontal measure aimed at life-long training for managers and employees in small and micro-enterprises, as well as those responsible for their intermediary organisations and training.
Recommendation 12 Article 3, paragraph 3
3. Under the three objectives, assistance from the Funds shall, according to their nature, take into account on the one hand specific economic and social features, and on the other hand specific territorial features. The assistance shall, in an appropriate manner, support urban regeneration particularly as part of regional development and the renewal of rural areas and of areas dependent on fisheries through economic diversification. The assistance shall also support areas affected by geographical or natural handicaps which aggravate the problems of development, particularly in the outermost regions (Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands) as well as the northern areas with very low population density, certain islands and island Member States, and mountain areas.	3. Under the three objectives, assistance from the Funds shall, according to their nature, take into account on the one hand specific economic and social features, and on the other hand specific territorial features. The assistance shall, in an appropriate manner, support sustainable urban development particularly as part of regional development and the renewal of rural areas and of areas dependent on fisheries through economic diversification. The assistance shall also support areas affected by geographical or natural handicaps which aggravate the problems of development, particularly in the outermost regions (Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands) as well as the northern areas with very low population density, certain islands and island Member States, mountain areas and the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla with a high population density.
Recommendation 13 Article 5, paragraph 4
4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, and Article 6, the outermost regions (Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands) shall benefit from specific funding from the ERDF to facilitate their integration into the internal market and to compensate for their specific constraints.	4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, and Article 6, the outermost regions (Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands) and the autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla shall benefit from specific funding from the ERDF to facilitate their integration into the internal market and to compensate for their specific constraints.
Recommendation 14 Article 10, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2
Each Member State shall designate the most representative partners at national, regional and local level and in the economic and social or other spheres, hereinafter “partners”. The Member State shall ensure broad and effective involvement of all the appropriate bodies, in accordance with national rules and practices taking account of the need to promote equality between men and women and sustainable development through the integration of environmental protection and improvement requirements.	Each Member State shall designate the most representative partners at national, regional and local level and in the economic and social or other spheres, hereinafter “partners”. The Member State shall ensure broad and effective involvement of all the appropriate bodies, in accordance with national rules and practices taking account of the need to promote social inclusion, equality between men and women, as well as between persons with and without disabilities and sustainable development through the integration of environmental protection and improvement requirements.
Recommendation 15 Article 14, Title
Equality between men and women	Equality between men and women and non-discrimination against, and accessibility for, persons with disabilities
Recommendation 16 Article 14
The Member States and the Commission shall ensure that equality between men and women and the integration of gender perspective is promoted during the various stages of implementing the Funds.	The Member States and the Commission shall ensure that equality between men and women and the integration of gender perspective is promoted during the various stages of implementing the Funds. They shall also ensure that cohesion policy respects the principles of non-discrimination.
Justification
Article 13 of the Treaty points out that appropriate action may be taken to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
Recommendation 17 Article 14, paragraph 1a (new)
	The Member States and the Commission shall ensure non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, and that, in particular, accessibility for persons with disabilities is a condition of benefiting from the Funds and is monitored during the various stages of implementation of the Funds.
Justification
Structural Funds are an essential tool for reducing and alleviating social exclusion on any grounds and for creating a same level playing field between people with or without disabilities by combating discrimination in all areas of life, in particular by promoting and creating an accessible physical environment for people with disabilities in relation to information communication technologies, transport and the built environment. It is very important that Structural Funds do not lead to the further discrimination and creation of further access barriers for people with disabilities which will perpetuate the social exclusion of 40 million people with disabilities in the European Union and other persons with reduced mobility, and have negative implications for society in general.
Recommendation 18 Article 17, paragraph 1, point (b)
b) 16.56% for the transitional and specific support referred to in Article 6(2), using eligible population, regional prosperity, national prosperity and unemployment as the criteria for calculating the indicative breakdowns by Member State.	b) 16.56% for the transitional and specific support referred to in Article 6(2), using eligible population, regional prosperity, national prosperity, unemployment and level of education as the criteria for calculating the indicative breakdowns by Member State.
Recommendation 19 Article 23, paragraph 2
For each of the objectives of the Funds, those guidelines shall in particular give effect to the priorities of the Community with a view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development.	For each of the objectives of the Funds, those guidelines shall in particular give effect to the priorities of the Community with a view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development, equality between women and men and social inclusion.
Justification
The strategic guidelines should also include the promotion of sexual equality and social inclusion.
Recommendation 20 Article 25, paragraph 3, point (a)
a) the thematic and territorial priorities, including for urban regeneration and the diversification of rural economies and of areas dependent on fisheries;	a) the thematic and territorial priorities, including for sustainable urban development and the diversification of rural economies and of areas dependent on fisheries;
Justification
The contribution made by urban areas to growth, innovation and social and economic cohesion should be taken into account; in order to do so, sustainable urban development measures should be developed, and this includes urban regeneration.
Recommendation 21 Article 25, paragraph 3, point (c)
c) for the “Regional competitiveness and employment” objective only, the list of regions chosen for regional competitiveness as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(1).	c) for the “Regional competitiveness and employment” objective only, the list of regions and other areas chosen for regional competitiveness as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(1).
Justification
As indicated in Article 34 paragraph 2 of the Regulation, a Member State may propose operational programmes under the “Regional competitiveness and employment” objective at other territorial levels, including urban areas.
Recommendation 22 Article 27, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1
1. For the first time in 2008 and at the latest by 1 October each year, each Member State shall present to the Commission a report on the progress in implementing its strategy and achieving its goals, taking particular account of the indicators set, and their contribution towards implementing the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion, as well as of available evaluations.	1. For the first time in 2010 and at the latest by 1 October every three years thereafter, each Member State shall present to the Commission a report on the progress in implementing its strategy and achieving its goals, taking particular account of the indicators set, and their contribution towards implementing the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion, as well as of available evaluations.
Justification
See recommendation 9.
Recommendation 23 Article 27, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2
The report shall refer to the national action plan on employment.	The report shall refer to the national action plan on employment and national action plans on social inclusion.
Justification
It is also important to include a reference to the national action plans on social inclusion.
Recommendation 24 Article 29, title
Annual examination	Examination
Justification
See recommendation 9.
Recommendation 25 Article 30, paragraph 1, point (a a) (new)
	(aa) The report shall be based on examination and assessment by the Commission of the Member States' reports as referred to in Article 27 and of any other available information.
Justification
See recommendation 9.
Recommendation 26 Article 33, paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to the derogations laid down in the specific regulations of the Funds, the ERDF and the ESF may finance, in a complementary manner and subject to a limit of 5% of each priority of an operational programme, measures falling within the scope of assistance from the other Fund, provided that they are necessary for the satisfactory implementation of the operation and are directly linked to it.	2. Without prejudice to the derogations laid down in the specific regulations of the Funds, the ERDF and the ESF may finance, in a complementary manner and subject to a limit of 10% of each priority of an operational programme, measures falling within the scope of assistance from the other Fund, provided that they are necessary for the satisfactory implementation of the operation and are directly linked to it.
Justification
Experience seems to show that for some proposals the percentage of 5% may be considered too small.
Recommendation 27 Article 36, paragraph 3, subparagraph 2, point (b a) (new)
	ba) information on the mainstreaming of the existing principles of the EQUAL programme.
Justification
Care must be taken to ensure that the existing EQUAL programme is mainstreamed into the new programmes.
Recommendation 28 Article 36, paragraph 3, subparagraph 3, point (b)
b) the leverage effect on the key priorities and goals of the European Employment Strategy and on the goals of the Community in the sphere of social inclusion.	b) the leverage effect on the key priorities and goals of the European Employment Strategy and on the goals of the Community in the sphere of social inclusion, the social integration of migrants, social cohesion, equality between men and women and the most vulnerable sectors of the population.
Recommendation 29 Article 36, paragraph 3, subparagraph 3, point (b a) (new)
	ba) information on the mainstreaming of the existing principles of the EQUAL programme.
Justification
Care must be taken to ensure that the existing equal programme is mainstreamed into the new programmes.
Recommendation 30 Article 36, paragraph 4, point (b)
b) information on the approach to the urban issue, including the list of cities chosen and the procedures for sub-delegation to urban authorities, possibly by means of a global grant;	b) measures for the sustainable urban development, including the list of cities chosen and the procedures for sub-delegation to urban authorities, possibly by means of a global grant;
Justification
In view of the wording of Article 36 points 4 (a) and (c), it is preferable to talk about measures rather than information; furthermore, the concept of information is too vague and needs clarifying.
Recommendation 31 Article 36, paragraph 4, point (d a) (new)
	(da) information on the mainstreaming of the existing principles of the EQUAL programme.
Justification
Care must be taken to ensure that the existing equal programme is mainstreamed into the new programmes.
Recommendation 32 Article 43, paragraph 3 a (new)
	3a. Economic, social or business organisations shall be eligible for the technical assistance measures.
Justification
Experience shows that some Member States are reluctant to use intermediate organisations that are not directly dependent on public administration, hence it is appropriate to mention them explicitly.
Recommendation 33 Article 44, paragraph 1
1. At the initiative of the Member State, for each operational programme, the Funds may finance preparatory, management, monitoring, evaluation, information and control activities and activities to reinforce the administrative capacity for implementing the Funds within the following limits:	1. At the initiative of the Member States, for each operational programme, the Funds may finance preparatory, management, monitoring, evaluation, information and control activities and activities to reinforce the administrative capacity, including that of civil society partners, for implementing the funds within the following limits:
Justification
To ensure the involvement of social partners and enhance their capacity to allow them to play a full part at local and regional level in the delivery of programmes.
Recommendation 34 Article 44, paragraph 2 a (new)
	2a. Economic, social or business organisations shall be eligible for the technical assistance measures.
Justification
Experience shows that some Member States are reluctant to use intermediate organisations that are not directly dependent on public administration, hence it is appropriate to mention them explicitly.
Recommendation 35 Article 45, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2
Evaluations shall aim to improve the quality, effectiveness and consistency of Fund assistance and the implementation of operational programmes. They shall also appraise their impact with respect to the strategic objectives of the Community, to Article 158 of the Treaty and to the specific structural problems affecting the Member States and regions concerned, while taking account of the needs of sustainable development and of the relevant Community legislation concerning environmental impact and strategic environmental assessment.	Evaluations shall aim to improve the quality, effectiveness and consistency of Fund assistance and the implementation of operational programmes. They shall also appraise their impact with respect to the strategic objectives of the Community, to Article 158 of the Treaty and to the specific structural problems affecting the Member States and regions concerned, while taking account of the needs of sustainable development, and of the relevant Community legislation concerning environmental impact and strategic environmental assessment, and accessibility for disabled persons.
Justification
Non-discrimination and social inclusion, including accessibility for disabled people, are important commitments and goals of the European Community and must be explicitly recognised in the objectives for the strategic guidelines. The phrasing is consistent with Article 10.
Recommendation 36 Article 51, paragraph 4
4. The maximum contribution from the Funds shall be increased to 85% of public expenditure for operational programmes under the “Convergence” and the “Regional competitiveness and employment” objectives in the outermost regions and for operational programmes of the outlying Greek islands under the “Convergence” objective.	4. The maximum contribution from the Funds shall be increased to 85% of public expenditure for operational programmes under the “Convergence” and the “Regional competitiveness and employment” objectives in the outermost regions, for operational programmes of the outlying Greek islands under the “Convergence” objective and for operational programmes under the "Convergence" objective in the regions where per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Community figures for the last three years is less than 60% of the Community average.
Justification
There are many regions, particularly in the new Member States, whose per capita GDP is smaller than that of the outermost regions and the outlying Greek islands. Therefore, the former should also be allowed from the Funds up to 85% of public expenditure for operational programmes.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
References	COM(2004)0492 - 2004/0163(AVC)
Committee responsible	REGI
Committee asked for its opinion   Date announced in plenary	EMPL
Enhanced cooperation	-
Drafts(wo)man   Date appointed	Jacek Protasiewicz 3.1.2005
Discussed in committee	16.3.2005	19.4.2004
Date amendments adopted	20.4.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:		29 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Jan Andersson, Roselyne Bachelot-Narquin, Emine Bozkurt, Milan Cabrnoch, Ole Christensen, Luigi Cocilovo, Jean Louis Cottigny, Carlo Fatuzzo, Ilda Figueiredo, Joel Hasse Ferreira, Stephen Hughes, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jean Lambert, Raymond Langendries, Bernard Lehideux, Thomas Mann, Ana Mato Adrover, Maria Matsouka, Mary Lou McDonald, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Csaba Őry, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Jacek Protasiewicz, José Albino Silva Peneda, Anne Van Lancker, Gabriele Zimmer.
Substitutes present for the final vote	Udo Bullmann, Elisabeth Schroedter, Marc Tarabella, Patrizia Toia.
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	-

• [1]  OJ C 74E, 24.3.2004, p. 746.
• [2]  OJ C ... /Not yet published in OJ.

OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (2.5.2005)

for the Committee on Regional Development

on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004)0492 – C6-0000/2005 - 2004/0163(AVC))

Draftsman: Jerzy Buzek

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

1.   Welcomes the repeated references to the Community's priorities for sustainable development (SD), in particular the environment dimension defined at Gothenburg as well as the emphasis on the coordination of types of funding from Cohesion policy, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fund for Fisheries (EFF);

2.   Takes the view that reports presented by the Member States in accordance with the regulation should assess the contribution of the Funds to the goals of the European Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) in order to assess progress towards SDS targets;

3.   Agrees with the Commission's view that it is essential that activities supported by the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the EAFRD and the EFF form part of an integrated plan of action;

4.   Believes that challenges linked to disparities in attaining Community environmental objectives in areas such as water, waste, air quality, biodiversity conservation and climate policy must carry the same weight as the challenges linked to economic, social and territorial disparities in countries and regions whose development is lagging behind; [Article 3

5.   Calls on the Commission and the Council to ensure that the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund co-finance the conservation, management and sustainable development of zones with high biodiversity value in order to give additional support to the Natura 2000 network in relation to the basic financial instrument within the Life+ programme whose provisions should be appropriately reformulated; [Article 3]

6.   Considers that environmental NGOs must be recognised as partners on an equal footing with their social and economic colleagues, as sustainable development comprises social, economic and environmental pillars [Article 10(1)(b) second indent];

7.   Takes the view that under technical assistance, the Funds should also contribute to increasing the capacity of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in Structural Funds partnerships; [Article 10]

8.   Stresses the need for more flexible programming rules in particular regarding the possibility of eventual reallocations of resources between projects and priorities in line with implementation performance; [Article 19]

9.   Calls on the Commission to require Member States to show how they intend to finance the needs of the environment, in particular supporting the Natura 2000 network, as a condition for the approval of national strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes for structural funding [Article 31];

10. Suggests that, within the 'monofund approach' taken by the Commission, the ratio for cross-financing between the different funds should be increased to at least 20%; [Article 33]

11. Stresses that an equal threshold of EUR 50 million should be established for all major projects; [Article 38]

12. Welcomes the confirmation that the evaluation of the strategic guidelines, national strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes must take into account the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation;

13. Considers that Member States should specify the arrangements for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of national strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes, and ensure timely Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of the major infrastructure projects; further calls on the Commission to ensure that major infrastructure projects do not conflict with protection and improvement of the environment; [Articles 38 to 40]

14. Suggests the creation of a specific rate of increase for geographically and naturally disadvantaged areas; [Article 52]

15. Believes that in the case of application of the “polluter pays” principle, the rules for calculation of eligible co-financing for projects generating revenue should reward (provide incentives for) project promoters in relation to the extent the principle is applied; [Article 54]

16. Considers that non-reimbursable VAT should remain eligible for the contributions of all funds, and not only in the case of the ESF;

17. Considers it important that the managing authorities, under the control of the Member States, regularly and appropriately publicise the operations which benefit from Community funds and the available appropriations by eligibility criterion; [Article 68]

18. Underlines that the level of pre-financing is crucial, in particular in the field of environment, and recommends a common 10% ceiling for all funds; [Article 81(1)]

19. Underlines that, as far as automatic decommitment is concerned, some adverse effects of the N+2 rule should be recognised and alleviated, and that therefore current rules for the Cohesion Fund should be maintained and the amounts subject to the N+2 rule should be reused within the cohesion policy; [Article 81(2)]

20. Takes the view that the European Social Fund should contribute to the further training of professional staff with qualifications related to environmental protection.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
Procedure number	2004/0163(AVC)
Committee responsible	REGI
Committee asked for its opinion   Date announced in plenary	ENVI 0.0.0000
Enhanced cooperation
Drafts(wo)man   Date appointed	Jerzy Buzek 20.9.2004
Discussed in committee	20.4.2004
Date suggestions adopted	21.4.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:		34 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Georgs Andrejevs, Dorette Corbey, Avril Doyle, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Norbert Glante, Satu Hassi, Mary Honeyball, Holger Krahmer, Urszula Krupa, Peter Liese, Jules Maaten, Roberto Musacchio, Riitta Myller, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Guido Sacconi, Richard Seeber, Kathy Sinnott, Bogusław Sonik, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber
Substitutes present for the final vote	Margrete Auken, María del Pilar Ayuso González, Danutė Budreikaitė, Jerzy Buzek, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Caroline Lucas, Renate Sommer, Andres Tarand
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Ursula Stenze

OPINION of the Committee on Fisheries (16.3.2005)

for the Committee on Regional Development

on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004)0492 – 2004/0163(AVC))

Draftsman: Dirk Sterckx

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The legislative background

The Commission's proposal for general provisions on the European Regional and Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Funds forms a general basis for the reform of the structural funds. The "cohesion legislative package" consists of a Regulation for the European Regional and Development Fund (ERDF)[1], a Regulation for the European Social Fund (ESF)[2], a Regulation for the Cohesion fund[3], as well a Regulation for creating the framework for a cross-border authority to manage cooperation programmes[4].

In February 2004, the Commission presented two proposals aiming at an ambitious cohesion policy for the enlarged union of 27 or more. Firstly, in the proposal for the financial perspectives of the enlarged European Union of 27 Member States for the period 2007-2013 [COM(2004)0101] an allocation of EUR 336.1 billion (which equates to EUR 373.9 billion before the transfers to the proposed single rural and fisheries instruments) was proposed in support of the three priorities of the reformed cohesion policy. Secondly, the Third cohesion report [COM(2004)0107] presented a proposal for the priorities and delivery system for the new generation programmes under cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013.

The proposal for general provisions on the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund makes a distinction between the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion fund on the one hand and support to fisheries, agriculture and the environment under funding for "preservation and management of natural resources", on the other. Accordingly, the Commission has proposed that from 2007-2013, the aid for fisheries shall be concentrated to the new European Fisheries Fund (EFF), which will succeed the current Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). Thus, the fisheries financing from the EFF would be separated under a separate budget heading. The Commission has anticipated expenditure of EUR 7.6 billion for the CFP, of which 4.963 billion would be allocated to the EFF.

The challenges of the new cohesion policy

The necessity to revise the cohesion policy regulations is partly caused by the enormous challenges which follow from enlargement. Enlargement will have a considerable effect on the targeting of the measures belonging to the convergence objective, which will continue to have a threshold of GDP per head under 75% of the EU average. According to the Third Cohesion report, about 92% of the people in the new Member States live in regions with GDP per head below 75% of the EU 25 average. This will have an effect on 18 regions with GDP per head under 75% of the EU GDP before enlargement, which will no longer belong under the convergence objective threshold. The Commission has proposed a transitional mechanism whereby such “statistically affected” areas should be subject to the convergence objective until the end of 2013.

Enlargement is an exciting opportunity for the whole of the Union but given the 12.5% reduction in the average GDP of the Union as a direct result of the accession of 10 new Member States, it is clear that the challenge for the new cohesion policy is to tackle urgently and effectively the significant socio-economic disparities that exist within the EU-25.

Towards a Strategic approach

In order to answer to the challenges of the future cohesion policy, the Commission proposes a new architecture based on a strategic approach, which while taking the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas fully into consideration rationalises the cohesion policy by defining its priorities, ensuring the coordination with the system of economic and social governance and allowing for a regular and open review of the progress made. The Commission therefore proposes that the Council should adopt, after consultation of the Parliament on the basis of a Commission proposal, an overall strategic document defining clear priorities for Member States and regions. The Commission would publish a yearly report summarising Member States' progress reports.

The priority themes for programmes would be found among three new objectives of the cohesion policy: convergence, regional competitiveness and employment, and territorial co-operation. The proposed budget for all these objectives would be € 336,1 bn (0,41 of EU GNI).

The convergence objective would include regional and national programmes from the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion fund, including a special programme for the outermost regions, and the budget for this objective would be €264 bn (78, 5 %). The regional competitiveness and employment objective would consist of regional programmes from ERDF, national programmes from ESF and the budget for this objective would be € 57,9 bn (17,2 %). The territorial co-operation objective would cover cross-border and transnational programmes and networking from the ERDF, with a budget of € 13,2 bn (3,94 %).

Simplification of the management system and greater decentralisation of the responsibility toward the partners in the Member States, regions and local authorities are among the most ambitious aims of the reform. The programming would be simplified by modifying the roles of the different actors: the Council would adopt strategic guidelines, on the basis of which the Member States would prepare strategic national framework documents to be negotiated with the Commission. The Commission would then adopt national and regional programmes for each Member State, but it would define the programmes only at a priority level. The simplification of programming would be promoted so that the future ERDF and ESF interventions would operate with only one fund per programme, as opposed to current multi-fund programmes. Funding of the programmes would be directly linked to the main domain of intervention of each fund.

Eligibility and the fisheries sector

The Commission proposes that the financial resources dedicated to cohesion policy would be distributed among the Member States applying the method based on objective criteria used at the time of the Berlin Council (1999) for the "convergence" priority (GDP per person below 75 % of the Community GDP), but, temporarily taking into account the statistical effect of enlargement. Further, the Commission proposes that resources for the objective "regional competitiveness and employment" would be allocated between the Member States on the basis of Community economic, social and territorial criteria. As to the third objective, the resources would be distributed according to the population living in the eligible regions as well as the total population of the Member States concerned.

As a large proportion of the financial resources for fisheries have been transferred to the EFF, the role of the structural funds will be to complement the EFF. According to Article 3(3) of the Proposal, assistance from the Funds shall support the economic diversification of fisheries dependent areas away from traditional activities. However, the distinctive nature of the socio-economic problems in the fisheries sector, often caused by the mechanisms of the common fisheries policy and by stock depletion, should be taken into regard while applying the intervention criteria of the cohesion policy. The fisheries sector may experience temporary crises even in some relatively wealthy countries. Further, in accordance with the Commission proposal, particular and equal attention should be paid to the specific territorial characteristics typical to the outermost regions of the Union, sparsely populated parts in the far north of the Union, as well as certain islands, mountain areas, and border areas of the Union.

The European Parliament is called upon to give its assent to this proposal, which means it cannot suggest amendments. However, in order to emphasise the role that the structural funds can have in supporting the EFF, your Rapporteur suggests that the concept of “Regional Competitiveness and Employment” be introduced explicitly supporting the restructuring of areas hit by the decline of traditional activities. This is intended to reflect the fact that conservation measures taken under the Common Fisheries Policy can affect fishing communities equally hard both within and outside Convergence objective areas. In such a situation, your Rapporteur feels that the structural funds can have an important role in supporting the impact of the EFF.

Conclusions

In general, the Rapporteur welcomes the strategic reform of the cohesion policy which seems to bring rationalisation and transparency into the organisation and use of structural funds. The Rapporteur also agrees with the Commission on the need to further decentralise the responsibility towards the partners on the ground in the Member States, regions and local authorities. On the other hand, the Rapporteur is not convinced that the simplification of management will also decrease the administrative difficulties faced especially by the poorest regions while trying to make use of the structural funds with their modest administrative resources.

As regards the distinction of the European Fisheries Fund from the structural funds and the transfer of fisheries structural financing mainly into the EFF, this seems to form a good starting point for a more efficient use of the resources as well as to increase the transparency of funding. The actions accompanying the restructuring needs of the fisheries sector, as well as those improving the working and living conditions in the areas where fisheries still plays an important role, will be financed by the EFF. Outside this, the structural funds would support the diversification of the rural economy and of the areas dependent on fisheries away from traditional activities. This clarifies the functions and the complementary role of different funds having an impact on fisheries, but it should not have a detrimental effect on the overall level of funding currently available for the fisheries from the structural funds, including the FIFG.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a Council regulation laying down the general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
Procedure number	COM(2004)0492 – C6-0000/2005 – 2004/0163(AVC)
Committee responsible	REGI
Committee asked for its opinion   Date announced in plenary	PECH 1.9.2004
Enhanced cooperation
Drafts(wo)man   Date appointed	Dirk Sterckx 4.10.2004
Discussed in committee	25.11.2004	2.2.2005
Date suggestions adopted	15.3.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:		19 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Elspeth Attwooll, Marie-Hélène Aubert, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, David Casa, Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Ioannis Gklavakis, Alfred Gomolka, Heinz Kindermann, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Albert Jan Maat, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Bernard Poignant, Dirk Sterckx, Struan Stevenson, Catherine Stihler, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna
Substitutes present for the final vote	María Isabel Salinas García
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

• [1]  COM(2004)0495.
• [2]  COM(2004)0492.
• [3]  COM(2004)0494.
• [4]  COM(2004)0496.

OPINION of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (2.5.2005)

for the Committee on Regional Development

on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004)0492 – 2004/0163(AVC))

Draftsman: Michael Cramer

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Transport and Tourism calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following recommendations in its report:

1.  Calls for the inclusion of the Decisions on the trans-European transport network ("TEN-T") (Decision No 884/2004/EC and Decision No 1692/96/EC), at Article 23(3);

2.  Calls for a reference to bilateral agreements for cross border segments of TEN-T projects, at Article 25(4);

3.  Calls for the inclusion of copies of bilateral agreements for cross border segments of TEN-T projects, at Article 39;

4.  Where transport projects are concerned, calls for the inclusion, after Article 50, point (b), of a mention of their contribution to meeting the strategic objectives included in the Commission's White Paper, starting with a modal shift towards rail and waterways and including the completion of the trans-European transport network, with overall priority being given to cross border projects which contribute to improved links between the old and new Member States and between the new Member States themselves;

5.  Calls for operational programmes for TEN-T priority projects to be included at Article 51(4);

6.  Insist that no pre-financing payment may be made, as a matter of principle, in respect of a cross border segment of a TEN-T project if no binding bilateral agreement exists between the Member States concerned on completing adjoining segments wholly within their respective national territories (Article 81(2));

7.  Calls for a new point ca) to be inserted in Article 50: ‘the contribution to the major European mobility and logistics projects, for example the Galileo project';

8.  Calls for the above recommendations to be regarded not as an alternative to Article 5(3)(a) of the ERDF regulation (COM(2004)0495), but as an addition required to fill the gaps in the sustainable regional development strategies;

9.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that total annual allocations from the Funds for any Member State pursuant to this regulation contributing to the ‘Convergence’ objective shall not exceed but preferably reach 4% of that Member State’s GDP at the time of the adoption of the interinstitutional agreement, at Article 22. Calls for Community aid granted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 for TEN-T projects of common interest to be excluded when calculating the 4% cap at Article 22;

10. Insists that expenditure on major projects and other projects which began before 1 January 2007 should be eligible from the date of submission of the project to the Commission, at Article 55.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Introduction

The draft Regulation, which is to be adopted under the assent (AVC) procedure, lays down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund. It repeals Regulation (EC) 1260/99. Specific Regulations for each of the Funds are laid down separately from this general Regulation. The general Regulation defines the objectives of the Funds, eligibility criteria for Member States and regions, the financial resources available and the criteria for their allocation. Rules governing the responsibilities of the Member States and the Commission on management, programming, monitoring, control and evaluation are also laid down.

The Regulation proposes a concentration of resources and activity on three objectives; the "convergence" of less developed Member States and regions (those whose per capita GDP is less than 75% of the community average) with other EU regions; enhancing regional competitiveness through anticipating and promoting economic change and helping people adapt to this; and European territorial cooperation which entails supporting cooperation at cross-border, transnational and interregional level. The first objective will be supported by the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund, the second objective by the ERDF and the ESF and the third objective by the ERDF. The number of funds will be limited to three as opposed to the current six. The allocation of resources between the various objectives is 264 billion euros (78.5%) to convergence, 58.9 billion euros (17.2%) to regional competitiveness and employment and 13.2 billion euros (4%) to territorial cooperation over the period 2007 to 2013 inclusive. No detailed estimate of expenditure on TEN-T for the forthcoming Cohesion and Structural Fund period is given in the draft regulation.

Cohesion and transport infrastructure

Your draftsman recalls that for the current and future programming periods the amounts allowed under the trans-European transport networks (TEN-T) budget heading would be insufficient to ensure progress in the TEN-T projects which have been identified and agreed. Considerable financial support from the ERDF and the Cohesion fund is necessary for their completion. An efficient TEN-T is a prerequisite for the realisation of the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas, a properly functioning internal market, regional convergence and the achievement of the Community's environmental objectives. It is envisaged that such support will be made available within the framework of the "convergence" objective and the detailed provisions of the draft Regulation allow for this.

Observations based on experience to date

Whereas the European Union has made substantial sums available for TEN-T in the period 2000-2006 (29.2 billion from the Structural Funds alone) progress towards the completion of these projects has been slow and even disappointing. In response to this it is now proposed in another draft Regulation on general rules for the trans-European networks (COM2004/475 final) to increase the overall amounts and the percentage share of costs met by EU funding for individual projects. Concommitantly however it must be insured that the general rules for management and control of the Structural and Cohesion Funds protect Community resources and ensure they are not advanced unless partnership funding from the Member States is real and effective. It is from this perspective that the above suggestions are put forward.

They concern ensuring that a firm co-funding commitment exists from Member States before significant Community resources are released for TEN-T projects and ensuring that for cross border projects firm bilateral agreements to complete projects segments on the respective sides of a border exist between Member States.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
Procedure number	COM(2004)0492 - 2004/0163(AVC)
Committee responsible	REGI
Committee asked for its opinion   Date announced in plenary	TRAN
Enhanced cooperation
Draftsman   Date appointed	Michael Cramer 1.9.2004
Discussed in committee	19.1.2005	14.3.2005		18.4.2005
Date suggestions adopted	19.4.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:		35 0 5
Members present for the final vote	Margrete Auken, Inés Ayala Sender, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, Philip Bradbourn, Paolo Costa, Michael Cramer, Sylwester Chruszcz, Christine De Veyrac, Armando Dionisi, Petr Duchoň, Saïd El Khadraoui, Robert Evans, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Mathieu Grosch, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Georg Jarzembowski, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Jörg Leichtfried, Bogusław Liberadzki, Evelin Lichtenberger, Erik Meijer, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Willi Piecyk, Luís Queiró, Reinhard Rack, Luca Romagnoli, Ingo Schmitt, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Gary Titley, Marta Vincenzi, Corien Wortmann-Kool
Substitutes present for the final vote	Fausto Correia, Den Dover, Willem Schuth
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Herbert Reul

OPINION of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (4.5.2005)

for the Committee on Regional Development

on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004)0492 – 2004/0163(AVC))

Draftswoman: Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

In February 2004 the European Commission adopted its proposal on the financial perspectives of the enlarged Union for 2007-2013 and the Third Report on Cohesion.

The report concludes that enlargement represents an unprecedented challenge for the Union’s competitiveness and internal cohesion, having led as it has to an increase in the economic development gap, an eastward geographical shift in disparities, and a more difficult employment situation.

The whole Union is facing challenges resulting among other things from an acceleration of economic restructuring, the development of the knowledge economy, an ageing population and more immigration.

According to the Third Report on Cohesion, the Union’s cohesion policy should offer a solution to these challenges by incorporating the objectives of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Agenda for sustainable development, full employment, greater productivity and increased social cohesion and environmental protection.

The new Council regulation laying down ‘general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund’ is one of the five proposals for new regulations reforming cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013.

The general regulation lays down common rules, standards and principles applicable to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund.

The reform envisaged, the aim of which is to simplify the management of the Structural Funds, includes a number of innovations, among them a rearrangement of the programmes around the three themes of ‘convergence’, ‘regional competitiveness and employment’ and ‘territorial cooperation’, and other major changes including the financing, where possible, of the cohesion programmes from a single fund.

The obligations laid down in the EC Treaty with regard to equal opportunities for women and men, providing for incorporation of the equal opportunities dimension in all Community measures and programmes and the adoption of specific measures for women were already transposed into the regulations relating to the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006.

The former general regulation No 1260/1999 on the Structural Funds had already made equal opportunities a key objective of action under the funds.

While one welcomes the fact that these fundamental provisions on equal opportunities for women and men are retained in the new regulations on the Structural Funds for the period 2007-2013 and in the general regulation on the funds, neither the principle of eliminating all forms of discrimination, including those against people with disabilities, nor the objective of social inclusion are included in the general regulation as priority Community objectives.

Among the Structural Funds, the European Social Fund continues to play a major role in pursuing the equal opportunities objective. However, this objective must also be extended to the other funds, since inequalities continue to exist in the areas of the environment, transport, rural development, fisheries etc.

Your draftswoman is also concerned at the calls to exclude non-governmental organisations and bodies working in the area of equal opportunities from the list of partners in Article 10, and insists not only that these bodies should be retained but also that the list should be extended to include bodies working in the areas of social inclusion and the fight against discrimination.

One is also struck by the absence from the Commission proposal of any mention of the need for balanced male/female membership of the Monitoring Committee, even though this important principle was laid down in Article 35 of General Regulation 1260/1999.

The funds should also pay particular attention to the specific economic and social difficulties faced by women in urban agglomerations.

Transparency of the funds’ interventions is a fundamental principle, compliance with which must also be closely monitored. It is an essential means of controlling the targeting of the funds and checking that they are properly used vis-à-vis the objectives of equal opportunities for women and men and the fight against discrimination.

It is essential, in the evaluation of the funds, to mention the progress achieved in the areas of promoting equal opportunities for women and men, of fighting discrimination and of social inclusion, so that it is clear what progress is still to be accomplished.

A reminder should also be given of the importance of drawing up statistics and indicators broken down by gender in order to enhance the efficiency of programming and allow better evaluation of the measures financed by the funds.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality calls on the Committee on Regional Development to incorporate the following recommendations in its motion for a resolution:

–   having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality adopted on 31 March 2004 on the third report on economic and social cohesion,

–   having regard to its resolutions on gender equality in the European Union, particularly its resolution of 13 March 2003[1] on the objectives of equality of opportunities between women and men in the use of the Structural Funds,

1.  Opposes any weakening of the partnership principle as it features in the proposal and calls for the list of appropriate bodies to be retained, including the bodies working in the area of equality of men and women;

2.  Calls for bodies working in the areas of social inclusion and the fight against discrimination also to be included in the list of partners provided for by the proposal for a regulation;

3.  Stresses the need for a systematic application of the principle of incorporating the gender dimension at all stages of the programming and implementation of the funds, as well as the establishment of specific funding;

4.  Calls for the principle of eliminating all forms of discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of gender, and for social inclusion, particularly of people with disadvantages, to be incorporated in all the funds, as well as in the Commission’s strategic guidelines;

5.  Calls for the pursuit of the objective of gender equality and the fight against discrimination to be promoted more actively in the funds’ interventions relating to infrastructure, research, transport, the environment, regional, local, rural and urban development, agriculture and fisheries, and for links to be created between structural fund interventions and those of the EAFRD and EFF;

6.  Calls for the funds released for training policies, including those relating to territorial economic change, urban issues and changes in the rural world, to benefit women and people with disadvantages more;

7.  Calls for the measures financed by the funds to support the development of measures designed to address specific economic and social problems affecting women in urban agglomerations;

8.  Calls for a reference to island, mountain and sparsely populated areas to be included in the thematic and territorial priorities in the strategic section of the national strategic reference framework and also suggests including a reference to areas with a demographic handicap;

9.  Calls for the proposal to provide for balanced male/female membership of the Monitoring Committees in accordance with Article 35 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds[2];

10. Calls for the evaluation of the funds also to include indications of the progress achieved in promoting equality of men and women and social inclusion, as well as in the fight against all forms of discrimination;

11. Stresses the importance of drawing up statistics and qualitative and quantitative indicators broken down by gender in order to improve the efficiency of programming, to allow measures to be correctly evaluated and to facilitate dissemination of successful experiences and measures in the areas of promoting equality of women and men, social inclusion and the fight against all forms of discrimination;

12. Calls for transparency of the funds’ interventions to be guaranteed in order to allow better monitoring of their use, inter alia as regards promoting equality of men and women, the fight against discrimination and social inclusion, and suggests strict monitoring of compliance with this requirement, including application of the necessary measures in the event of non-compliance;

13. Calls on the committee responsible to decide to apply Rule 75(3) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and to include its recommendations in its motion for a resolution.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
Procedure number	COM(2004)0492 – 2004/0163(AVC)
Committee responsible	REGI
Committee asked for its opinion   Date announced in plenary	FEMM
Enhanced cooperation	No
Drafts(wo)man   Date appointed	Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou 17.3.2005
Discussed in committee	20.4.2005	26.4.2005
Date suggestions adopted	26.4.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:		unanimous
Members present for the final vote	Edit Bauer, Emine Bozkurt, Hiltrud Breyer, Edite Estrela, Ilda Figueiredo, Věra Flasarová, Nicole Fontaine, Lissy Gröner, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Lívia Járóka, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Urszula Krupa, Siiri Oviir, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Christa Prets, Marie-Line Reynaud, Teresa Riera Madurell, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Amalia Sartori, Eva-Britt Svensson, Britta Thomsen, Anne Van Lancker, Corien Wortmann-Kool, Anna Záborská
Substitutes present for the final vote	Zuzana Roithová, Marta Vincenzi
Substitutes under Rule 178(2)	Małgorzata Handzlik, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges

• [1]  OJ C 61E, 10.3.2004, p. 370.
• [2]  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a Council regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
References	COM(2004)0492 –2004/0163(AVC)
Legal basis	Article 161, first paragraph, EC
Basis in Rules of Procedure	Rule 75(3)
Date of request for Parliament’s assent
Committee responsible   Date announced in plenary	REGI see art. 75(3)
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)   Date announced in plenary	BUDG	CONT		EMPL	ENVI
	PECH	TRAN		FEMM
Not delivering opinion(s)   Date of decision	ECON 27.8.2004	ITRE 26.10.2004
Enhanced cooperation   Date announced in plenary
Rapporteur(s)   Date appointed	Konstantinos Hatzidakis 6.10.2004
Previous rapporteur(s)	-
Simplified procedure   Date of decision
Legal basis disputed   Date of JURI opinion		/
Discussed in committee	6.10.2004	25.11.2004		19.1.2005	14.3.2005	21.4.2005
Date adopted	24.5.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:		44 3 3
Members present for the final vote	Alfonso Andria, Stavros Arnaoutakis, Elspeth Attwooll, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Rolf Berend, Adam Jerzy Bielan, Jana Bobošíková, Bernadette Bourzai, Bairbre de Brún, Giovanni Claudio Fava, Gerardo Galeote Quecedo, Iratxe García Pérez, Eugenijus Gentvilas, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Ambroise Guellec, Pedro Guerreiro, Gábor Harangozó, Marian Harkin, Konstantinos Hatzidakis, Jim Higgins, Alain Hutchinson, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Gisela Kallenbach, Tunne Kelam, Miloš Koterec, Constanze Angela Krehl, Jamila Madeira, Sérgio Marques, Yiannakis Matsis, Miroslav Mikolášik, Francesco Musotto, Jan Olbrycht, István Pálfi, Markus Pieper, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Elisabeth Schroedter, Alyn Smith, Grażyna Staniszewska, Catherine Stihler, Margie Sudre, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Oldřich Vlasák, Vladimír Železný
Substitutes present for the final vote	Inés Ayala Sender, Simon Busuttil, Sylwester Chruszcz, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Ana Mato Adrover, Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, Manfred Weber
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Date tabled – A6	7.6.2005			A6-0177/2005
Comments	...