REPORT on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy

17.9.2008 - (2008/2064(INI))

Committee on Regional Development
Rapporteur: Jean Marie Beaupuy

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy

(2008/2064(INI))

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular articles 158 and 159 thereof,

–   having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 15 thereof,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund[1] (hereinafter named the General Regulation on the Structural Funds) and in particular Article 11, entitled ‘Partnership’, thereof,

–   having regard to the Territorial Agenda of the European Union, the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, and the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union,

–   having regard to the study drawn up by the European Parliament’s Policy Department on Structural and Cohesion Policies entitled ‘Governance and partnership in the sphere of regional policy’,

–   having regard to the opinions of the Committee of the Regions (COTER-...) and of the European Economic and Social Committee on governance and partnership (EESC 1177/2008),

–   having regard to the exploratory opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee entitled ‘Towards balanced development of the urban environment: challenges and opportunities’ (EESC 737/2008),

–   having regard to the Commission’s ‘Practical guide to EU funding for research, development and innovation’,

–   having regard to the second cycle of the URBACT programme (2007-2013), a European programme whose aim is to foster exchanges of experience between European towns and cities, and in particular the seven new thematic networks dealing with governance,

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A6-0356/2008),

A. whereas the interest and well-being of citizens lie at the centre of European, national and regional policies, and whereas an improved level of governance and partnership, aimed at establishing an improved level of coordination and cooperation between the various authorities, is to the benefit of all European citizens,

B.  whereas the practical solutions which our fellow citizens expect to see as regards public services (such as public transport, drinking water, social housing and public education) can be achieved only by means of good governance, involving two complementary systems: firstly, the institutional system, which provides for the allocation of powers and budgets between the State and regional and local authorities; and, secondly, the partnership system, which brings together all the public and private bodies concerned by a given topic in a given territory,

C. whereas attention should be drawn to the definition of ‘partnership’ as contained in the General Regulation on the Structural Funds, pursuant to which each Member State shall organise a partnership with authorities and bodies such as:

     (a) the competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities,

     (b) the economic and social partners,

     (c) any other appropriate body representing civil society, environmental partners, non-governmental organisations and bodies responsible for promoting equality between men and women,

D. whereas partnership, which should take account of all relevant communities and groups, can bring benefit and added value to the implementation of cohesion policy through enhanced legitimacy, guaranteed transparency and better absorption of funds, and it should also be assessed in terms of the social and civic value it represents,

E.  whereas the closest possible involvement of the various partners in the drafting of operational programmes will ensure the production of a document that takes full account of the specific features of a given territory and provides the best possible response to the requirements and challenges in that area,

F.  whereas an enhanced partnership with universities and institutes of tertiary or technological education, as well as private sector involvement, can be beneficial to strategies within the framework of the Lisbon Agenda and EU policies dealing with research and innovation,

G. whereas social capital in the form of active volunteering is positively linked to regional economic growth and is an important factor in reducing regional disparities,

H. whereas the extensive participation of the partners mentioned in the General Regulation on the Structural Funds and closer cooperation among the bodies involved in implementing programmes and projects financed from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds would serve to make cohesion policy more effective and to increase the leverage effect,

I.   whereas an integrated approach must not only take account of the economic, social and environmental aspects of territorial development, but must also serve to reconcile the interests of the various actors involved, in the light of a territory’s specific characteristics, with a view to meeting local and regional challenges,

J.   whereas both better coordination of the relevant public policies, at all the administrative levels concerned, and effective governance are essential if the sustainable development of territories is to be moved forward,

K. whereas the concept of an integrated approach is now regarded as a necessity, and whereas it is now time to put that concept into practice,

L.  whereas structural policies were the second largest part of the European Union budget in the programming period 2000-2006 and are the major policies of the European Union in the 2007-2013 period,

M. whereas arrangements should be made for closer cooperation and transparency for all among the various authorities and public and private bodies involved, without necessarily transferring legal powers and without creating new authorities, thereby enabling each body to work more effectively as a result of that cooperation,

N.  whereas the involvement of regional and local authorities must be envisaged at the earliest possible stage of negotiations on Community legislation and, in particular, in the negotiations on the next package of cohesion policy rules,

O.  whereas applying the concept of ‘population and labour catchment areas’ involves taking account of the relevant basic territorial units when addressing issues of fundamental importance to people’s daily lives, (transport, public services, quality of life, jobs and local economic activity, security, etc.),

P.   whereas effective governance can be facilitated through the use of proper spatial planning,

Q.  whereas the fact that the individuals involved in implementing cohesion policy have project management skills is a key factor in improving and facilitating governance,

R.   whereas the results of successful experiments involving new methods of governance and partnership should be drawn on in the future, including those which have already been successfully tested in European Fund programmes, such as the LEADER method and the global grant (pursuant to Articles 42 and 43 of the General Regulation on the Structural Funds),

S.   whereas adequate communication structures and strategies at all policy, implementation and evaluation stages, designed in close cooperation with regional and local authorities, by promoting the spread of information to all sections of society, foster transparency, inclusive participation and full ownership,

Governance and Community funds

1.  Calls on the Member States and regional and local authorities to fully exploit the potential of the various Community funds (Structural Funds, Community framework programme for research and development, and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development,) whose purpose is to promote regional and urban development with the aim of facilitating integrated funding;

2.  Calls on national, regional and local authorities to intensify the use of the integrated approach during the current programming period;

3.  Proposes, in the context of future cohesion policy, that the integrated approach should be made compulsory; considers that the application of this principle must be undertaken within a specific timeframe;

4.  Proposes, for reasons of simplification and effectiveness, that a study should be carried out into the feasibility of merging the various Community funds, in particular the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development under the future cohesion policy for the period after 2013;

5.  Notes that transparent and clear procedures are factors of good governance and therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States, working together with regional and local authorities and taking due account of the suggestions of potential beneficiaries, to examine without delay – subject to a fixed timescale to be set by the Commission – how to simplify and rationalise procedures and how to divide more clearly responsibilities for implementing cohesion policy with a view to reducing the bureaucratic burden on the individuals and bodies involved;

6.  Calls on the Commission to promote the use of Article 56 of the General Regulation on the Structural Funds, which allows for contributions in kind to European Union co-financed projects;

Governance and partnership

7.  Calls on the Commission to draw up and submit to the European Parliament an assessment of the implementation of the partnership principle by the Member States in the context of the drafting of the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and the operational programmes, identifying the factors behind successful and unsuccessful governance and to examine in particular to what extent account has been taken of opinions and proposals put forward by the partners in drawing up the operational programmes;

8.  Calls on the Commission to draw up a guide containing a clear definition and assessment criteria as well as setting out instruments, tools and good practices (among others for the selection of partners) designed to facilitate the implementation of effective partnerships in accordance with Article 11 of the General Regulation on Structural Funds in keeping with the institutional framework specific to each Member State;

9.  Notes that the partnership process can work only with partners which have the necessary capabilities and resources, and calls on the managing authorities to contribute to the strengthening of those capabilities by providing the partners, at an early stage and in accordance with Article 11 of the General Regulation on Structural Funds with the same information as is available to the authorities and by allocating appropriate financial resources earmarked for technical assistance for implementing the partnership principle, for example for training, for building up social capital, and for professionalising their partnership activities;

10.  Regrets that for the current programming period no quantifiable minimum of the Structural Funds has been earmarked for implementation of the partnership principle; calls on the Council and the Commission to earmark in future legislation a quantifiable minimum of the Structural Funds for implementation of the partnership principle;

11.  Notes the important role that volunteering plays in the partnership process and calls on the Member States and the Commission to support and facilitate the valuable work done by volunteers in contributing to this process and the stronger engagement of people and grassroots organisations in local democracy in a multi-level partnership;

12.  Draws attention to the requirement to consult the general public and organisations representing civil society on the issue of programming with the aim of reflecting their proposals and stresses that the participation of civil society helps to legitimise the decision-making process; notes that the efforts to involve the public in the preparations for the operational programmes for the period 2007-2013 were not as successful as hoped for; calls on the Commission, therefore, to identify good practices and to facilitate their application with a view to improving public involvement ahead of the next programming period;

13.  Calls on the managing authorities to inform partners of how and at what level suggestions made by them at the various stages in the Structural Fund programming process are taken into account;

14.  Recalls that partnership can contribute to effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and transparency in all the phases of Structural Fund programming and implementation and can increase commitment to and ownership of programme outputs; calls therefore on the Member States and managing authorities to involve the partners more closely at an early stage in all the phases of Structural Fund programming and implementation with a view to making better use of their experience and knowledge;

15.  Urges the Member States to ensure closer cooperation between public and private sectors through the establishment of public-private partnerships to implement structural funding, given that the potential benefits deriving from public-private partnerships are still largely underexploited;

16.  Notes that new Member States did not fully comply with the partnership principle and therefore its introduction could gradually be reinforced;

17.  Requests that the next Structural Funds regulations contain specific provisions to make the application of the partnership principle legally binding, with clearly verifiable criteria;

Multi-level governance

18.  Calls on the Member States to develop as quickly as possible the practical measures set out in the First Action Programme for the implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union, in particular under heading 3.1, with a view to strengthening multi-level governance;

19.  Proposes that governance should be included as a criterion under heading 4.1 of the First Action Programme for the implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union, which calls on the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) to develop new territorial cohesion indicators;

20.  Takes the view that successful multi-level governance needs to be based on a ‘bottom-up’ approach; calls in this context upon local and regional authorities to investigate means to intensify their cooperation and contact with national governments as well as with the Commission, and recommends that regular meetings take place between officials from national, regional and local authorities;

21.  Urges the Member States to decentralise the implementation of cohesion policy, so that the system of multi-level governance can work effectively and in keeping with the subsidiarity principle, and calls on them to take the decentralisation measures required, at both legislative and budgetary levels;

22.  Emphasises that regional and local administrative capacity as well as its stability and continuity constitute a precondition for the efficient absorption of funds and their impact maximisation; calls on Member States to ensure adequate administrative structures and human capital in terms of recruitment, remuneration, training, resources, procedures, transparency and accessibility;

23.  Calls for the national courts of auditors to play a stronger role in the control mechanisms, to ensure that funds are appropriately spent, so as to accept their responsibilities and play a more active part;

24.  Urges the Member States to delegate responsibility for managing the Structural Funds to regional and local authorities on the basis of agreed terms and criteria which must be met by the authorities in question, with a view to involving them more closely and by means of formal coordination structures in the work of drafting and implementing the operational programmes, or, at the very least, to award them global grants; recommends that full use be made of the possibilities offered by these grants to enable regional and local authorities to play a full role in the multi-level governance arrangements;

Governance and the territorial dimension

25.  Calls on those Member States which have not yet amended their national law to make provision for the establishment of the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) to do so as soon as possible;

26.  Calls on the Commission, while examining which NUTS level is most pertinent, to identify the area in which, on the basis of experience gained, an integrated policy for the development of territories might best be implemented, forming the basis for the following projects in particular:

      –  population and labour catchment areas, i.e. towns, suburban areas and the adjacent rural areas;

      –  territories which justify specific thematic approaches, such as mountain ranges, large wooded areas, national parks, river basins, coastal areas, island regions and environmentally degraded areas, to develop place-based approaches;

Governance and the European Union institutions

27.  Welcomes the greater recognition of the role of regional and local authorities and the strengthening of the subsidiarity principle in the Lisbon Treaty; calls on the European institutions to consider as of now the practical implications of such developments;

28.  Notes that within the Council there is no department which has specific responsibility for the strategic monitoring of cohesion policy, which accounts for the largest volume of appropriations in the European Union budget, and calls on the Member States to schedule specific Council sessions involving the ministers responsible for cohesion policy;

29.  Welcomes the establishment within the Commission of interdepartmental groups such as that on ‘urban policy’ and that on ‘the integrated approach’; calls on the Commission to develop this cross-departmental approach further and to keep Parliament and the Committee of the Regions regularly informed of the outcome of the work of the groups in question;

30.  Undertakes to consider changes to its Rules of Procedure to make provision, by means of temporary working groups or other bodies, for cross‑departmental work on topics involving several parliamentary committees, in particular in the context of the proceedings of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform;

31.  Calls on the Committee of the Regions to step up its efforts to develop the practice of governance, in both quantitative and qualitative terms;

Tools for promoting successful governance

32.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to support the development of governance training measures, involving all public and private education and training organisations, with a view to addressing the major challenges facing the Community;

33.  Calls on the Member States to make proper use of spatial planning in order to assist in the facilitation of balanced regional development;

34.  Calls on elected representatives and national, regional and local civil servants and partners involved in managing operational programmes in the context of cohesion policy in accordance with Article 11 of the General Regulation on Structural Funds, to use the financial resources available under these programmes for technical assistance to acquire training in the forms of governance associated with these programmes, in particular project management; also calls on the Commission to ask Member States to give a detailed account of the manner in which their specific financial programmes were used;

35.  Takes the view that the European networks for exchanges of good practice should broaden their work in the area of governance and partnership, put more emphasis on political and strategic lessons learnt from previous programme cycles and should ensure public access to exchange of experience in all European Union languages and thus help to ensure that good practices are in fact implemented;

36.  Welcomes the launching by the French Presidency the European Union of a project to draw up a set of benchmarks for urban sustainability and solidarity and calls for the governance and partnership dimension to be included in those benchmarks;

37.  Proposes the creation of a programme, similar to the ERASMUS programme, for regional and local elected officials;

38.  Instructs is President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.

• [1]  OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The need for governance as a means of moving sustainable development forward

If regional development is to be successful, it is not enough simply to reach agreement on what needs to be done, but rather it is vital to determine how it should be done, and that it what is meant by governance.

Regional and urban policies must form part of an integrated development strategy. Mechanisms are needed to ensure that all the various policies pull in the same direction. Moving sustainable development of territories is contingent on improved governance.

On the ground, the work of planning and implementing regional development is often hampered by divisions between public authorities (the State, regions, municipalities and others) which have their own powers, budgets and timetables. Geographical and administrative boundaries do not necessarily tally with the limits of a territory which requires an integrated response in the areas of transport, education, social housing, etc. In an increasingly interdependent and rapidly changing world, therefore, structures need to be tailored to the needs of ordinary people.

The European Union as a transforming force in the area of governance

The European Union has brought about substantial changes in governance in the Member States. European policies, and more particularly cohesion policy, have transformed governance from an often centralised system characterised by compartmentalisation (both geographical and sectoral) into an increasingly integrated, multi-level system.

Whilst taking due account of the institutional framework of each Member State, the allocation of powers and the subsidiarity principle, the European institutions can provide the impetus needed to improve governance at all levels: Community, national, regional and local.

Community initiatives, such as URBAN I and II in urban areas and LEADER in rural areas, have shown that their methodology works. That methodology is based, for example, on a multi-sectoral, territorial and bottom-up integrated approach. It also involves a close partnership between local authorities and local people. It uses innovative tools to foster a process of permanent learning and networking.

Improving governance: from concept to practical application

The concept of the integrated approach, i.e. the more detailed coordination of all policies which have a territorial, economic and social impact, is becoming more and more prevalent in European legislation. That concept was born of the need to decompartmentalise political and administrative structures.

It is now regarded as a necessity. It is referred to in many texts drawn up by the European institutions, and more particularly in the area of cohesion policy. It has become a leitmotif when ways of making European policies more effective are discussed.

If the integrated approach reflects the need to take account of all the different aspects of a single project, governance is the mechanism which makes that integrated approach possible.

The aim of this report is to put forward a series of practical proposals concerning ways of improving governance systems. Particular emphasis is placed on the application of the partnership principle, a key component of cohesion policy in the area of governance.

The new governance methods are not intended to replace the public institutions (European, national, regional and local) with their established powers and budgets. Rather, they are designed to enable those institutions to implement their own policies on the basis of cooperation with all the individuals and bodies, both public and private, concerned by a given subject.

Governance and Community funds

The architecture of the Structural Funds, with their various objectives, eligibility criteria and stakeholders, remains highly complex. However, all the Structural Funds, and indeed other Community funds as well, pursue the same objective, that of moving the sustainable development of the regions and towns and cities of the European Union forward.

The funds must be structured and governance methods chosen in such a way that all the financial instruments complement one another and can be coordinated easily and effectively. That coordination is possible only if the relevant structures are simple and transparent. The architecture of the various funds must therefore be coherent and complementary.

Governance and partnership

A key principle specific to the governance of the Structural Funds is the partnership principle, which has made for more transparent, more open and more integrated governance of cohesion policy. However, it is not yet applied anything like as widely as it should be.

The study requested by one of Parliament’s policy departments on ‘Governance and partnership in regional policy’ highlighted disparities and problems in the application of the partnership principle: there is no single partnership model, instead the principle is applied in 27 different ways, in keeping with the institutional characteristics of each Member State.

A successful partnership requires some investment at the start of the process, but subsequently generates savings of time and money and increased effectiveness.

Taking due account of the subsidiarity principle and the institutional framework of each Member State, the Commission must analyse the way the partnership principle is applied in the Member States and their regions. On the basis of that analysis, a guide should be drawn up, in particular with a view to promoting and disseminating best practices.

In addition, training measures are needed to strengthen the partners’ capabilities and enable them to participate fully in the governance process.

The involvement of ordinary members of the public is a key element of the partnership principle. In most regions, the public did not participate to a sufficient degree in the preparations for the current programming period. With that aim in view, new methods need to be developed.

Multi-level governance

Multi-level governance implies that each political level – Community, national, regional or local – should have the powers and capabilities to contribute to the implementation of cohesion policy. The application of the subsidiarity principle calls for cohesion policy to be decentralised to some degree.

All the bodies and individuals involved in implementing cohesion policy must cooperate closely in a broader context of separate administrative and institutional structures. The institutional system is largely irrelevant to the success or failure of cooperation among all the bodies and individuals involved: the same system may equally well produce good or bad results in terms of the implementation of projects. What is needed is more detailed research into the factors behind those good or bad results, irrespective of the institutional structure of the Member State concerned. In that connection, the Action Programme for the implementation of the Territorial Agenda and the new ESPON programme will have to incorporate aspects relating to governance.

Governance and the territorial dimension

The territorial dimension is increasingly central to cohesion policy. The Lisbon Treaty makes territorial cohesion a European Union objective on the same basis as economic and social cohesion. This coming autumn, the European Commission will publish its Green Paper on territorial cohesion and, in that connection, particular attention will have to be paid to the issue of governance.

Integrating the territorial dimension into cohesion policy also entails considering the appropriate territorial level at which intervention should take place. Emerging concepts, such as those of population and labour catchment areas, merit study.

The European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation is an excellent instrument for establishing effective cross-border and transnational governance, but as yet sufficient use is not being made of it, either as a result of a failure to make the necessary changes to the laws of the Member States or, possibly, a lack of genuine political will.

Governance and the European Union institutions

The Community institutions themselves must revise their current organisational arrangements with a view to implementing the principles underpinning the integrated approach more effectively.

The current divisions in the European Parliament between specific parliamentary committees and in the European Commission between directorates-general makes the work of producing the right response to many horizontal issues very difficult.

For example, public transport issues have an impact on pollution, the full integration of territories into society, urban planning, etc., so that they fall into the areas of responsibility of several parliamentary committees and several directorates-general.

Moreover, the size of the budgets earmarked for the Structural Funds (36% of the EU budget) warrants close monitoring at Council level.

Tools to promote successful governance

Project management, which is based on simple rules, is the tool needed to put the principles of governance into practice. It is a tool which is currently used chiefly by undertakings: it can not only be employed to enable an undertaking to create a new product in an increasingly complex environment, but is equally valid as a means of ensuring the success of projects financed under the Structural Funds. It is a tool which can be used to structure the interaction between the various actors involved in a process, i.e. to put the integrated approach into practice.

In addition, new governance methods, such as project management, must be promoted and disseminated. A process of continuous learning must therefore be started, aimed at all the individuals involved, in particular elected representatives and national, regional and local civil servants.

In addition, the creation of an ERASMUS programme for local elected representatives represents one possible way of contributing to exchanges of good practice in the area of governance.

Finally, the European thematic networks should broaden the scope of their work in the area of governance with a view to making it more effective.

Conclusions

Governance, and in particular the partnership principle, is now acknowledged as a vital factor in determining the effectiveness of the Structural Funds. Many governance concepts have been developed, but too often they are unworkable and overly theoretical.

The European Union has already shown that it can be a major force in transforming governance. By putting these proposals into practice, it can use its transforming power in a manner consistent with the subsidiarity principle and move the process of securing sustainable development for territories forward.

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETARY CONTROL (15.7.2008)

for the Committee on Regional Development

on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy
(2008/2064(INI))

Rapporteur for the opinion: Jorgo Chatzimarkakis

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Budgetary Control calls on the Committee on Regional Development, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:

1.  underlines that structural policies were the second largest part of the EU budget in the programming period 2000-2006 and are the major policies of the EU in the 2007-2013 period;

2.  recalls that in its Annual Report concerning the financial year 2006, the European Court of Auditors found that at least 12% of the total amount reimbursed to Structural Policies projects should not have been reimbursed, that 44% of the reimbursements in the sample were affected by errors and that a significant percentage projects were subject to compliance errors;

3.  stresses that in the same report, the European Court of Auditors described the control systems in the Member States as generally ineffective or only moderately effective;

4.  welcomes therefore the effort to pursue the objectives of the structural and cohesion funds during the current 2007-2013 programming period in the framework of governance and the partnership principle[1];

5.  calls for the national courts of auditors both to play a stronger role in the control mechanisms, to ensure that funds are appropriately spent, and to accept their responsibilities and play a more active part;

6.  calls for the provision of guidance and training by the Member States for the project promoters and the managing and paying authorities as well as for the audit bodies to ensure that all actors are well aware of and properly implement Community regulation requirements;

7.  welcomes the annual summaries of Member States as a first step towards National Management Declarations; urges however the Commission to propose the adoption of the same requirements, guidelines and guidance notes for Structural Policies as for the Common Agricultural Policy;

8.  regrets the fact that the implementing provisions for the projects were once again adopted very late and calls on the responsible managing authorities, and payment and control authorities to provide for and implement rules designed to simplify administration (e.g. by making more use of flat-rate payments).

• [1]  As defined in Article 11, Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006, OJ L 210, 31.07.2006, p.25.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	15.7.2008
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	16 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Jean-Pierre Audy, Herbert Bösch, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Esther De Lange, Petr Duchoň, James Elles, Szabolcs Fazakas, Christofer Fjellner, Ingeborg Gräßle, Ashley Mote, Bart Staes
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Edit Herczog, Pierre Pribetich, Paul Rübig, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Petya Stavreva

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	9.9.2008
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	51 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Emmanouil Angelakas, Stavros Arnaoutakis, Elspeth Attwooll, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Rolf Berend, Victor Boştinaru, Wolfgang Bulfon, Giorgio Carollo, Antonio De Blasio, Petru Filip, Gerardo Galeote, Iratxe García Pérez, Eugenijus Gentvilas, Ambroise Guellec, Gábor Harangozó, Marian Harkin, Jim Higgins, Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Rumiana Jeleva, Gisela Kallenbach, Tunne Kelam, Evgeni Kirilov, Miloš Koterec, Constanze Angela Krehl, Florencio Luque Aguilar, Sérgio Marques, Yiannakis Matsis, Miroslav Mikolášik, James Nicholson, Jan Olbrycht, Maria Grazia Pagano, Maria Petre, Markus Pieper, Pierre Pribetich, Giovanni Robusti, Wojciech Roszkowski, Elisabeth Schroedter, Grażyna Staniszewska, Catherine Stihler, Margie Sudre, Andrzej Jan Szejna, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Oldřich Vlasák
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Den Dover, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Eleonora Lo Curto, Zita Pleštinská, Iuliu Winkler