Cohesion Financial Instrument activities. Report 1993-1994

In its resolution on the cohesion financial instrument, the European Parliament congratulated the Commission on the speed with which it had introduced this instrument. It noted that no irregularities or fraud had been reported and considered that the implementation of the budget was satisfactory in the 1993 financial year, although it did feel that it was impossible to draw conclusions for 1994, given the brief period covered by the instrument in that period. However, it noted an omission in the Commission report, which had failed to provide any information on the funding of projects in Objective 1 zones and it deplored the imbalance in spending on environmental projects. It therefore called on the Commission to boost spending on smaller-scale environmental projects. At the same time, it felt that, in the future, the Cohesion fund should: - be used to carry out large-scale projects and to combine projects in the 2 main sectors (transport and environmental infrastructures); - limit the priority given to road infrastructure projects (72.2% of overall aid) to the detriment of more environmentally-friendly modes of transport. It therefore specifically called on the Commission to take account of the environmental impact of projects (environmental impact studies should be available for all projects before any decisions are taken or work begun). The Commission should also give priority to inland waterway networks, rail transport and intermodal systems in the transport infrastructure sector and to all projects to combat erosion and slow down desertification in the environmental sector; - give priority to projects in the extremely remote regions of the Community, especially small-scale projects which can have a significant impact on these regions. It also felt that the Commission had taken too little account of convergence criteria (especially public deficits) in the choice of projects. It supported the Commission's readiness to agree to fund separate stages of the same project under the Structural Funds and the financial instrument, but called for efforts to be made with respect to the financial evaluation of projects (especially environmental projects). It further recommended that citizens be clearly informed about investments made under the Cohesion Fund. As far as monitoring is concerned, it regretted that, with the exception of Ireland, there had been delays in setting up monitoring committees and called for the local and regional authorities to be clearly represented on these committees and to be given the authority to select and manage projects. Finally, it called on the Commission to report on the impact of the Cohesion Fund on the beneficiary states.�