Structural Funds. 6th annual 1994 Report

In adopting the report by Mr Robin TEVERSON (ELDR, UK), Parliament welcomed the Sixth Annual Report on the implementation of the Structural Funds, though regretting its late publication. It considered that, in the future, Parliament should be involved in the setting of the financial perspective for the Structural Funds and the division of these resources between the objectives, under the codecision and assent procedures. Parliament considered the aims assigned to the Structural Funds to be too vague for adequate evaluation of the programme, but most notably that the implementation and administration procedures are too complex, which renders them incomprehensible to the majority of Union citizens and potential beneficiaries. Parliament therefore called for a simplification of future programmes, which should be accompanied by a stepping up of anti-fraud controls. Noting that very little structural funding has a trans-national element, the resolution encourages regional actions with a strong European character. Furthermore, it hoped for a close link between the programmes of the various structural funds and between the latter and other Community intervention policies which cover the same ground, with a view to maximizing the effects on the ground. Parliament also lamented: - the fact that specific projects and programmes never conformed with EU environmental policy, for example through the correct application of environmental impact reports; - the fact that the spreading of experience gained in the use of structural funds across the regions of Europe, and encouraging the use of best practice, does not appear to be a priority; - the ill-defined role of the private sector in regional development funding. Parliament asked the Commission to submit to it a final report on the 1989-1993 programme, to enable it to undertake a thorough examination of the programming period. �