Download Doc XVIII n. 165 Summary

16th Parliament - Standing Committee on European Union Policies - Minutes of 20
June 2012
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE
ON EU DOCUMENTS Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81
(Doc. XVIII, N. 165)
The Standing Committee on European Union Policies,
following consideration of the following: proposal for a Council regulation laying down
the multi-annual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (COM(2011) 398 final);
Draft Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and
the Commission on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial
management (COM(2011) 403 final); communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social and the
Committee of the Regions "A Budget for Europe 2020" (COM(2011) 500 final);
proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the system of own resources of the European
Union (COM(2011) 510 final); proposal for a Council regulation laying down
implementing measures for the system of own resources of the European Union
(COM(2011) 511 final); proposal for a Council regulation on the methods and
procedure for making available the traditional and GNI-based own resources and on
the measures to meet cash requirements (COM(2011) 512 final);
issues a favourable opinion, with the following qualifications:
although Italy has long been a net contributor to the EU budget, especially since
2001, with a positive balance (in 2010 alone) of well over €4bn, this is not the time
for self-serving national interests and if the ambitious goals that have been set are to
be achieved, the Union's budget should be far bigger than as proposed by the
Commission. Although the budget foreseen by the Commission – which is the same as
in the previous MFF – is considered the largest possible in the present economic
juncture, it should be considerably increased, in order to support the construction of a
more coherent Union and revitalise the sustainable growth target of the Europe 2020
Strategy, including growth, jobs for European citizens, more green economy
investments and renewed fight against poverty;
the Committee endorses the Commission's intention to simplify programmes and their
procedures, to revise such programmes, so as to make them more coherent and
integrated with priorities under Europe 2020 and minimize the risk of fragmentation,
to merge such programmes into a small set of strategic initiatives (smart and inclusive
growth, sustainable growth: natural resources, security and citizenship, global role for
Europe, administration);
the programmes for smart and inclusive growth — supported by cohesion policies,
trans-European infrastructural programmes and research policies — should be
considered in the framework of the debate on the golden rule, which is aimed at
finding those items of public spending in Member States that may be decoupled from
the provisions of the Stability Pact by virtue of their immediate and meaningful impact
on growth and the debt ratio, one of the fundamentals of the new economic
governance;
the Government, the Regions and the local government authorities managing
European funds should increase their spending capacity and quality of planning, so
that funded projects may be completed as scheduled and may comply with a country's
development and growth requirements.
Some considerations on individual sectors and programmes are offered below.
On the cohesion policy, which is part of the "smart and inclusive growth" axis:
the Government should effectively pursue the action which it has started in the
present planning cycle, so as to overcome the stale-mate in the amounts actually
spent, which has brought Italy down to the 26th position in the Union at 27; it should
implement the Action Plan for Cohesion submitted to the European Commission on 15
November 2011; and should decisively embark on an action plan based on fewer but
relevant priorities;
concerns are expressed on the new criteria for allocating funds, which show a
comparative decrease in the share allocated to the Convergence regions principally to
the advantage of the new category of regions called "in transition", which does include
four Italian regions but whose financial impact will strongly benefit those big countries
(France, the UK, Germany) that were most reluctant to keep the cohesion policy and
its budget at the same level as in the previous multi-year cycle;
the current wording of the new instrument of the partnership contract does not
permit an adequate involvement of local authorities and communities, which are
granted the same status as the economic and social partners and civil society
organizations; such assimilation does not correspond to the actual responsibilities of
local government - and especially regions - in the framework of the cohesion policy;
on the structural conditionality provisions to be met in order to access and use
funds, some detailed considerations should be offered here, which are also valid for all
procedures (i.e. development of trans-European networks, rural development
programmes) to be implemented by Member Governments, either directly or through
the regional and local levels of government. Ex-ante conditionality should be made
more compelling by tying partnership contracts to an obligation on the receiving
country to make all the structural changes necessary to ensure the institutional
capacity necessary to implement such programmes. Ex-post conditionality, tied to the
fulfilment of commitments under the Stability Pact and the strengthening of the
coordination of economic governance, may even be counterproductive, to the extent
that actions funded by Structural Funds are also aimed at revitalising the economy
and the investment environment and at increasing growth opportunities. In this
sense, albeit realising why the Government signed a non-paper proposing, amongst
other things, stronger macroeconomic conditionality, the Committee hopes that any
punitive and/or mechanical thinking will be overcome. Consideration should be given
to the proposal submitted by the Danish Presidency during the negotiation, whereby
macroeconomic conditionality may enable the Commission to request a Member State
to review and propose changes to its partnership contract and related programmes, if
this is necessary in order to support implementation of Council recommendations or
maximize the impact on growth of funds from the Common Strategic Framework in
Member States receiving such EU funding; only if such request is not acted upon, may
payments then be suspended in part or in whole;
on infrastructural actions in the areas of transport, energy and information and
communication technologies (ICT):
the Committee takes note of the total amount of 40 billion euros (including
10.1bn in the Cohesion Fund) identified in the Commission proposals, and the decision
to create a single mechanism to connect Europe ("Connecting Europe Facility") and
fund infrastructures of priority interest for the Union; in this connection, and also with
reference to the new and welcome instrument of the project bonds, the Committee
emphasizes the need, given the transnational nature of such projects, to foresee
common European standards and systems of implementation;
the
proposed
revisions
of
trans-European
transport,
energy
and
telecommunications networks are considered balanced as a whole and in line with the
objective of creating interconnected – and, in the transport sector, interoperable networks free of those bottlenecks and structural weaknesses hindering the single
market; however, a certain imbalance exists between funds allocated to physical and
immaterial networks;
greater EU involvement is called for, otherwise peripheral areas most needy of
connections and cohesion programmes may be left behind owing to a concentration of
investments in the more advanced areas of the Union. This is the case of Sardinia in
Italy, which is left out of the corridor despite its strategic location in the middle of the
Mediterranean;
there is also a risk that making funding for projects of common interest
dependent on a preliminary cost-benefit analysis is detrimental to railway
programmes, where the capital investment is only repaid in the long term;
on programmes to fund research, technological development and innovation:
the large increase in the total budget of €80 billion, supplemented by the
sizeable support to research and innovation resulting from structural funds is
welcome; the allocation of funds should follow an objective and transparent process,
so that such funds may be available for all Member States on equal footing;
the Committee welcomes both the merging of funding into a single common
strategic framework – incorporating the areas currently covered by the 7th Research
Framework Programme, the innovations sections of the Framework Programme
"Competitiveness and Innovation", the activities of the European Institute Technology
(EIT) and the Joint Research Centre – and the simplification of funding application
procedures;
the concern for SMEs deserves praise, including the 15% quota of the overall
budget of specific objectives reserved for them under the priority axis "Challenges for
the society". However, further consideration should be given to the role of SMEs and
their full integration in the "Horizon 2020" programme, also through financial
instruments and dedicated lines, so as to avoid the risk of their exclusion to the
benefit of bigger companies which are better suited to a transnational approach;
with regard to the strategic agenda of the EIT, concerns are raised by the
proposal to establish six new Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) in two
distinct phases, the second of which starting four years after the Framework
Programme "Horizon 2020"; this would mean that plans for such key areas as urban
mobility, security and especially value-added manufacturing industry – a key sector in
Italy – would have to wait until 2018 when the relevant KIC is established or would
become eligible for funding without enjoy the full advantage of a valuable strategic
instrument to coordinate the efforts of several players and to serve as a catalyst of
public and private capital;
on the "Creative Europe" and "Erasmus Mundus" programmes, focusing respectively
on policies to promote culture and education and training:
funds allocated to culture, in spite of a record 37% increase compared to
previous individual allocations, remain rather small, considering the time-frame, the
large number of member countries and the ambitious range of initiatives that such
programmes aim to promote. The decision to switch from grants to loans is also likely
to prove inadequate in a sector where the added value of programmes can hardly be
defined in purely economic terms;
the education and training components of the "Erasmus for all" programme
have been brought under the same instrument, which effectively meets the need for
more and better targeted investment in a context of economic and financial crisis,
considering that growth is closely linked to the availability of highly skilled workers.
Italy's share of incoming and outgoing Erasmus students is below its demographic and
economic relevance in the European Union, and such a highly effective tool for the
enhancement and growth of human capital of young people should be strengthened.
Some doubts are expressed on making the allocation of 25% of total funds dependent
on performance. More specifically, the criterion for allocating the first set of funds,
based on latest available performance data, is as vague as it is risky, also taking into
account that data refer to previously distinct programmes now being brought under a
single instrument and that several changes have been made to the evaluation and
payment methods;
on the common agricultural policy, which is the main item in the axis "Sustainable
growth: natural resources":
it should be noted that the redistribution of resources under the new financial
framework will result in a reduction of the budget available to countries like Italy,
which would suffer a substantial cut to the ceiling for direct payments. It seems
necessary to provide a more gradual transition from the system of direct payments to
that envisioned in the Commission proposals, in order to avoid a sudden reduction of
transfers to producers, especially in countries like Italy, where there is a strong
variation of decoupled payments per unit of area;
in the redistribution of funds among Member States, account should be taken
not only of the area, but also of other and no less significant parameters such as gross
marketable production, added value, cost of living, land value and labourintensiveness;
concerns are also raised by the provision whereby a 30% quota per Member
State is reserved to the so-called "greening"; in setting parameters, this measure fails
to consider specific local aspects and production systems of the countries concerned.
More leeway should be left to Member States in defining the types and modes of
action, which, in Italy, could be usefully extended to tree crops, which are essential
for Mediterranean countries;
with regard to the new scheme for direct payments, the new measures seem to
increase the administrative burden and red tape connected to accessing such
payments, inter alia by providing an unexpectedly extensive definition of active
farmer, which fails to take into account national definitions of farmer and professional
farmer;
with reference to the second pillar of the CAP, using the area as the main
parameter to allocate resources for rural development is inappropriate and simplistic,
also because this indicator is already widely used for the first pillar. In this regard,
even taking into account the goals assigned to rural development (agricultural
competitiveness, environment and rural development), more appropriate indicators
should be used, e.g.: the number of companies, the low proportion of young people,
the small size of a farm, soil erosion, organic farming, rural population, number of
agricultural workers;
on the programmes relating to the third axis of the multi-annual financial framework
("Security and Citizenship"):
the simplification criterion used to merge six existing programmes related to
the area of freedom, security and justice into two programs, "Rights and Citizenship"
and "Justice", should not be detrimental to the protection of the right to equality and
non-discrimination and, more generally, the pursuit of all the goals at the root of the
previous measures should be preserved every year of the "Rights and Citizenship"
programme;
more emphasis should be placed on measures to promote the exchange of
judges and legal practitioners among Member States, so as to contribute to the
communitisation of the former Third Pillar, to be completed under the Lisbon Treaty;
on the fourth axis of the financial framework, i.e. the external action of the Union, a
generally positive assessment is expressed as regards the amount of funds made
available, while reaffirming the absolute importance, for Italy, of the neighbourhood
policy. In this regard, the Committee stresses the need to maintain the present
proportions, under which two thirds of Neighbourhood funds are earmarked for the
Southern border of the Union, and one third for the East;
finally, on revenues:
full support is given to the introduction of a tax on financial transactions, in the hope
that this development will not be confined to the EU and will take into account such
parameters as, for instance, the complexity of operations and their social content. The
Committee urges the Government to use caution in considering a reform of the VAT.
More generally, any initiative is welcome, which can balance the EU budget and
reduce the GNI-based own resource;
on the new correction mechanism, the Committee points out that Italy, as a net
contributor, should be entitled to use such mechanism like the other Member States
listed in the Commission proposal. The Government is thus urged to support, at the
negotiating table, an approach whereby vindictiveness should give way to solidarity,
knowing that a cohesive Europe with an authoritative budget would provide long-term
and even medium-term benefit to all Member States. In this framework, a temporary
and fixed correction mechanism based on greater transparency would be considered a
significant initial step towards overcoming a system that inevitably fuels national
interests.