24. Asks the Commission and the Member States to ensure an extensive publicity and communication
campaign for the new URBAN initiative,
25. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide full and transparent information on the
selection procedures and the methodologyfor the URBAN initiative, and to inform Parliament regularly onthe implementation of URBAN,
26. Welcomes the creation of a horizontal mechanism in the fund to enable the exchange of good
practice and highlight innovative approaches to urban regeneration,
27. Asks the Commission to inform it under the Code of Conduct which agencies will be engaged in
this work,
28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and the governments of the
Member States.
4. Harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)
A5-0028/2000
European Parliament resolution on the draft communication from the Commission to the Member
States laying down guidelines for a Community Initiative concerning trans-European cooperationintended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)
(COM(1999) 479 Fdash C5-0243/1999 Fdash 1999/2178(COS))
The European Parliament,
1dash having regard to the draft communication from the Commission to the Member States
(COM(1999) 479 1dash C5-0243/1999),
1dash having regard to Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty,1dash having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on
the Structural Funds(
1),
1dash having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 of 12 July 1999 of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the European Regional Development Fund(2),
1dash having regard to the Code of Conduct of 6 May 1999 agreed between the European Parliament and
the Commission on the implementation of Structural Policies by the Commission(3),
1dash having regard to its resolution of 3 May 1994 on the Community initiative concerning cross-border
cooperation and selected energy networks (Interreg II)(4),
1dash having regard to its resolution of 28 March 1996 on the Community initiative concerning transna-
tional cooperation on spatial planning (Interreg II C)(5),
1dash having regard to its resolution of 16 May 1997 on cross-border and inter-regional cooperation(6),
1dash having regard to its resolution of 2 July 1998 on regional planning and the European Spatial Devel-
opment Perspective(7),
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 279, 1.10.1999, p. 488.
(4) OJ C 205, 25.7.1994, p. 116.
(5) OJ C 117, 22.4.1996, p. 70.
(6) OJ C 167, 2.6.1997, p. 245.
(7) OJ C 226, 20.7.1998, p. 42.29.11.2000 EN C 339/47 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 15 February 2000
1dash having regard to the conclusions of the Berlin European Council of 24 and 25 March 1999, according
to which at least 50% of commitment appropriations foreseen for Community Initiatives are to beallocated to the Interreg initiative, in which connection particular attention should be devoted tocross-border activities, especially with a view to enlargement and for Member States which have longcommon borders with applicant countries and countries sharing a common border with the Union,and to better coordination with the PHARE, TACIS and MEDA programmes,
1dash having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and
improvement of the budgetary procedure(
1) and the Financial Perspective which forms an integral
part thereof,
1dash having regard to the agreements reached by the Ministers responsible for Regional Planning and
Urban and Regional Policy at Tampere on 4 and 5 October 1999,
1dash having regard to the annual report of the Court of Auditors concerning the 1998 financial year(2),
1dash having regard to Rule 160 of its Rules of Procedure,
1dash having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the
opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Exter-nal Trade, Research and Energy (A5-0028/2000),
A. having regard to the difficulties experienced in the past by maritime and landlocked border regions
which have been cut off economically, socially and culturally because of the existence of borders andturned into peripheral areas within the States to which they belong,
B. whereas national frontiers should not be a barrier to the balanced development, territorial cohesion
and integration of the European territory,
C. whereas border regions have encountered difficulties in establishing a joint environmental policy,
which has been an obstacle to consistent management of ecosystems,
D. whereas cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation is important for European integra-
tion from the institutional, economic and social, including migrations, points of view and promotespeace, security, stability, territorial cohesion and respect for the rights of minorities,
E. whereas the completion of the internal market, Economic and Monetary Union and the forthcoming
enlargement of the Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus
create a new situation for border regions; whereas, therefore, the map of regions eligible for cross-border cooperation should be updated to take account of this new situation,
F. whereas the enlargement of the European Union to include new countries must entail a process of
integration of societies, economies and territories,
G. whereas the territory of Europe should be considered as a whole in the interests of harmonious devel-
opment of the Union and whereas the integration of border regions is an essential element in thedevelopment of a future European regional development policy based on the implementation of thepolycentrism envisaged by the European Spatial Development Perspective,
H. whereas interregional cooperation makes an important contribution to involving local and regional
authorities in the process of European integration,
I. whereas more active participation by local and regional authorities in Communityinitiatives should be
promoted and, in general, their role in them should be upgraded, bearing in mind that in many casesthe local and regional authorities have a very limited capacity for cooperation because of the differentlegal frameworks and different levels of development on either side of the border,
J. whereas Community initiatives should only finance measures which entail added value at Community
level or which are designed to remedy problems targeted by Community Support Frameworks (CSFs),
(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 349, 3.12.1999, p. 1.C 339/48 EN29.11.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 15 February 2000
K. whereas the harmful effects caused by the parallel development of different infrastructure projects on
either side of the border must be prevented and whereas it is important to ensure common develop-ment strategies with an innovatory approach with regard to management bodies,
L. whereas the Community initiative Interreg II has been well supported and its acknowledged success
could contribute to the establishment of a genuine Community regional planning policy,
1. Welcomes the continuation of Interreg; notes with satisfaction that, in the draft guidelines under
consideration, the Commission has incorporated important recommendations formulated in previousreports by Parliament on Interreg; endorses the priority assigned to Interreg III and endorses the fundingconsequently allocated to it;
2. Regrets the fact that the Commission submitted its draft late and that neither the regions nor repre-
sentative regional organisations were involved in the drafting of the guidelines; in this context, calls on theCommission in future to ensure greater participation by regional authorities, particularly within the frame-work of programming and implementing the three strands of Interreg;
3. Notes with concern that it is not possible to establish a direct link between Interreg II and Interreg III
because of the delay in the Commission’s submission of the draft; deplores the fact that as a result thereare uncertainties regarding planning and a lack ofcontinuity of financing; calls, in future, for programmingschedules to coincide strictly with the entry into force of Community initiatives in order to ensure greatercontinuity of programming;
4. Considers it necessary to continue to support the initiatives already launched under Interreg II in
order to capitalise on the results achieved in the first Interreg programmes and complete the cooperationprojects between businesses and administrations already begun;
5. Regrets and deplores the fact that the Commissionreferred to guidelines for Interreg III to Parliament
without first making a precise assessmentof Interreg II, from which lessonscould have been drawn for thenew generation of the programme;
6. Hopes that Parliament will receive an assessmentofInterreg IIin time for its examination ofthe mid-
term review of Interreg III;
7. Is concerned about the consequences of the late entry into force of Interreg III for the beneficiary
regions and particularly the risk of loss of financing during the period between the end of the applicationof Interreg II and the beginning of the practical implementation of Interreg III, and calls on the Commi-ssion to alleviate the impact of its own omissions;
8. Expresses the hope that Parliament will be notified without delay of the utilisation rate of appropria-
tions allocated to the Interreg II programme;
9. Considers it vital, with a view to using Interreg as an instrument for strengthening cooperation with
the Adriatic and Balkan regions and with the aim of consolidating the economic, social and political sta-bility of these regions, to extend the area eligible for cross-border cooperation to all regions of the Adria-
tic;
10. With a view to the enlargement of the European Union to include Malta and in the context of the
Barcelona process, calls for the Sicilian provinces which have a maritime frontier with the abovementionedapplicant country to be included in the map of regions eligible for cross-border cooperation;
11. Agrees with the Commission that it is important to step up cross-border, transnational and inter-
regional cooperation further; observes that the experience acquired should be sufficient guarantee thatgenuine cross-border cooperation can be achieved under Interreg III;
12. Welcomes the fact that Interreg-PHARE (CBC) cooperation has been developed on a regional and
multiannual basis, in which local authorities play a significant role, and hopes that similar cooperation willbe developed in Interreg-TACIS (CBC) programmes;29.11.2000 EN C 339/49 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 15 February 2000
13. Welcomes the fact that monitoring committees, steering committees, managing authorities and pay-
ing authorities are required to be of a genuinely cross-border or transnational character;
14. Notes that the decisions of the Member States on improving the climatic situation and reducing
CO2must be reflected in the cross-border and transnational cooperation subsidised by Interreg III;
15. Welcomes the approach adopted, which is based on three strands subsuming the respective priori-
ties for the current programming period; reserves its opinion, however, until it has seen the assessment of
the results of Interreg II;
16. Welcomes the setting of financial quotas for the various strands and the indicative breakdown by
state, and considers it wise to allow an adjustable margin for strands IIIA and IIIB; calls however on theCommissionto ensure that the Members States do not use Interreg fundsstrictly for the implementation of
their national policies but will seek to promote the development of the beneficiary regions fairly by break-
ing down their quotas in such a way as to allocate the funds equitably to the eligible regions in the light,in particular, of the regions’ needs and their capacity to organise projects;
17. Considers that the indicative list of fields of cooperation for strand IIIA comprises sufficient ele-
ments for cross-border projects of high quality; is aware that the list of eligible areas is derived from the
current areas of cooperation; deplores the fact that very remote and island regions are not sufficiently
taken into account in strand IIIA even though it has been acknowledged that these areas require specialattention; calls on the Commission, therefore, to define clear and inviolable eligibility principles but allowMember States more flexibility, within existing budget allocations, to designate areas of cooperation understrand IIIA;
18. Takes the view that, in cross-border cooperation, greater emphasis must be placed on improving
the conditions for the economic activity of small and medium-sized undertakings, including micro-under-takings and craft businesses, since it is those undertakings which create the largest number of jobs and actas a factor of stability in times of economic uncertainty;
19. Welcomes the possibility of supporting networks of local services and development and employ-
ment initiatives through strand A and expects these to be given due consideration;
20. Stresses the crucial importance of promoting regional transport links and energy supply projects in
border regions within the Union and at its frontiers;
21. Fears that the scope of strand IIIB and the funds allocated to it may be too limited, and proposes
that a non-exhaustive list of measures eligible for Community cofinancing should be drawn up; hopes thatthe areas for cooperation under strand IIIB will be the same as those under the current IIC, in order not tojeopardise the cooperation which now exists between regions, particularly the outermost regions; calls onthe Commission to clarify the extent to which strand IIIA type activities can be carried out in order toenhance cooperation between island and maritime regions;
22. Agrees with the Commission that operations selected under strand IIIB must demonstrate concrete,
visible and innovative results;
23. Attaches great importance to strand C, in view of the added value which the Community initiative
should entail; regrets the inadequacy of the budget for strand IIIC; calls on the Commission to detail andforward to it the procedures for implementing this strand; calls on the Commission to involve regionalauthorities in planning, managing and implementing this strand, and in particular to permit cooperationbetween regions from different cooperation areas within the framework of regional cooperation;
24. Welcomes the Commission’sapproach of supporting networks for cooperation among regional and
local authorities; draws attention here once again to the consistency between Interreg IIIC and theEU programmes for decentralised cooperation in the area of external policy and the opportunities forEuropean local authorities to develop an integrated international exchange of experience and cooperation;C 339/50 EN29.11.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 15 February 2000
25. Takes the view that cooperation at the internal frontiers must result in ordinary people being able
to conduct their everyday business without any difficulties; expects, therefore, that the programmes’ pro-jects will also promote the establishment of the fundamental rights of workers, social and health protec-tion, and freedom of movement;
26. Calls on the Commission to coordinate better with Interreg the various instruments used for coop-
eration projects in third countries, namely ISPA, MEDA, PHARE, SAPARD, TACIS and EDF; stresses thatthis coordination of instruments is a sine qua non for genuine cooperation; again calls on the Commission
to consider the establishment of a single Common Fund; calls on the Commission to forward to the Euro-pean Parliament its report on the measures for improving coordination between Interreg and the variousabovementioned Community instruments before 1 June 2000 at the latest;
27. Stresses that greater flexibility is needed given the different legal and political situations in the
Union as regards the powers of regions and local authorities; calls therefore on the Commissionto supportthe setting up of joint management bodies on a transnational and cross-border basis in the interests ofeffective cooperation;
28. Takes the view that, in order to ensure that the guidelines of the general regulation are implemen-
ted, the Commission must see to it that the Member States and local authorities genuinely involve theeconomic and social partners and check that they really are involved, above and beyond statements ofprinciple, in the whole process of designing and implementing the programme;
29. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen the role and responsibility of the
regions at the EU’s borders, not only in devising regional development programmes but also in exercisingtheir powers; this also means that some technical assistance should be made available to the regions forthis purpose;
30. Notes that transnational projects with non-member countries under Interreg often fail because of
inadequate funding possibilities in those countries;
31. Urges the Commission to ensure that procedural incompatibilities 1dash for example between the
PHARE-CBC regulation and the Interreg guidelines 1dash do not result in projects cofinanced by the ERDFbeing blocked;
32. Recalls that structural unemployment is responsible for 50% of all unemployment and therefore
expects that the Interreg funds made available will supplement national measures to promote employment;stresses the importance of this Community initiative for promoting employment in thinly populated areas;
33. Calls on the Commissionto study carefully the measures carried out in the Member States to which
Interreg resources are allocated, to enforce strict complementarity with other Structural Fund measures andto apply monitoring measures;
34. Calls on the Commission to take the greatest care to ensure that the implementation of projects
under Interreg does not violate general Community legislation;
35. Draws attention to the fact that, by virtue of the new aspects which Interreg could tackle, the ERDF
should demonstrate its management capacity in fields where to date it has no experience, such as human
resources, equal opportunities, tourism, rural development or employment promotion;
36. Rejects categorically the Commission proposal to use outside service providers in the form of a
Technical Assistance Office;
37. Calls on the Commission to comply with the provisions laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EC)
1260/1999 as regards the funding of assistance;
38. Welcomes the setting up of a European Observatory for cross-border transnational and interregio-
nal cooperation responsible for monitoring the development of territorial cohesion, regional developmentand relations between the centre and the periphery, so as to identify existing imbalances;29.11.2000 EN C 339/51 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 15 February 2000
39. Considers that the financial involvement of regional and local players or greater participation by
local associations and the private sector is essential;
40. Calls on the Commission and Member States to involve their local and regional authorities, the
European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions in the drafting of a working programme for theObservatory;
41. Regrets that the Commission document contains no recommendations to the Member States
designed to simplify procedures and national legal provisions concerning the submission and examination
of projects by the national authorities or financing implementation and control;
42. Calls on the national and local authorities to make payments to final beneficiaries as speedily as
possible;
43. Calls on the Commission to inform Parliament regularly about the implementation of Interreg; a
requirement more justified than ever given the incomplete nature of its proposal;
44. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and the governments of the
Member States.
5. Rural development (Leader+)
A5-0024/2000
European Parliament resolution on the draft communication from the Commission to the Member
States laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+)
(COM(1999) 475 Fdash C5-0259/1999 Fdash 1999/2185(COS))
The European Parliament,
1dash having regard to the draft communication from the Commission(COM(1999) 475 1dash C5-0259/1999),1dash having regard to its resolution of 5 May 1994(
1) on the future of Community initiatives under the
Structural Funds (Leader II programme),
1dash having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provi-
sions on the Structural Funds(2) from 2000,
1dash having regard to its resolution of 19 November 1998(3) and its decision of 6 May 1999(4) on the
general provisions on the Structural Funds,
1dash having regard to the Code of Conduct(5) on the implementation of structural policies by the Commi-
ssion,
1dash having regard to the conclusions of the Berlin European Council of 24 and 25 March 1999,
1dash having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and
improvement of the budgetary procedure(6) and the financial perspective which forms an integral
part thereof,
1dash having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,1dash having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion
of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (A5-0024/2000),
(1) OJ C 205, 25.7.1994, p. 412.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 379, 7.12.1998, p. 164.
(4) OJ C 279, 1.10.1999, p. 292.
(5) OJ C 279, 1.10.1999, p. 488.
(6) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1.C 339/52 EN29.11.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday 15 February 2000