A4-0067/96

Resolution on I. the Commission proposal in relation to the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives for the period up to the end of 1999 (C4- 0611/95), II. the draft communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for operational programmes which Member States are invited to establish in the framework of a Community initiative concerning urban areas (URBAN) (C4-0612/95) and III. the draft communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for operational programmes which Member States are invited to establish in the framework of a Community Interreg initiative concerning transnational cooperation on spatial planning (INTERREG II C) (C4-0615/95)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the letter from Mrs Wulf-Mathies to President Haensch, informing him of the Commission's proposal in relation to the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives for the period up to the end of 1999 (C4-0611/95),

- having regard to the Commission's draft communication to the Member States laying down guidelines for operational programmes which the Member States are invited to establish in the framework of a Community initiative concerning urban areas (URBAN) (C4-0612/95),

- having regard to the Commission's draft communication to the Member States laying down guidelines for operational programmes which the Member States are invited to establish in the framework of a Community INTERREG initiative concerning transnational cooperation on spatial planning (INTERREG II C) (C4-0615/95),

- having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5.)) and, in particular, Articles 5 and 12 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2952/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 20.)) and, in particular, Article 11 thereof,

- having regard to the Code of Conduct of 13 July 1993 for the Commission's application of the structural policies ((OJ C 255, 20.9.1993, p. 19.)),

- having regard to its resolution of 28 October 1993 on the future of Community initiatives under the Structural Funds ((OJ C 315, 22.11.1993, p. 245.)),

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Budgets, Committee on External Economic Relations, the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment and the Committee on Fisheries (A4-0067/96),

A. whereas by letter of 16 October 1995, the Commission informed Parliament of its intentions with regard to the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives for the period up to the end of 1999,

B. whereas prior to this communication, the Commission had already published its draft decision and a budgetary table setting out the allocation of the reserve's funds by Member State, a table which was not forwarded to Parliament at that time,

C. whereas, according to paragraph 1, third subparagraph, of the Code of Conduct of 15 March 1995 ((OJ C 89, 10.4.1995, p. 69.)), 'the Commission shall endeavour not to make public any important initiatives before informing Parliament thereof in the appropriate manner',

D. whereas the Commission states that it is prepared to grant the Member States a certain flexibility which could, without modifying the overall allocations for each Member State, allow the funding by Initiative to be broken down in a different manner from that initially envisaged,

E. whereas measures must be taken to promote more active participation by local and regional authorities in the Community Initiatives by giving them a more important role to play,

F. whereas within the framework of the first distribution of funds amongst the Community Initiatives in 1994, ECU 400 m were assigned to a textiles programme for Portugal which was later deleted, and whereas in its resolutions of 3 May 1994 on RETEX, RECHAR and KONVER ((OJ C 205, 25.7.1994, pp 104, 101 & 89.)), Parliament clearly stated where these appropriations should be assigned,

G. whereas insufficient attention has been paid to regions which, after the decline of the mining, the steel and the arms industries and the disappearance of a military presence, are very severely disadvantaged owing to massive environmental destruction and the unbalanced infrastructures, in particular because the expense of economic rehabilitation is far beyond their resources and they are therefore prevented from undertaking innovation and development,

H. noting with concern the loss of 575 000 jobs from 1985 to 1994 in the textile industry and that jobs at risk over the next five years are estimated at 75 000,

I. noting that the coal industry in 1995 employed 1.86 m workers, reduced to 260 000 in 1991, and that at least 500 000 jobs have been lost since 1984, and stressing that the closure of collieries has had a dramatic effect not only on employment but also on the economic and social fabric of entire regions,

J. noting that employment in the iron and steel industry was reduced from 404 500 posts in 1988 to just over 355 000 in 1992, and that the steel industry has been hard hit in the recent economic recession, leading to high unemployment levels in iron and steel producing regions,

K. noting with concern that the defence industry has suffered job losses of more than 1 m since 1990, and stressing that closure of defence bases and related manufacturing industry has had a dramatic effect not only on employment but also on the economic and social fabric of entire regions,

L. whereas on various occasions, and, in particular, in its resolution of 29 June 1995 on the Commission document 'Europe 2000+, Cooperation for European territorial development' ((OJ C 183, 17.7.1995, p. 39.)), Parliament has advocated extending the field of application of the INTERREG initiative to transnational cooperation on spatial planning,

M. whereas the Community Initiatives should constitute a response to the need to fund measures which possess Community Added Value or meet fresh needs arising after the adoption of Community Support Frameworks or outside the latter,

1. Deplores the fact that the Commission, by publishing information regarding its intentions with regard to the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives, ignored the provisions of the abovementioned Code of Conduct of 15 March 1995, whereby it is obliged to inform Parliament immediately;

2. Believes that it is of prime importance, in accordance with Article 11(1) of the regulation on the Community's Structural Funds (EEC/2082/93), to use the Community Initiatives primarily for actions which are of particular interest to the Community, and that this constitutes their added value with regard to the Community Support Frameworks; reiterates that under no circumstances should they become indirect instruments of redistribution of financial resources to Member States;

3. Considers that priority must be given to proposals made jointly with the regional and local authorities of the Member States concerned and to proposals which promote cooperation between those authorities, so as to ensure that the regional and local authorities are, as is necessary, encouraged to play a more active role in the planning and implementation of the Community Initiatives;

4. Believes that in the case of the Community Initiatives which, pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation No 2082/93, may be implemented outside the Objective 1, 2 and 5b (and 6) areas, the indicative allocation referred to in Article 12 of Council Regulation No 2081/93 cannot be made before the subjects of the various Initiatives have been specified and the resources distributed amongst them in the light of the problems to be tackled;

5. Believes that the breakdown of appropriations by Initiative should take precedence over the allocation by Member State and believes that, in any case, it is impermissible for national 'quotas' to be established, since these would only undermine the very principles on which the Community Initiative programmes rest and would reduce them to useless accessories to the Community Support Frameworks;

6. Welcomes the Commission's acknowledgement that all financial planning relating to the multiannual packages for Community initiatives is indicative; points out that the Commission must submit to it each year with the PDB a report on the state of financial implementation of each initiative and notes the Commission's undertaking to submit a report when it presents the preliminary draft budget for 1999;

7. Notes that following the revision of the Financial Perspective at the end of 1994 the reserve for Community initiatives should amount to ECU 2 billion, given that the Commission did not increase the financial package for the RECHAR, RETEX and KONVER initiatives following the release of ECU 400 m from the 'Portuguese Textiles' programme;

8. Notes the proposal on the indicative allocation of the reserve drawn up by the Commission; considers, however, that the funding for the three industrial initiatives (RECHAR, RETEX and KONVER) and for the REGIS II and RESIDER initiatives is insufficient;

9. Calls on the Commission to continue the dialogue with Parliament with a view to establishing a new financial framework for Community initiatives and helping to create jobs, protect natural resources, improve the quality of life and promote their transnational dimension, so that economic and social cohesion can be achieved throughout the Community; recalls in this connection its statements on the need to revise the Financial Perspective (increase of ECU 100 m), to enable ECU 300 m to be earmarked for the financial package for the Community initiative for regions in both parts of Ireland;

10. Calls on the Commission to submit before July 1998 a progress report on implementation of the Community initiative programmes and to submit proposals to the budgetary authority on how to provide additional funding for those initiatives on the basis of any non-implementation of the overall budget of the European Union;

11. Decides, therefore, in accordance with its aforementioned resolutions of 3 May 1994, to increase funding for the industrial initiatives by at least ECU 250 m, to be divided between the RETEX (+ ECU 150 m) and RECHAR (+ ECU 100 m) initiatives, and for the REGIS II initiative, with the additional funds being obtained as follows: ECU 100 m from the margin to be generated following the revision of the Financial Perspective referred to above, and the remainder from any non- implementation of the overall budget;

12. Points out that, during the annual budgetary procedure, Parliament, acting in accordance with the budgetary powers assigned to it under the Treaty, establishes the annual appropriation to be allocated to each initiative within its overall financial package, on the basis of the state of implementation of the initiatives and the findings of a cost- effectiveness analysis, as laid down in the Financial Regulation. With this in mind, Parliament will be obliged to introduce appropriate mechanisms to ensure full compliance with its budgetary decisions;

13. Recalls that, for the 1996 budget, it adopted a remark concerning the chapter on Community initiatives (B2-14), requiring the Commission to notify the budgetary authority of all internal transfers made between the various headings relating to Community initiatives; calls on the Commission to notify it of the arrangements for complying with this requirement;

14. Urges the Commission, in particular, to comply with Parliament's guidelines for increasing the funding for the 'industrial' initiatives, given the continuing restructuring and high unemployment in industrial areas and in the four industrial sectors;

15. Believes that the indicative allocation proposed by the Commission for the four industrial initiatives KONVER, RETEX, RECHAR and RESIDER respectively is insufficient to tackle the problems of restructuring in these sectors, and insists that in each case these amounts cannot be reduced from this minimum;

16. Calls for the inclusion in the Community Initiatives RECHAR, RESIDER and KONVER of regions which have suffered long-term damage, with the environmental rehabilitation of disused industrial sites taking precedence; demands that aid should be channelled in such a way that restructuring creates new sectors of employment in keeping with local specificities and that these regions should be made more attractive owing to an improvement in the local quality of life;

17. Considers that in view of the fact that REGIS II is the result of the implementation of the Community Initiatives in the outermost regions, the increase in the budgetary allocation for them should be matched by a proportionate increase in the amount allocated to REGIS II;

18. Approves the general criteria which the Commission has established for the allocation of the reserve and believes, in this connection, that the application of the Community Initiatives to the end of 1999 should be based, in an effective manner, on the objectives of increasing their contribution to creating new jobs, protecting environmental resources, improving the quality of life and further developing their transnational character, so that the overall Community objective of economic and social cohesion can be attained;

19. Calls on the Commission to report to Parliament on the results of the various projects and the follow-up action to be taken after 1999;

URBAN

20. Expresses particular satisfaction that the planned amendment of the URBAN guidelines should stress the contribution of these measures funded to fighting long-term unemployment, equal opportunities and the conservation of the urban environment;

21. Believes that in this second stage of the application of URBAN, the question of funding projects in smaller cities than those initially eligible should also be included;

22. Urges the Commission, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, to engage in a proactive dialogue with the Member States on the decision to designate beneficiary areas;

23. Believes that the restriction of the number of projects eligible for funding to twenty should be no more than a guideline;

24. Considers, in view of paragraph 11 of Communication C4-0612/95, that the allocation of resources to towns in Objective 1 regions must remain in line with the proportional allocation previously adopted;

INTERREG II, Strand 'C'

25. Welcomes the establishment of a new strand of the INTERREG II Initiative devoted to transnational cooperation on spatial planning, which is basically in agreement with Parliament's own demands;

26. Calls on the Commission, recognizing that INTERREG C targets cooperation on spatial planning issues between different Member States, to ensure the full involvement of local and regional authorities in the relevant areas;

27. Demands, in keeping with the general principle governing Community initiatives set out in Article 11(1)(2) of Regulation EEC/2082/93 on the coordination of Structural Fund interventions, and bearing in mind that they are concerned with regional cooperation, i.e. a matter which to a large extent presupposes the territorial contiguity of the cooperating countries, that provision be made generally for the possibility of submitting proposals based on cooperation between two Member States (not three, as provided for in the Commission's original proposal) so as not to hamper the participation therein of the peripheral and more isolated Member States of the Union;

28. Demands, as part of the actions concerning international cooperation in the field of regional planning, that provision be made for the necessary conditions to facilitate the inclusion of third countries so that Member States of the Union which do not have land (or immediate maritime) borders with any of the other Member States, but clearly face similar problems, can participate in them;

29. Demands that the actions taken to manage water resources, i.e. to combat drought and flooding, within the framework of INTERREG II, Strand C should not be located in specific Member States or specific areas of Member States of the Union, but should be open to all the Member States and that inclusion should be determined by the severity of the problems encountered;

30. Believes that the appropriations should be shared between the two intervention sectors of the new strand of the Initiative, i.e. transnational cooperation on spatial planning and water management by means of transnational cooperation, in a proportion of one-third to two- thirds respectively, with the specific objective of stressing their essentially transnational character;

31. Calls on the Commission to state more clearly how transnational cooperation is to be applied to issues concerning water management;

32. Is aware of the structural differences between measures to combat flooding and those to combat drought, but nevertheless hopes that the Commission will be balanced in its management of these two elements of the initiative;

33. Calls on the Commission to do everything in its power to improve the coordination and financing of transnational programmes with third countries;

34. Deplores the fact that the draft guidelines do not contain a list of eligible areas, grouped according to fields for cooperation in each of the intervention sectors of Strand C, and calls on the Commission to submit such a list before initiating the budgetary procedure for 1997;

35. Considers it necessary to take into account the island dimension of regional planning, so that the measures concerning cooperation between island regions (e.g. the establishment or development of exchanges of information between islands) are able to benefit from INTERREG II resources;

FISHERIES

36. Calls on the Commission to draw up a report on the implementation of the Community Initiative PESCA once the initiative has run half of its total duration;

37. Calls on the Commission to simplify its departments' administrative procedures in relation to PESCA;

38. Calls on the Commission to review the existing high level of Member States' contributions to the cofinancing of PESCA and, where necessary, reduce them;

39. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission.