A4-0002/97

Resolution on development problems and structural assistance in Germany in the period 1994-1999

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission Decision on the establishment of the Community support framework for Community structural assistance for the German regions concerned by Objective 1, which are Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Thuringia and Berlin (East) (C4-0047/96) ((() OJ L 250, 26.9.1994, p. 18.)),

- having regard to the Commission Decisions on the approval of Single Programming Documents for Community structural assistance in the areas of Germany concerned by Objective 2 (C4-0048/96, C4-0049/96 and C4- 0673/96) ((() OJ L 384, 31.12.1994, pp. 26, 30, 33, 37, 50, 54, 57, 60 & 64..)),

- having regard to the Single Programming Document for Community structural assistance in the areas of Germany concerned by Objective 5b (C4-0674/96),

- having regard to its resolutions of 15 July 1993 on the Community response to the problems of restructuring in East Germany and the economic and social crisis ((() OJ C 255, 20.9.1993, p. 195.)) and on the Community support framework for the five new Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany ((() OJ C 255, 20.9.1993, p. 193.)),

- having regard to the Commission communications: 'Community Structural Assistance and Employment¨ (COM(96)0109 - C4-0230/96) and 'a European strategy for encouraging local development and employment initiatives¨ (COM(95)0273 - C4-0289/95),

- having regard to the results of the public hearing of 28 October 1996 on development problems in connection with structural measures under Objectives 1, 2 and 5b in Germany,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A4-0002/97),

A. whereas the demands upon structural and regional policies in the reunified Germany have increased considerably as a result of the particular situation of the process of economic and social transformation in the New Federal Länder (NFL) and the deterioration of the general economic situation in the EU,

B. whereas the creation of internal unity in Germany is also of great significance for the further integration of Europe and is proving more difficult than expected,

C. whereas the rising level of unemployment is the most serious social problem for the reunified Germany (16% in the new Länder, 9.7% in the old Länder), and whereas the actual level of unemployment, especially in the new Länder, is significantly higher even than that shown by the statistics which are influenced by short-term government-supported job-creation measures and retraining, qualification and further training schemes,

D. whereas the new Länder covered by Objective 1 will receive ECU 13.64 bn from the European Structural Funds in the period 1994-1999 because they are among the poorest regions in the EU and have had to cope with an unprecedented and full-scale structural upheaval affecting all areas of the economy and of society,

E. whereas ECU 733 m will be provided in the period 1994-1996 and ECU 854 m in the period 1997-1999 from the EU Funds for the German Objective 2 regions to combat the specific problems of regions with declining industrial production,

F. whereas the rural areas of Germany covered by Objective 5b of the European Structural Funds will receive ECU 1.229 bn in European structural aid in the period 1994-1999 for development and structural adjustment,

G. having regard to the outcome of the two reforms of the Structural Funds, in 1988 and 1993, and to the principles of environmental protection and equality of opportunity, the inclusion of the local and regional level and the direct involvement of the social partners enshrined therein,

H. whereas certain Community initiatives fund the same measures as Objective- region assistance and have been criticized, in particular by the Land ministries responsible for implementing them, as entailing excessive bureaucracy,

I. whereas the German support instrument known as the 'Joint scheme for the improvement of regional economic structures' has severely restricted the spectrum of the support potential of the Structural Funds, with particular regard to the fields of the environment, R& D and SMUs, while constituting for some new Länder the only option for securing cofinancing,

J. aware of the increased need for coordination between the German and European agencies, which is a consequence of the federal structure of Germany,

K. whereas only 1% of Structural Fund resources are made available for pilot projects, and whereas that amount is in no way commensurate with such projects, which involve lengthy, costly and labour-intensive applications to the Commission,

1. Acknowledges and praises the joint efforts made by Germany and the EU to secure the economic renewal of the German Objective 1 regions (new Länder) and the successful contribution made by the European Structural Funds to improving the situation in the German Objective 2 and 5b regions and regards them as an essential expression, both now and in the future, of European solidarity with the disadvantaged regions of Germany;

2. Regards the creation and preservation of jobs as a very important task, in addition to support for regions where development is lagging behind and to the elimination of disparities in the European Structural Funds, and draws attention to the high priority of training and further training in this connection;

3. Regards increased support for small and medium-sized undertakings as an important means of improving the situation in the German Objective 1, 2 and 5b regions and of creating employment; calls for more attention to be given to the lack of an adequate capital base among SMUs and recommends that use be made of the existing opportunities for the Structural Funds to participate in the supply of risk capital;

4. Calls for the lack of advisory and service capacity which would enable SMUs to exploit existing opportunities for support to be remedied and recommends making increased use of resources from Technical Assistance for such measures, particularly as there are still marked shortages in the new Länder in terms of marketing and management, and recommends the inclusion of positive experiences from other Member States in future considerations;

5. Regards the delays which have occurred in approving the Community support framework and the single programming documents (SPDs), particularly for Objectives 2 and 5b, as unjustifiable and therefore calls on the Commission, the German Federal Government and the Land governments to improve cooperation between them and to find solutions, in a dialogue aimed at achieving results with the relevant audit boards, to the following problems concerning the implementation of the Funds:

- unsatisfactory coordination between the individual Funds as a result of differing administrative rules and a lack of cooperation by the relevant directorates-general;

- too much time wasted on complicated checks for compliance with aid legislation which may subsequently lead to delayed approval of operational programmes and authorizations under aid legislation;

- the excessively complicated financial arrangements involved in the Funds, which may force the regions to seek interim financing;

- the continuing lack of transparency in European structural support;

6. Is concerned at the current flow rate of Structural Fund appropriations earmarked for Germany and calls on the Land ministries responsible and the Commission to ensure that appropriations are paid out from the European Structural Funds on schedule;

7. Notes that more informative and practicable assessment criteria must be devised as soon as possible as a contribution to the qualitative improvement of prior appraisal, monitoring and ex-post evaluation which is urgently needed to verify the success of Structural Fund assistance, with account being taken of the fact that development projects should comply with the principles of sustainable development;

8. Proposes that, in future, Community initiatives carried out in Germany should be more narrowly focused and considers that some initiatives could be better integrated into EU Objective-region assistance;

9. Notes that the Monitoring Committees bear a heavy responsibility in implementing CSFs, reminds them of the powers they have to revise the CSF, subject to the conditions laid down in the framework regulation, and calls on them to make greater use than hitherto of these powers in the interest of the regions;

10. Stresses the major importance of the participation of the economic and social partners in the work of the Monitoring Committees as an essential element of the partnership;

11. Hopes that more attention will be given to the proposals of local and regional authorities in drawing up and implementing planning documents and notes in this connection the positive experience of North-Rhine Westphalia with the regional conferences;

12. Points out that prior selection of pilot projects in the regions would both reduce the Commission's workload and guarantee a commensurate amount of co- determination for the Member States;

13. Calls once again on the German authorities to act on their duty, under Article 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 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.)), to publish details of financing by the European Structural Funds in projects and measures and to make a more active contribution that reflects the amount of aid from the EU Funds;

14. Notes with growing concern the current poor economic situation in the new Länder, which is reflected in the marked slowdown in economic growth and the continuing high level of unemployment, and calls, therefore, on the Federal Government to make use of the possibilities for structural assistance for employment and, in particular, speedily to eliminate hindrances to local employment and development initiatives;

15. Discerns some initial success in the form of a regionally circumscribed economic upturn, which gives hope of a future self-sustaining recovery, but feels that these emerging 'regions of hope', which must one day come to replace the old industrial heartlands, must not be endangered by a premature reduction in support rates;

16. Notes with concern that, in the new Länder, even six years after the unification of the German state, the uncertain property ownership situation is holding up urgently needed investment and calls for the periods needed to process restitution claims, which are still too lengthy, to be shortened;

17. Expressly welcomes the partial disconnection of ERDF support from the German 'Joint scheme' as an important step towards a more flexible support strategy in the new Länder, since this will make it possible to use the broader spectrum of support under the ERDF (e.g. in the funding of waste water disposal plants), and urges the Federal Government, in cooperation with the Länder, to review the cofinancing instruments, possibly replace them and, in so doing, to make them so flexible that the objectives and principles of the Structural Funds can be fully applied;

18. Fears that investments already made from the EAGGF Guidance Section might be jeopardized by a retroactive alteration of the legal framework in agriculture (fourth amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act);

19. Points out to the Commission and the Council yet again that it regards the support period of three years for Objective 2 regions as too short for it to make a lasting impact on the problems of regions suffering from industrial decline;

20. Reminds the Commission that, in its periodic and current review of the implementation of the Structural Funds, it should devote special attention to the full application of the European Structural Funds Regulation - with particular regard to environmental protection, equality of opportunity and partnership - and, where appropriate, intervene within the limits of its possibilities and responsibilities in order to guarantee such application;

21. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the German Federal Government, the governments of the Länder and the German parliaments.