WRITTEN QUESTION E-2770/98

by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: Reform of the Structural Funds and structural policy

Given the imminent enlargement of the EU and the constraints imposed by EU budgetary policy, reform of the Structural Funds must during the next six months be aimed at bringing about a general reduction in the number of areas eligible for assistance and the size of the population covered and at providing adequate funding for cross-border structural aid programmes (e.g. under the Interreg programme) so as to ensure rapid and lasting integration of the CEECs.

At all events, unobjective and excessive requests which exclusively or mainly reflect national and/or regional aspirations and self-interest, like that made by the Austrian government in its letter of January 1998 to the Commission for almost two thirds of Austrian territory to be made eligible for special assistance, must be rejected.

What was the final outcome and/or what was the response to the Austrian letter of 29 January 1998 to the Commission concerning special assistance for border regions?

Have similar proposals been put forward by other Member States which have borders with the CEECs? If so, by which Member States and when were they submitted to the Commission in Brussels? Were the requests they contained as excessive as those made by Austria?

What level of funding is to be allocated to the Interreg programme in future? Is it true that the Commission is considering granting support under Interreg to projects in border regions, i.e. non- cross-border projects? If so, does the Commission not feel that this will water down Interreg's clear objectives?

Is it true that in the case of the Objectives 2 and 3 recently proposed by the Commission, responsibility for allocating funding (not only payments in respect of projects already decided upon) is to be split half and half with the Member States? If so, will the Commission ensure that funding is not allocated again on the basis of unobjective criteria and that there is no harmful renationalisation of the regional aid system?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

Border regions will feel the impact of the opening of markets and of enlargement more quickly and intensively than other regions, but they will also benefit from their closeness to new markets which provide new opportunities. The importance of these new markets for Community producers is shown by the rapid growth in trade between the Community and the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs), and the increasing surplus of the Community in its trade balance with them. Furthermore, the impact of enlargement, in particular in sensitive areas, will be softened through transitional arrangements.

The Commission does not therefore consider consider it necessary to create a special instrument, e.g. a Community initiative, for the regions sharing borders with the CEECs. In its view, existing measures provide sufficient scope and flexibility to address the problems of these regions. The Commission has informed the Austrian authorities of its position on this. Several local authorities in Bavaria submitted similar proposals for a special status for border regions with the CEECs. In its replies, the Commission also adopted the above position.

It should be taken into account that many of the border regions are assisted by the structural funds. The new German Länder and Burgenland are at present (and will most likely remain) objective 1 regions. Most of the other border regions in Germany, Austria and Italy currently receive assistance under objective 5b.

Apart from these "mainstream" programmes, the Commission proposes to maintain Interreg as one of three Community initiatives. Interreg is an appropriate instrument for tackling the specific problems of Community border regions with the CEECs. In combination with the PHARE-CBC programme, it provides significant financial assistance to strengthen the economic links across the borders concerned. Through its interventions, the accessibility of CEEC markets is improved and a mutually beneficial co-operation on both sides of the border is supported.

The specific design of Interreg for the new programming period has not been finished. The Commission proposes that support should be given to projects covering cross-border, interregional as well as transnational co-operation. As all three activities receive assistance in the current period under different headings, there will be no watering down of Interreg assistance. Given the proposed reduction in the number of Community initiatives, Interreg will have considerable financial scope. The exact amount will be established by the Commission once the Council has decided on the new structural funds regulation and the total amount of budgetary resources for the Community initiatives.

As far as the new objective 2 is concerned, it is foreseen that Member States will be able to present proposals for the selection of up to 50 % of their assisted areas on the basis of national statistics. These proposals must, however, be in line with the general criteria set out in the draft framework regulation(1). This approach reflects the shared responsibility between Commission and Member States for the selection of assisted areas. As the Commission takes the final decision on the list of eligible areas, it will ensure the Community character of the objective 2 lists and objective choices of assisted areas. As for the allocation of funding, according to the draft regulation, the Commission's decision on the operational programmes would specify the priorities of intervention while the Member States, in line with the principle of partnership, would decide upon the concrete measures to be undertaken.

(1) COM(98) 131 final.