Resolution on the Commission Communication on the allocation of funds and the implementation of Community Initiatives in Austria, Finland and Sweden (COM(95)0123 - C4-0282/95)
Date: 1996-01-19
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, Finland, Structural Funds, Sweden













EUR-Lex - 51995IP0328 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995IP0328

Resolution on the Commission Communication on the allocation of funds and the implementation of Community Initiatives in Austria, Finland and Sweden (COM(95)0123 - C4-0282/95)  


Official Journal C 032 , 05/02/1996 P. 0139 





A4-0328/95Resolution on the Commission Communication on the allocation of funds and the implementation of Community Initiatives in Austria, Finland and Sweden (COM(95)0123 - C4-0282/95)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Communication from the Commission on the allocation of funds and the implementation of Community Initiatives in Austria, Finland and Sweden (COM(95)0123),- having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93, amending Regulation No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operation of the European Investment Bank and other existing financial instruments ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5.)),- having regard to the Code of Conduct for the Commission's implementation 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 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.)),- 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 and the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment (A4-0328/95),A. having regard to the particular characteristics of Austria, Finland and Sweden, particularly their geographical make-up, and the fact that the challenges posed to the Union's regional policy by these three new Member States call for adjustments to the implementation of the Structural Funds and, in particular, Community Initiatives, as defined prior to accession,B. having regard to the exceptional length of the frontiers which the three new Member States share with third countries and their firmly established tradition of cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Baltic and Arctic areas,C. whereas both the European Parliament and the informal Council of Ministers of regional planning have asked the Commission to extend the INTERREG II initiative by creating a new sector devoted to interregional cooperation and regional planning,D. having regard to the responsibilities of the budgetary authority and the need to make a decision about the future use of the Community Initiatives reserve,E. having regard to the results of the visit to Finland by the delegation from the Committee on Regional Policy from 30 May to 1 June 1995,F. whereas this is merely an interim report and the real problems will not emerge until later,1. Is aware of the difficulties of sharing out the funds for Community Initiatives among only three Member States whose specific characteristics will necessarily determine that funds will be allocated to programmes on a percentage basis different from that of the rest of the Member States of the Union, and advocates flexible application of the Community Initiatives guidelines, which pre-date accession, so as to adapt them to the particular needs of Austria, Finland and Sweden;2. Agrees with the Commission on the need to apply the relevant allocation criteria in a flexible way so that national peculiarities are sufficiently taken into consideration;3. Points out, in that connection, that Article 12 of the Framework Regulation governing the Structural Funds provides for such allocation to individual Member States, for guidance and in accordance with transparent procedures, only in the case of Objectives 1 to 4 and 5(b) (and 6), any similar allocation method in respect of the Community Initiatives being regarded as illegal;4. Takes the view that it will be incumbent on the budgetary authority to allocate appropriations to the various Community Initiatives in accordance with needs, absorption capacities, and the enlargement of the European Union to include the three new Member States, after the relevant committees have considered the matter;5. Points out that the release of appropriations from the 12% contingency reserve which has now been established must be subject to the same rules and procedures in force for the general contingency reserve still available for the other twelve Member States;6. Approves the exceptional emphasis which the Commission lays on INTERREG II in the allocation of the funds between the various Initiatives, particularly in view of the exceptionally long external borders of the three new Member States;7. Calls on the Commission to take account of the traditional cooperation relationships already firmly established in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean regions when drawing up the list of areas to benefit under INTERREG II;8. Believes that action funded by INTERREG II in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Baltic and Arctic areas should, as a priority, concentrate on pursuing cooperation on environmental matters, the development of entrepreneurial activity, particularly cross-border cooperation, improving infrastructure, particularly transport links, and strengthening the economic power of the regions;9. Believes that it is essential for the TACIS and PHARE procedures to be coordinated with the INTERREG II procedure in such a way that funding for cross-border cooperation projects is ensured, including joint projects, and, to this end, believes that it is necessary to establish a specific TACIS budget line which will guarantee the resources necessary to fund measures in the Member States benefiting under this programme to complement INTERREG II intervention in the regions bordering the Union, in a similar fashion to the PHARE machinery, and that in the Euro regions, the provision of advisory services for, and the promotion and development of, such combined TACIS- INTERREG II or PHARE-INTERREG II projects should be ensured in a decentralized manner;10. Observes that the problems of the frontier regions of Austria, Finland and Sweden which border the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS are particularly exacerbated by the existence of exceptional disparities in the standard of living on either side of the frontier, and notes that the urgent reduction of such disparities must constitute an absolute priority in the implementation of INTERREG II; emphasizes among other things the importance of vocational training whilst strengthening economic and democratic development in the Central European countries, in Russia and in the Baltic States;11. Believes that the geographical characteristics of the three new Member States which underlie the weight given to INTERREG II as opposed to the rest of the Community Initiatives justify a flexible application of the guidelines for this programme, so as to allow more than 25% total funding of action outside Objective 1 and Objective 6 regions;12. Reiterates its belief that the scope of INTERREG II intervention should cover the funding of action in the field of regional planning and interregional cooperation; such cooperation should devote particular attention to networks of local authorities, initiatives by NGOs and by private and social undertakings;13. Believes that the changes in European geography resulting from the accession of the three new Member States make the development of a Community regional planning policy - taking into account the subsidiarity principle - and strengthening of interregional cooperation more necessary than ever, and draws the Commission's attention to the fact that the extension of INTERREG II should be one of the key priorities in the future sharing out of the Community Initiatives reserve;14. Considers it important that more resources than at present should be directed to INTERREG II projects in the Baltic Sea area in the sharing out of the Community Initiatives reserves;15. Believes that coordinating the funding for regional planning under INTERREG II and Article 10 of the ERDF would facilitate the implementation of practical trans-frontier and interregional action programmes;16. Recalls the alarming unemployment problems affecting Finland in particular, and recommends rapid and decentralized implementation of EMPLOI and ADAPT, stressing the transnational character of these initiatives;17. Believes that LEADER and SME can only be fully effective if they are implemented in a coordinated fashion capable of fostering complementarity between the two programmes; stresses that LEADER is a particularly appropriate initiative for regional planning; believes that, together with the resources from INTERREG and SME, the resources allocated from LEADER should permit Austria's special requirements to be taken into account, to enable it to adapt to the new situation arising from the introduction of the CAP and to step up its existing links with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe;18. Stresses the importance of urban centres for regional planning and believes that the role assigned by the Commission to URBAN in the sharing of the funds between the Community Initiatives is inadequate as regards Austria, Finland and Sweden;19. Is of the opinion that greater emphasis on the URBAN initiative would have contributed to relieving the social problems of cities in the new Member States;20. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, as with INTERREG II, the URBAN guidelines are implemented in a flexible fashion, so as to enable the problems of towns in the new Member States to be tackled, and advocates, in particular, a revision of the eligibility criteria with regard to the size of towns, which will allow the funding of action in smaller urban centres than currently envisaged, with implementation concentrating on issues relating to the urban/rural interface, and to cultural activities and social integration;21. States its confidence in the principles which underpin the structural policies, believes that coordination between the various financial instruments and scrupulous respect for the principle of cooperation with regional and local authorities and representatives of both sides of industry is a priority, and advocates that the management of the Community initiatives be as decentralized as possible with a view, inter alia, to permitting small projects to have access to adequate support;22. Regards favourably, in principle, the Community Initiatives as areas for structural support on particular themes determined in advance by the Commission, but notes that in certain cases the bureaucratic effort expended in providing such support is out of all proportion to the funds disbursed;23. Takes the view that the regions' own decision-making powers should be stressed in the planning and implementation of Community initiatives;24. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.