Resolution on the Commission communication on the new regional programmes 1997-1999 under Objective 2 of the Community's Structural Policies - focusing on job creation (COM(97)0524 C4-0641/97)
Date: 1998-10-09
Institutions: Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: Structural Funds, declining industrial region, exchange parity, mechanisation of agriculture, regional aid, regional planning, structural policy













EUR-Lex - 51998IP0213 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51998IP0213

Resolution on the Commission communication on the new regional programmes 1997-1999 under Objective 2 of the Community's Structural Policies - focusing on job creation (COM(97)0524 C4-0641/97)  


Official Journal C 328 , 26/10/1998 P. 0234 





A4-0213/98Resolution on the Commission communication on the new regional programmes 1997-1999 under Objective 2 of the Community's Structural Policies - focusing on job creation (COM(97)0524 - C4-0641/97)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Commission communication, COM(97)0524 - C4-0641/97,- having regard to the objectives of the policy to achieve economic and social cohesion as laid down in Title XIV of the EC Treaty,- having regard to Articles 1 and 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 establishing an Objective 2 for the conversion of areas affected by the decline of traditional industries within the programming period 1994-1999 (( OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5.)),- having regard to its resolution of 14 February 1996 on the second planning period of assistance under Objective 2 (1997-1999) (( OJ C 65, 4.3.1996, p. 88.)),- having regard to the note for guidance on the implementation of interventions in declining industrial areas (Objective 2) in the second programming phase 1997-1999 (C(96)952),- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A4-0213/98),A. whereas the Community support to industrial regions affected by serious decline and in need of conversion is of particular importance as part of its aim to achieve economic and social cohesion under Article 130a of the Treaty,B. whereas unemployment is the major challenge at the end of this century; whereas job creation should thus be a top priority in the Union's policies,C. whereas continuity between the first and the second Objective 2 periods (1994-1996 and 1997-1999) is evident in eligibility, where there were only minor changes and a more long-term approach in the regions affected by industrial decline was thereby ensured,D. whereas competitiveness and development of SMEs as a special priority reflect their particular importance in job creation, given that they represent two thirds of the overall workforce in the Union,E. whereas R& D and innovation are a challenge and an opportunity for industrial regions to convert their economic structure and improve their regional competitiveness, if the necessary infrastructure and a sufficient supply of qualified workers are ensured,F. whereas environment and sustainable development are a special priority, reflecting the complementarity of environment and regional development; whereas they should thus be the subject of Objective 2 funding directly as well as being a horizontal priority guaranteeing environmentally friendly and sustainable conversion,G. whereas ensuring equal opportunities as a horizontal objective is of lasting importance taking into account continuing inequalities in terms of access, presence and equal treatment on the labour market,H. whereas, in its recent proposals following Agenda 2000, the Commission recommended a new Objective 2, covering industrial and service, rural, urban and fisheries areas together in an objective to support economic and social conversion of regions facing a structural crisis with a distribution in terms of geographical coverage of 10%, 5%, 2% and 1% respectively,1. Underlines the general importance and necessity of support to industrial regions in decline in need of economic and social conversion; therefore considers Objective 2 funding as an expression of European solidarity in pursuit of economic and social cohesion; underlines that Objective 2 support should be seen as an opportunity to support an economic development strategy which meets the challenge of international and Union-wide competition and shares out the Unions's general prosperity;2. Notes that the available assessment of Objective 2 funding since its establishment in its current form shows that it has made a considerable impact in putting economic development issues and strategic planning on the agendas of the eligible regions, on employment, by creating and safeguarding around half a million net jobs between 1989 and 1993, and on diversification of economic structures which are dependent on old, declining industries;Priorities3. Welcomes the emphasis the Commission has given to the new programming period through presenting guidelines establishing paramount priorities; considers guidelines a practice which should be continued and thus notes with interest that the Commission recommends the introduction of guidelines as a new step immediately after the adoption of the regulations;4. Insists on being consulted when the guidelines are laid down;5. Shares the view that job creation should be the overall top priority in a Union where around 18 million citizens are unemployed; stresses however that job creation should generally be linked to and generated by the market, thereby ensuring long-term employment;6. Points to the need to strike a balance between policies to preserve and create jobs and other Union economic policies, in order to resolve the relatively frequent cases in which the two are at odds;7. Stresses that the four special priorities (competitiveness and support of SMEs, environment and sustainable development, R& D, innovation and equal opportunities) are of particular importance to conversion with the aim of developing a competitive, diversified future-oriented regional economic structure; therefore urges the Commission to adhere to an approach based on these priorities, which could - on a case-by-case basis - be accompanied by indicative percentage figures;New programmes 1997-19998. Welcomes the fact that the new programmes adopted show broad continuity with the previous programming period in terms of priorities and eligible regions; perceives this continuity as an expression of its conviction that Objective 2 funding should follow a mid- to long-term approach and that a three-year programming period is too short;9. Deplores the fact that, at the time of adoption of the 1997-1999 Objective 2 programmes, it was impossible to judge how far the Member States were already pursuing multidimensional action as part of the 'pathway approach', specifically with a view to supporting groups most likely to be threatened by long-term unemployment; calls on the Commission to ensure that the findings of the mid-term review of the current programming period are turned to good account in planning future assistance;10. Regrets the fact that the quality of programmes still does not always meet expectations and that some programmes have been authorised by the Commission in respect of which it had to acknowledge that the horizontal aspects of the guidelines, such as environmental protection, sustainable development and equal opportunities, had been implemented to an insufficient degree; urges in particular that quantification of targets (job-creation e.g.) should be standard; observes with some surprise that, of the four special priorities, only R& D and innovation has seen a marked increase in expenditure, whereas productive investment - though having to be duly justified - stayed at the same level of expenditure;11. Believes that, through the overall increase in available financial resources by 13.8% matched by a 12% carryover, a considerable additional impetus on reaching the expected impact should be visible; recalls that in terms of budgetary implementation the preceding period was characterised by delays leading basically to only two years of implementation; therefore welcomes the fact that the provisional execution data for the first year, 1997, revealed full take-up of the available appropriations;Principles underlying Structural Fund measures12. Regrets that the principle of additionality and its evaluation cause continuing problems at the time of the adoption of programmes due to insufficient or non-transmission of the necessary documents; agrees with the Commission's approach to introduce conditional clauses for the second payment but considers that this apparent structural deficiency should be addressed in the new regulations by a slight adjustment of its assessment;13. Notes that improvements were made in implementing the partnership principle but that implementation still varies considerably among Member States; declares that it will support strengthening and formalising regional partnership (including regional and local as well as social partners) making it one of the pillars of programme planning and management;14. Considers that programme documents must place great value on establishing indicators, because this is the only way in which evidence of progress in sustainable, job-creating development in the regions can be produced;Future support to industrial regions in decline15. Notes that the proposed new Objective 2 includes industrial and service areas, declining rural areas, urban areas in difficulties and fisheries areas; welcomes the safety net idea which will ensure that concentration is achieved by common solidarity;16. Takes the view that in the new Objective 2 the 'industrial and service areas¨ and 'rural areas¨ should receive clear priority and a level of funding similar to the years 1994-1999;17. Questions the Commission's optimism on being able to ensure coherence in such a diverse objective; endorses the view that programming and management as well as partnership and additionality should be further improved; regrets, however, that strengthening the monitoring committees will not include independent approval of minor programme alterations;18. Considers safeguarding the three basic criteria for industrial regions in decline to be justified according to experience and realities; welcomes the fact that adjacency to an Objective 1 region will continue to be a secondary criterion;19. Notes with interest that the combination of Community and national criteria leaves more room for manoeuvre for the Member States, fears that this might however be used for introducing improper criteria at Member State level in the choice between theoretically eligible regions in order to meet the population ceiling established by the Commission;20. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.