Report - A4-0067/1996Report
A4-0067/1996
European Parliament

REPORT on 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) Draft communications to the Member States: Allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives for the period up to the end of 1999, concerning: . urban areas (URBAN) (C4-0612/95); . transnational cooperation on spatial planning (INTERREG II C) (C40615/95)

4 March 1996

Committee on Regional Policy
Rapporteur: Mr Roberto Speciale

By letter of 16 October 1995 the Commission forwarded to the European Parliament its proposal for a decision on the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives for the period up to the end of 1999.

At the sitting of 15 January 1996 the President of Parliament announced that he had forwarded this communication to the Committee on Regional Policy as the committee responsible and the other committees concerned for their opinions.

At its meeting of 17 October 1995 the Committee on Regional Policy had appointed Mr Speciale rapporteur.

At its meetings of 13 November and 18 December 1995 and 24 January and 27 February 1996 the committee considered the draft report.

At the last meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution unanimously.

The following took part in the vote: Speciale, chairman and rapporteur; Klironomos, vice-chairman; Azzolini, Botz, Camisón Alonso, Corrie (for Kellett-Bowman, pursuant to Rule 138(2)), Costa Neves, Crampton, David (for Bernardini), Donnay, Eisma (for Vallvé), Frutos Gama, Grosch (for Campoy Zueco), Gutiérrez Díaz, Hallam (for Darras), Hatzidakis, Howitt, Hyland (for Collins, pursuant to Rule 138(2)), Klass, Langenhagen, McCarthy, Moretti, Myller, Novo (for Ainardi), Peijs (for Decourrière), Rapkay (for Lage, pursuant to Rule 138(2)), Rusanen, Schröder, Schroedter, Teversen, Truscott (for Hume), Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, Walter and Wibe.

The opinions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on External Economic Relations, the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment and the Committee on Fisheries are attached.

The report was tabled on 4 March 1996.

The deadline for tabling amendments to this report will be indicated on the draft agenda for the partsession at which it is to be examined.

A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

Resolution on 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 - C4-0612/95 - C4-0615/95)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the letter from Mrs Wulf-Mathies to President Hänsch, 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 notice 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, and, in particular, Articles 5 and 12 thereof,[1]

- having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 425⅜8 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, and, in particular, Article 11 thereof,[2]

- having regard to the Code of Conduct of 13 July 1993 for the Commission's application of the structural policies,[3]

- having regard to its resolution of 28 October 1993 on the future of the Community Initiatives under the Structural Funds,[4]

- 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 the first paragraph of the Code of Conduct of 15 March 1995[5], '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 a more active participation of 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[6], 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 405 500 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[7], 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 outwith 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 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 not to lose sight of the fact that the Community Initiatives are European in nature 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 outwith 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. Demands that the Commission amend the financial table for the planned allocation of the reserve to the end of 1999 so as to take account of the guidelines already set out by the Budgetary Authority in its resolutions of 3 May 1994;

7. 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;

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

9. 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;

10. 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;

11. 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;

12. 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

13. 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;

14. 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;

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

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

INTERREG II, Strand 'C'

17. 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;

18. 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;

19. 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;

20. 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;

21. 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;

22. 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;

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

24. Is aware of the structurally different nature of 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;

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

26. 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;

27. 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

28. 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;

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

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

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

  • [1]  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993
  • [2]  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993
  • [3]  OJ C 255, 20.9.1993
  • [4]  OJ C 315, 22.11.1993
  • [5]  OJ C 8, 10.4.1995
  • [6]  OJ C 205, 25.7.1994
  • [7]  OJ C 183, 17.7.1995

B. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This report considers the Commission proposal in relation to the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives for the period up to the end of 1999, and of the draft communications to the Member States concerning the guidelines for the URBAN Initiative, which is being significantly modified, and the guidelines for the new 'Strand C' of the INTERREG II initiative.

ALLOCATION OF THE RESERVE

Procedure

Pursuant to the Code of Conduct signed at the time of the 1993 reform of the Structural Fund, the Commission must communicate to Parliament the draft Community Initiatives to be forwarded to the Committee referred to in Article 29a of the Regulation coordinating the Funds; whenever possible, the Commission shall take into account Parliament's requests, which must be considered before deciding on each Initiative.

Following consultation of the European Parliament, the Commission is obliged, pursuant to Article 29a of the Coordinating Regulation, to submit its proposal for a decision to the Management Committee provided for in the said article. If the proposed measures are not in accordance with the opinion delivered by the Committee, they shall be communicated forthwith by the Commission to the Council, which, by a qualified majority, may take a different decision.

With regard to the subject before us, the Commission has forwarded to Parliament not only the draft guidelines, but also its draft decision in relation to the overall allocation of the reserve and the criteria underlying its distribution. We should therefore be grateful to the Commission for the spirit of transparency it has displayed in deciding to consider Parliament's opinion of this draft decision. The decision to consult Parliament reveals a prudent attitude on the part of the Commission, since it will allow it to take the opinion of the budgetary authority into account from the very beginning, and thus improve the level of understanding between the institutions in coming budgetary years.

But we cannot overlook the fact that before it forwarded the proposals before us to Parliament, and thereby initiated this exercise in dialogue between the two institutions, the Commission had published a decision on the allocation of the reserve, in the form of a press release dated 4 October 1995, which included, moreover, its distribution amongst the Member States. In this connection, we should remember that according to the first paragraph of the Code of Conduct agreed with Parliament and adopted by the latter on 15 March 1995, 'the Commission shall endeavour not to make public any important initiatives before informing Parliament thereof in the appropriate manner'. What is most worrying, however, is the publication of a budgetary framework for the distribution amongst the Member States, which demonstrates that with regard to the allocation of the reserve, national quotas have taken precedence over the content of the Community Initiatives. We shall return to this subject below.

Priorities

The Commission proposal for a decision has basically two objectives:

* to increase the contribution of the Structural Funds to creating employment,

* to further develop the transnational character of the initiatives.

Both these objectives should underpin the application of all the Initiatives, but the second takes concrete form in the new strand C of the INTERREG II Initiative, devoted to transnational cooperation on regional planning.

The Commission's priorities agree in principle with Parliament's repeated requests.

Allocation by Member State

The Commission proposal officially forwarded to Parliament does not include the allocation of the reserve by Member State. Nonetheless, the press release referred to above indicates that such a distribution has in fact been made and that, indeed, the allocation by Initiative is dependent thereon.

In this connection, we should recall that Article 12(4) of the Framework Regulation coordinating the Structural Funds lays down that 'the Commission shall, using transparent procedures, make indicative allocations by Member State for each of the Objectives 1 to 4 and 5(b)'; but not for the Community Initiatives.

The Community Initiatives - the successors to the previous programmes which existed outwith the national quotas of the ERDF - are a response to the need to fund measures which possess Community Added Value or meet fresh needs arising after the adoption of the Community support framework. In this connection, we need only recall that in paragraph 7 of the resolution on the future of the Community Initiatives which it adopted on 28 October 1993, Parliament 'reiterates that Community Initiatives should be European in nature, transcending purely national interests, and that they should not become indirect instruments of redistribution of financial resources to the Member States'.

During the reform of the Structural Funds in 1993, Parliament insisted that the Commission's autonomy with regard to the management of the Community Initiatives should be upheld and their funding increased. For that reason, it is essential that we should not lose sight of the arguments and strategy which underpinned Parliament's position but should have them very much in mind when considering the allocation of the reserve which concerns us here.

Over and above the budgetary framework for distribution by Member State, already referred to, the Commission's proposal for a decision also includes a dangerous 'methodological consideration', viz. the flexibility granted to the Member States, whereby, without modifying the overall allocation attributed to a Member State, that same allocation might be broken down by Initiative in a different manner from that initially envisaged. Such flexibility means that the breakdown by Member State takes definite precedence over the breakdown by Initiative.

We should remember that the Commission proposal allows the funding to be used to reinforce existing operational programmes, which renders null and void any argument seeking to justify the flexibility in question in terms of the modest size of the allocations concerned.

Moreover, we might be forgiven for assuming that when making its allocation by Initiative, the Commission is guided by the needs to be met in the fields covered by the different programmes. The proposed flexibility is further proof that in reality, the allocation is a response to the need to respect undertakings given to the Member States, and that allocation by subject is a secondary consideration. This is unacceptable.

Allocation of the budgetary funding by Initiative

The first problem is the actual amount of the reserve. When the 'first' Community Initiatives package was allocated, the reserve totalled ECU 1 600 m. When Parliament voted on the first Community Initiatives package in May 1984, it asked the Commission to delete the Portuguese textile programme and for the measures provided for in that programme to be funded under budget heading

3 (Industrial Policy). Parliament went further than that, however, and clearly specified how those

400 m should be allocated:

- ECU 150 m for KONVER (resolution A3-0263/94, paragraph 4)

- ECU 100 m for RECHAR II (resolution A3-0262/94, paragraph 4)

- ECU 150 m for RETEX (resolution A3-0314/94, paragraph 9).

In the meantime, the Commission has taken a series of decisions allocating money to various Member States for a range of Initiatives, and these decisions go beyond the budgetary framework which was discussed in 1994. Now that the allocation of the reserve is under discussion, the Commission must inform Parliament of how the latter's demands have been followed up; and, in any case, the resultant overall allocation by Initiative for the whole of the 1994-1999 period must necessarily take account of the decisions of the budgetary authority.

Furthermore, it should be noted that neither the PME Initiative, nor the REGIS II Initiative are receiving additional funding. This may be justified in the case of the support programme for SMEs, because the question of encouraging their activity already falls within the remit of the other Initiatives. The same, however, cannot be said of the REGIS II Initiative.

The REGIS II programme includes measures funded by the other Community Initiatives in the ultraperipheral regions, i.e. a budgetary increase for URBAN, for example, should entail a corresponding proportional increase in the funding of REGIS II, to cover the URBAN measures included in REGIS II.

URBAN

The draft communication to the Member States laying down guidelines concerning URBAN does not involve major modifications of the preceding programme:

* Eligibility is unchanged. The Initiative continues to cover cities over 100 000 inhabitants, and the funding of projects in smaller cities continues to constitute an exception.

* Stress is laid on networks for mutual cooperation and exchange of information between cities. It has already proved possible to fund these networks under the previous programme, but each operational programme must now stipulate the amount assigned to this.

* It is recommended that any eligible measures should take account of the goals of fighting longterm unemployment, ensuring equal opportunities and protecting the environment.

* What has changed radically is the proportion of funds intended for cities in Objective 1 regions, which has fallen from 66% to 42%.

We should remember that in its resolution on the URBAN programme, Parliament stressed environmental considerations, equal opportunities and the funding of city networks. In general terms, the Commission proposal is in keeping with Parliament's demands.

STRAND C OF INTERREG II

This new strand of INTERREG Initiative is completely independent of the two existing strands, and the Commission presents it in the global context of transnational cooperation on spatial planning.

According to the Commission, the new strand includes three components, within the abovementioned general framework:

* spatial planning and transnational cooperation measures;

* spatial planning and transnational cooperation against flooding;

* spatial planning and action against drought.

As we shall see, the draft guidelines submitted by the Commission are plagued by ambiguities.

1. Although the Commission states that the general subject of the Initiative is transnational cooperation applied to spatial planning, an examination of the proposed guidelines leads us to conclude that the real objective of INTERREG II C is a two-pronged approach to spatial planning.

- spatial planning by means of transnational cooperation

and:

- water resources management, either to combat flooding or to combat drought.

The second point is undoubtedly an important part of spatial planning, but it is by no means clear that the Commission views transnational cooperation as forming an essential and integral part of the measures to be funded under strand C of INTERREG II. Greater precision is required in this area.

2. With regard to the funding allocated to the Initiative, there are ECU 415 m available, which, according to the Commission proposal for a decision in relation to the allocation of the reserve, are to be distributed as follows:

* transnational cooperation and spatial planning: ECU 100 m

* fighting floods: ECU 165 m

* fighting drought: ECU 150 m.

This distribution appears to be dependent on prior national commitments and it is not clear what specific needs it responds to. In fact, the draft guidelines (which do not include the above distribution) lay down a series of objective criteria for deciding on the amounts to be assigned to the various operational programmes. This, of course, ought to be the procedure being followed.

Developing the foregoing approach, it would be more rational to allocate the funds, taking account of both the areas covered by strand C of the Initiative, in a proportion of one third to two thirds respectively.

3. The ambiguity is total with regard to eligible areas. Apart from action against drought, for which the eligible regions are the Objective 1 regions of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, the draft guidelines include only vague indications as to areas which are entitled to funding under the new strand C.

Funding transfrontier spatial planning cooperation measures necessarily presupposes some idea of the needs to be met and, therefore, of the eligible areas. Parliament needs to be presented with a precise draft, indicating the regions in which the Commission believes that it would be viable to develop trans-national cooperation projects. This does not mean an exclusive nor inflexible list, and it is moreover possible to establish a list of areas by means of prior consultation with the Member States, which the Commission should have carried out before submitting the draft guidelines.

The same applies to flood prevention. If a major problem has been detected in this field which needs to be tackled by the new strand C, it is reasonable to assume that we have prior details of the regions affected. Once again, we would repeat that Parliament needs this information in order to deliver its opinion.

OPINION

of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

Letter from the chairman of the committee to Mr Speciale, chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy

Subject: Communication from the European Commission on the allocation of the reserve concerning the Community initiatives

Dear Mr Speciale,

In accordance with Article 12, para 5 of Regulation (EEC) 2052/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) 2081/93, it was agreed that of the total Community resources for the Structural Funds for the period 1994-1999, an amount of 13.45 billion ECU (1994 prices) was for Community Initiatives in twelve Member States, and 427 million ECU (1995 prices) was for the three new Member States, representing in all 9% of credits for the Structural Funds. On 15 June 1994 the Commission decided on a first series of actions for thirteen Community Initiatives, including an amount of 1.4 billion ECU for Leader II, which thus received approximately 10.5% of the total. It then placed 1.6 billion ECU in reserve for use as necessary.

The purpose of the Commission's letter, which is in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) 425⅜8 as amended by Regulation (EEC) 2082/93, is to allocate this reserve (which, due to a number of adaptations, now stands at 1.665 billion ECU) between different initiatives which include the initiatives covering industrial reconversion (KONVER, RECHAR, RETEX, RESIDER), development of employment and human resources (EMPLOI, ADAPT), the reconversion of fishing activities (PESCA) and the economic development of areas (INTERREG II, URBAN and LEADER II).

The Commission notes that LEADER I and LEADER II have been successful and have played an important part in rural development. It proposes that out of the reserve funds of approximately 1.6 billion ECU which are available, 230 million ECU be given to LEADER II, which represents approximately 13.8% of the reserve funds.

No change to LEADER II is proposed. The additional monies will simply enable more of the applications from Member States to be met than at present.

My Committee welcomes this allocation, recognizing that although it would be desirable to have more funds for an initiative that has been so outstandingly successful, this cannot be done unless other Community Initiatives are reduced. Indeed, the proportion of funds which is being allocated to LEADER from these reserve funds is greater than the proportion allocated from the original sum in 1994.

Yours sincerely

Christian JACOB

OPINION

(Rule 147 of the Rules of Procedure)

of the Committee on Budgets

for the Committee on Regional Policy

Draftsman: Mr Detlev Samland

At its meeting of 24 November 1995 the Committee on Budgets appointed Mr Detlev Samland draftsman.

At its meetings of 13 and 28 February 1996 it considered the draft opinion.

At the last meeting it adopted the conclusions as a whole unopposed, with one abstention.

The following were present for the vote: Samland, chairman and draftsman; Tillich, 1st vicechairman; Willockx, 2nd vice-chairman; Bösch, Christodoulou (for Bebear), Colom i Naval, Dankert, Fabre-Aubrespy, Ghilardotti, Gredler, Jöns (for Haug), König, Krehl, Müller, Perry (for McCartin), Rehn, Rusanan (for Böge), Wemheuer (for Kranidiotis) and Wynn.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL PACKAGE (1995-1999)

Adoption of the first series of initiatives

1. The framework regulation on the Structural Funds stipulates that, for the period 1994-1999, 9% of the commitment appropriations for the Structural Funds shall be devoted to funding Community initiatives (Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 - Article 12(5)). On 16 February 1994, the Commission decided that the financial package for the period 1994-1999 would be ECU 13.45 billion (1994 prices).

2. The first series of Community initiatives (13) proposed by the Commission on 16 March 1994 involved[1]:

- the allocation to each of the proposed initiatives of a multiannual financial package. ECU 1.6 bn (1994 prices) was left in the reserve for reallocation at a later date depending on any new requirements which might arise;

- the allocation of ECU 400 m to an initiative concerning the Portuguese textiles industry.

3. In its resolutions of May and September 1994 on the various Commission proposals, the European Parliament[2] stressed inter alia that:

- the objectives of the Community initiative to assist the textile sector in Portugal should be pursued as part of a sectoral policy programme and that such a programme should be financed under Heading 3 of the Financial Perspective and not by the structural funds (Heading 2);

- that the ECU 400m proposed as funding for the 'Portuguese textiles' initiative should make it possible to increase the budget for the RETEX (an additional ECU 150 m), KONVER (an additional ECU 150m) and RECHAR (an additional ECU 100 m) initiatives.

4. The Commission adopted this first package of initiatives on 15 June 1994, while insisting that a Community initiative entitled 'Portuguese textiles' be created with a financial package of ECU 400m; it did not therefore increase the financial packages to the RETEX, KONVER and RECHAR initiatives as advocated by the European Parliament.

In June 1994 the financial package for the Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 therefore remained at ECU 13.45 bn, of which 1.6 bn was left in the reserve (1994 prices).

The impact of the revision of the Financial Perspective (FP)

5. On 29 November 1994 Parliament and the Council undertook a revision of the Financial Perspective (No 11 and 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 29 October 1993). This revision led inter alia to :

- an increase in the ceiling for Heading 2 of the FP of over ECU 5.379 bn (1995 prices) to take account of the accession of Sweden, Finland and Austria and the creation of a new Community initiative for Northern Ireland which, under the agreement, would receive ECU 200 m in funding for the period 1995-1997 (1994 prices);

- the replacement of the Community initiative on Portuguese textiles by a sectoral Community programme to be financed under Heading 3 of the Financial Perspective.

6. This agreement between Parliament and the Council resulted in the overall package for the of Community initiatives decided on by the Commission in February 1994, together with the corresponding reserve, being adjusted as follows:

- an increase in the global package for the Community initiatives of around ECU 627.3 m in line with the agreement on the Northern Ireland initiative (an additional ECU 200m at 1994 prices) and an increase in the funding to be allocated for the Community initiatives in the three new Member States (an additional ECU 427.23 m at 1995 prices);

- the release of the ECU 400 m earmarked for the 'Portuguese Textiles' initiative which had to be returned to the reserve existing at the time owing to the Commission's refusal to increase funding for the three industrial initiatives mentioned in paragraph 4.

The table below illustrates how the new global package is expected to turn out (1994 and 1995 prices conflated).

NEW GLOBAL PACKAGE FOR THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES (1994-1999)FOLLOWING REVISION OF THE FP

Funding for the 1st series + revision of FP(VI & XII/94)

'Reserve'

TOTAL

EUR 123 NEW MEMBER STATES

11 650.00[3]375.96[4]

2 000.00[5]51.27[6]

13 650.00427.23

12 025.96

2 051.27

14 077.23

PROBLEMS ARISING

The financial package for the Northern Ireland initiative

7. Several days after the agreement between the EP and the Council on the funding for the Northern Ireland initiative, the Essen European Council of 10 December 1994 fixed the financial package for this initiative at ECU 300 m. The increases in the Financial Perspective decided on by the two arms of the budgetary authority therefore proved to be insufficient to cover this political commitment (- ECU 100 m).

8. Going by the principle that no new initiative should be committed at the expense of existing initiatives, Parliament declared that a new revision of the Financial Perspective was justified (resolution of 15 December 1994). In deciding on a global package of ECU 300 m, the European Council appeared to be justifying a further review of the Financial Perspective, in order to take account of this new requirement. However, the Council appears to be of the opinion that this difference should be 'financed' from the 'reserve' still available within the global package for the Community initiatives.

The 'technical adjustments' made by the Commission at the end of 1994

9. At the end of 1994 the Commission made certain 'technical adjustments' to the financial planning programme, but Parliament was never officially informed of or consulted on this, despite the code of conduct relating to the Structural Funds. These adjustments appear to have been made to allow the additional appropriations needed for the Northern Ireland initiative to be allocated and to ensure a more even distribution of the financial packages amongst the Member States. The distribution amongst the Member States of the financial packages for such initiatives, particularly in the phase prior to financial planning, is not allowed by the regulations governing the Structural Funds. The two tables attached to this document give a breakdown of these adjustments by initiative and by country.

10. The Commission claims that these adjustments have led to the reserve being reduced by ECU 403.17 m, which it says has been offset by the reintroduction into the reserve of an additional ECU 400m released by the 'Portuguese Textiles' agreement. This implies that the Commission has 'utilized' the available funding resulting from the 'Portuguese Textiles' decision for these readjustments.

11. The Commission claims that the adjustments mean that the sum in the reserve, in a European Union of 12 and at 1994 prices, totals

ECU 1590.97 m or ECU 1610.5 m at 1995 prices. The Commission has also added ECU 51.27 m to this sum following the accession of the three new Member States.

12. On 4 October 1995 the Commission reportedly said that the official amount in the reserve was ECU 1665 m (following the above-mentioned adjustments). That same day it proposed how the reserve should be used for the 15 Member States for the period ending 1999 (Annex II). Parliament must now deliver its opinion on all these operations.

How to tackle the problems that have arisen

13. The EP believes that, unlike the arrangements for the CSFs (Article 12(4) of the framework regulation), the rules governing the Community initiatives do not provide for any distribution of resources per Member State at the planning stage. Indeed, the intention was that the Community initiatives should avoid such natural distribution. The Commission's approach is reminiscent of the '1970s' version of the ERDF involving the distribution of a 'quota' and 'nonquota'.

14. The allocation at the end of 1994 of over ECU 100m for funding the Northern Ireland initiative contravened the decisions of the budgetary authority in that it amounted to the taking of decisions which were running contrary to the decision taken by the Council and Parliament in the revision of the Financial Perspective. In this context it was clear - as the Commission moreover recognizes in its capacity as a participant in the negotiations - that the funding guaranteed for Northern Ireland was ECU 200m. The fact that the Essen European Council decided on a different figure cannot justify either a modification of or an exception to the provisions laid down by the Treaties (Article 203) and by secondary legislation (the Interinstitutional Agreement and the Financial Perspective).

15. There has been no confirmation to date as to whether the Commission will comply with the European Parliament's guidelines on distributing these ECU 400m amongst the RECHAR (+ ECU 100m), KONVER (+ ECU 150 m) and RETEX (+ ECU 150 m) programmes. If the Commission has difficulties in implementing these guidelines, it should at least initiate a dialogue with the EP in this field.

16. The Commission's proposal of 4 october 1995 to increase the funding for the 'industrial' initiatives by ECU 380 m under the second package does not solve this question.

17. Moreover, the technical adjustments as a whole amount to an infringement of the principle of keeping Parliament informed which the Commission declares that it wishes to uphold and which constitutes the basis for trust in relations between the institutions. The Commission has not provided any official information in this instance to the bodies responsible for financial control (the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control). This omission is all the more serious in view of the sum involved.

18. The draftsman of the Committee on Budgets believes that the Commission must provide official clarification of the situation regarding the reserve as a prerequisite to any decision on the allocation thereof. This request is justified given that:

(a) the impact of the opinion which Parliament is required to deliver on the Commission's guidelines on extending the programmes would be lessened unless such clarification were provided;

(b) all these measures are financed by means of non-compulsory expenditure, and the annual distribution of such funding is one of the responsibilities of the budgetary authority and cannot be delegated to the Commission which, under Article 205 of the Treaty, is only required to implement the decisions entered in the budget.

19. In these circumstances, following the exchange of views at the joint meeting held on 12 February 1996 by the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Social Affairs and the Committee on Regional Policy, the Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Regional Policy to adopt the following conclusions:

BUDGETARY ASPECTS

A. Points out that the Community initiatives, as one of the forms of assistance under the Structural Funds, are not covered by the provisions of Article 12(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93, in particular as regards the indicative allocations by Member State for each of the Objectives 1 to 4 and 5(b);

B. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has recognized that all financial programming of the multiannual packages for the Community initiatives is of an indicative nature; points out that the Commission will have to submit to it each year, together with the preliminary draft budget, a statement on the financial execution of each initiative, and notes the Commission's pledge to submit a report when it submits the preliminary draft budget for 1999;

C. Notes that, following the revision of the Financial Perspective at the end of 1994, the amount of the reserve for the Community initiatives should have totalled ECU 2 billion since, at the time, the Commission did not increase the financial package for the RECHAR, RETEX AND KONVER initiatives following the release of ECU 400 million from the 'Portuguese Textiles' programme;

D. 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 initiative is insufficient in view of the success and impact of these initiatives;

Calls on the Commission to continue talks with the European Parliament with a view to drawing up a new financial framework for the Community initiatives, which will help create jobs, protect natural resources, improve the quality of life and promote the transnational nature of such jobs so that economic and social cohesion can be achieved throughout Community territory; recalls in this connection the European Parliament's views on the need to revise the Financial Perspective (by increasing funding by ECU 100 million) to enable the financial package for the Community initiative to benefit regions in both parts of Ireland to receive funding of up to ECU 300 million;

Calls on the Commission to submit a progress report before July 1998 on the implementation of the Community initiative programmes and to put forward proposals to the budgetary authority on extra funding for these initiatives by making use of any appropriations within the whole of the European Union's budget that are not utilized ;

Has decided therefore, in accordance with its resolution of 9 May 1994, to increase the 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 to increase the funding for the Regis II initiative as follows: an extra ECU 100 m from the margin to be created following the above-mentioned revision of the Financial Perspective, with the remaining amount to be funded from any appropriations that are not utilized within the budget as a whole;

E. Points out that, under the annual budgetary procedure, the European Parliament, exercising the budgetary powers conferred on it by the Treaty, decides on the appropriations to be allocated each year to each initiative within its respective financial package, this decision being taken on the basis of the progress made in implementing that initiative and the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis, as stipulated in the Financial Regulation; to that end, Parliament will be required to introduce mechanisms designed to ensure full compliance with its budgetary decisions;

F. Points out that, in the 1996 budget, it adopted remarks to be incorporated into the chapter on the Community initiative programmes (B2-14) requiring the Commission to inform the budgetary authority of all internal transfers between the various items involving the Community initiatives; calls on the Commission to inform the EP of the practical arrangements for implementing this requirement.

  • [1] COM(94) 0046 final.
  • [2]  Resolution of 3 May 1994 - OJ C 205, 25.7.1994.
  • [3]  This sum includes the initiatives adopted in June 1994 (apart from 'Portuguese Textiles') plus the Northern Ireland initiative (ECU 200 m at 1994 prices).
  • [4]  Sum proposed by the Commission in COM(95) 0123 final/2 corrigendum, on which the Committee on Budgets adopted its opinion on 30 October 1995.
  • [5]  Including the ECU 400 m released by the 'Portuguese Textiles' initiative.
  • [6]  Reserve of 12% proposed by the Commission (COM(95)0123 final/2 corrigendum) on which the Committee on Budgets adopted its opinion on 30 October 1995.

ANNEX I

(ECU million, 1994-1995 prices)

LINES

TITLES

COMMISSIONPROPOSALSIII-94

EP DECISIO NV-94

COMMISSI ON DECISION 1ST PACKAGEVI-94

CONSEQUEN CESOF THEREVISION OF THE FP

ADJUSTME NTSMADE BY THE COMMISSIO N IN LATE 1994(c)

EFFECTS OFTHE TECHNICALADJUSTMENT SON FUNDING

B2-1400

Pesca

250

250

250

+6.50

256.50

B2-1410

Interreg

2.900

2 900

2 900

+38.90

2 938.90

B2-1412

Northern Ireland (a)

0

0

0

+200(a)

+98.40

298.40

B2-1420

Now

370

370

370

?

? 370.00

B2-1421

Horizon/Exclusion

730

730

730

?

? 730.00

B2-1422

Youthstart

300

300

300

?

? 300.00

+51.70(d)

+51.70

B2-1423

Adapt

1 400

1 400

1 400

+2.30

1 402.30

B2-1430

Rechar II

400

500

400

+6.34

406.34

B2-1431

Resider II

500

500

500

+19.46

519.46

B2-1432

Konver

500

650

500

+5.45

505.45

B2-1433

Retex

500

650

500

0.00

500.00

Portuguese Textiles

400

0

400

- 400

0.00

B2-144

Regis II

600

600

600

0.00

600.00

B2-145

Urban

600

600

600

+50.90

650.90

B2-146

Leader II

1 400

1 400

1 400

+46.70

1 446.70

B2-147

Adaptation of SMEs

1 000

1 000

1 000

+26.50

1 026.50

Rebalancing Spain

+50.00

50.00

Total adjustment 1994

403.15

Global payment to the 3 new Member States (outside the reserve)

375.96

375.96

Reserve for EUR-12

1 600

1 600

1 600

2 000.00

1 596.85

+ 3 new Member States

51.27

51.27

TOTAL

13 450

13 450

13 450

14 077.23(b)

14 077.23

(a) No provision was made initially for the Northern Ireland programme; ECU 200m were added to the overall funding for this initiative. For the time being ECU 100m still have to be funded under a new procedure for revision of the FP.

(b) This sum includes ECU 427.23 m (1995 prices) for the three new Member States (of which ECU 51.27 m are left in the reserve) and the ECU 200m (1994 prices) added to the funding package for the Community initiatives.

(c) Adjustments made by the Commission (without informing the EP, contrary to existing provisions).

(d) A total of ECU 51.70 m has been allocated to the three employment initiatives (Now, Horizon and Youthstart) as a whole.

ANNEX II

(ECU million. 1994-1995 prices)

LINES

TITLES

COMMISSION PROPOSALSIII-94

EP DECISIO NV-94

COMMISSI ONDECISI ON1st PACKAGEVI-94

EFFECTS OF THE TECHNICALADJUSTMEN TSAT THE END OF 94 ON FUNDING(b)

COMMISSION PROPOSALON THE ALLOCATION OF THE 'RESERVE'X-95 + NEW TOTAL

B2-1400

Pesca

250

250

250

256.50

+30 = 286.50

B2-1410

Interreg

2.900

2.900

2.900

2.938.90

+415 = 3.353.90

B2-1412

Northern Ireland (a)

0

0

0

298.40

0 = 298.40

B2-1420

Now

370

370

370

? 370.00

+ 100 = 470

B2-1421

Horizon/Exclusion

730

730

730

? 730.00

+ 100 = 830

B2-1422

Youthstart

300

300

300

? 300.00+51.70

+ 100 = 40051.70

B2-1423

Adapt

1.400

1.400

1.400

1.402.30

+ 170 = 1.572.30

B2-1430

Rechar II

400

500

400

406.34

+ 45 = 451.34

B2-1431

Resider II

500

500

500

519.46

+ 45 = 564.46

B2-1432

Konver

500

650

500

505.45

+ 245 = 750.45

B2-1433

Retex

500

650

500

500.00

+ 45 = 545.00

Portuguese textiles

400

0

400

0.00

B2-144

Regis II

600

600

600

600.00

0 = 600.00

B2-145

Urban

600

600

600

650.90

+140 = 790.90

B2-146

Leader II

1.400

1.400

1.400

1.446.70

+230 = 1.676.70

B2-147

Adaptation of SMEs

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.026.50

0 = 1.026.50

Rebalancing (Spain)

50.00

50.00

Global payment to the 3 new Member States (outside the reserve)

375.96

375.96

Reserve for EU-12

1.600

1.600

1.600

1.596.85

0

+ 3 new Member States

51.27

0

TOTAL

13.450

13.450

13.450

14.077.23

14.094.11

(a) No provision was made initially for the Northern Ireland programme; ECU 200m were added to the overall funding for this initiative. For the time being ECU 100m still have to be funded under a new procedure for revision of the FP.

(b) These adjustments, totalling 403.15, were made following the revision of the FP (release of ECU 400 m initially earmarked for the Portuguese Textiles initiative). ECU 51.70 m have been allocated to the three employment initiatives (Now, Horizon, Youthstart) but this means that the new amount for each cannot be identified.

ANNEX III

DISTRIBUTION PER MEMBER STATE OF THE 'TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS'

MADE BY THE COMMISSION AT THE END OF 1994

(in infringement of Article 12(4) of the Regulation on the Structural Funds)

ECU m

Rebalancing Netherlands

Rebalancing Spain I

Rebalancing Ireland

249.62

Rebalancing United Kingdom

Northern Ireland

98.40

Rebalancing Spain II

50.00

Resider Luxembourg

5.13

TOTAL

40.315,00

These adjustments have enabled funds to beredistributed among certain initiatives, withthe exception of the funds for 'rebalancingSpain II' which apparently have not yet beenallocated to any initiative.

OPINION

(Rule 147 of the Rules of Procedure)

of the Committee on External Economic Relations

for the Committee on Regional Policy

Draftsman: Mr Manuel Porto

At its meeting of 23 January 1996 the Committee on External Economic Relations appointed Mr Porto draftsman.

At its meeting of 20 February 1996 it considered the draft opinion.

At the same meeting it adopted the conclusions as a whole unopposed with one abstention.

The following were present for the vote: De Clercq, chairman; Hindley and Pex, vice-chairmen; Porto, draftsman; Arroni (for Malerba), Elchlepp, Kittelmann, Kreissl-Dörfler, Miranda de Lage, Moniz, Novo, Schwaiger and Valdivielso de Cué.

I. Subject of the proposal

1. The reform of the structural funds was initiated by a set of regulations which took effect on 1 January 1989, resulting from the entry into force of the Single Act.

The objective of the reform is to ensure the effectiveness of the structural funds and to coordinate their interventions among themselves and with the existing financial instruments.

The Community's new structural activities now have the following priority objectives:

- development and structural adjustment of backward regions, which lies at the heart of the reform of the funds;

- support to regions suffering as a result of industrial decline;

- the fight against long-term unemployment and the integration of young people into working life;

- the adaptation of agricultural structures and rural development with a view to the reform of the CAP.

In concrete terms, the Community's structural activities have taken the form of Community support frameworks established in partnership with the Member States, comprising both national and Community sources of funding (multiannual funding plans) and reflecting strategies adopted jointly in the light of the need for coherence both with Community policies and with regional and national structural policies.

This should be borne in mind when looking at Community initiatives, which must take account of the level of development of the regions.

2. Community initiatives: Preliminary outline of a genuine Community policy

These initiatives may relate to the three funds or to the other Community financial instruments which may be used either jointly or separately.

Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) 4254/88 on the ERDF defines three types of Community initiatives of a regional nature. These initiatives comprise an EAGGF (Guidance section) element aimed at speeding up the adjustment of agricultural structures and promoting rural development with a view to the reform of the CAP.

The involvement of the ESF is governed mainly by the directives referred to in Article 4 of the ESF Regulation (EEC 425⅝8 - OJ L 374, 31.12.188, p.21).

3. Resources available

For the period 1994-99 a total of ECU 1 345 m (at 1994 prices) has been allocated to Community initiatives for the 12 pre-enlargement Member States and around ECU 427m (at 1995 prices) for the three new Member States, totalling around 9% of the structural fund appropriations for the period in question.

A sum of ECU 1 665m is kept in reserve.

II. Relevance to the sphere of responsibilities of the REX Committee

The proposal is relevant to the committee's field of activities mainly because a number of regions affected by Community initiatives are peripheral regions whose development is likely to have a bearing on relations with third countries, particularly those areas which border on countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Mediterranean countries close to, for example, Malta and Cyprus and the regions in the vicinity of ACP countries.

The REX Committee is also interested in fisheries activities. The drop in fish stocks in international waters and the territorial waters of third countries is taking on such proportions as to require conversion and diversification of activities in coastal areas dependent on fisheries.

It is also obvious that the REX Committee can only approve the contribution made by the structural funds to employment, which takes the form not only of measures to promote human resources and professional training but also of job creation.

Finally, the REX Committee attaches the greatest importance to initiatives capable of enabling the regions to remain competitive when they encounter occasional problems or have structural development difficulties.

III. Conclusions

In the light of the political priorities defined by the Commission and the thirteen reports adopted by Parliament in May 1994 approving (with modifications) the package of thirteen 'Community initiatives' to be funded over the period 1994-99, the Committee on External Economic Relations:

1. Approves, in principle, all the Community initiatives;

and in particular

2. Welcomes the extension to the end of 1999 of the KONVER (conversion of defence installations), RECHAR (conversion of coal mining areas) RESIDER (conversion of steel-producing areas), and RETEX (textile-producing areas) programmes but considers that these initiatives will probably need to be extended well beyond that date;

3. Attaches the greatest importance to REGIS (extremely remote areas) and to the funding of cross-border cooperation with third countries (ACP and countries of Central and Eastern Europe) and considers that the priorities defined in INTERREG (cross-border cooperation and selected energy networks) should be applied mutatis mutandis to REGIS;

4. Approves the broad lines chosen by the Commission for the PESCA programme, namely a massive extension of the monitoring of fishing activities by encouraging new technology, the establishment of computer networks and technical assistance to Member States, but has its doubts about the modest level of appropriations allocated to this project;

5. Welcomes the inclusion in INTERREG of a new element concerning regional planning and international cooperation on matters relating to water management, which are currently taking on a major significance;

6. While aware of the structurally different nature of measures to combat flooding and those to combat drought, nevertheless hopes that the Commission will be balanced in its management of these two elements of the initiative;

7. Approves the Commission's decision to step up the funding of the URBAN initiative for additional measures in problem areas of towns other than those already listed for help under this programme, thus reflecting the growing importance of urban policy in the Union;

8. Considers that the allocation of appropriations from the structural funds for Community initiatives must take account of the level of development of the regions concerned and the need to promote their international competitiveness;

9. Hopes that the Commission will report to Parliament on the results of the various projects and the follow-up action to be taken after 1999.

OPINION

of the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment

for the Committee on Regional Policy

on the Commission draft proposal in relation to the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives for the period up to the end of 1999 (C4-0611/95)

Letter from the committee chairman to Mr Roberto Speciale, Chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy

Brussels, 6 February 1996

Subject: Commission draft proposal in relation to the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives for the period up to the end of 1999 (C4-0611/95)

Dear Mr Speciale

At its meeting of 5/6 February the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment considered the report of the Committee on Regional Policy on the Commission proposal in relation to the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives for the period up to the end of 1999 (PE 215.429).

As you know, the committee is currently examining the amended guidelines for the Community Initiatives falling under its direct responsibility, i.e. EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT (report by Mr Bartho PRONK, PE 216.127).

From the discussions held so far it has clearly emerged that a certain number of issues of a more general nature concern both Mr Pronk's and your report. The committee therefore decided to forward the following opinion to your committee.

The Committee on Social Affairs and Employment supported the Commission's decision to give priority to initiatives directly related to the employment issue. It therefore welcomed the increased appropriations (+470 mecu) allocated to the EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT initiatives.

It took the view that this decision was in line with the Union's repeated commitments to strengthening and improving the quality of training provision (see Conclusions of the European Councils in Essen and in Madrid).

It also stressed that the increase earmarked for the new subprogramme for the socially excluded (INCLUSION) of the EMPLOYMENT Initiative ought to be seen in the context of the current blockage of the Action programme for the fight against exclusion.

The committee finally considered that the increase was in keeping with the satisfactory implementation results achieved by both initiatives in 1995 (100% for ADAPT and 92%, carryovers included, for EMPLOYMENT).

In the light of the above the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment adopted the following conclusions unanimously[1]:

The Committee

1. strongly supports the view expressed by the Committee on Regional Policy that Community Initiatives should under no circumstance be managed on the basis of pre-allocated national quotas;

2. rejects the proposal by the Commission to allow Member States to reallocate the additional resources made available under the different initiatives purely according to national priorities; stresses in particular that Member States cannot be allowed to use resources allocated under the European Social Fund for the purposes of another Fund;

3. confirms the increase proposed by the Commission for EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT, i.e. 300 and 170 mecu respectively, and calls on the Committee on Budgets to take the necessary budgetary implementation measures.

Yours sincerely,

(sgd) Stephen HUGHES

  • [1]  The following were present for the vote: Hughes, chairman and draftsman; Menrad, vice-chairman; Andersson, Boogerd-Quaak, Deprez (for Chanterie), Ghilardotti (for Blak), Hermange, Hulthén (for Bredin), Jöns, Mann, McMahon, Megahy (for CabezÓn Alonso), Murphy (for Crepaz pursuant to Rule 138(2), Pronk, Schiedermeier, Silva Vieira, Stenius-Kaukonen, Van Lancker, Waddington (for Carniti), Weiler and Wolf.

OPINION

(Rule 147 of the Rules of Procedure)

of the Committee on Fisheries

for the Committee on Regional Policy

Draftsman: Mrs Brigitte Langenhagen

At its meeting of 22-23 November 1995 the Committee on Fisheries appointed Mrs Langenhagen draftsman.

At its meetings of 19-20 December 1995, 22-23 January 1996 and 21-22 February 1996 it considered the draft opinion.

At the last meeting it adopted the conclusions unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Arias Cañete, chairman; Kofoed, Kindermann and Gallagher, vice-chairmen; d'Aboville, Apolinário (for Izquierdo Rojo), Baldarelli, Cunha (for Olsson), Imaz San Miguel (for Fraga Estévez), Jové Peres, Macartney, McKenna, Pery, Provan, Teverson and Varela Suanzes-Carpegna.

1. General background

For the Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999, the Community budget sets aside a total amount of ECU 13.45 bn for the 12 EU Member States and approximately ECU 427 m for the three new Member States, providing funding for 13 Community initiatives. The PESCA initiative receives a total share of ECU 250 m of that amount.

Of the ECU 13.45 bn plus ECU 427 m, the Commission has allocated ECU 1.665 bn to the reserve. The reserve would allow the Commission two options: firstly, some initiatives would receive additional support, should the need arise; secondly, to allow a response to unforeseen developments.

With the 1993 Structural Fund reform, a code of conduct was adopted under which the Commission is to submit to Parliament its draft proposals for Community initiatives, including the reserves.

The Commission has observed the code of conduct insofar as it informed Parliament officially in October 1995 of the proposals for the allocation of the reserve for Community initiatives, though it could be criticized for contravening the spirit and the letter of the code of conduct in that it informed the press about the use of the reserve before consulting Parliament.

The reserve for the 1997-1999 period is being allocated at the present time (beginning of 1996) as there is always a certain delay in disbursing the additional funds.

2. PESCA

According to Notice 94-C180-01, the Commission decided on 15 June 1994 to establish a Community initiative for the restructuring of the fisheries sector.

The background to the initiative is the radical transformation of the fisheries sector. A typical feature of the structural crisis in the sector, for example, is the constant cutting-back of overcapacity in nearly all the fishing fleets. The crisis is particularly severe in areas dependent on fisheries where fishing is frequently the most important economic activity.

PESCA was therefore set up to offset the social and economic consequences of restructuring the fisheries sector and to help the regions affected to diversify by developing job-creating activities.

The Commission's Notice states that the following measures are eligible for assistance:

- diversification of activities in the eligible areas,

- business services,

- maintenance or creation of jobs,

- financial engineering,

- specific projects of a general and/or transnational nature,

- productive investment in the sector.

At 1994 prices, a total of ECU 251.5 m was allocated to the 12 Member States and ECU 6.5 m to the three new countries for the PESCA Community initiative for the period 1994-1999[1].

3. Allocation of the reserve

The task is to allocate ECU 1.665 bn from the reserve to Community initiatives. In this context the Commission is pursuing two objectives in support of the labour market:

- firstly, bolstering measures relating to human resources, vocational training and job creation,

- secondly, intensifying transnational cooperation.

The additional funds for the PESCA initiative should also be used to further these aims. From the total amount of ECU 1.665 bn in the reserve for Community initiatives, PESCA is to receive ECU 30 m[2].

Problems in the fisheries sector also intensified during 1995. The European Union again lost fishing rights in international waters.

One instance of this is NAFO waters, where the Commission is assuming a loss of 50% in terms of the quotas agreed in 1995. The EU fleet has also lost rights in the recently negotiated agreement with Morocco. In this case, the Commission is assuming a loss of as much as 60%. These losses have serious socio-economic repercussions.

Additional financial sources are needed to cushion the impact. Funds for the PESCA initiative should therefore partly be used to offset the socio-economic repercussions of eliminating overcapacity, which increased in 1995 owing to losing the abovementioned fishing rights. The additional funds should be used for the conversion of jobs in the fisheries sector and for diversification of fisheries activities in areas dependent on fisheries. ECU 12 m are to be allocated for this initiative.

The second item concerns a reduction in the fishing effort. Three different areas are to be (part)financed: (a) promotion of new technologies, especially feasibility studies and pilot projects (ECU 8 m), (b) installation of a computer network to enable information to be exchanged between the Member States and the Commission (ECU 4 m), (c) technical assistance (ECU 6 m).

A total of ECU 18 m is to be allocated for the second item.

4. Assessment

In assessing the situation, it must first be stressed that not all Community initiatives to be financed in the 1994-1999 period receive additional funds from the reserve. The fact that PESCA receives additional funding, meagre though it is, shows that the Commission has recognized the difficulties facing in the fisheries sector, which were exacerbated by developments in 1995.

If the ECU 258 m (ECU 251.5 m/12 Member States + ECU 6.5 m/3 new Member States) are added to the ECU 30 m from the reserve, this gives a total sum of ECU 288 m for PESCA over the 19941999 period.

The question then is whether the additional funds are sufficient to alleviate the problems arising in the fisheries sector. Would it not be appropriate for the Commission and, in particular, the Directorate-General for Fisheries, to seek more funding to combat the problems involved?

In a number of countries there are difficulties with cofinancing. The contribution to be made by the Member State is to some extent an obstacle to obtaining PESCA funds.

It is notable that for this relatively small sum, compared with the other Community initiatives, the administrative work is highly involved.

The PESCA initiative covers three regulations: the ERDF, the ESF and the FIFG, making use of three different financial instruments.

Consequently, three different Commission Directorates-General are involved in the administration of PESCA: DG XVI for the ERDF, DG V for the ESF and DG XIV for the FIFG, with DG XIV coordinating the work of three Directorates-General.

To some extent there are similar problems in the Member States' administrations. Several ministries, such as Fisheries and the Ministry of Labour are responsible for the administration of PESCA.

Considering the modest sum available for PESCA, the administrative work seems excessively involved. An effort must therefore be made to simplify the administrative structure.

In order to obtain an accurate analysis of its impact of and the difficulties encountered with PESCA, there is a need for a report on the implementation of the initiative in all the Member States.

5. Conclusions

5.1. having regard to the Commission's letter of 16 October 1995 to the President of the European Parliament concerning the allocation of the reserve for the Community initiatives,

5.2. having regard to the Commission's notice (94/C 180/01) to the Member States concerning the PESCA Community initiative,

5.3. whereas the crisis in the fisheries sector has deepened,

5.4. the Committee on Fisheries requests the Committee on Regional Policy to incorporate the following conclusions in its resolution:

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

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

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

  • [1] Structural policy for fisheries and aquaculture, Commission meeting for an exchange of views with the European Parliament, 2-3 October 1995, Santiago de Compostela
  • [2] The breakdown of funds from the reserve for PESCA can be found in Annex 1 to this report.
Legal notice - Privacy policy