EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT GGG G G G G 1999 G G 2004 GGG Session document FINAL A5-0354/2002 14 October 2002 REPORT on the first progress report from the Commission on economic and social cohesion (COM(2002) 46 – C5-0198/2002 – 2002/2094(COS)) Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism Rapporteur: Elisabeth Schroedter RR\479717EN.doc PE 314.720 EN EN PE 314.720 2/25 RR\479717EN.doc EN CONTENTS Page PROCEDURAL PAGE.............................................................................................................. 4 MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION ............................................................................................. 5 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT.............................................................................................. 8 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HUMAN RIGHTS, COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY ............................. 16 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................................... 19 RR\479717EN.doc 3/25 PE 314.720 EN PROCEDURAL PAGE By letter of 1 February 2002, the Commission forwarded to Parliament its first progress report on economic and social cohesion (COM(2002) 46 – 2002/2094(COS)). At the sitting of 13 May 2002 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred this report to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism as the committee responsible and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their opinions (C5-0198/2002). The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism had appointed Elisabeth Schroedter rapporteur at its meeting of 21 February 2002. It considered the Commission report and the draft report at its meetings of 10 September and 8 October 2002. At the last meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution by 46 votes to 1, with 5 abstentions. The following were present for the vote: Luciano Caveri, chairman; Rijk van Dam, Gilles Savary and Helmuth Markov, vice-chairmen; Elisabeth Schroedter, rapporteur; Emmanouil Bakopoulos, Carlos Bautista Ojeda (for Camilo Nogueira Román), Rolf Berend, Felipe Camisón Asensio, Luigi Cocilovo, Jan Dhaene, Den Dover (for Jacqueline Foster), Garrelt Duin, Alain Esclopé, Giovanni Claudio Fava, Mathieu J.H. Grosch, Konstantinos Hatzidakis, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Juan de Dios Izquierdo Collado, Georg Jarzembowski, Elisabeth Jeggle (for Sérgio Marques), Karsten Knolle (for Philip Charles Bradbourn), Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Giorgio Lisi, Emmanouil Mastorakis, Erik Meijer, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Jan Mulder (for Isidoro Sánchez García pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Francesco Musotto, James Nicholson, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Wilhelm Ernst Piecyk, Giovanni Pittella (for Danielle Darras), Samuli Pohjamo, Bernard Poignant, José Javier Pomés Ruiz, Alonso José Puerta, Reinhard Rack, Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (for Dana Rosemary Scallon pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Ingo Schmitt, Brian Simpson, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Margie Sudre, Hannes Swoboda (for John Hume), Joaquim Vairinhos, Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (for Karla M.H. Peijs pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Ari Vatanen, Herman Vermeer, Dominique Vlasto (for Christine de Veyrac), Christian Ulrik von Boetticher (for Carlos Ripoll i Martínez Bedoya) and Mark Francis Watts. The opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development are attached; the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs decided on 19 March 2002 not to deliver an opinion. The report was tabled on 14 October 2002. PE 314.720 4/25 RR\479717EN.doc EN MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION European Parliament resolution on the first progress report from the Commission on economic and social cohesion (COM(2002) 46 – C5-0198/2002 – 2002/2094(COS)) The European Parliament, – having regard to the first progress report from the Commission (COM(2002) 46 – C5-0198/20021), – having regard to its resolution of 7 February 20022 on the second report from the Commission on Economic and Social Cohesion (COM(2001) 24), – having regard to the study commissioned by the Commission and drawn up by Jörg Beutel entitled ‘the economic impact of Objective 1 interventions for the period 2000-2006’ of May 2002, – having regard to the conclusions of the Göteborg European Council of 15 and 16 June 2001 on a sustainable development strategy, – having regard to its resolution of 31 May 20013 on environmental policy and sustainable development: preparing for the Göteborg European Council, – having regard to its resolution of 29 November 20014 on the Commission White Paper ‘European Governance’ (COM(2001) 428), – having regard to its resolution of 9 March 19945 on the Commission White Paper on ‘Growth, Competitiveness, Employment – the challenges and ways forward into the 21st Century’ (COM(93) 700), – having regard to Articles 158 to 162 and Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, – having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A5-0354/2002), A. whereas all public contributions so far have noted that European cohesion policy must remain the cornerstone of European integration, because otherwise the cohesion of the 1 OJ C not yet published. 2 OJ C Texts adopted by Parliament, P5-TA(2002)0060. 3 OJ C 47 E, 21.2.2002, p. 223. 4 OJ C 153 E, 27.6.2002, p. 314. 5 OJ C 91, 28.3.1994, p. 124. RR\479717EN.doc 5/25 PE 314.720 EN Union will be in jeopardy, which would have disadvantages for all EU Member States, B. whereas it is impossible to drop below the current share of 0.45% of the Union’s GDP set aside for cohesion policy without seriously jeopardising the achievement of the cohesion objectives with a view to enlargement and sacrificing the credibility of cohesion policy, C. whereas any attempt to renationalise European structural policy must be rejected, since otherwise serious damage could be done to the European model based on solidarity between the richest and poorest regions, D. having regard to the outcome of the study on the economic impact of aid in Objective 1 regions which notes that 24.2% of EU aid for Objective 1 regions benefits other EU regions, E. having regard to the debate on the issue of the equitable division of existing financial resources in an EU of 27 Member States and in view of the fact that the regions in the new Member States have a substantially lower level of development than the EU average and current Objective 1 regions and that most regions in the new Member States will receive Objective 1 status, F. having regard to the fact that structural policy interventions have not so far had all the desired results despite a very substantial financial input by the EU and that in particular deep-seated imbalances remain between the various regional areas of the EU and unemployment in the poorest regions is further increasing, whereas the still high level of unemployment can be combated by a regional development policy, designed to create new prospects for investment, employment and the use of available regional resources in the areas that have made least progress and industrial reconversion areas, G. whereas the most remote regions have a distinct geographical, economic and social identity within the European Union, H. having regard to the permanent geographical handicaps which affect the socio-economic and structural development of certain regions of the Union, particularly the most remote regions, and the need to find a specific treatment for them, I. whereas employment policy, the CAP, transport policy and finance policy must be brought into accord with the cohesion objectives of a sustainable regional development, J. whereas there is a need for greater simplification of the procedures and greater efficiency in the partnership between the Commission, the Member States and the regions concerned, K. whereas regional policy must promote the polycentric development of the European Union, Future of European cohesion policy 1. Notes that European cohesion policy and the solidarity it involves between the wealthy and the less wealthy Member States of the Union must remain an integral part of an PE 314.720 6/25 RR\479717EN.doc EN enlarged Union; RR\479717EN.doc 7/25 PE 314.720 EN 2. Calls for a sustained reform of the EU’s structural policy which allows the regions to pursue their development plans independently of EU interventions but with the backing of EU interventions within the framework of straightforward administrative procedures; 3. Considers that in the run-up to enlargement, cohesion policy needs to be reviewed, improved and adapted to cater for the new conditions that will prevail in an enlarged Union; 4. Insists on the necessity of carefully adapting Community assistance within the cohesion policy framework to the specific needs and socio-economic realities (which have resulted from their unique history and economic and political transition) of future Member States so that it has a maximum impact on economic competitiveness, the living standards of the population and sustainable economic development; 5. Reminds the candidate countries of the imperative need to further improve their administrative capacity and coordination mechanisms