Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-14-Speech-1-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000214.4.1-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, before my friends and fellow Commissioners, Franz Fischler and Anna Diamantopoulou, in turn come to speak – since all three of us who are responsible for these four Community initiatives have had the opportunity to follow this debate with the same interest, I would like to endeavour to speak on the subject of URBAN and INTERREG, which many of you have brought up and discussed. Straight away I should like to express my thanks to the rapporteurs from the committees, from all the committees, but also to the speakers for the groups and to each and every one of you for the quality of your speeches and the great interest they express with regard to these two initiatives. This is particularly true of what Mrs McCarthy said about URBAN. I should like to thank her not only for her work and for the report which she presented but also – and I do not see why I in turn should not say so too – for all we owe her, for all you owe her as far as this is initiative, as well as, more generally, all we owe Parliament. I am mindful of the fact that it was in fact the European Parliament which made the political decision and supported the continuation of this initiative for the regeneration of urban areas in difficulties, in favour of sustainable urban development, involving at the same time this integrated approach, which we value, to handle the economic, social and environmental aspects simultaneously.
Third point: interregional cooperation, the importance of strand C. The Commission shares the observations made by this House regarding the importance of strand C, interregional cooperation. As your rapporteur has requested, I shall send you the detailed information regarding the system for the implementation of this strand.
Fourth observation: the European Observatory and the possible use of a technical assistance office. As you requested, I have decided to remove all references to the use of a technical assistance office in the text until the outcome of the debate in progress within the Commission on the service outsourcing systems. But, ladies and gentlemen, if we do remove every reference and any recourse to a TAO at a later date then this will have a consequence and that will be an increase in the number of officials’ jobs needed to do this work, because somebody will have to do it and I cannot keep redeploying the same staff indefinitely, at a time when our duties are increasing with the pre-accession structural instrument (ISPA) and in order to ensure that, the Community appropriations for which I am responsible, often in partnership or on terms of coresponsibility with Member States, are monitored better, with discipline and transparency.
Now to the implementation of INTERREG, a subject mentioned by many of you, and the potential eligibility under strand A, ‘cross-border cooperation’, of schemes in the Adriatic, on behalf of Sicily or for the most remote regions, the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, understands your concerns and takes note of your requests on these various points. I therefore intend to amend the guidelines in order to incorporate a specific priority into the transnational strand B: ‘integrated cooperation of maritime and island regions’, so as to cover, in what I think is an appropriate fashion the various opportunities for cooperation between these regions. In addition to this one overture there is a second which we have already suggested to the Member States: greater financial flexibility between strand A and strand B. Thanks to these two overtures, especially the first, I can say that the Commission is willing to examine the case of Italian regions and regions of third countries around the Adriatic in order to promote the most appropriate cooperation under INTERREG, and with other instruments too, as soon as they become available.
Another point: the coordination between INTERREG, PHARE, TACIS and MEDA. It is true, once again, and I accept this objectively, that there are still real legal problems. I do not want to minimise these, but progress is being made as far as strand A cooperation with candidate countries is concerned, even if the problems related to the management procedures and to the scale of the projects still remain. The Commission must continue along these lines. I am making a personal commitment to do so. An initial joint PHARE/CIP committee is to meet in February to assess this coordination, and let me confirm my attentiveness and availability with regard to this, together with my colleagues and fellow Commissioners Verheugen, Patten and Poul Nielson.
Finally, on the subject of technical assistance, on which your rapporteur and several of you commented. It goes without saying that the Commission will adhere to the terms of Article 23 of the general regulations regarding technical assistance, if it is indeed assistance intended to be an instrument useful to structural policy in general. According to the general regulations, however, any technical assistance scheme which can claim a connection with a Community initiative must be proposed under Article 20, and not Article 23. This means that the ceiling of 0.25% mentioned in Article 23 does not apply with regard to this type of technical assistance. I attach great importance, ladies and gentlemen, in a spirit of discipline and transparency, to our nonetheless retaining some financial strands for matters relating to the exchange of experience and information, and not to propaganda, and to the implementation of networks ensuring good communication of best practice within the Union.
My conclusion regarding INTERREG, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is that these Community initiatives for which I am responsible fulfil a real need and everything that has been said is proof of this. They also foreshadow a real European regional planning policy within our enlarged Union. The Commission attaches the greatest importance to this, just as you yourselves do. I remain at your service in order, when the time comes, to present the report of previous planning which you request, but also to keep you informed regularly as to the implementation of these initiatives in the course of the new planning.
Repeating my thanks to each and every one of you, and also particularly to Arlene McCarthy and Francis Decourrière, I should like to point out that these two initiatives lie within a financial framework with which you are familiar: only EUR 700 million for URBAN, but this is better than nothing; EUR 4 billion 800 millions for INTERREG. So we are working within this framework and not outside it. On the subject of these two initiatives, then, with the light they cast on future strategic and political thinking regarding regional planning and on future financial perspectives, let me express our great interest in this constructive dialogue with the European Parliament and its committees. Everything that I have just said, ladies and gentlemen, demonstrates that the Commission is resolved to taken the views of Parliament into account.
With regard to URBAN, I should like to conclude with a final observation. One of you expressed a wish that these urban issues should not be confined to the URBAN initiative. I agree completely. I myself expressed my concern at the meeting of Ministers for regional and urban planning, a concern to which I devote myself, that in the DOCUPs and the CSFs in the planning which we are currently starting to negotiate, my concern, as I said, that, apart from the URBAN initiative, urban issues should be addressed in all the Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes, and I believe I can express both our awareness of such issues and also our commitment to include them, beyond the scope of URBAN, in all structural fund programming. But, as for the future, since we must look ahead, I am extremely concerned to see how URBAN is going to be implemented in practical terms, and also to see what our experience will be and what lessons we can learn, because plainly these urban issues are going to be the focus of what may be, for future financial perspectives, a new European regional planning policy. I am not forgetting, and we cannot forget, that 80% of the citizens of Europe today live in towns and that is why this URBAN instrument is extremely important. Let me repeat what I have said, we shall be most attentive to the inclusion of urban issues in all structural fund programming.
I should now, Mr President, like to bring up the subject of INTERREG and to thank the rapporteur, Francis Decourrière, in the same way that I thanked Arlene McCarthy, for the quality and relevance of his work. He stressed a number of points, with which we may indicate our agreement, as many of you did too – the importance of this trans-European cooperation, with its three strands, cross-border, transnational, interregional; the added value to the Community provided by INTERREG, its clarity in relation to the general framework of the structural funds, and the truly cross-border and transnational strengthening of eligible programmes and operations; the importance of common structures and what, in discussing another debate which begins today, the Intergovernmental Conference, I termed the common European spirit which we have to strengthen, and here, with INTERREG, thanks to INTERREG, is a way to strengthen common spirit through common structures for the implementation of programmes with real financial solidarity; the importance of partnership in guaranteeing the active participation of all the local and regional authorities concerned as well as private sector associations and economic and social partners."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"A second observation, the time limits for the submission of programmes and the possibility of submitting a planning supplement in addition to the programmes. I have no objection to the idea of submitting a planning supplement jointly with the main programme. This cannot, however, be grounds for an extension of the original time limit. Let me remind you that the time limit for this programme is six months. This time limit, which indeed is identical to the one we granted for INTERREG and for the Objective 2 DOCUPs, should normally be adequate, I feel, for drawing up a programme, which does not mean that the projects cannot be defined at a later stage."1
"As to the second comment: regarding the non-comprehensive list of measures eligible under strand B, I wish to inform you, to confirm, that I have asked the Commission to accept the inclusion of other specific subjects, particularly in favour of small– and medium-sized businesses and of cultural heritage, in the list of schemes eligible under strand B and that therefore this list must no longer be considered as a comprehensive one."1
"Firstly on the subject of the URBAN programme and the maximum threshold of fifty towns, which a number of you termed arbitrary. I can understand your concern. I have therefore asked my services to be willing to consider a reasonable increase in the number of towns eligible under the URBAN programme conditional upon certain guarantees, firstly on concentration – I am thinking particularly of the target areas which must have a minimum of 20 000 or, in exceptional cases, 10 000 inhabitants – and also upon the critical mass of funding: we must keep to EUR 500 per inhabitant so that the European Union action may be both effective and clear, and so that it does not resemble a sort of scattering of resources which would have no real impact either for citizens or for municipalities. That is my initial response to the threshold question."1
"Having made these general observations, I should like to focus on your main comments with regard to INTERREG. The first relate to the timetable and the content of this initiative. You comment that these guidelines were adopted at too late a date, stressing, particularly your rapporteur, the risk that the previous programmes will be interrupted. It is true, I admit it, and you are well aware of the reasons, ladies and gentlemen. There is a delay in adopting the INTERREG guidelines in March or April 2000. I accept this; I take note of it as you do. I note, however, that the Member States and the regions are already actively preparing the programmes for INTERREG III and indeed the guidance project was distributed over three months ago now. I also note that eligibility for expenditure shall be accepted from the date that programmes are presented and I can confirm the possibility that they may be available retroactively back to 1 January, if the programme is presented before 30 April. So much for the first comment."1
"I have decided, in the end, that the most remote regions, to which I attach particular importance, will be given special priority in the context of the transnational strand of INTERREG, with a cooperation strategy which will aim at improving their links with their neighbours and other Member State regions. I also wish to express my concern to ensure good cooperation between INTERREG and the EDF, particularly for the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean. All this should make it possible for us, apart from the Objective 1 appropriations and also with them, to confirm the role of ‘active frontier’ of the Union. I adopt and wholeheartedly support this political objective that the seven most remote regions of the Union are actually active frontiers of the Union, even if, or precisely because, they are remote and located in other regions of the world where we must bring our influence and our action to bear."1
"Regarding URBAN, I should like to conclude with the implementation procedure and mention, first of all, the selection procedure. Some speakers wanted it to be less bureaucratic, more transparent, and to avoid redundancy in terms of the projects and funding. Ladies and gentlemen, on this point we must make it clear: in the context of subsidiarity, the selection of zones or municipalities eligible for URBAN is primarily the responsibility of the Member States. As far as the Commission is concerned, it is willing to avoid any unjustified bureaucratic overload, but we cannot give up the practice of checking the relevance and quality of the proposed programmes, indeed you would be the first to criticise us if we did."1
"Regarding a second matter, now, relating to the additional criteria, which should be taken into consideration in selecting disadvantaged areas. Here, too, I am willing to demonstrate greater flexibility and to consider other relevant criteria in addition to the Community criteria given in point 11 of the guidance project."1
"Some other points of agreement highlighted in Mrs McCarthy’s report, the effectiveness of this instrument through the concentration of funding and a critical mass for intervention, the horizontal operation which we think more conducive to disseminating results and increasing the exchange of experience and good practice and, finally, the increasing role of local authorities in the planning and management of the programmes, on the basis of a real partnership. Having mentioned the fundamental points of agreement between the Commission’s proposals and Parliament and, having stressed my great interest in hearing the various contributions, I should like to answer a few of the criticisms and a few of the suggestions which have been made, with apologies if I cannot attribute each of the questions to the speakers by name. I think however that you will all recognise your own comments."1
"Third point: specific measures in favour of some social groups – some speakers mentioned them – women, but also immigrants and refugees, must be envisaged. This concern, ladies and gentlemen, lies at the very heart of our URBAN initiative, and I am willing to rewrite the text, if necessary, in order to make this message clearer yet."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples