A3-0032/94

Resolution on the regional implications of Community assistance to Central and Eastern Europe

The European Parliament,

-having regard to the motion for a resolution by Mr Heinz Fritz Köhler and others on the regional implications of EC assistance to Central and Eastern Europe (B3-0689/91),

-having regard to the Commission study "Trade and foreign investment in the Community's regions: the impact of economic reform in Central and Eastern Europe" (Regional Development Studies No. 7),

-having regard to the Commission study "Socio-economic situation and development of the regions in the neighbouring countries of the Community in Central and Eastern Europe" (Regional Development Studies No. 2),

-having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

-having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Relations with Regional and Local Authorities and the opinion of the Committee on External Economic Relations (A3-0032/94),

A.whereas a successful and lasting outcome to the process of economic and political liberalization that is taking place in the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) is of vital importance to the European Community,

B.whereas there are understandable fears amongst the Community's poorer regions, especially those suffering from high unemployment, that the economic development of the CEECs may harm their economic interests and that accession by the CEECs to the Community may reduce the amount of Community structural aid available to them,

C.whereas studies suggest that the expansion of markets in Eastern Europe could be of particular benefit to companies in the less prosperous regions because demand for imports will, in the first place, be greatest for the intermediate technology goods that these economies can supply,

D.whereas any GATT agreement is likely to have wide-ranging repercussions on trade between the EC and the CEECs,

E.whereas there is general agreement that the best way to help the CEECs is to give them the widest possible access to Community markets, consistent with full observance of Community preference, so that they can, through their export earnings in those sectors where they have a comparative advantage, finance the necessary imports of investment and consumer goods,

F.whereas general EC trade restrictions on sensitive products and the use of anti-dumping measures to restrict CEEC exports over the coming years would make it difficult for the CEECs to expand their exports sufficiently to generate the economic growth that is essential to continued economic and political reform,

G.recalling that on an optimistic scenario some of the CEECs could attain living standards comparable to less prosperous Member States by 2010 and, by that date, could increase their exports to the Community by a factor of five and their imports from the Community by a factor of seven,

H.whereas agricultural exports from the CEEC's to the EC are set to grow by a factor of ten, assuming that there are no barriers to such trade; whereas such rapid growth may create difficulties for Community producers, especially those located in the less prosperous regions,

I.observing that a failure of economic development in the CEECs would increase the risk of their dumping goods on the world market to the detriment of Community producers in general and to less highly capitalized producers in the less-prosperous regions in particular; whereas, moreover, serious economic failure in the CEECs would have implications for the Community's external aid budget,

J.whereas the PHARE programme has contributed to the economic development of the CEECs and, in addition to economic aid, has provided aid for environmental protection, vocational training and humanitarian aid,

K.having regard to the Commission's failure to establish an overall energy and safety plan prior to any financial intervention on its part to assist the energy sector and in particular electricity production in the CEECs,

L.whereas cross-border cooperation with CEECs is of special value to regions on both sides of the border but has proved difficult to implement because matching funds have not been available in the relevant regions outside the Community; whereas Parliament has proposed a new budget line to alleviate this problem,

1.Reaffirms the Community's responsibilities in respect of cooperation and assistance aimed at supporting political and economic developments in Central and Eastern Europe; is convinced that the Community has both a moral and a material interest in ensuring that this process is nurtured and brought to a successful conclusion;

2.Urges however that the interests of the Community's less-prosperous regions be protected both through structural aid targeted at modernising their economies and, where justified, through specific, exceptional and temporary measures to limit the effects of unfair competition;

3.Expresses satisfaction that minimum amounts of structural aid, in particular for Objective 1 regions, were set at the European Council in Edinburgh so that, under normal circumstances, there need be no antagonism in the period 1994 - 1999 between the amount of structural aid for the Community's less prosperous regions and aid for the CEECs;

4.Believes that regional aid within the Community should be focused on upgrading skills and modernising industry to avoid conflict between policy towards CEECs and the Community's own less-prosperous regions;

5.Is encouraged by rapid economic growth in certain of the CEECs and hopes that it may soon be possible to welcome them as new members of the Community; points out that the progress they make towards attaining average Community GDP in the years before joining will serve to limit the financial contribution of the Community in structural aid after their accession;

6.Welcomes the Association Agreements establishing a framework for trade with the aim of creating a free-trade area within ten years; stresses that the Community should not, for short-term political reasons, breach the underlying principles of these agreements;

7.Calls for the introduction of a special anti-dumping clause in the Association Agreements with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to ensure that cases where the establishment of the comparability of prices and costs causes difficulties, may be dealt with pursuant to Article VI of GATT;

8.Considers that the Community should continue to grant aid through PHARE to the CEECs and should encourage the creation of networks through which the CEECs can have access to the best advice available on the management of companies and the organization of government in democracies based on free enterprise using, as far as possible, local expertise;

9.Considers also that, within the PHARE programme, a totally new approach is needed to redirect aid in the field of energy to support sectors and investments which promote energy savings and clean production technology;

10.Believes that, in the PHARE programme, priority should also be given to supporting combined transport and, in particular, developing short-distance railways and sea transport and well as improving and modernizing the existing public transport network;

11.Believes that the CEECs should in future benefit from an agreed multi-annual framework of aid, similar in form though obviously not in scale to the Community's Structural Funds;

12.Calls on the Commission, together with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, to establish a strategic energy plan which not only guarantees the long-term energy supply but also makes use of technical energy-saving options;

13.Points out that major benefits have derived from the preliminary planning exercise that, under the revised Structural Fund regulations, the Member States must carry out internally, in the framework of partnership, and from the subsequent negotiations that take place with the Commission on the establishment of the Community Support Frameworks;

14.Recognises that technical shortcomings in the administrations of the CEECs and staff shortage in the Commission would, at present, make it difficult to apply the same system to the CEECs but takes the view that as many elements as possible of the procedures under the Structural Funds should be applied progressively to the grant of aid to the CEECs, with a view to preparing them for Community membership;

15.Considers that its agreement with Council and Commission on the creation of a special budget line to alleviate the factors limiting cross-border cooperation under the Community Initiatives between Community regions and bordering regions of third countries in Central and Eastern Europe was timely and opportune; welcomes the fact that this budget line has been endowed with ECU 150 m for 1994, thereby allowing for a high degree of cross-border cooperation from 1994 onwards since few programmes with CEECs have been implemented so far; now expects that sufficient financial resources will be set aside for this special budget line in the coming years during the life of INTERREG II;

16.Calls for a particularly high level of funding for the INTERREG II Community initiative which was described at the Edinburgh 1992 European Council as particularly successful, and hopes that a sufficiently high proportion of the aid will be made available to the external borders of the CEECs since considerable catching-up in respect of cross-border cooperation is necessary at those borders, given the political situation prior to 1989;

17.Expects the governments of the CEECs to take a positive approach to cross-border cooperation and abandon any opposition or reservations they may hitherto have expressed since it is only in this way that the disadvantages of the borders can be eliminated when they eventually join the Community;

18.Considers that the Community has a fundamental interest in ensuring that the governments of the CEEC's devote adequate resources and attention to environmental problems especially where these occur close to the border with the Community, and believes that the Community should use its influence and tailor its aid, to encourage greater respect for the environment;

19.Notes with interest the suggestion in Regional Development Study No. 7 that the Commission's DG XVI should re-introduce, in an improved form, the RESIDER and LEADER programmes, on the grounds that the agricultural and steel-producing regions of the Community appear to be most vulnerable to opening EC markets completely to CEEC exports;

20.Agrees that the Community Initiatives should pay particular attention to helping the Community's regions to face the challenge and take up the opportunities of economic developments in the CEECs, without pre-judging the exact form that this assistance might take;

21.Notes that the study also suggests that the Commission might contribute, in the appropriate framework, to assisting with export credits and insurance against political risks on trade and joint ventures by companies in the Community's less-prosperous regions that wish to increase their activities in CEEC markets, to disseminating information on the "best practice" methods in this domain and to bringing together groups of potential exporters in the less-prosperous regions; trusts that the Commission will draw the appropriate conclusions in the context of the implementation of the Structural Funds in the period 1994-1999;

22.Concludes that a policy of pursuing economic and social cohesion within the Community will make little sense if the Community does not also do all it can to encourage growth in the countries on its eastern flank where GDP per head is significantly less than that of even the Community's poorest regions;

23.Reaffirms the fact that the countries of Eastern Europe are undeniably European in their history, traditions and way of life while regretting that some groups in certain countries have forgotten the example, that the Community offers, of the advantages of living peacefully together in a spirit of cooperation;

24.Deplores the conflict that has broken out in former Yugoslavia and regrets that the European Commmunity has not been able to assist effectively in resolving it; points out that the conflict has seriously hindered the essential process of economic reconstruction in the territories concerned;

25.Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and the Council.