A3-0255/94

Resolution on the future of Community initiatives under the Structural Funds (LEADER II programme) (COM(94)0046 - C3-0126/94)

The European Parliament,

-having regard to the notice on the future of Community initiatives under the Structural Funds (LEADER II programme) (COM(94)0046 - C3-0126/94),

-having regard to its resolution of 19 February 1991 on the LEADER programme and on the uses of rural areas,

-having regard to its resolution of 28 October 1993 on the general budget of the EC for the financial year 1994, section III - Commission, and in particular paragraph 8 thereof,

-having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 29 October 1993 on budgetary discipline and to the financial perspective annexed thereto,

-having regard to the final adoption of the 1994 general budget of the European Union, in particular Article B2-140, introduced by an amendment and implementing a Community initiative on town and country planning (INTERAM), and Chapter B0-40 thereof,

-having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, the Committee on Social Affairs, Employment and the Working Environment, the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Relations with Regional and Local Authorities and the Committee on Women's Rights (A3-0255/94),

A.whereas the continuation of the LEADER Community initiative is greatly to be welcomed,

B.whereas the LEADER programme has elicited a notable response and done much to foster a greater sense of rural identity,

C.whereas the multi-sector approach adopted in LEADER I has proved its worth,

D.whereas all LEADER projects should do full justice to environmental awareness and to planning of the physical environment,

E.whereas the LEADER II initiative needs to focus more specifically in future on the key areas of:

-innovation to tackle the significant changes taking place in the rural world;

-supranational cooperation projects; and

-exchange of experiences,

F.whereas, for greater effectiveness and impact, the LEADER II programme should incorporate, in a uniform fashion, all local authorities in the mountain areas concerned which are located above 900 m above sea level,

G.having regard to the context for the new initiative, i.e. the implementation of the CAP and application of the agreements concluded in the GATT Uruguay Round of negotiations,

Agricultural policy and rural development

1.Considers it indispensable that the widest and most varied range possible of bodies (for example public authorities, local organizations, cooperatives, and private firms) should likewise be involved in implementing LEADER II projects;

2.Welcomes suitable LEADER projects which extend over the specified assistance area involving neighbouring Objective 1 and 5b regions, with a view to preventing a 'border effect';

3.Takes the view that the aspiration of implementing more challenging and more ambitious projects than hitherto, transferring responsibility to the national, regional, and local tiers, must not be translated into unduly cumbersome red tape;

4.Notes with anxiety that if, as the Commission is proposing, support is granted to sector-based or subject-oriented projects, the local-level multi-sector approach to development, which was put into effect so successfully in LEADER I, could be allowed to go to waste;

5.Welcomes the Commission proposals relating to a European rural development network, since they mark a logical continuation of and step forward from an admittedly time-consuming and costly but none the less highly advanced innovation introduced under the LEADER I programme, although the network cannot take the place of existing networks and must not be a bureaucratic structure, and takes the view in this connection, moreover, that there must be input from LEADER II in a European network of rural regions, including those regions not directly participating in the LEADER II programme;

6.Points out once again that LEADER is intended to be an innovative Community initiative and that projects funded by LEADER must seek above all to meet that criterion, the concept of innovation must be understood in the broad sense of the term and tailored to the specific context in each case, and project transferability to a greater or lesser extent must not be the most important selection criterion;

7.Calls on the Commission to submit an assessment of LEADER I to the European Parliament as soon as possible and to brief Parliament on the points to consider and conclusions to be drawn for the LEADER II programme;

8.Takes the view that special EU programmes should be devised, drawing on the experience of successful LEADER I and LEADER II projects;

9.Believes that all parties concerned need to be given the fullest possible opportunity to have their say at every stage while projects are being planned and implemented;

10.Expresses the fear that Member States might use the LEADER II programme to finance existing national projects and consequently deny funding to innovative projects proposed by local action groups; calls, therefore, for an arbitration authority to be set up at Union level to ensure that local action groups will be given the opportunity to submit their projects for reconsideration following an initial rejection;

11.Expresses the fear that excessive favouritism could be shown to supranational-scale projects when resources are allocated;

12.States that the administrative and financial heads of local action groups will have to secure, as a matter of priority, the cooperation of all those involved in rural and farming communities who have experience and expertise in the economic, social, cultural, training and environmental spheres and to achieve this, they will have to closely involve organizations representing the various sectors of activity, in particular the various businesses concerned (farming, trade, crafts, industry. etc.); takes the view in this connection that, to this end, administrative and financial programme managers must ensure that a programme underpinning projects is incorporated into, and coordinated with, local and regional development strategies;

13.Calls therefore for LEADER II to have input into facilities (advice centres/agencies) which provide support for local initiatives in devising strategy proposals and actively contribute to coordinating the proposed strategies and programmes with the relevant parties involved;

14.Believes that all network users and rural development forces provided for by LEADER II, i.e. national administrations and their decentralized departments, local and regional authorities, local development groups, social and economic partners and grass-roots organizations whose spheres of activities, in geographical terms, extend beyond the bounds of Objective 1 and 5(b) areas and adjacent rural zones capable of absorbing 10% of the appropriations allocated and which consequently enable ineligible areas to benefit from network data to be required to contribute their own input to the network, drawing on the achievements, experiences and know-how of the above-mentioned regions not directly covered under the LEADER II system;

15.Notes that the entire common agricultural policy, through its pricing and market instruments and, in particular, structural instruments, is becoming increasingly integrated into the wider framework of rural development; it would therefore seem that the Community, following the example of certain states, should undertake to provide more financial support for initiatives and networks promoting this new approach which it has helped to foster; the adoption of rural development strategies and the development of local resources must be encouraged throughout the European Union;

16.Acknowledges that the measures are primarily intended for Objective 1 and 5b regions and that only up to 10% of the funds may be used in contiguous regions; calls, however, for initiatives which particularly merit assistance to be supportable under the LEADER II programme, regardless of their geographical classification as Objective 1 and 5b regions;

17.Calls for the relevant authorities to give preferential consideration to projects involving measures to assist women;

18.Believes that the LEADER II programme should be extended to include all local authorities in the areas concerned which are located above 900 m above sea level;

19.Calls for stronger support measures in the area of administration and management under which support should be provided in the form of aid arrangements for access to outside management consultants, development studies, and organizational analyses, closely interacting with measures taken by local and economic development organizations;

20.Considers that projects should stimulate the development of predominantly agricultural regions whose development is lagging behind, in order to check GDP decline and set in train a process of economic development in innovative and job-creating sectors and make up for local manpower shortages; similarly, considers that projects should enhance innovative capacities and technological adaptability - a cultural and social development instrument incorporated into European partnerships of regional networks involving exchanges, know-how, ideas, demonstrations, etc.;

21.Believes that the European Observatory of Innovation and Rural Development must operate on the basis of providing an integrated structure for accommodating and coordinating the projects run by the various local development organizations, with a view to efficiency, drawing on existing skills and know-how and that a coherent plan must be submitted which shows that the structure is viable;

22.Considers it necessary for LEADER II to extend to individuals at risk from unemployment in rural and farming areas, chiefly those at risk from social exclusion, and provide for equality of opportunity between men and women. The guidelines for LEADER II should take into account education in Objective 1 and 5b regions. Pilot demonstration projects in connection with research and vocational retraining and guidance must be stepped up;

23.Declares its support for the idea that projects relating to the preservation and improvement of the environment and community life should make provision for stepping-up the development of local rural infrastructure, village renovation and affirming a willingness to promote local products and forest exploitation;

Regional policy and planning

24.Stresses the importance of agriculture to many of the less prosperous regions, especially those on the periphery; notes that the effects of the reform of the CAP and of the GATT agreement will tend to worsen the position of producers in these regions;

25.Points out that it will be impossible to ensure a balanced distribution of population, economic activity and wealth over the Community's territory if the rural areas are not assisted to maintain population; considers that a healthy rural economy is essential to the attainment of the objective of social and economic cohesion set out in the Treaty;

26.Notes that every year there is less employment on the land and points to the need to give rural dwellers work, a reasonable standard of living and access to services such as public transport, health and education that depend crucially on a minimum level of population; stresses the need to ensure that the rural population does not drift to the cities, which already contain about 80% of the Union's population, to exacerbate social problems and congestion there, leaving the country to a few large farms and as an occasional playground for city dwellers;

27.Recalls that the small farmer makes a special contribution to protecting the rural environment and ensuring that the country is an attractive place to visit;

28.Considers therefore that the LEADER II programme is timely; approves the Commission's decision to continue the broad thrust of LEADER I while placing further emphasis on acquisition of skills, innovative investment programmes and the design and implementation of joint projects;

29.Notes that expenditure in favour of LEADER I from the Union's budget was ECU 450 million for three years (1991-1993) while equivalent expenditure under LEADER II is estimated at ECU 1400 million for a period of six years (1994-1999); urges that this figure be increased to ensure at least a doubling of the Union's contribution;

30.Emphasises however that LEADER, with its modest budget, can only complement the main thrust of the EAGGF and cannot tackle the root causes of rural depopulation; considers that the EAGGF itself must be re-fashioned to take greater account of rural development as a whole;

31.Notes that the so-called "bottom-up" approach, in which local people are given an important role in formulating and implementing policy, appears to have worked well and welcomes the fact that this approach will be intensified; points out that local participation is worthwhile in itself in encouraging self-help and enhancing the self-esteem of the individual and his community;

32.Recommends however that the increased reliance on programmes and local management be accompanied by better monitoring by the Commission to ensure fairness and transparency;

33.Underlines the importance of coordinating and integrating the whole range of European Community instruments to the benefit of local people in rural areas;

34.Points to the important role played by producer cooperatives in the rural economy and the importance of involving them further in the Initiative;

35.Approves the enhanced emphasis on networks but points out that there is often reluctance to believe that experience in other regions where conditions are radically different can be useful; considers that the Commission should monitor the extent to which the networks influence policy in practice;

36.Recommends that special attention be given to the development of agro-tourism and to the possibilities of giving the individual suppliers access to the latest technology for marketing and for operations such as reservations and invoicing; considers that emphasis should be continued on the preservation of the environment and living conditions, especially the renovation and development of villages and the architectural heritage, as these measures, valuable for their own sake, also complement well the development of tourism in the rural areas;

37.Approves the importance given to SMEs and craft industries and recalls that the rural economy is especially dependent on very small firms that are unfamiliar with many of the new technologies and require special help in this domain;

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