KONČNO
A6-0311/2005
19.10.2005
POROČILO
o vlogi evroregij v razvoju regionalne politike
(2004/2257(INI))
Odbor za regionalni razvoj
Poročevalec:
Kyriacos Triantaphyllides
PE 360.073v02-00
VSEBINA
PREDLOG RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA.....................................................3
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................6
POSTOPEK..............................................................................................................................10
PREDLOG RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA
o vlogi evroregij v razvoju regionalne politike
( 2004/2257(INI) )
Evropski parlament ,
– ob upoštevanju člena 87(3) Pogodbe ES,
– ob upoštevanju člena 158 Pogodbe ES,
– ob upoštevanju člena 45 svojega Poslovnika,
– ob upoštevanju predloga glede Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o splošnih določbah za oblikovanje Evropskega sosedskega in partnerskega instrumenta ( KOM(2004)0628 ),
– ob upoštevanju predloga glede Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o Evropskem skladu za regionalni razvoj ( KOM(2004)0495 ),
– ob upoštevanju predloga Uredbe Sveta o splošnih določbah Evropskega sklada za regionalni razvoj, Evropskega socialnega sklada in Kohezijskega sklada ( KOM(2004)0492 ,
– ob upoštevanju predloga Uredbe Sveta o ustanovitvi Kohezijskega sklada ( KOM(2004)0494 ,
– ob upoštevanju predloga Uredbe Evropskega Parlamenta in Sveta o ustanovitvi evropske skupine za čezmejno sodelovanje (EGCC) ( KOM(2004)0496 ),
– ob upoštevanju Evropske okvirne konvencije o čezmejnem sodelovanju med ozemeljskimi skupnostmi ali organi Sveta Evrope (Madrid, 21. maj 1980) in njenih dodatnih protokolov ter Evropske listine o lokalni samoupravi Sveta Evrope (Strasbourg, 15. oktober 1985),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za regionalni razvoj ( A6-0311/2005 ),
A. ker je širitev Evropske unije 1. maja 2004 na 25 držav članic povzročila nastanek večjih razlik med evropskimi regijami in ker prihodnje širitve lahko dodatno povečajo te razlike in ker se je zaradi tega občutno povečalo število obmejnih regij, je treba opozoriti, da so evroregije odločilno prispevale k premagovanju razmejenosti Evrope, gradnji dobrososedskih odnosov, približevanju ljudi z obeh strani meje in premagovanju predsodkov, zlasti preko sodelovanja na lokalni in regionalni ravni preko državnih meja,
B. ker je treba regionalne razlike v razširjeni Uniji zmanjševati z učinkovito kohezijsko politiko, ki si bo prizadevala za usklajen razvoj znotraj EU,
C. ker je del učinkovite kohezijske politike in evropske integracije zagotovitev trajnostnega razvoja čezmejnega sodelovanja in končno premagovanje ovir, ki so do sedaj obstajale pri financiranju skupnih projektov, od katerih imajo koristi tako lokalne oblasti kot regije na obeh straneh meje,
D. ker so evroregije in podobne strukture pomembni instrumenti čezmejnega sodelovanja, ki jih je treba še nadalje razviti, izboljšati ter jim zagotoviti pravni status,
E. ker je končni cilj evroregij spodbujanje čezmejnega sodelovanja med obmejnimi regijami oz. lokalnimi subjekti in regionalnimi oblastmi ter socialnimi partnerji in vsemi drugimi akterji, ki niso nujno države članice EU, na področju kulture, izobraževanja, turizma in gospodarskih vprašanj in vseh drugih vidikov vsakdanjega življenja,
F. ker je Združenje evropskih obmejnih regij predstavilo razna poročila o položaju čezmejnega sodelovanja v Evropi in pripravilo študije o čezmejnem pravnem instrumentu na področju decentraliziranega sodelovanja med Evropsko komisijo in Odborom regij,
1. meni, da je čezmejno sodelovanje temeljnega pomena za evropsko kohezijo in povezovanje, zato mu je treba nameniti širšo podporo;
2. poziva države članice, da spodbujajo uporabo evroregij kot enega izmed orodij za čezmejno sodelovanje;
3. Ugotavlja, da evroregije ali podobne strukture izpolnjujejo naslednje pomembne čezmejne naloge:
- informiranje in storitve za državljane, institucije, regionalne in lokalne oblasti,
- so središčna točka skupnih vrednot, ciljev in strategij,
- so glavno gibalo reševanja čezmejnih težav,
- so glasnik za vsa čezmejna vprašanja;
4. ugotavlja, da evroregije pomenijo preobrat v čezmejnih odnosih, stikih, prenosu znanja, operativnih programih in projektih in, da za opravljanje svojih nalog potrebujejo določen pravni status;
5. poudarja, da je čezmejno sodelovanje primeren okvir za reševanje vsakdanjih težav na obeh straneh meje, zlasti na gospodarskem, socialnem, kulturnem in okoljskem področju;
6. poudarja, da čezmejno sodelovanje pomembno prispeva k izvajanju lizbonske strategije:
- s skupnimi raziskavami in inovacijami,
- s čezmejnimi raziskovalno-razvojnimi omrežji,
- z izmenjavami najboljše prakse in izkušenj;
7. ugotavlja, da evroregije krepijo sosedske vezi z lokalnimi projekti izmenjave najboljših praks; zato meni, da je še posebej pomembno, da se v strukturnih skladih ohrani pomoč za majhne projekte, ki je predvidena v trenutno veljavni Uredbi Interreg
Sporočilo Komisije državam članicam z dne 2. septembra 2004, ki določa smernice za pobudo Skupnosti o vseevropskem sodelovanju glede spodbujanja skladnega in enakomernega razvoja na evropskem ozemlju INTERREG III (UL C 226, 10.9.2004, str. 2) ;
8. je seznanjen s potekajočo pripravo zakonodaje glede evropske skupine za čezmejno sodelovanje, katere cilj je poenostavitev instrumentov čezmejnega sodelovanja (izboljšanje njihovega delovanja, racionalizacija postopkov in zmanjšanje stroškov delovanja) in izgradnja temeljev za razvoj evroregij;
9. poudarja, da je treba dati prednost odpravi razlik med regijami v novih in starih državah članicah;
10. poudarja, da je treba razširiti koncept evroregij in podobnih struktur, čeprav nimajo ustreznih pravnih pristojnosti, da bi zaobjeli več vidikov sodelovanja; primeri možnega vzajemnega interesa so področja kulture, izobraževanja, turizma in gospodarskih vprašanj in, kjer je to potrebno, boj proti organiziranemu kriminalu, trgovanju z drogami in goljufijam v sodelovanju z ustreznimi nacionalnimi institucijami;
11. opozarja na potrebo po povezovanju projektov, ki so načrtovani v državah s skupnimi mejami;
12. pozdravlja prizadevanja Komisije, da bi poenostavila instrumente čezmejnega sodelovanja;
13. poziva, da se evroregijam in podobnim strukturam, ki so določene v predlaganem pravnem okviru evropske skupine za čezmejno sodelovanje (EGCC), omogoči, da oblikujejo, izvajajo in upravljajo čezmejne programe EU znotraj EU kot tudi programe Evropskega sosedskega in partnerskega instrumenta ter instrumenta za predpristopno pomoč (IPP) od leta 2007 dalje ob sodelovanju z nacionalnimi institucijami;
14. poudarja pomembnost čezmejnega sodelovanja in evroregij za države članice z naravnimi ovirami, vključujoč male otoške države;
15. poudarja potrebo po podpori čezmejnega sodelovanja in oblikovanja evroregij, vključno z regijami z občutljivih področij Bližnjega vzhoda, in sicer z namenom spodbujanja prijateljskih odnosov, stabilnosti, varnosti in gospodarskih interesov ob vzajemnem spoštovanju in v obojestransko korist;
16. opozarja na odstavek 1(xxvii) resolucije Evropskega parlamenta o predlogu Uredbe Sveta o kohezijskem skladu
Sprejeta besedila, P6_TA(2005)0278 . , sprejetega 6. julija 2005, in poziva Komisijo, da predvidi podoben sistem premij v obliki rezerv Skupnosti za kakovost in učinkovitost, posebej namenjenih pobudam za ukrepe s čezmejnim učinkom ali ukrepom, ki so morebiti v tesni zvezi z obstoječo infrastrukturo v evroregijah;
17. poziva svojega predsednika, da predloži to resolucijo Svetu in Komisiji.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
DEFINITION OF EUROREGIONS - A concept developed by the Council of Europe
Existing Euroregions are initiatives of border regions or other local entities of several countries (not necessarily Member States of the E U) and have no defined status in the EU context. In most cases, Euroregions have no legal personality and are rather small. The label "Euroregion" is not protected. Euroregions concentrate on cross-border co-operation, where cultural aspects as well as attracting tourism and other forms of economic activity are central.
The legal status of Euroregions varies. It may involve a community of interest without legal personality, a European Economic Interest Grouping, a non-profit-making association, a working community without a legal personality or a public body
Euroregions and other forms of cross-border co-operation structures do not create a new type of government at cross-border level. They do not have political powers and their work is limited to the competencies of the local and regional authorities that constitute them. Within the limits of the geographical scope of co-operation the cross-border structures are arrangements for co-operation between units of local or regional government across the border in order to promote common interests and enhance the living standards of the border populations.
The Association of European Border Regions sets the following criteria for the identification of Euroregions:
- An association of local and regional authorities on either side of the national border, sometimes with a parliamentary assembly;
- A transfrontier association with a permanent secretariat and a technical and administrative team with own resources;
- Of private law nature, based on non-profit-making associations or foundations on either side of the border in accordance with the respective national law in force;
- Of public law nature, based on inter-state agreements, dealing among other things, with the participation of territorial authorities.
There are more than seventy cross-border regions in Europe today, operating under names such as Euroregions, euroregios or Working communities. Although some of these initiatives date back to the 1950s, the 1990s saw a large increase in cross-border regions all over Europe. In fact, today there are virtually no local or regional authorities in border areas that are not somehow involved in cross- border co-operation.
Legally, the idea of an administrative body in charge of a sub-national cross- border area is difficult to implement. The first cross- border regions were based on agreements with varying degrees of formality and most relied on good will.
In 1980, on the initiative of the Council of Europe, a set of European countries concluded an international treaty, called the Madrid Convention, as a first step towards cross-border co-operation structures based on public law. The convention has been signed by 20 countries and was recently updated with two Additional Protocols. It provides a legal framework for completing bi- and multinational agreements for public law cross-border co-operation among NCGs. An example of such agreements is the German-Dutch cross- border treaty of 1991; whic has been a cross-national public body since 1993. However, the decisions put forward by such agencies are binding only on the public authorities within the cross-border area concerned.
EU CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION: up to 2006
The outstanding characteristic of the cross-border related activities of the EU is that they are primarily financial. Many cross-border initiatives are eligible for support under the Interreg Community Initiative launched by the European Commission in 1990, as Interreg III in 1999. For the period 2000-2006, it has a budget of 4.875b Euro, or approximately 2.3 per cent of the Cohesion budget. The programme relevant to cross- border co-operation is Interreg IIIA, it lays down that all local areas located on external and internal land borders, and some maritime areas, are eligible for support.
Through the Community Initiative INTERREG IIIA, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) finances cross-border co-operation activities in NUTS III regions that are defined at the Community level. Whole countries, which are NUTS I level entities, are not included in Euroregions and would never be eligible for ERDF co-financing under A strand of INTERREG III. In their proposals for programmes to be co-financed under INTERREG, the EU member states will suggest to what extent Euroregions should participate in the implementation of INTERREG IIIA programmes. For example, some of them act as managing authorities of a programme or project owners for specific projects; othersr the services of a contact point for INTERREG.
It is symptomatic for the pathway of European Integration in the post-war period, that the more legalistic approach favoured by the Council of Europe- proposing cross-border regions as formal politico-administrative entities- was later abandoned in favour of a more pragmatic and economically oriented approach within the context of EU regional policy.
One can discuss whether the European Union should be considered as a driving force behind the emergence and proliferation of cross-border co-operation across Europe. At first sight, the EU could be regarded as an important causal factor here, notably through the diminishing importance of borders, the growing regional representation at the supranational level and the Interreg programme. However, the EU´s impact is often overestimated as it disregards the fact that cross-border co-operation is bottom-up driven. The early initiatives involved countries, such as Switzerland, that are not members of the EU. In the German part of the Upper Rhine, 80% of FDI is of Swiss provenance, and a cross-border labour market has emerged. Similar patterns occur in the Geneva area.
However, the extraordinary growth of cross-border co-operation from 1988 onwards must certainly be related to the launch of EU support schemes dedicated to cross- border initiatives in Western Europe, and, from the early 90s, increasingly in Eastern and Central Europe. From 26 initiatives in 1988, when the Directorate General launched its first pilot projects, their number almost tripled to over 70 in 1999. Qualitative evidence shows that the newly founded Euroregions, for example those on the Eastern and Southern German borders, tend to be closely involved in Interreg implementation. There were no Euroregions on the Austrian-German border before Austria's accession to the EU, but, between 1994 and 1998 five new Euroregions were established. Similar evidence can be provided for many Eastern and Central European cross-border initiatives.
Since they have been established, many of the Working Communities have stagnated in terms of political importance and budget, but the smaller Euroregions continue to flourish in part because they are more closely involved in the Interreg programme that only applies to narrow border areas. It appears that the Euroregion, as an institutional form, is better suited to taking an active role in implementing EU policy measures than the larger Working.
EU-Cross border co-operation 2007 - 2013.
1) An internal instrument
Following the logic described in its Third cohesion report, the European Commission has limited its priorities to three objectives, namely: convergence, regional competitiveness and territorial co-operation. Within this context, the community initiatives have been mainstreamed.
To meet the needs of the enlarged European Union, The Commission has proposed the creation of a European grouping of cross-border co-operation (EGCC) , creating the framework for a cross-border authority to manage co-operation programmes. This proposal is part of the cohesion legislative package consisting of a general Regulation ; a Regulation for the European Social Fund (ESF); the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional development Fund (ERDF). The new proposals aim to rationalise procedures and simplify the implementation of cross-border and regional co-operation.
The EGCC has two facets. Firstly it is a tool concerning cross-border co-operation in, where only the governments can point out the entity able to dispose of funds. These can only be beneficiaries of the funds but not the ones administrating them. It also constitutes a new legislative instrument enabling communities to work together without structural funds intervention
(Article 159 of the Treaty establishing the European Community). (
The nature of territorial co-operation pre-supposes regional and local participation without Member States involvement. The members can set up an EGCC as a separate legal entity or assign its tasks to one of the members. It would be the subject of a convention prepared by its members, specifying its functions,, tasks, duration and the conditions for its dissolution, jurisdiction,. The convention would be notified to the relevant Member States and to the Committee of the Regions. Furthermore, the Member State with jurisdiction and under whose law the convention would be registered, would control the management of public funds-
both National and Community funds . and supply information to other Member States concerned about the outcome of controls.
The EGCC would adopt its statues on the basis of the convention. The statute would contain the list of its members, definitions of its objective and tasks, its name and principal address, its constituent organs including the Member Assembly and Executive Board, by whom and how the EGCC, would be represented, the decision making procedures, the establishment of the working language or languages, the modalities for its functioning, notably those concerning personnel management, recruitment procedures, the nature of personnel contracts, guaranteeing stability of co-operation actions, provisions governing members' financial contributions and the applicable accounting and budgetary rules, the designation of independent organisation of financial control and external audit authorities.
Existing bilateral agreements on cross-border co-operation between Member States and/or regional or local authorities, for example the Karlsruhe agreement, will remain in force.
23 Member States out of 25 have doubts concerning this instrument. These countries are wary of supranational structures being created in their countries.This fear is engendered by the fact that Regional and local authorities would not need central government approval to set up an EGCC.
However, given the sensitive nature of the EGCC and the proximity ties that it enhances, it is imperative that the instrument be developed, especially in view of the ongoing enlargement. Such instruments are of vital importance to new member states which can benefit from the exchange of best practices
The concept of Euroregions can be extended to multiple facets of cooperation. The signing of the "Maastricht resolution" by the Rhein-Maas Euroregion is a clear indicator of the extent of cross border cooperation on sensitive issues such as drugs, and organised crime Thus, several Member States have an active role to play in enhancing cross-border cooperation. Cyprus, for instance, an island with direct links to the Middle East, could become a pillar of the European Partnership and Neighbourhood Instrument (ENPI), and an active actor in the fight against organised crime and drugs trafficking.
Another potential aspect of cross-border co-operation pertains to matters of education. Extending the former student exchanges between neighbouring regions, would greatly enhance the cultural compatibility of neighbouring regions.
2) An external relations instrument
The new instrument European Partnership and Neighbourhood Instrument (ENPI) will replace existing geographical and thematic programmes covering the countries concerned. A specific feature of the ENPI is its cross-border co-operation component. Thus the ENPI will finance "joint programmes" bringing together regions of Member States and partner countries sharing a common border. It will use an approach largely modelled on Structural Funds principles such as multi-annual programming, partnership and co-financing adapted to take into account the specificities of external relations. The cross-border co-operation component of the ENPI will be co-financed by the E R D F. The partner countries covered by this instrument are those which do not currently have an accession perspective and to which the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is addressed.
POSTOPEK
Naslov
Vloga evroregij v razvoju regionalne politike
Št. postopka
2004/2257(INI)
Podlaga v Poslovniku
člen 45
Pristojni odbor Datum razglasitve dovoljenja na zasedanju
REGI 13.1.2005
Odbori, zaprošeni za mnenje Datum razglasitve na zasedanju
Odbori, ki niso dali mnenja Datum sklepa
Okrepljeno sodelovanje Datum razglasitve na zasedanju
Predlog(-i) resolucije, vključen(-i) v poročilo
Poročevalec(-ka) Datum imenovanja
Kyriacos Triantaphyllides 19.1.2005
Nadomeščeni(-a) poročevalec(-ka)
Obravnava v odboru
11.7.2005
Datum sprejetja
6.10.2005
Izid končnega glasovanja
za:
proti:
vzdržani:
42
2
0
Poslanci, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju
Elspeth Attwooll, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Rolf Berend, Jana Bobošíková, Graham Booth, Bernadette Bourzai, Bairbre de Brún, Gerardo Galeote Quecedo, Iratxe García Pérez, Eugenijus Gentvilas, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Ambroise Guellec, Gábor Harangozó, Marian Harkin, Konstantinos Hatzidakis, Jim Higgins, Alain Hutchinson, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Gisela Kallenbach, Tunne Kelam, Miloš Koterec, Constanze Angela Krehl, Sérgio Marques, Francesco Musotto, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Jan Olbrycht, Markus Pieper, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Christa Prets, Elisabeth Schroedter, Grażyna Staniszewska, Catherine Stihler, Margie Sudre, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Oldřich Vlasák, Vladimír Železný
Namestniki, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju
Giusto Catania, Jillian Evans, Louis Grech, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Toomas Savi, Thomas Ulmer, Manfred Weber
Namestniki (člen 178(2)), navzoči pri končnem glasovanju
Datum predložitve – A6
19.10.2005
A6-0311/2005
