COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
_(S*tWSS»r3S*=-COM(93)282 final 
Brussels, 16 June 1993 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
The Future of Community Initiatives 
under the Structural Funds 
The Future of Community Initiatives 
under the Structural Funds 
I INTRODUCTION 
1. An important innovation introduced by the reform of the Structural 
Funds in 1988 enabled the Commission, on its own initiative, "to 
propose to the Member States that they submit applications for 
assistance in respect of measures of significant interest to the 
Community" not covered by Member States' development plans^1). 
"Measures of significant interest to the Community" were more 
closely defined only in the Regional Fund régulâtion^2) which 
directs Commission initiatives under the ERDF towards problems 
associated with the implementation of other Community policies, the 
application of Community policies at regional level and problems 
common to certain categories of regions. 
2. No amount was specified for the resources which could be devoted to 
Community initiatives, but it was clear at least for the ERDF that 
this could not exceed 15% of the totale and that the bulk of the 
Funds were to be disbursed through Community Support Frameworks, 
negotiated on the basis of the Member States' plans. 
3. The Structural Funds are the principal means through which the 
Community expresses solidarity with its weaker regions and those in 
need of particular assistance. They are at their most effective in 
fulfilling this role when the measures funded respond to locally 
generated ideas and translate into additional and tangible action 
on the ground, bringing the Community closer to its citizens. 
While this type of action is not the exclusive domaine of Community 
initiatives, it is nevertheless particularly through these 
initiatives that the cohesion effort of the Community has become 
better appreciated and understood at a decentralised level. 
Community initiatives, by allowing the Community to make a specific 
and focussed response to problems which threaten the livelihood of 
its citizens, or frustrate their ability to break into the virtuous 
circle of rising prosperity offered by the Internal Market, give 
the Community reality and relevance on the ground. 
4. More spedfically, Community initiatives provide flexibility and 
offer special possibilities for cooperation and innovation: 
first, Community initiatives can encompass measures which 
extend beyond national borders. The CSFs are generally 
confined to measures within an individual Member State or 
region. Community initiatives thus provide a framework for 
encouraging transnational cooperation and the pooling of know-
how in areas of shared concern; 
./. 
(1) Article 11 of Regulation 4253/88 (Coordination) 
(2) Article 3.2 of Regulation 4254/88 (ERDF) 
(3) idem 
second, Community initiatives are an essential feature in 
structural policies with a genuine Community dimension, in 
contrast to Community financial instruments simply supporting 
national policies. They provide a specific means by which 
Community interests and priorities can be reflected in the 
allocation of Community resources, supplementing the 
essentially Member State-initiated priorities in the Community 
Support Frameworks and giving additional emphasis to the 
pursuit of Community goals; 
third, under the new system of multi-annual budgeting and 
programming, needs arise during the programme period, which it 
is not possible to foresee at the planning stage and which 
call for a special effort from the Community. Such efforts 
need to be capable of being closely targeted and relatively 
quickly mounted. They are particularly important for giving 
additional help to areas and workers suffering acutely from 
the process of industrial change; 
fourth, Community initiatives contribute to innovation by 
experimenting with new approaches. If successful, these may 
become part of mainstream CSF funding later. 
5. The way in which the Commission and the Member States implemented 
Community initiatives in the 1989-93 planning period is described 
and analysed in part II of this paper. There is a consensus among 
the Institutions (see part III) that Community initiatives should 
continue to account for part of Structural Fund interventions in 
the period covered by the new financial perspective agreed at 
Edinburgh, 1994-99. 
6. One of the lessons of the first period was the need for the Member 
States to know at an earlier stage what themes and priorities the 
Commission intended to cover under Community initiatives. The 
Commission responded by announcing, at the time of putting forward 
its proposals for modifications to the Structural Funds 
regulations, its intention to publish a Green Paper or consultative 
document on the future of Community initiatives. 
7. The present Green Paper is therefore intended to encourage a wide 
debate about the priorities which need to be tackled by Community 
initiatives during the coming period. A number of options and 
possible priorities are put forward in this Green Paper as the 
Commission's contribution to the debate. However, as wiI I be clear 
from the text which follows, the Commission itself is still at a 
preliminary stage in defining the approach to follow. 
The debate should be based upon the lessons which can be drawn from 
experience in the first phase, while taking account of the present 
challenges facing the Community. Circumstances are evidently very 
different from 1989: 
./. 
5 -
the internal market is now in place. An effort will be needed 
to ensure industry benefits fully from this; 
there is now a serious economic downturn with 17 million 
unemployed, and a crisis in public finances which restricts 
public investment in particular; 
not only the weaker regions and the traditional sectors are 
feeling the pressure of competition and economic and social 
change; increasingly the stronger regions and the heartland of 
Community industry feel vulnerable; 
the political landscape of Europe has fundamentally changed 
with the developments in central and eastern Europe and with 
the Community preparing to admit new Members. 
In short, the needs are even greater and more diverse than before. 
Obviously Community initiatives cannot address all of them. 
Choices will need to be made if Community initiatives are to be 
sufficiently concentrated and to have genuine added value in terms 
of their development impact. Unless a degree of consensus is 
established on those choices and on the reasons underlying them, 
future action risks becoming too dispersed to be effective. 
As the Commission is seeking a wide debate, it is inviting not only 
the Member States, the European Parliament, and the Economic and 
Social Committee to participate, but equally local and regional 
authorities, development agencies, the economic and social partners 
and other interested parties. The Commission therefore intends to 
give this Green Paper a wide circulation. The Commission would 
welcome observations on the Green Paper before the end of September 
1993. It is hoped that this timetable will allow the Committee of 
Regions to express an opinion too. The Commission will then 
evaluate the outcome of the consultation, and propose draft 
guidelines for Community initiatives, in time for these proposals 
to be taken into account in the definition of the Community Support 
Frameworks governing the Community's Structural interventions from 
1994 onwards. 
- 6 
II COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 1989-93: A FIRST, POSITIVE EXPERIENCE 
Initial Financial Decisions 
9. The Commission's first decision concerning specific Community 
initiatives was taken on 22 November 1989, which was after the 
adoption of all the Objective 1 Community Support Frameworks 
(CSFs), except that for Greece. It had been necessary, when 
deciding earlier the resources available for the CSF negotiations, 
to determine the overall amount to be set aside for Community 
ini t iat ives. 
10. The Commission took 
already a I located 
(telecommunicat ions) 
(conversion of iron 
shipbuilding areas), the view that an amount of 1.7 billion Ecu 
to Community programmes, namely STAR 
VALOREN (renewable energy), RESIDER 
and steel areas) and RENAVAL (conversion of 
was to be considered as part of the sum 
allocated to Community initiatives. The Commission decided to set 
aside a further amount of 3.8 billion Ecu for new Community 
initiatives and this was subsequently increased by a further 0.3 
billion Ecu. The total of 5.8 billion Ecu represented nearly 10% 
of the overall amount of 60.3 billion Ecu allocated to the funds 
(at 1989 prices). 
Decisions in principle to launch initiatives 
11. The bulk of Community initiatives were decided in principle by the 
Commission in two packages. 
The first package was decided on 22 November 1989 and-comprised:---/ 
mi I I ion Ecu 
(1989 prices) 
ENVI REG 500 environment in the regions 
INTERREG 700 cross-border co-operation 
RECHAR 300 diversification of coal-mining areas 
REGIS 200 the outermost regions 
STRIDE 400 regional research and development 
2 100 
7--7 -
The second package was decided on 2 Way 1990: 
ml 11 ion Ecu 
(1989 prices) 
REGEN 
TELEMATIQUE 
PR ISMA 
INTERREG 
EUROFORM 
NOW 
HORIZON 
LEADER 300 energy networks 
200 advanced services related to telecommunications 
100 business services linked to the Single Market 
100 cross-border cooperation 
300 new types of qualifications 
120 equal opportunities for women in the labour market 
180 access to the labour market for handicapped and 
minor i ty groups 
400 Rural development 
1 700 
The further 0.3 billion Ecu available for Community initiatives was 
allocated to RETEX, KONVER and an increase in the amount for the 
NOW and HORIZON initiatives. 
Following these initial decisions, at the time when programmes 
presented by Member States were adopted, some adjustments to the 
above amounts were made. The figures given in the annex reflect 
these adjustments and are in today's prices. 
Method of Launching 
12. The decision in principle was followed in each case by the adoption 
of draft guidelines by the Commission. These were then the subject 
of consultation, including an opinion fr.om the relevant Advisory 
Committee(s) of Member^- •Stains'" représentât i ves set up under the 
Regulations^-and an opMiop^rrom the European Parliament, as well as 
from the^néonomic and Social Committee. The Commission then 
^ a^etèddefinitive guidelines and published them in the Official 
^^ tourna I . The per i od between the dec i s i on of pr i ne i p I e and 
publication in the Official Journal varied between 6 and 10 months. 
Member States were invited to submit programmes within 6 months of 
the Official Journal publication. Programmes were agreed by the 
Commission on average within a further 6 months. 
Description of existing initiatives 
13. A short description of each initiative is given in the annex to 
this paper. In the near future it is intended to publish a 
supplement which presents for each initiative the 
characteristics of the actions being funded. principal 
/. 
8 -
Positive features to be consolidated in the next phase 
14. Programmes under most initiatives only came into operation in the 
middle of the planning period and it is too early to draw .firm 
conclusions from ex post evaluations of their impact. Evaluation 
is in hand and the results will help in the preparation of future 
programmes. Nevertheless, some lessons can already be learned. 
15. Despite the small size of many of the programmes implementing 
Community initiatives, they have nevertheless tended to be one of 
the more locally appreciated elements of the Community's structural 
interventions. This is particularly true of INTERREG, LEADER, NOW 
and HORIZON. Community initiatives have aroused interest, 
generated ideas and provided a framework for cooperation to an 
extent out of all proportion to the resources involved. A 
combination of factors is responsible for this: the innovative 
character of the initiative (INTERREG, PRISMA), the involvement of 
people at, for example, the most local level (LEADER), the 
targeting of particular groups (NOW, HORIZON), the link with other 
developments and policies (ENVIREG, STRIDE) and so on. Interest is 
also enhanced by the fact that Community initiatives provide 
programmes which are genuinely additional in relation to Member 
States' own efforts. 
16. The manner in which the Community's structural policies are 
perceived is important: in the main beneficiary regions, they are 
the outward sign of the Community's commitment to cohesion. 
Elsewhere the Funds help to demonstrate the Community's concern 
with the specific development and conversion problems that can 
arise there too. Application of the partnership principle means 
the direct involvement of regional and local interests and brings 
the Community closer to its citizens. 
17. In general the additionality of Community initiatives has been 
ensured, despite the difficulty of some Member States in finding 
their national contribution. Moreover, the initiatives have 
provided an opportunity to test innovative approaches. Particular 
examples are innovative projects in the field of vocational 
training (EUROFORM) and business services related to industrial 
quality standards (PRISMA). 
18. The specific experience of trans-national cooperation which 
characterises several Community initiatives is of particular value 
in strengthening the exchange of experience and know-how, which has 
been of real benefit especially to the less-favoured regions. In 
addition, establishing networks of international co-operation 
within LEADER, INTERREG, EUROFORM, NOW, HORIZON has been very 
fruitful despite difficulties in stimulating this type of 
cooperation within the Structural Funds. By encouraging 
co-operation and the exchange of know-how between those in 
different Member States who have the same problems to deal with, a 
more efficient approach to policy-making is obtained. This 
./. 
- 9 -
approach of networking and transnational cooperation, which is one 
of the main forms of added value of Community initiatives, should 
feature within a number of the themes identified later in this 
document as a possible framework for future initiatives. 
19. Some of the initiatives in the present phase e.g. PRISMA, clearly 
have as one of their main objectives the reinforcement of the 
Single Market. Assistance to measures for the completion of the 
internal market should continue to be part of the aims of future 
initiatives. This should particularly be the case for initiatives 
benefiting Objective 1 regions. 
20. Where the impact of an existing initiative derives in particular 
from the innovatory nature of the measures supported, it may be 
necessary to examine whether, given the experience obtained during 
the present period, it is useful in all cases to continue these 
actions in the framework of Community initiatives. Some of these 
actions could be integrated into Community Support Frameworks as 
their practical implementation becomes more straightforward. 
(Examples: STAR, TELEMATIQUE, ENVIREG). Other more complex actions 
and in particular those which imply interregional or transnational 
cooperation would seem to require a continued effort particularly 
in the Objective 1 regions. Innovatory actions will, of course, 
remain an essential feature of Community initiatives. 
Factors to be taken into account in the next phase 
21. The experience of the implementation of Community initiatives in 
the period 1989-1993 has brought out some problems which reduced 
their efficiency. In particular, the Commission accepted in its 
proposals for Structural Funds financing after 1993 (COM(92)2000) 
and in its Mid-Term Review (C0M(92)84) that there had been too many 
separate Community initiatives in the 1989-93 period, bearing in 
mind the resources available, and that the result had been an 
unwelcome number of very small operational programmes. These 
involved a disproportionate administrative effort for the amount of 
action generated on the ground. The Commission is thus already 
committed to introducing a smaller number of initiatives than 
before. 
22. As indicated in the Introduction, a difficulty that arose for the 
Member States was that Community initiatives were launched after 
they had completed their own planning process. The subsequent 
addition of programmes under Community initiatives was seen by some 
Member States as distorting spending priorities. The Commission 
believes that the adjustment of priorities is legitimate and even 
necessary, especially where circumstances change or where a 
different emphasis is given to a particular priority at national 
and Community levels. It is nevertheless recognised that the 
coherence of the planning and programming process requires that the 
priorities for Community initiatives and the outline for the 
allocation of resources should be established in parallel with the 
./. 
- 10 -
CSF process. Hence the publication of this Green Paper and the 
timetable for concluding the consultations on it set out in the 
Introduct ion. 
23. The implementation on the ground of Community initiatives began in 
practice in the middle of the present programming period. This is 
in the first place because decisions of principle were taken later 
than those concerning CSFs and were then followed by further delays 
as programmes were prepared. 
This late start led to a restricted period for implementation 
limited to two to three years, which is evidently very challenging, 
particularly for innovative actions. There is, therefore, much to 
be gained from a launching of the majority of initiatives at the 
very beginning of the next programming period starting in 1994. 
24. The allocation of the Community initiative resources in 1990 meant 
that there was very little margin to react to problems which 
emerged at a later stage, namely the increasing competitive 
pressures on the Community's textile and clothing industry and the 
welcome but unexpected rundown in defence spending in the wake of 
events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. It was only 
possible to cover these problems in a limited way in 1993. This 
experience points to holding some resources for Community 
initiatives in reserve. 
25. The Community's capacity to bring to bear Structural Funds' 
assistance is limited by the rules governing geographical 
eligibility. Many of the areas most dependent on defence-related 
industry or military installations, for example, fall outside the 
regions eligible for assistance under Objectives 1, 2 and 5b. 
Under present rules, the ERDF actions exclude almost entirely 
expenditure outside eligible areas, while the ESF's actions outside 
the assisted regions are limited to those in support of young 
people entering the labour market and of the long-term unemployed 
or those threatened with long-term unemployment. These rules also 
made it difficult to provide for balanced cross-border cooperation 
programmes under INTERREG where some of the border areas concerned 
were eligible and other adjoining areas were not. 
While the principle of concentration has been reaffirmed at all 
levels, including by the European Council at Edinburgh, greater 
flexibility is warranted. This is why the Commission has proposed 
in its modified Fund regulations that in addition to what will be 
possible under Objectives 3 and 4, a limited amount of Community 
initiatives resources should be able to be spent outside eligible 
areas. 
./. 
- 11 -
III PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING FUTURE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 
Political context 
26. The conclusions of the European Council at Edinburgh include the 
following guidance for future policy on Community initiatives: 
"The allocation for Community initiatives should be between 5 and 
10% of total resources committed under the Structural Funds. They 
should mainly promote cross-border, transnational and inter­
regional cooperation and assistance for the outermost regions, in 
accordance with the principle of subsidiarity." 
The total resources of the Funds for 1994-99, as determined at 
Edinburgh, are 141 billion ECU (1992 prices) which would mean a 
Community initiatives envelope of between 7 and 14 billion ECU. 
Within the Funds' total, the Edinburgh European Council also 
identified an amount for the Objective 1 regions as a whole and, 
within that, an amount for the four beneficiaries of the Cohesion 
Fund. It also stipulated that commitments under Objectives 2, 3/4 
and 5b should broadly maintain their present proportions relative 
to each other. The implementation of future Community initiatives 
will need to take account of these financial parameters. 
27. As part of its proposals for amending the Structural Fund 
regulations, the Commission has now formally proposed that 10% of 
all Structural Fund resources be allocated to Community initiatives 
and confirmed its wish to introduce a limited geographical 
flexibility for these initiatives in the next phase. 
28. The European Parliament has also recently expressed its views on 
Community initiatives in its reaction to the Mid-Term Review. On 
the basis of the David report, the Parliament adopted a resolution 
on 22 January 1993^ in which it gave the following guidelines 
for the future: 
a link with the new problems which have resulted from 
international developments, especially in Central and Eastern 
Europe; 
priority for the development of human resources and for the 
fight against unemployment and social exclusion; 
recognition of the need to anticipate the process of 
industrial change and the evolution of production systems; 
solidarity towards islands and the ultra-peripheral regions; 
./. 
(1) OJ C 42 p. 211 of 15 January 1993. 
- 12 -
an effort to take into account environmental preoccupations, 
with a view to achieving sustainable economic development; 
extension of inter-regional cooperation. 
In its resolution number 11/93 of 10 March on the 1994 Preliminary 
Draft budget, the Parliament took the view that 10% of Fund 
resources for Community initiatives was an "absolute minimum". 
General principles 
29. Bearing in mind the rationale for Community initiatives set out in 
the introduction and in the light of experience up to now, the 
following general principles should influence the elaboration of 
Community initiatives: 
(a) it is clear that the guiding principles underlying Structural 
policies (concentration, programming, additionality and 
partnership) which were confirmed at the Edinburgh European 
Council, apply to Community initiatives; 
(b) Community initiatives should be coherent with other Community 
policies. Structural Fund support should help eligible 
regions take advantage of the Single Market; 
(c) to help ensure the greater coherence of the planning process, 
the broad priorities should be established and the Community 
initiatives required to meet these should be decided in 
principle, together with indicative financial allocations 
accounting for perhaps three quarters of the total resources 
available, before any of the CSFs are adopted; 
(d) the remaining amount should be kept in reserve for subsequent 
allocation to respond to unforeseen problems or to meet 
increased needs; 
(e) because of the limited resources, Community initiatives, like 
Structural Policies generally, should concentrate on a limited 
number of priorities. It is important to translate the 
priorities into a coherent framework whereby the limited 
number of themes correspond to overall Community priorities 
and to the Objectives of the Structural Funds. Activities 
should be identified as offering added value if conducted at 
the Community level, in accordance with the principle of 
subsidiar i ty; 
(f) where they correspond to the themes identified and in the 
interests of keeping the administrative burden to a minimum, 
some existing initiatives should be extended, although not in 
all cases for the full six year period; moreover, a simplified 
approach to the management of initiatives should be sought; 
./. 
- 13 
(g) initiatives launched by the Commission and the detailed 
guidelines governing their implementation should continue to 
be the subject of opinions of the relevant Advisory Committees 
of Representatives of the Member States; of the European 
Parliament; the Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions, but the procedures should be such as 
to allow rapid adoption and implementation; 
(h) where appropriate, an integrated approach involving the 
different Structural Funds should be pursued. Moreover, where 
Community initiatives share complementary aims, this should be 
reflected in a coherent approach; 
(i) transnational and inter-regional cooperation is a method of 
work which should be a feature of many of the initiatives in 
the next phase. 
./. 
- 14 
IV TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 
30. As noted above, many problems and priorities exist which could 
justify support from Community initiatives, but it is necessary to 
make choices and adopt a focussed approach. While not wishing to 
pre-empt the debate on the appropriate framework, the Commission 
wishes to initiate that debate by suggesting the following 
structure, which pulls together a number of identifiable 
priorities. The following themes could therefore provide a 
framework for the various initiatives: 
i. cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation and 
networks; 
i i. rural de ve i opmen t; 
i i i. outermost regions; 
iv. employment and the development of human resources; 
v. the management of industrial change. 
i• Cross-border, transnational and inter-regional coopérât ion and 
networks 
31. The continuation of the type of activities pursued under INTERREG 
is the subject of a broad consensus. For too long, many border 
areas within the Community have lived back to back with a low 
degree of economic and social integration. The first INTERREG 
initiative has helped develop joint approaches to development 
between border regions. This is now all the more important in the 
context of the completion of the Single Market and in advance of 
full Economic and Monetary Union. INTERREG will not by itself 
bring about complete integration. Differences in fiscal and legal 
systems and in social provisions will continue to influence 
relations between border regions. But INTERREG can bring the 
regions and their peoples closer together. The INTERREG initiative 
also ensures a high level of additionality of Community and 
national expenditure. 
32. The Commission takes the view, as far as cooperation on internal 
borders is concerned, that this is not served by a series of 
disjointed projects on either side of the border and that emphasis 
should continue to be given to measures which create and develop 
lasting frameworks for cooperative action in support of economic 
development. The participation of regional and local authorities 
and other local partners including those representing SMFs in 
devising and implementing such measures is clearly very important 
for their success. 
- 15 -
33. Under INTERREG, a wide range of investments could be covered, 
including infrastructure and other types of measures promoting 
cooperation. The Commission was particularly keen to promote the 
latter category. Cross-border infrastructure remains, however, a 
high priority. Transport infrastructures will be aided from the 
Cohesion Fund (for the four Member States concerned), by the 
specific budget line for transEuropean networks and from the EFTA 
Financial Mechanism, not to mention by the Structural Funds through 
the CSFs. They are also a priority for the European Investment 
Bank, following the decision taken in the context of the growth 
initiative at Edinburgh. There are however cross-border transport 
links, such as missing-links or bottlenecks, which are important 
for the development of the border regions concerned. These should 
be eligible for assistance from INTERREG. 
Similarly, telecommunications, telematics and energy 
infrastructures should in principle be eligible. Cross-border 
communications and cooperation are essential for the effective 
functioning of the internal market and the opening up to the rest 
of the Community of insular and isolated regions. 
Finally, there is the need for retraining assistance in cases where 
economic activities connected to the existence of a border are in a 
process of change, particularly the customs sector following 
completion of the Single Market. Under the first INTERREG 
initiative, a disappointing lack of priority was given to the 
problems of customs agents and agencies, despite the Commission's 
encouragement to the Member States to include such measures in 
their programmes. Given the continuing nature of these problems, 
it would be appropriate to support such actions. 
34. Assistance with investments in physical infrastructures may be 
hampered by the limits of eligibility, whether defined under the 
Funds' Objectives, or for the specific purpose of INTERREG, or by 
the Community's external frontier. The Community needs to retain 
the necessary flexibility, without the generalised extension of 
eligible areas and without distorting the fair overall allocation 
of resources, so that artificial constraints on financing are 
avoided. 
35. As to the definition of areas eligible for INTERREG internal border 
cooperation programmes, as already mentioned, the Commission 
considers that this should take in all border areas, regardless of 
whether the areas concerned (examined at the NUTS III level) are 
eligible under Objective 1, 2 or 5b. It has incorporated the 
necessary element of flexibility in its proposed changes to Article 
11 of the Funds' Coordination régulâtion^1) which is currently 
under discussion in the Parliament and the Council. 
./. 
(1) Regulation 4253/88 
- 16 -
36. It has been suggested that eligibility for INTERREG should also be 
extended to internal border areas separated by the sea. Up to now, 
this has only been granted in the case of cooperation between Kent 
and Nord-Pas de Calais and between Corsica and Sardinia. There are 
evident difficulties in making these exceptions the general rule. 
It would be hard to establish clear criteria to determine which 
cases should be included or excluded; and admitting too many such 
areas would inevitably result in a dilution of effort. The 
Commission would prefer to maintain the general rule that maritime 
borders do not qualify, while being prepared to examine specific 
cases, especially where this would be of benefit to Objective 1 
regions, to determine whether genuine cross-border cooperation 
possibiIi t ies ex ist. 
37. At the external borders, special problems arise where eligible 
areas are islands, which is particularly the case in the Aegean 
Sea. These areas should continue to be helped through INTERREG, 
with attention being given to the specific difficulties faced by 
the islands, which have been recognised by the Commission in its 
report of December 1992 on the Aegean islands^1). 
Also at the external borders, there are legal difficulties in 
spending Structural Funds outside the Community territory, even 
where direct economic advantage would arise for the adjoining 
Community region. Coordination between INTERREG and external 
financial instruments such as PHARE, where there is mutual interest 
in cross-border cooperation, would provide a solution to this 
constraint though it has been difficult to achieve this to date. 
The Parliament has earmarked 15 Million ECU of PHARE funds for such 
projects in 1993. It is hoped that some positive lessons may 
emerge from this. It seems clear, however, that without further 
improvements in the coordination of INTERREG and the external 
financial instrument such as PHARE, the effectiveness of cross-
border cooperation at the Community's external borders will be 
constrained. Where it takes place, cooperation on external borders 
should not, of course, be confined exclusively to infrastructure 
I inks. 
38. It has been suggested that the scope of INTERREG might be extended 
to more general inter-regional cooperation between areas which are 
not adjoining. Indeed, the Commission itself raised this question 
at the Conference it held on inter-regional cooperation in December 
1992; and the term "inter-regional cooperation" is explicitly 
mentioned in the Edinburgh conclusions. The Commission is strongly 
in favour of cooperation between regions which have common problems 
or common interests, or which see other reasons for sharing efforts 
and experience. It provides financial support for such cooperation 
in accordance with Article 10 of the ERDF Régulâtion^2). 
39. While the Commission is generally supportive of inter-regional 
cooperation between regional and local authorities, it remains to 
be entirely convinced that such cooperation should be a priority 
for INTERREG. Such cooperation rarely involves physical projects. 
It concerns principally the transfer of ideas and experience. The 
amounts of money required are not large compared to the co-
financing of physical investment projects. 
(1) C0M(92)569 final of 23 December 1992 
(2) Regulation 4254/88 
- 17 -
It is difficult to establish uniform criteria for the selection of 
cooperation networks and for allocating resources. Priority could 
be given to networking poorer regions with more prosperous ones 
within the Community and also to networking Community regions with 
those outside the Community, for example, by continued funding for 
the OUVERTURE and ECOS networks cooperating with regional and local 
counterparts in central and eastern Europe. 
In order to facilitate the full integration of businesses and in 
particular small and medium-sized enterprises into the Single 
Market, support could be given to stimulate cooperation between 
intermediary organisations representing SMEs of border regions, and 
also of poorer with more prosperous regions who wish to develop a 
strategy through transfer of know-how or networks such as European 
Economic Interest Groupings (EEIG), for example in the fields of 
marketing, production, sub-contracting, research and technology 
development and telecommunications. 
40. The existing initiative REGEN addresses another aspect of cross-
border cooperation by assisting the creation of energy links. 
These play an important role in developing the internal energy 
market and diversifying energy supply in Objective 1 regions. A 
continuation of the REGEN initiative would permit the completion 
of the projects already selected, from which it would be illogical 
to withdraw financing in mid-stream. As far as other energy 
projects are concerned, this would have to be considered in the 
light of what could also be done through the CSFs and transEuropean 
network resources. 
ii. Rural development 
41. A Community initiative specifically for rural development appears 
particularly necessary at this time. The implementation of the 
reform of the common agricultural policy, which was agreed in 1992 
but the application of which begins this year, and the continuing 
problems of the fragile rural areas of the Community, demand 
further intervention in this field. 
42. The institutional and other actors involved in rural development 
agree that rural society today is undergoing major changes and that 
new directions, new forms of rural development, new schemes 
bringing together the various partners concerned, need to be found. 
There is also agreement that these new directions are as yet ill-
defined and that Community-wide cooperation in this area would 
provide a strong incentive to developing such ideas and sharing 
experience throughout the Member States. 
The following topics seem to be of top priority: 
Zl.'IIH M;J ij;xb rA.v 0-4 & tuouoa 
- 18 -
Innovation in response to the problems of rural development, 
transnational cooperation projects based in the rural areas, 
giving practical content to their solidarity. 
sharing of projects, experience and know-how between all the 
relevant groups in the Community, In the context of a European 
network of rural development groups. 
43. The LEADER initiative has already started to show the way. However, 
it has become clear from experience so far that the measures 
supported under LEADER could be improved, and that many of them 
would gain from being managed in a decentralized way. This type of 
action should be directed at strengthening technical assistance at 
regional and local level, innovative investment and demonstration 
programmes open not only to local development organizations but 
also to other groupings within the rural environment, and finally 
rural transnational cooperation projects. 
44. LEADER has shown the great value of a European network of rural 
development groups, around which all the measures can be organized. 
The network already in place would benefit from being widened to 
all those involved in rural development: national government, 
regional and local authorities, local development groups, socio­
economic partners, etc. its principal remit would be the exchange 
of experience and know-how, especially that arising from investment 
projects being funded. Its current activities could be further 
enhanced, in particular, by setting up a European observatory for 
rural innovation. 
45. Most of the funding under this initiative would go to Objective 1 
regions and Objective 5(b) areas. However, a limited part of the 
funds available could be used outside these areas, on terms and 
conditions to be defined, in particular, the European network 
could support the sharing of experience and the transfer of know-
how on rural development throughout the Community, since the need 
for innovation is felt everywhere. 
46. Other aspects need to be discussed, in particular the methods of 
implementation (on the understanding that most operational and 
project selection decision* would be decentralized)» and the 
character!sties of local development group» whicn could be 
supported. 
.i.. outermost areia 
47. The European Council at Edinburgh and the European Parliament have 
already Identified the outermost regions as a priority for a future 
Community initiative. The Commission shares this view. Their 
remoteness, their small size and fragmented territory, as well as 
(in the case of the Caribbean islands) the relatively weak and 
insufficiently diversified state Of the economy of the surrounding 
- / -
19 -
region, warrants a particular effort of solidarity on the part of 
the Community. The Commission considers that the priority theme 
identified in the present REGIS programme, namely the search for 
products and services offering commercial opportunities which can 
remain viable in the medium-term, remains valid. It is vital not 
only to strengthen their indigenous economic base, but also to 
improve their communications with the European mainland, if their 
long term integration into the Single Market is to be successfully 
pursued. At the same time, every opportunity for economic 
cooperation with the surrounding regions, should be seized. The 
Community initiative, additional to the Community Support 
Framework, provides an opportunity to experiment with new 
approaches to self-help, designed to break away from the 
traditional patterns of dependence. 
iv. Employment and the development of human resources 
48. The maintenance and creation of jobs is amongst the greatest 
challenges facing the Community as it moves in an increasingly 
competitive international environment towards the 21st century. 
Human resources represent Europe's greatest asset in confronting 
this challenge, which takes two forms: on the one hand, there is 
an urgent need to develop and maintain the Community's competitive 
edge and at the same time to avoid exacerbation of the problem of 
unemployment by ensuring that the existing workforce is capable of 
adapting to the constantly evolving pattern of production through 
training and continuous re-ski I ling; on the other hand, there is 
the requirement to address the problem of unemployment by creating 
new job opportunities, in particular through carefully targeted 
training measures and employment aids. In this context special 
attention will need to be paid to encouraging the better 
integration of women into the workforce. A particular effort will 
also be required to help those who are exposed to exclusion from 
the labour market to obtain stable and secure employment. The 
promotion of the transfer of innovation and the development of 
applied research should also be encouraged. 
49. The employment challenge facing the Community must be addressed 
through a much wider range of measures. The primary responsibility 
rests with Member States themselves. The mainstream actions of 
the Social Fund have a vital role to play including through 
anticipative measures envisaged under Objective 4. 
50. Recently the Commission has launched a Community-wide framework 
for employment which starts from the principle that growth alone 
will not provide the jobs that are needed to reduce unemployment 
over the next decade. As the Community proceeds towards a 
systematic analysis of the underlying structural problems which 
cause Europe to generate fewer jobs per percentage point of growth 
than our main competitors, a Community initiative can play a vital 
role in underpinning the process of experimentation and innovation 
required to test the emerging policy priorities. 
./. 
- 20 -
51. The particular added value which a Community initiative can bring 
in this area is significant and widely accepted. This is clear 
from the progress made under the first set of Community initiatives 
with EUROFORM, NOW and HORIZON. The Community value-added would 
come in part from the transnational comparative element, combined 
with the explicit search for the underlying policy lessons to be 
drawn and the mechanisms needed to ensure not only their diffusion 
but also their mainstream application. As for the other 
initiatives, the added-value of the proposed initiative would also 
come from its scope for encouraging innovation, from its ability to 
ensure the involvement of people at local level and from the 
targeting as appropriate of particular groups. The experience 
gained under the existing human resource initiatives should now be 
built upon and taken further in a more integrated and policy-driven 
way with a view to ensuring that the innovative and transnational 
character of Community initiatives can be fully exploited. 
52. The creation of a single framework human resource initiative would 
make an essential contribution to confronting the challenges facing 
the Community. It would provide a Community-wide platform of 
support for innovation and the exploration of new solutions, given 
the diversity of practices in the Member States. The initiative 
would contain five distinct but clearly interactive strands: 
underpinning innovative approaches to increasing the 
employment-intensity of growth (including, for example, the 
development of actions to combat unemployment at local level 
and with particular reference to SMEs); 
facilitating the adaptation of the existing workforce to 
industrial and technological change with particular reference 
to the new Objective 4; 
promoting equal opportunities for men and women in respect of 
the labour market; 
assisting those who for one reason or another are exposed to 
exclusion from the labour market (reflecting the new priority 
specifically identified under the new Objective 3); and 
promoting the transfer of innovation and the development of 
applied research, in particular in Objective 1 regions, 
including through the development of new qualifications and 
sk iI Is. 
./. 
:- 21 -
53. The advantage of combining these five distinct strands in a single 
initiative would lie chiefly in ensuring that all the strands, 
which have much in common, would benefit from an active cross-
fertilisation of ideas and experience. Such an approach would also 
facilitate a streamlined administration in the human resource field 
at all levels including a more rational use of transEuropean 
networks. It would also ensure a better, shared use of common 
technical assistance facilities, reducing overall cost. Finally it 
would permit a coherent and coordinated approach to monitoring, 
evaluation and the dissemination of results. 
54. The main objective would be to encourage trans-European innovative 
actions across all the strands, building on the experience not only 
of the previous human resource initiatives but also on the 
Community's education and training programmes, the human resource 
aspects of the research and development framework programmes, the 
Community's social action programmes and the developing shared 
policy analysis emerging from the Community-wide framework for 
employment. 
55. A key feature would be the need to build bridges between the pilot 
actions which the initiative would finance and the mainstream of 
Member State and Community human resource policies. This is 
especially important in relation to the newly adopted Council 
recommendation on access to training in firms. The involvement of 
industry, local employment partnerships, unions, training providers 
and the many voluntary groups already active in the field will be 
crucial. It would be essential to build on the cooperation 
developed by the social partners through their joint opinions 
formulated in the framework of the social dialogue. The initiative 
would also serve as a good vehicle to develop a bottom-up approach 
and draw as appropriate on the experience, commitment and insight 
which exists at local and regional level. 
56. The approach would be horizontal and not geographically targeted, 
although it is clear given the financial parameters for Community 
initiatives that there will be a particular emphasis on the needs 
of the least prosperous regions. It is also clear that many of the 
pilot activities funded would in practice have a local or regional 
context and focus. 
57. As indicated earlier one of the priorities will be to promote 
better integration of women into the active workforce. The 
Commission does not, however, exclude the possibility of a 
separate and specific initiative to address this priority as at 
present but considers that the problems concerned can be addressed 
most effectively as a distinct strand within a coherent approach 
to human resources and the labour market rather than as an issue 
quite separate from employment policy as a whole. 
./. 
- 22 -
v. The management of industrial change 
58. The Community's industrial landscape continues to be characterised 
by a relatively strong presence of traditional sectors, partly 
restructured but still liable to shed large numbers of jobs in the 
process of further restructuring. These industries tend to be 
regionally concentrated. More modern sectors in which it is vital 
that the Community maintains its compet i t i vi ty and thus its share 
in world markets, are also facing the need to adapt in the face of 
competitive pressures in the increasingly globalised economy. 
Technological change, which affects their products, their processes 
and their organisation of work, is accelerating; and the need to 
respond to environmental concerns imposes additional demands. 
59. The Community's structural policies need to support the 
diversification of regions which are heavily dependent on sectors 
facing heavy job losses and to assist the process of industrial 
adaptation, especially adaptation of the workforce. These tasks 
are principally those of Objectives 2 and 4 of the Structural Funds 
and of actions corresponding to these Objectives in Objective 1 
regions. There is a role here for Community initiatives. Clearly 
a human resources initiative (see section iv. above) would make an 
important contribution. 
60. Community action to help with the economic and social consequences 
of sectoral crises in traditional industrial sectors (in the past 
steel, shipbuilding, coal, textiles) has formed part of an overall 
package of measures and policies in which the Community is involved 
due to its competences under the Treaties. In the coal and steel 
sectors, still governed by the ECSC Treaty, the Community's 
competences are even more far-reaching. The reference to 
"problems directly associated with the implementation of other 
Community policies and affecting the socio-economic situation of 
... regions" in Article 3.2 of the ERDF Regulation envisaged 
actions similar to RESIDER and RENAVAL which ante-dated the reform. 
In March this year, the need for a special effort in favour of 
regions affected by the crisis in the steel industry was raised in 
the Industry Council and the Commission has already indicated its 
willingness to propose a new RESIDER programme. 
61. Against this background, programmes in favour of regions dependent 
on and/or facing job losses in the coal, steel, textiles and 
defence sectors could be justified. At this stage, there is a 
justification for successor programmes to RECHAR and RESIDER though 
not necessarily lasting for the whole of the next financing period. 
RETEX is already planned to continue until 1997. In launching 
KONVER, the Parliament made clear that it intended this to become a 
multiannual Community initiative and this could initially cover the 
period up to the end of 1997. The focus on problems arising from 
crises in industr ial sectors should not necessarily be exclusive. 
In particular, restructuring of the troubled fisheries 
./. 
- 23 -
sector could also give rise to problems which might merit targeted 
regional conversion measures in addition to the assistance which 
will already be available through the CSFs. 
62. Events affecting the defence sector, which led to the KONVER 
initiative, illustrate the need for flexibility in the geographical 
scope of regional programmes responding to sectoral crises. These 
considerations were partly responsible for the Commission's 
proposal to amend Article 11 of the coordination régulâtion^1) in 
this sense. The desirability of limiting geographical flexibility 
and avoiding a wholesale widening of eligibility for CSF assistance 
is an added argument for retaining Community initiatives of this 
type. 
63. The previous few paragraphs deal with problems which have already 
arisen. It is preferable, where possible, to anticipate problems 
before they arise and to be able to take action to facilitate 
industrial change in a manner which limits as far as possible the 
regional and social impact and to grasp opportunities provided by 
the completion of the Single Market. Such an approach was foreseen 
in COM 2000 and should be a key element of this theme of managing 
industrial change. 
64. It is particularly important to accompany training and re-ski I ling 
actions linked to industrial change in modern, highly performing 
sectors. This could be done, for example, by setting up new 
arrangements to foster cooperation between large firms and their 
sub-contractors. It could also be done by means of a supplementary 
effort to accelerate the diversification of the local economy of 
areas shown to be at risk of significant job losses. Such 
assistance need not necessarily be confined to eligible areas, but 
use could be made of the limited geographical flexibility to assist 
this process in non-eligible areas. Again, the Commission would 
particularly welcome the views of the economic and social partners 
as to the type of actions it might be useful to support and the 
criteria by which the areas most in need of such additional support 
could be ident i fied. 
65. In Objective 1 regions, especially those in the four least 
prosperous Member States, it might be appropriate to supplement 
support given through the CSFs and human resource initiative by 
assistance from an initiative to help industry to face the 
challenges linked to the implementation of the Single Market. 
Firms in these regions often lack the capacity themselves to 
develop outlets and may not have available to them locally services 
of a quality comparable to those in more developed areas. The 
possibility of providing assistance, for example, to improve the 
quality and design of products, to facilitate the transfer of 
technology and to develop financial services should be considered. 
Many of the measures currently financed under STRIDE, PRISMA and 
TELEMATIQUE could be integrated within such an approach. A 
particular feature of such an action would be to help these regions 
draw on the experience of the more developed regions through 
./. 
(1) Regulation 4253/88 
- 24 -
cooperation networks. Particular attention would be paid to the 
problems of SMEs and organisations offering business services to 
them. 
Actions which can be transferred to Community Support Frameworks in the 
next period 
66. It will be noted that the above framework would not accommodate as 
such the renewal of Community initiatives in the fields currently 
covered by ENVIREG, STRIDE, PRISMA, TELEMATIQUE, though as noted 
above, a number of the measures presently covered by them could 
continue under the human resources or industrial change themes. 
67. So far as concerns ENVIREG, the Cohesion Fund will bring new (and 
much larger) resources to bear in the area of environmental 
protection and improvement. While only four Member States are 
eligible for Cohesion Fund assistance, those concerned have been 
the main recipients of ENVIREG financing. Objective 1, 2 and 5b 
areas not covered by the Cohesion Fund will be able to seek support 
for similar measures through their CSFs. It is therefore 
reasonable to assume that the bulk of the actions funded under 
ENVIREG, especially infrastructures, can now be financed under the 
CSFs or Cohesion Fund. Transnational networking and cooperation in 
the environmental field can be continued separately. 
68. PRISMA and TELEMATIQUE for their part have produced valuable new 
actions in their respective areas, but the programmes tended to be 
very small, especially by Objective 1 standards and now that these 
types of actions have been launched, it is reasonable to expect 
that at least part of these measures will be incorporated in the 
mainstream of the CSFs or assisted under the human resources or 
industrial change themes. The same is probably true of many of the 
actions pursued under STRIDE. However, the Commission does attach 
particular importance to increased attention being paid to research 
and technology development in its structural actions in Objective 1 
regions and would not definitively rule out at this stage an 
extension of STRIDE as a separate initiative for at least part of 
the new planning period. 
Financial and management questions 
69. The Commission considers it premature to give indications about the 
allocation of resources to different themes and initiatives before 
the total funding has been settled. Assuming a total envelope of 
14 billion ECU, however, 10.5 billion ECU (up to 75%) could be 
allocated to the initiatives outlined in the above framework and 
the remaining 3.5 - 4 billion ECU kept in reserve for later 
allocat ion. 
./. 
25 -
70. Resources to be allocated to extended or renewed initiatives under 
all themes would need to take account, where appropriate, of the 
needs of the new German Lander, which have not been up to now 
recipients of assistance under Community initiatives (except KONVER 
in 1993). Funding for all initiatives should reflect the overall 
increase in Fund resources and the reduction in the number of 
initiatives should result in generally larger initiatives and fewer 
small programmes at the operational level. 
71. Discussions on simplifying the programming process are at present 
going on in the context of the examination of the Fund regulations. 
The Commission is committed to further measures of simplification 
and decentralisation, but also to the improvement of evaluation, 
monitoring and financial control. On the question of financial 
control, it has to be borne in mind that the Budget Authority has 
created separate lines for Community initiatives, which makes a 
continued separate programming of these funds necessary. At the 
management level, more programmes than at present under Community 
initiatives can be handled in the same Committee structures as for 
programmes under the CSFs. 
V CONCLUSION 
72. The present Green Paper is put forward for consultation, not as a 
set of formal proposals. The Commission has set out its views in 
line with the positions it has taken previously, in particular in 
COM 2000 and its proposed modifications to the Fund regulations; 
but it has reached no final decisions and would welcome 
contributions from a wide range of interested parties to its 
reflections about the priorities for and content of future 
Community initiatives. The select ion ..j*f ini t i at i ves must reflect a 
broad consensus about priorit ies,^ especial ly given the need for 
Member States and regions to provide matching funding. 
- 26 -
ANNEX 
EXISTING COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 
Existing initiatives may be grouped under seven headings: 
i. The integration of 
internal market the lesst developed regions into the 
This group of initiatives was focused exclusively or mainly on 
Objective 1 regions and sought to bring extra resources to 
bear to overcome the shortfall in know-how in specific areas 
which created obstacles to development. The measures 
supported had in many cases been the subject of only limited 
support under the CSFs. 
STRIDE*1) 460 million Ecu from ERDF and ESF (1990-93)(2) 
The aim of STRIDE is to strengthen the capacity for innovation 
and technological development in Objective 1 regions, where a 
serious lack of facilities and investment has been identified 
compared with Community averages; and to improve participation 
by research centres and institutes and firms in those regions 
in Community and international research programmes and 
networks. It also helps to develop links between research and 
industry, both in Objective 1 regions and in Objective 2 
areas. 80% of STRIDE'S resources are allocated to Objective 1 
regions. 
TELEMATIQUE*3^ 233 million Ecu from ERDF (1991-93) 
TELEMATIQUE promotes the use of advanced telecommunications 
services in Objective 1 regions, particularly through better 
access to advanced services available elsewhere in the 
Community. It reinforces the process begun under the STAR 
programme to encourage the use of advanced telecommunications 
services by small and medium-sized firms and helps them to 
create or develop such services themselves. 
/. 
(1) Official Journal C196 of 4 August 1990 p.18 
(2) The amount given in each case is the contribution from the 
Structural Funds or, where appropriate, other Community grant 
instruments, which are subject to the intervention ceilings laid 
down. EIB and in some cases ECSC loans may be combined with 
grants, where physical investments are concerned. 
(3) Official Journal C33 of 8 February 1991 p.7 
- 27 
PRISMA*1) 114 million Ecu from ERDF (1991-93) 
PRISMA helps to improve infrastructure and business services 
in Objective 1 regions so that firms in these regions can 
participate in and benefit from the completion of the single 
market. 
The measures supported are: 
- creation and upgrading of calibration and metrology 
facilities and services for businesses in support of 
qua Iity policy in fi rms, 
- technical assistance for SMEs both with regard to public 
contracts and to help them prepare for the discontinuation 
of measures under Article 115 of the EEC Treaty. 
ii. Protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable 
development 
ENVIREG*2^ 580 million Ecu from all three Structural Funds 
(1990-93) 
The aim of ENVIREG is to improve and protect the environment 
and to foster economic development, principally in Objective 1 
regions. The focus is on coastal areas and in particular on 
environmental problems which affect tourism, with an emphasis 
on measures to provide and improve know-how. 
The measures eligible for co-financing are: 
a. reduction of pollution in coastal areas and in particular: 
- treatment and recycling of waste water and solid waste, 
- agricultural use of compost and sludge from urban 
sewage, 
treatment of ballast, washing and bilge water containing 
oily and other residues; 
b. planning of land use in coastal areas (protection of 
natural beauty and biotopes); 
c. better management of toxic and hazardous industrial waste 
(infrastructures and studies); 
d. strengthening of know-how and training relating to these 
measures. 
Mediterranean coastal areas eligible under other Objectives 
can also benefit from measures (a), (b) and (d). 
./. 
(1) Offical Journal C33 of 8 February 1991, p.9 
(2) Official Journal C115 of 9 May 1990, p.3 
- 28 
iii. Assistance to outermost regions 
REGIS*1) 234 million from alt three Structural Funds 
(1990-93) 
The aim of this initiative is to improve the socio-economic 
integration of the most remote regions of the Community: 
Guadeloupe, French Guyana, Martinique, Réunion, Canary 
Islands, Azores and Madeira. 
It helps them to diversify their activities by developing 
products and services for the local market, the markets of 
neighbouring countries and the Community market. Emphasis is 
given to forms of tourism which do not endanger the 
environment. Training measures are included, particularly 
with an eye to new economic opportunities based on the 
potential of each region and offering prospects of medium-term 
viability. It also helps them improve transport links 
especially with the Community. 
iv Cross-border cooperation and networks 
INTERREG is the largest of existing initiatives in terms of 
resources and also benefits from a supplementary envelope 
drawn from funds available under Article 10 of the ERDF 
Regulation, to provide limited support for measures in areas 
not eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5b, but adjoining such 
areas across a border. REGEN has a very specific focus -
energy infrastructure links - and comprises only a limited 
number of major projects designed to complete the 
transEuropean network in this sector. 
INTERREG*2^ 914 million Ecu from all three Structural Funds 
(1990-93) plus 100 million from Article 10 ERDF 
This initiative was devised to help border regions to prepare 
for the large single market, principally through greater 
cooperation between regions straddling national borders, but 
also through assistance to revitalise the economies of areas 
on the Community's external borders. 
./. 
(1) Official Journal C196 of 4 August 1990 p.15 
(2) Official Journal C215 of 30 August 1990 
- 29 -
The range of measures that may be supported under INTERREG is 
very wide. What distinguishes them is the contribution they 
make to establishing lasting cooperative frameworks for action 
in areas where efforts were previously fragmented by the 
existence of a national border. The active participation of 
regional and local authorities is a necessary condition for 
the success of INTERREG. The Commission encourages the joint 
presentation and implementation of programmes. 
REGEN*1) 347 million Ecu from ERDF (1990-93) 
REGEN assists the development of networks to carry natural gas 
and electricity to Objective 1 regions and thus helps to 
extend the internal market in energy, as well as diversifying 
the sources of energy supply for the regions concerned and 
thus reducing their dependence on oil. 
Eligible projects: 
a. building natural gas networks in Portugal and Greece, 
b. linking up the natural gas networks of Ireland and the 
Uni ted Kingdom, 
c. building a natural gas network to cover Corsica and 
Sardinia, 
d. linking up the natural gas networks of Spain and Portugal, 
e. linking up the electricity networks of Italy and Greece. 
v. Diversification of activity in industrial areas heavily 
dependent on sectors in crisis 
The RESIDER and RENAVAL programmes were already in place under 
the pre-reform regulations, contributing about 565 million Ecu 
to steel and shipbuilding areas. The Commission added to 
these the RECHAR and RETEX initiatives, the latter receiving 
funding only in 1993 and therefore already intended in 
principle to continue into the next planning period (1994-97). 
KONVER which is designed to help areas hit by the defence 
rundown, may also be considered under this category. 
./. 
(1) Official Journal C326 of 28 December 1990 p.7 
- 30 -
RECHAR*1) - 369 million Ecu from the ERDF and the ESF 
(1989-93) 
- up to 120 million Ecu in interest subsidies from 
the ECSC 
- 40 million Ecu in supplementary aid for 
readaptation in 1990 under Article 56 of the ECSC 
Treaty. 
RECHAR provides additional Community support for the economic 
and social conversion of 28 designated coal-mining areas, 
mainly through efforts to create new economic activities, to 
develop existing ones, to restore the environment, to promote 
tourism and support vocational training. 
Supplementary social measures are also available under ECSC 
which extent support to programmes to help the least-qualified 
to find new jobs, transitional aid for those starting new jobs 
and early retirement. 
RETEX*2> t00 million Ecu from ERDF and ESF (1993) 
(400 million Ecu anticipated for 1994-97) 
Retex aims to accelerate the diversification of economic 
activities in areas heavily dependent on the textiles and 
clothing sector and to encourage the adjustment of 
commercially viable businesses in all industrial sectors. 
The co-financed measures include improving know-how and 
encouraging innovation through advisory services, specialised 
technicai input and cooperation schemes; vocational training; 
rehabilitation of land and buildings; and improving access to 
venture capital and loans. 
KONVER 130 million Ecu from ERDF and ESF (1993) 
(1993 Budget commentary foresees its continuation in 
1994 and beyond) 
This initiative is designed to help areas affected by the 
rundown of defence-related industries and military 
installations. To ensure commitment of the 1993 budget 
allocations, it is being run on an ad hoc basis this year and 
Member States have been invited to submit their proposed 
programmes. The new German Lander are eligible, which is not 
the case for other existing initiatives. The range of 
measures covered reflects the classic mix of training, 
innovation and environmental rehabilitation measures typically 
used in reconversion programmes. 
./. 
(1) Official Journal C20 of 27 January 1990 and C185 of 26 July 1990 
(2) Official Journal C142 of 4 June 1992 p.5 
- 31 -
vi. Links between schemes to develop the rural economy 
LEADER ' ECU 450 million from all three Structural Funds 
(1991-93) 
The purpose of LEADER is to encourage an approach to rural 
development based on programmes supported by local development 
structures in Objective 1 regions and Objective 5(b) areas. 
Community part-financing takes the form of global grants. 
In this context, LEADER supports integrated programmes 
covering a broad range of eligible measures: promotion of 
rural development, vocational training and employment aid, 
rural tourism, small and medium-sized business sector, craft 
industries and services, improving the value-added of local 
agricultural and forest products, facilities for local 
development groups including telecommunications. 
An essential aspect of LEADER is the establishment of a 
Community network uniting all the local development groups 
involved in the initiative, the role of which is the sharing 
of experience and the transfer of know-how. 
vii. Promotion of a Community dimension to vocational training and 
professional integration 
The principal purpose of the Community initiatives in the 
field of human resources, EUROFORM, NOW and HORIZON, is to add 
a Community dimension to vocational training and employment 
promotion. In so doing, the initiatives aim to strengthen 
economic and social cohesion in the Community, reinforce 
actions already undertaken in the framework of other Community 
programmes in the field of training and socio-vocational 
rehabilitation and to complement employment promotion measures 
financed by the Structural Funds, in particular by the 
European Social Fund. The initiatives promote the development 
of common concepts and practices among institutions and 
professionals in the field of vocational training and 
employment promotion. By facilitating the exchange of 
innovative experience, the initiatives promote the transfer of 
know-how to the less developed regions of the Community. 
EUROFORM2 302 million Ecu from ESF and ERDF (1990-93) 
The main objective of EUROFORM is to establish transnational 
partnerships in the fields of vocational training and 
employment creation. It is concerned with new training 
qualifications, new skills and the job opportunities generated 
by technological change and the completion of the Single 
Market. 
./. 
1 OJ No C 73, 19.3.1991, p.33. 
2 OJ No C 327, 29.12.1990, p.3 
32 
The initiative is designed to reinforce related Community 
programmes which deal with transnational cooperation in 
training and employment, namely FORCE, EUROTECNET, LEDA and 
ERGO. 
NOW*1) 153 million from ESF and ERDF (1990-93) 
The NOW initiative aims to promote equality of opportunity for 
women in respect of employment and vocational training. It 
aims to boost the job prospects of women inter alia by 
concentrating on sectors of potential job growth, by promoting 
appropriate training and guidance for women who set up their 
own firms and also through the provision of childcare 
faciIi t ies. 
NOW is an integral part of the Third Medium Term Action 
Programme on Equal Opportunities and aims to reinforce related 
Community programmes and networks, namely IRIS, LEI and 
CHILDCARE. 
HORIZON*2) 305 million Ecu from ESF and ERDF (1990-93) 
The HORIZON initiative is targeted at disabled and 
disadvantaged people and aims to facilitate their social and 
economic integration. 
Trhough vocational training in new technologies and the 
adaption of infrastructure, HORIZON aims to improve the 
conditions of access of handicapped people to the labour 
market. Through the promotion of transnational pilot 
projects, HORIZON aims to improve knowledge of the problems of 
long-term unemployment and the deterioration of the socio­
economic situation of certain disadvantaged groups. In 
addition, the initiative aims to promote the socio-economic 
integration of people abruptly confronted by a new socio­
economic situation. 
HORIZON aims to reinforce HELIOS, HANDYNET and POVERTY III. 
(1) Official Journal C372 of 29 December 1990, p.5 
(2) Official Journal C327 of 29 December 1990 p.7 
. ,, - Fiï 1* 2 29î»321 CEECANT5I10.191K.-31 
!j.a« 9J 14 if. FAX 3- - «•»> 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 282 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN oi 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-325-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-57004-0 
Office for Official Publications of the European Coimnrmftfes 
L-2985 Duccmbonrg