NoC161/46 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 14.6.93
OpinionontheThirdAnnualReportontheReformoftheStructuralFunds—1991
(93/C161/12
On18November1992theCommission decidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCom­
mittee,underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity ,on
theThirdAnnualReportontheReformoftheStructuralFunds—1991
TheSectionforRegionalDevelopmentandTownandCountryPlanning,whichwasrespon­
sibleforpreparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon20April
1993.TheRapporteurwasMrQuevedoRojo.
Atits305thPlenarySession(meetingof29April1993),theEconomicandSocialCommittee
unanimouslyadoptedthefollowingOpinion.
1.Introduction 2.1.Financialimplementation
1.1.ThereportisissuedinfulfilmentoftheCom­
mission'sobligation,underArticle16ofRegulation
(EEC)No2052/88,tosubmitanannualreporttothe
EuropeanParliamentandEconomicandSocialCom­
mitteeontheimplementation ofthereformwhich
beganin1989.2.1.1.ThefinancialsideofthereformoftheStruc­
turalFundsisproceedingasplanned.Attheendof
1991thelevelofcommitments wasasscheduledinthe
financingplansfortheCSFsforObjectives1,2,3and
4,and88%forObjective5b,whichisbehindschedule
becauseofthedelayinapprovingthecorresponding
CSFs.Onaverage,paymentappropriations represent
70%ofcommitments .
1.2.ThereporttiesincloselywiththeCommission
Communication totheCouncilonCommunityStruc­
turalPolicies—AssessmentandOutlook [Doc.
COM(92)84finalof18March1992],onwhichthe
CommitteehasalreadyissuedanOpinion. 2.2.Objective2
1.3.TheCommunication providedageneraloverv­
iew.Thepresentreport—thecontentofwhichis
outstanding—focuseson1991,analyzingmeasures
fromtheviewpointofprogressinimplementingthe
CommunitySupportFrameworks (CSF)andrelated
financialresources .2.2.1.1991wasscheduledtobethelastyearof
thefirstimplementing stageofObjective2.Financial
implementation wasmostsatisfactory (96%ofcommit­
ments),redressingtheinitialdelays.Insomecasesthis
wasachievedbyextendingimplementation forseveral
months.
2.2.2.Inordertoensureadegreeofcontinuitywith
thefirststage,theCommissiondecidedtomaintainthe
listofeligibleareasunderObjective2untiltheendof
1993.NewCSFswereadoptedforthecorresponding
regionsfor1992/1993;theassistanceprioritiesarelarge­
lythesameasthoseusedinthefirststage(1989-1991).1.4.Asthereformwasslowtogetunderway,its
financialeffectswerenotfeltinthebeneficiaryMember
Statesin1989,whilein1990theemphasiswason
drawingupthedifferenttypesofassistance.Hence1991
sawthefirstrealmobilizationofCommunityfunds,
withthegrantingofCommissionapprovaland
implementation ofthemeasuresintheMemberStates.
,..,.r.e2.3.Objective5b2.Mainaspectsoftheimplementation orthererorm
in1991
2.3.1.ThemajorityofObjective5bprogramming ,
whichlaggedbehindthatoftheotherobjectives,got
underwayin1991withtheapprovalofafurtherThemainaspects,asreflectedintheCommission
report,areasfollows:

14.6.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC161/47
61operationalprogrammestoaddtothefiveapproved
in1990.
2.4.Communityinitiatives
2.4.1.Bytheendof1991theCommissionhad
decidedonassistancecoveringalmostalloftheappro­
priationsallocatedforCommunityinitiatives (ECU
3800million).Atotalof123formsofassistanceinthis
categorywereapprovedin1991.Althoughthistypeofintegratedapproachisintheory
aninterestingwayofensuringthatmeasuresarecoordi­
natedoverawidearea,inpracticemanagementofthe
measureshasprovedcomplicated .Thisisbecausethe
managerialbodies—atbothECandnationallevel—
donotyethavecommonoperatingandadministrative
arrangements ,whichmakespropercoordinationdiffi­
cult.Operationalprogrammesincorporating measures
fromdifferentfundswillnotbetrulycomplementary
ifadministration andfollow-uptothemeasuresare
fragmented .TheCommitteeurgestheCommissionand
MemberStatestoaddressthisproblemandtodevisea
systemwhichensuresthatmultifundmeasurescovering
thesameprogrammeproducerealsynergy,eliminating
theadverseeffectsthatoccurwhenfundsareadminis­
teredseparately.Whatisneededisbettercoordination
bothatCommunitylevelandbetweentheadministrat­
iveservicesoftheMemberStates.3.Generalcomments
3.1.Generalassessment
3.4.Simplification3.1.1.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheobjectives
laiddowninthe1988reformremainvalid.Giventhe
successofthestructuralpolicies,thefundsshouldbe
increasedincomingyears.Withoutsuchanincrease,
therewouldbeariskthatsomeofthebenefitsachieved
hithertowouldbelost,andthatthetentativeprogress
madetowardseconomicandsocialcohesionwouldbe
overturned .3.4.1.WhiletheCommitteeappreciatestheCom­
mission'seffortstoreducedelaysinitsinternalpro­
cedures,theseproceduresremaintooslowandthereis
toomuchredtape.TheCommitteeurgestheCom­
missiontostepupitssimplification drive;moreatten­
tionshouldbepaidtomonitoringtheimplementation
andfollow-upofmeasures,atthesametimereducing
thetimetakentoapprovethem.
3.4.2.Thissimplification shouldbenefitallobjec­
tivesequally,regardlessoftherespectivesumsallocated
tothem.3.2.Involvementoftheeconomicandsocialpartners
3.2.1.TheCommissionreportmakesnoconcrete
referencetotheinvolvementoftheeconomicandsocial
partnersintheimplementation ofthefundreforms.
Suchreferencesasthereareareextremelyvague,even
thoughtheCommission hasonseveraloccasions
acknowledged theimportanceofthisaspect.TheCom­
mitteeaskstheCommissiontoincludeinits1992report
anassessmentoftheresultsofthisinvolvement since
1989inthevariousMemberStates.Theassessment
shouldcoverthethreebasicaspects(programming ,
monitoringandevaluation )andallthedifferentlevels
(regional,national,EC).3.5.Additionality
3.2.2.TheCommitteealsoaskstheCommissionto
informitofalloperationsundertakentoencourage
theinvolvementofthesocialpartners,andofany
difficultiesithasencountered inthisarea.
3.2.3.TheCommitteewouldliketheCommission
toprovidedetailedinformationinfuturereportsasto
whetherglobalgrantshaveprovedtobeaparticularly
effectivewayofimplementingthepartnershipprinciple.3.5.1.TheprinciplethatCommunityassistance
shouldbeadditionaltonationalandregionalexpendi­
tureineachMemberStateiscentraltotheoperation
oftheStructuralFunds.TheCommission'seffortsto
acquiretheinformation necessarytoverify
additionalityarecommended .However,asthereport
makesclear,someMemberStatesremainreluctantor
simplyunwillingtofurnishtheCommissionwiththe
requisiteinformation .
3.3.Multifundapproach
3.3.1.TheCommissionhasbeenencouragingthe
MemberStatestopresentmultifundmeasures.3.5.2.Verificationofadditionalityhasprovedtobe
acomplexandlaborioustask,bothfortheCommission
andfortheMemberStateswhichhavetocompileand
submitthedata.

NoC161/48 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 14.6.93
c)thefactthatinnocircumstances shouldtheCom­
missionassumethatdelaysinthearrivalofEC
fundingcanbealleviatedbypriornationalfunding;
thisentailsaheavyfinancialandopportunitycost
foralltheMemberStates.3.5.3.Inthecontextofcooperation ,andconsidering
theimportantrolewhichadditionalityhasplayed—
andmustcontinuetoplay—inimplementing the
StructuralFunds,theCommitteeurgestheCommission
totakegreateraccountofadministrative andbudgetary
differencesintheMemberStatestowhichtheprinciple
isapplied,andofthefeasibilityofcompilingthenecess­
arystatisticalinformationbrokendowninthedetail
demandedbytheCommission .Amoreprecisedefi­
nitionoftheadditionalityprincipleisneeded,specifying
thelevelsatwhichitmustapplyandthearrangements
forverifyingit.3.8.Assessment
3.6.Monitoring3.8.1.Assessment ofstructuralpolicies
3.8.1.1.TheCommitteeurgestheCommissionto
pressaheadwiththeassessmentsalreadyunderway,
andtostepuptheexchangeofinformationandestab­
lishmentofcommonmethodologies ;itwouldlikethe
socialpartnerstobeinvolvedinthis.Italsoconsiders
thatthereportglossesoverthisaspect:thereferencesto
itareonlygeneric,anddonotspecifywhatassessment
studieshaveactuallybeenundertakenandwhatresults
theyarehavingontheeffectivenessofStructuralFund
implementation .
3.8.2.TheCommitteeaskstheCommissiontopro­
videmuchmoredetailedinformationonthisinits1992
report,soastofleshoutthefinancialpicturewithmore
qualitativeaspects.Thesewouldincludethesocialand
economicimpactoftheStructuralFunds,togetherwith
detailsofstepstakenbytheMemberStatesregarding
assessmentatnationallevel.3.6.1.Theexperiencegainedinthemonitoringcom­
mitteesin1991ledtheCommissiontosimplifythe
mechanismsandproceduresforimplementingstructur­
alassistance (Commissiondecisionof29May1991).
Thecommittees'powerswereextendedtocover
approvalofprogramming alterations,thusmaking
implementation moreflexible.
3.6.2.TheCommitteeconsidersthatCommission
decisionsmustcontinuetobeguidedbythisconcern
tomakeadministrative proceduresmoreflexible,as
occurredinthiscase,theaimbeingtomanageCom­
munityfundsmoreeffectively.
3.7.Financialcontrol3.8.3.Assessment ofotherCommunity
policies
3.8.3.1.TheCommitteewouldreiterateitsrequest
totheCommission tomakeanassessmentofallEC
policies,analyzingtheirimpactoncohesionwithin
theCommunity .Theassessmentshouldconsiderthe
implicationsofchangesinotherECpoliciesforthe
regionsassistedbytheStructuralFunds.3.7.1.ChecksonMemberStatesarevitaltoensure
thatECfundsareusedproperly.Withoutoverlooking
theneedtomaintainandevenstepupthesechecks,the
CommitteewoulddrawtheCommission'sattentionto:
3.9.IthasbeenobservedthatStructuralFundassist­
anceinsomeMemberStateshastaximplicationsfor
companieswhichareend-beneficiaries .Asthisisan
importantmatter,theCommitteeaskstheCommission
tosetupaStudyGrouptoassessthepositioninthe
variousMemberStates.a)theneedforpropercoordinationofthechecks
carriedoutbythevariousECauthorities—more
particularlybetweenCommissiondepartments
(DGsXXandXVI,VandVI,UnitonCoordination
ofFraudPrevention),butalsowithotherECbodies
suchastheCourtofAuditors,topreventaplethora
ofcontrolsonasingleprogrammeorregionwhen
othersarenotbeingcheckedatall;
4.Specificcomments
4.1.Objective2b)theneedtospeeduptheECsectionofthefinancing
chain(Commission-national bodyreceivingfunds)
byeliminatingalltheinternalorexternalstages
whicharenotstrictlynecessary.Insomecases,
MemberStateshavecomplainedabouttheinvolve­
mentoffinancingbodieswhichmerelyextendthe
timetakenforfundstoreachthebeneficiaries .At
allevents,thetransmissionchainshouldbeasshort
aspossible;4.1.1.TheCommitteenotesthattheabidingconcern
ofECstructuralpolicymustremainconcentrationof

14.6.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC161/49
resourcesandcontinuityofimplementation intermsof
beneficiaryregions.ItthereforewelcomestheCom­
mission'sdecisiontomaintainthelistofeligibleareas
underObjective2forafurthertwoyears,untiltheend
of1993,thusensuringadegreeofcontinuitywiththe
firststage.negotiatingandproceduralstages,andtheCommittee
feelsthatgreatertransparencywouldhelprectifythis.
4.3.2.TheCommitteeconsidersthatthegeographi­
calflexibilitywhichhasmadeitpossibletocarryout
initiativesincertainregionsnotcoveredbyObjectives
1,2or5bshouldbeappliedwithcaution,toensure
respectoftheprinciplethatuseofthestructuralfunds
shouldbeconcentrated ,andneverforgettingthatthey
mustonlybeusedinsideECterritory.4.1.2.TheCommitteefeelsthattheCommission
shouldexercisemoreopennesswhendistributingfinan­
cialappropriations ,particularlyforthenextstageof
ECstructuralpolicyspanning1994-1999.
4.3.3.TheCommitteerecommends thatbothfor
Communityinitiativesandforotherassistancein
Objective1,2and5bregions(especiallyObjective1),
theCommissionshould,asageneralrule,accordthe
maximumpercentagesofassistancelaiddowninthe
Regulations .4.1.3.Inconsideringtheprioritiesforassistance
underObjective2,andbearinginmindtheemphasis
onanintegratedapproach,itmustberememberedthat
theinitialsituationsofObjective2regionsdifferfrom
oneMemberStatetoanother.Someoftheseregions
sufferfrominadequateinfrastructure ,andneedaidfor
transportinfrastructure ,forexample,beforetheycan
achievesatisfactoryeconomicdevelopment .4.4.Innovativemeasures
4.2.Objectives3and44.4.1.TheCommitteeconsidersthatintheinterests
oftheopennesswhichshouldbeafeatureofallthe
Commission'saction,theCommissionshouldgive
MemberStatesmoreinformationaboutthefinancing
possibilitiesofsuchinstrumentsasArticle10ofthe
EuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFund(ERDF)Regu­
lation,Article1oftheESFRegulation,andArticle8
oftheEuropeanAgriculturalGuidanceandGuarantee
Fund(EAGGF)-Guidance Regulation (4256/88).It
shouldprovidedetailsoftheannualappropriations ,
theirdistributionamongMemberStates—ifapplicable
—andthecriteriaitusesforacceptingorturningdown
applications .4.2.1.Aidfortrainingmeasuresismuchcommoner
thanrecruitmentaid(whichaccountsforonly7%of
fundinginObjective3and4CSFs).Inthelightofthis,
andofthepresenteconomicclimatemarkedbysluggish
growthandthusfewernewjobs(andinsomecases,
joblosses),theCommitteefeelsthatitmightbewise
torethinktheaccessconditionsforEuropeanSocial
Fund(ESF)aid,soastoencouragefirmstorecruitfrom
amongthelong-termunemployed .4.5.Otherfinancialinstruments
4.5.1.EIBLoans
4.3.Communityinitiatives4.5.1.1.Asresultshithertohavebeendisappointing ,
theCommitteeconsidersthattheCommission ,with
theEuropeanInvestmentBank(EIB),shouldreview
EECregulationsand/ortheEIBstatutestoinclude
provisionforpropercoordinationbetweenthetwo
fundinginstruments .TheCommitteeitselfisdueto
undertakeworkinthisareashortly.
4.5.2.ECSCLoans4.3.1.TheCommitteeurgestheCommissionto
bringmoreopennesstoitsdecisionsonallocating
appropriations foreachCommunityinitiative,given
thattheallocationoffundsbetweencountriesshould
alwaysbebasedonobjectivecriteria.Hitherto,Member
StateshavenotknowntheCommission'sdistribution
criteriaorthesumssetasideuntilthelastmoment.
Thishadledthemtosupposethatbyapplyingfora
largersumtheywillreceivealargerappropriation ,and
theyhavethereforesubmittedapplicationsthatexceed
theappropriations available.Allthishasprolongedthe4.5.2.1.Thereporthighlightsthecontinuingimport­
anceofECSCloans,especiallyinObjective2regions.
However,theCommitteeconsidersthatthemechan­
ismsforcoordinatingECSCandStructuralFundpro­
ceduresneedtobeimproved.

NoC161/50 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 14.6.93
4.6.BreakdownofthefundsbyObjective
4.6.1.In1991,75.2%ofERDFaidwenttoObjective
1.Thisisbelowthe80%laiddownintheRegulation .
IntheCommittee'sview,caremustbetakentoensurethatinthelasttwoyearsofimplementingthereform
—1992and1993—thisdiscrepancydoesnotincrease,
andthatthegoalofconcentratingfundsonObjective
1regions,aslaiddownintheguidelinesforthe1989
reform,isrespected.
DoneatBrussels,29April1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN