Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Commission communication entitled "The new regional programmes under Objectives 1 and 2 of Community structural policies"`

(96/C 182/02)

At its 12th Plenary Session on 20 and 21 March 1996 (meeting of 21 March), the Committee of the Regions adopted an Opinion concerning the above-mentioned communication.

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

- Having regard to the decision of 19 April 1995 of the Committee of the Regions to refer the preparation of this Opinion to Commission 1 (Regional Development, Economic Development and Local and Regional Finances);

- Having regard to the Opinion adopted by its Commission 1 on 26 January 1996 for which the Rapporteurs were Mr Acito and Mr Behrendt;

- Having regard to Article 130a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which stipulates that the Community is to develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion and is to aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions, including rural areas;

- Having regard to the Committee of the Regions' right, under Articles 130c, 130d and 130e, to participate in defining the tasks, priority objectives, organization, general rules and implementing provisions and report on progress made towards achieving economic and social cohesion,

adopted the following Opinion.

General comments

1. The communication summarizes the programmes adopted by the Commission during 1994 for lagging regions (Objective 1) and declining industrial regions (Objectives 2). The fact that these programmes account for more than three-quarters of the Structural Funds' total resources and lay down the overall framework for Structural Fund assistance in the Community's most problem-ridden areas up to the year 1999 in the case of Objective 1 and 1996 in the case of Objective 2, shows how important the Commission's decisions were. The measures affect 150 million of the Union's citizens, i.e. more than 40 % of its population.

The Commission communication does not do full justice to the extraordinary implications of these decisions. The Committee considers it extremely important to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the programmes adopted in 1994. These programmes are of fundamental importance for Community structural policy up to the year 1999 and for the framing of initial conclusions in readiness for the debate now being launched on the shaping of structural policy after 1999. To this extent the Committee agrees with the European Parliament's criticism that basically no systematic analysis of the results of the 1988 Structural Fund reform has been carried out so far.

2. In particular, the Committee notes the failure to incorporate the results of the ex post evaluations of the 1988-1993 Structural Fund assistance and the ex ante evaluations of the 1994-1999 programming, which according to Articles 8(5) and 9(9) of the framework Regulation No 2081/93 ought to form one of the bases for the Commission's decisions. Instead of the separate communications on the results of the evaluations which have been announced by the Commission but have not yet been published, the Committee would have preferred an integrated analysis which went further in its conclusions.

3. The Committee of the Regions thanks the Commission for having worked so hard to adopt the new regional programmes.

The Committee regrets, however, that in the case of some programme decisions, the deadlines laid down in Article 10 of the coordinating Regulation No 2082/93 were exceeded (six months for the approval of a Community Support Framework and a further two months for the approval of measures accounting for at least two-thirds of assistance from the Funds during the first year of the Community Support Framework).

4. The Committee thinks that such delays are extremely disadvantageous for regional and local authorities, where the delayed start on a programme is felt most keenly.

These delays could be avoided if the Commission were to explain clearly and in good time the quality standards it intends to apply to the plans and programmes. The Committee would point out in this connection that there is no legal basis for a unilateral extension of the relevant criteria laid down in the Structural Fund Regulations.

With regard to future programmes, the Committee suggests using the partnership principle laid down in Article 4(1) of the framework Regulation No 2081/93 to work out objective and transparent criteria for evaluating the quality of the programmes. Above all, local and regional authorities, which are best equipped to provide information about how aid targets are to be achieved on the ground, should be involved. However, the Commission's decision-making powers laid down in Articles 8(5) and 9(9) of the framework Regulation No 2081/93 should not be called into question. The costs involved in making systematic use of independent experts could perhaps be reduced if such a procedure were to be used.

New guidelines resulting from the 1993 Structural Fund Regulations

5. It is the Committee's role to represent the joint interests of local and regional authorities vis-à-vis the Community authorities. This Opinion will therefore focus on the application to the new regional programmes for Objectives 1 and 2 of the new guidelines resulting from the 1993 revision of the Structural Fund Regulations (adaptation of priority objectives, extension of partnership, strengthening of evaluation and monitoring, greater respect for environmental aspects, extension of aid criteria, guarantee of additionality, acceleration and simplification of programming procedures). The Opinion will refer to local and regional authorities' initial experiences with the revised Structural Fund Regulations and the programming documents during the planning stage and at the start of the programmes' implementation.

6. The experience gathered since the 1988 Structural Fund reform has highlighted the importance of structural measures for strengthening economic and social cohesion in the European Union. The strategic importance of these measures is also borne out and enhanced by the growth, competitiveness and employment objectives set out in the EU White Paper.

Accordingly, a stronger role for structural policies in terms of more funds and more effective programmes is to be applauded.

7. The 1993 revision of the Structural Fund Regulations seems to be generally plausible and in line with the changes in economic and social systems in the EU. By adapting the priority objectives in the sense that greater consideration is to be given to the problems of real and potential unemployment, the environment and fisheries, it will be possible to enhance the effectiveness of Community structural assistance in areas which are of decisive importance for strengthening cohesion in the EU.

8. The Committee welcomes the adaptation of the priority objectives of the Structural Funds to the actual consequences of current economic and social changes in the Community. In particular, the incorporation of the adaptation of workers to industrial changes and changes in production systems has allowed regional and local authorities to include a more active labour market policy in the programmes, which does justice to immediate local needs and the strategic guidelines of the Growth, Competitiveness and Employment White Paper.

9. Although the adaptation and integration of the eligibility criteria for Objective 2 and 5b areas serves the aim of making better allowance for differences between regional and local systems and their complex development, it would seem that the procedure needs to be spelt out in more detail. This is because the economic and social indicators for showing that regions or parts of regions qualify for aid are seldom available at a decentralized level. Other indicators which are more readily available and up-to-date and also provide information about the economic and social situation of decentralized authorities are, however, not used. In addition, the problem of the dual standards applied to the selection criteria for Objective 2 and 5b regions must be solved. In the former case, the criteria must be applied extremely strictly and regions which do not fulfil the Regulation's criteria must be excluded, while in the latter case the eligible areas also include local systems whose indicators fulfil the criteria laid down in the Regulation only in part. This results in unequal treatment, which might call into question the general aim of strengthening cohesion in the Union.

10. The extension of the aid facilities offered by the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund is welcomed, too. It gives the regional and local authorities scope for adopting a more all-round approach to regional and local development planning, especially in key areas such as research and development, environmental protection, promotion of small and medium-sized businesses and the development of human capital, which so far have not been covered so extensively by Structural Fund assistance.

11. With regard to the implementation of the programme decisions for Objective 2, it is, however, already clear that, bearing in mind, too, the delays in selecting the eligible areas and launching the programmes, the three-year period laid down in Article 9 of the framework Regulation No 2081/93 is too short to enable the effects of the Structural Fund assistance to be assessed accurately.

The Committee of the Regions therefore urges the Council and the Commission, when they review the lists of eligible areas shortly in accordance with Article 9(6) of the framework Regulation No 2081/93, to apply the Objective 2 criteria laid down in the Regulations in a transparent and objective manner and not to make use of the possibility which Article 9(7) of the framework Regulation affords for amending the criteria.

12. Since all Community policies should display greater synergy and coherence, the Committee of the Regions supports greater respect for environmental aspects, the call for competition rules and public procurement provisions to be observed and the application of the principle of equal opportunity for men and women. It welcomes the progress noted in these areas in the Commission communication.

The Committee would point out, however, that the overall thrust of Community policies must give priority to the concentration of funds on the main strategic development targets. This selective approach, which links Community aid to the direct aim of furthering the economic development of the beneficiary countries and regions, is expressly welcomed by the Committee. Any attempt to use the Structural Funds, in the absence of other sources, to finance measures which do not accord with the spirit and the letter of the Regulations should be resisted in the interests of greater economic and social cohesion in the Community.

13. The Committee notes that, according to the new programme documents, 'the role of the private sector as a direct contributor to the size of the programmes has increased substantially since the previous period`. It is essential that the Commission ensures that there is clear guidance to the Member States and to regional and local authorities on the ways in which private-sector projects, or public/private sector partnerships can draw down Structural Fund monies in order to ensure that these contributions can be realized.

14. The Committee welcomes the progress noted by the Commission in the integration of the Structural Funds and their coordination with the other financial instruments, especially in the field of human resources and in connection with local and rural development. It would point out, however, that the call for integration of the Funds should not be an end in itself. There is no justification for the extra paperwork and book-keeping unless the integrated approach is likely to produce considerable synergy at regional and local level. The Committee would also ask the Commission to simplify the integrated use of the Funds by coordinating the work of the relevant Directorates-General more closely, introducing uniform administrative and book-keeping procedures and launching a common EDP system.

In addition, the Committee would ask the Commission to examine the case for including Community initiatives in future programming procedures for Objective 1 areas in particular. This would lead to a considerable reduction in planning work at local and regional level.

15. The Committee welcomes the strengthening of the guarantees for the respect of the principle of additionality. Regional and local authorities are fundamentally interested in ensuring that no Member State reduces its own structural policy efforts in the Objective regions. When respect for the additionality principle within the meaning of Article 9(2) of the coordinating Regulation No 2082/93 is appraised, consideration should be given to the macroeconomic conditions governing national funding and to specific economic conditions such as privatizations, exceptionally high structural expenditure by the public authorities and cyclical trends in national economies in the preceding planning period.

16. The simplification of programming procedures and the introduction of the 'single programming document` should make it possible to speed up the drawing-up of the programmes and to specify in a single document the priorities for Community assistance and the concrete measures which are to receive aid from the Commission. This would ensure greater consistency between the programmes' objectives and measures.

In the view of the regional and local authorities this target has not been attained to the desired extent. Even if the texts of the Regulations make it possible to get the priorities for Community assistance and the concrete measures approved in one go using one single programming document, the red tape which this involves in the Objective regions has not been reduced. This is due to the fact that, in the case of the single programming document procedure, a summary document has to be produced which involves just as much data and preparatory work as the Regional Development Plans and the Operational Programmes. One possible remedy would be to reconsider how detailed the plans and programmes have to be.

The fact that there are still reservations in this area is indicated by the fact that the six Member States which come under Objective 1 either in full or to a large extent have stuck to the traditional Community Support Framework approach. As a result, the procedures used by them for submitting applications have not been simplified.

17. When regional and local authorities hold discussions with the Commission, their main consideration should be the simplification and acceleration of the planning, implementation and book-keeping procedures for Structural Fund assistance. These questions are of fundamental importance for the orderly and efficient handling of Structural Fund assistance in the current period and also for planning Structural Fund assistance after 1999.

The Committee of the Regions offers to act as the Commission's direct partner for discussing such matters. This will require that the Committee is involved more closely, along with the European Parliament, in the ongoing briefing about the Structural Funds.

18. The Commission should involve the Committee of the Regions in its strategic deliberations and in the drafting of implementing provisions or legislation which falls within the COR's terms of reference. In this way access to regional and local expertise will be gained and the partnership principle will be strengthened.

The role of regional and local authorities

19. As far as the regional and local authorities are concerned, the extension of the partnership is the most far-reaching new Structural Fund guideline in the new period of assistance. Planning and programming in particular will be made much more transparent and brought much closer to the grassroots' level by including socio-economic partners and local and regional authorities in the partnership, in accordance with the institutional rules and practices of each Member State.

20. The framing and administration of the Structural Fund programmes during the 1985-1993 period and the recent planning of the new programmes have confirmed the decisive role played by the regional and local authorities. This role highlights the many differences between Member States. Some regions are directly involved in the selection of eligible areas (especially with regard to Objective 2), in the framing of the SPDs and CSFs, and in the finalization with the Commission of the measures which are to receive aid from the Commission. Elsewhere, the regions are excluded from this planning, which is performed by the central authorities.

The Committee reiterates its view that the Member States must ensure the fullest involvement of regional and local authorities in the preparation of such programmes, and its belief that the Commission should not accept programmes which have not been endorsed by regional partnerships. It also calls on the Commission itself to ensure that it respects the views of regional partnerships as to the priorities for the 'use of funds, provided these are in line with the Regulation`.

Differences between Member States are less pronounced as regards the roles played by regional and local authorities in administering the programmes. The implementing decisions are often taken at regional level, with the approval and involvement of the local authorities, even if there are still cases where the central authorities must implement the programmes.

21. The importance of the monitoring committees should be emphasized from a local and regional point of view. These committees have developed into important and worthwhile advisory and decision-taking bodies and can offer a flexible response to the technical and financial problems besetting the Funds at any given moment. One positive factor is that the Community Support Frameworks for Objective 1 and the Operational Programmes can be adapted flexibly to the (changing) development priorities and the resulting need for financial action within the six-year programming period. In addition, it will be possible to be more precise about the eligible measures or add new measures.

22. In all events, closer cooperation between the Community's bodies and local and regional authorities is one of the new priorities for Community action with regard to the small business sector, job creation (including the fight against unemployment) and the environment. These are areas of direct interest to the local authorities in which they frequently have their own powers and responsibilities. Consequently, agreements will have to be reached with the regional and local authorities so that these support policies achieve maximum effectiveness, results can be gauged precisely, private investment in projects is made easier and thus better results are obtained in terms of quality and scope.

23. The Committee calls for the further strengthening of the partnership principle. This is to be achieved in particular by stepping up cooperation between the Commission, national governments and local and regional authorities. The Committee trusts that all Member States will associate the social partners with this work, in accordance with the Regulations.The involvement of further players would seem to make sense, especially during the planning and appraisal phase and at a decentralized level. However, it should not complicate the administration of the Funds and the execution of individual aid projects at a local level.

The Committee would also refer to its Opinion of 20 July 1995 on the role of local and regional authorities in the partnership principle of the Structural Funds.

Assessment of the programmes' contents

24. The strengthening of the assessment procedures (ex ante assessment of the programmes' effects, monitoring of their administration and precise ex post analysis of their consequences) will make it possible to gauge more reliably how Community aid has helped to boost economic development, reduce unemployment, increase competitiveness and improve occupational skills.

25. The strengthening of the assessment is necessary, as the Committee of the Regions recognizes, for evaluating the quality and effectiveness of Structural Fund assistance and improving the monitoring of the aid granted.

However, it is still necessary to clarify how the burdens which extensive data surveys often place on regional and local authorities might be reduced by standardizing the evaluation methods and indicators and making them more compatible with national procedures.

In this field, too, the Commission should reach early agreement with regional and local authorities, in keeping with the partnership principle, on the most suitable assessment criteria. The focus should be on finding a practical method for assessing the implementation of regional development targets on the ground, with only a minimum amount of standardization being sought to ensure that the results are compatible throughout the Community.

26. The scientific, technical, organizational and human resources required to carry out these assessments differ considerably not only from Member State to Member State but also between regions. Hence the capacities available for framing programmes which are carefully geared to the growth and employment objectives also differ considerably, not only between Member States but also at regional level. In areas where fewer resources are available for the analyses, there is a greater danger that the programme aid will not go directly to the really vital development factors and hence that the measures will be less effective.

This imbalance can and must be eliminated by organizing the wide-scale swapping of experiences, by transferring know-how and by cooperating extensively. The Commission must support such initiatives and thus enhance the Structural Funds' contribution to strengthening cohesion within the EU at a regional and local level.

In this context the Committee of the Regions can play an important support role vis-à-vis the Commission by promoting the dissemination of information about methods of assessment among the regional and local authorities which it represents.

Conclusions

27. To sum up its Opinion on the Commission communication on the new regional programmes under Objectives 1 and 2 of Community structural policies, the Committee of the Regions:

a) thanks the Commission for having worked so hard to adopt the new regional programmes,

b) notes that the new guidelines laid down in the 1993 revision of the Structural Fund Regulations have proved their worth at the start of the new funding period,

c) trusts that in future the deadlines specified in the Structural Fund Regulations for adopting programmes will be observed strictly,

d) proposes that the partnership principle be applied by involving the relevant local and regional authorities in the framing of objective and transparent criteria for assessing the quality of the programmes and in the development of practical methods of evaluation which are compatible with national procedures,

e) supports structural policy's selective approach, i.e. the concentration on the priority targets of economic development in the beneficiary countries and regions for the purpose of creating permanent jobs,

f) calls on the Commission to improve the Funds' integrated use by coordinating the work of the relevant Directorates-General more closely and using standardized administrative and book-keeping procedures,

g) proposes further that the simplification and acceleration of the planning, implementation and book-keeping procedures for Structural Fund assistance and the techniques for assessing Structural Fund programmes be the main topic for discussion between the relevant regional and local authorities and the Commission,

h) offers to act as the direct partner for discussions with the Commission on this matter through the standing working party on structural policy established within Commission 1.

Done at Brussels, 21 March 1996.

The Chairman

of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA