REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 11th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1999)

This report has been prepared by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy in the European Commission, in collaboration with the Directorates-General for Employment and Social Affairs, Agriculture and Fisheries, together with contributions from the Secretariat-General and the Directorates-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Enterprise, Competition, Energy and Transport, the Environment, Research, the Internal Market, Education and Culture, the Budget and Financial Control and the European Anti-Fraud Office.

The single currency was introduced on 1 January 1999. For convenience and greater consistency, we have decided to denominate all amounts in this Report in euros, even for operations prior to that date. The symbol 'EUR' in this Report refers to the ecu in the case of amounts concerning the period before 1 January 1999 and to the euro from that date.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

A. General review

B. Equal opportunities for men and women: the theme of the 1999 Annual Report

Chapter 1 : Major events of 1999

1.1. The preparation of the 2000-06 programming period

1.1.1. The Berlin agreement, a reference framework for the structural policies in 2000-06

1.1.2. Adoption of the new Regulations on the Structural Funds (2000-06)

1.1.3. The proposed guidelines for the Community Initiatives for 2000-06

1.1.4. Preparation of the programmes for 2000-06: the first stages

1.2. Development of thematic priorities for cohesion

1.2.1. The European Employment Strategy: more integrated assistance from the Funds

1.2.2. A new map of national regional aid

1.2.3. Progress in spatial planning

1.3. The continuation of recent work

1.3.1. The territorial pacts for employment: results so far and a publicity conference

1.3.2. The continuation of methodological work on the evaluation of programmes

Chapter 2 : implementation of programmes in the member states

2.1. General presentation of programming

2.1.1. The programmes adopted in 1999

2.1.2. General overview of implementation

2.1.3. Implementation of Objectives 1 (regions whose development is lagging behind) and 6 (regions with a low population density)

2.1.4. Implementation of Objective 2 (areas undergoing industrial conversion)

2.1.5. Implementation of Objectives 3 and 4 (human resources and labour market)

2.1.6. Implementation of Objective 5(a) (structural adjustment in agriculture and

fisheries)

2.1.7. Implementation of Objective 5(b) (development of rural areas)

2.1.8. Implementation of the Community Initiatives

2.1.9. Innovative measures and technical assistance

2.2. Country-by-country survey

2.2.1. BELGIUM

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.2. DENMARK

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.3. GERMANY

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.4. GREECE

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.5 SPAIN

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.6. FRANCE

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.7. IRELAND

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.8. ITALY

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.9. LUXEMBOURG

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.10. NETHERLANDS

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.11. AUSTRIA

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.12. PORTUGAL

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.13. FINLAND

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.14. SWEDEN

1. The major achievements of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

2.2.15. UNITED KINGDOM

1. The major features of the Funds by Objective

2. The Community Initiatives

Chapter 3: Evaluation and analysis of the impact of the Structural Funds

3.1. Ex-ante evaluation and new programming for Objectives 1 and 3, the rural development programmes and the FIFG

3.2. The experience of previous periods

3.3. Thematic evaluations

Chapter 4: Budget implementation, financial checks and verification of additionality

4.1. Implementation of the Funds in 1999 - all programming periods

4.2. On-the-spot checks carried out by the Funds, Financial Control and the Anti-Fraud Unit/Office

4.3. Verification of additionality

Chapter 5: Coordination with other financial instruments

5.1. Cohesion Fund

5.2. The European Investment Bank (EIB)

5.3. The European Investment Fund (EIF)

5.4. The financial mechanism of the European Economic Area (EEA)

5.5. Education and training programmes

5.6. Community funding for trans-European Networks

Chapter 6: Compatibility and complementarity with the other community policies

6.1. The Structural Funds, the common agricultural policy (CAP) and the common fisheries policy

6.2. The Structural Funds and the environment

6.3. Structural Funds and business policy

6.4. The Structural Funds and research and technological development (RTD)

6.5. The Structural Funds and the trans-European Networks

6.6. The Structural Funds, culture and tourism

6.7. The Structural Funds and competition policy

6.8. The Structural Funds and the transparency of public procurement

Chapter 7: Interinstitutional dialogue, dialogue with the economic and social partners, information and communication

7.1. Interinstitutional dialogue

7.1.1. Dialogue with the European Parliament

7.1.2. Opinions of the Structural Funds Committees

7.1.3. Dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee

7.1.4. Dialogue with the Committee of the Regions

7.2. Dialogue with the economic and social partners

7.3. Information and communication, exchange of experiences

FINANCIAL ANNEXES (VOLUME II)

Annex 1: Financial implementation 1994-99 by Objective

Annex 2: Financial implementation 1994-99 of the Community Initiatives

Annex 3: Financial implementation 1994-99 of transitional and innovative measures

Annex 4: Pilot projects and innovative measures under the ERDF, ESF and EAGGF

Annex 5: Major projects 1994-99

Annex 6: Implementation of appropriations in 1999 by budget heading

Annex 7: Programme implementation by Member State (Objectives and Community Initiatives) - for 1999 under the 1994-99 programme

Acronyms and abbreviations

INTRODUCTION

A. General review

This Report is being presented under Article 16 of the Framework Regulation governing the Structural Funds (Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as amended), as required by Article 31 of the Coordination Regulation (Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended). The Report describes how the Structural Funds regulations were implemented during 1999, with a particular focus on Objectives 1 to 6 and the Community Initiatives. The structure of the Report is designed to meet this reporting requirement but some changes have been made over the years.

One innovation introduced in the 7th Annual Report (1995) was to concentrate on a special theme. This year, the theme is measures to promote equal opportunities for men and women. In addition, once again the report is shorter. The Report proper thus deals with the most significant events in the field of the Structural Funds during the year, while the annexes contain comprehensive data on the financial implementation of programmes. In addition to the chapters fulfilling the reporting requirement, Chapter 1 provides a brief summary of the principal developments in 1999 and touches also on preparations for the next programming period (2000-06).

Review of the year

Work on economic and social cohesion carried out by the Structural Funds in 1999 falls under three broad headings:

1. Completion of the period 1994-99

As the last year of the programming period, 1999 saw the programmes fully implemented. This meant that very few new items of assistance were adopted during the year.

In all, only five such items were adopted in 1999 for the various Objectives. These comprised two operational programmes for Objective 1 (regions whose development is lagging behind), one concerning the territorial pacts for employment in Spain, the other a programme to develop ecological buses in Greece. In addition, three global grants were adopted for Italy. All together, these five new items accounted for only 0.1% of assistance from the Funds for the period.

At the same time, 24 small Community Initiative programmes were also adopted: they comprised two Interreg II C (transnational cooperation) programmes, one concerned with the Atlantic area and the other to combat drought in Greece; all the other 22 programmes concerned the SMEs Initiative.

As in 1997 and 1998, the implementation of appropriations speeded up considerably in 1999, in many cases enough to make up the backlogs which had accumulated during the early years of the programming period. This was true of both the national initiative programmes (CSFs/SPDs) and the Community Initiatives.

In the case of the CSFs/SPDs, by the end of the year (which was also the end of the period), 99% of the total assistance from the Funds had been committed. There was a considerable speeding up in commitments during the year, which accounted on its own for 21% of the total since 1994. Similarly, 75% of appropriations had been paid by the end of the year. Payments at local level for 1994-99 may continue to be made until 31 December 2001.

As in 1998, Objectives 1 (regions whose development is lagging behind) and 3 (combating unemployment and exclusion) achieved the best rates of implementation. Objective 1, which accounts for 2/3 of the budget of the Funds, committed virtually all its appropriations (99%) and paid 78%. By contrast, Objectives 2 (areas undergoing industrial conversion), 4 (labour market) and 5(b) (fragile rural areas) had lower rates of payments.

Again as in 1998, the Member States which had the best rates of implementation of appropriations were the least prosperous Member States, and therefore the main beneficiaries of the Funds: Spain, Portugal and Ireland. By contrast, the more prosperous countries continued to lag behind in the implementation of payments.

The implementation of the Community Initiatives (CI) also speeded up considerably, partly thanks to the reallocation of finance carried out in 1998. By the end of the year, some 95% of total appropriations for the period had been committed, and 57% paid, a considerable improvement over previous years. Disparities in implementation between the various Initiatives persisted, with Resider, Rechar, Adapt, Employment and Pesca recording the highest levels of implementation.

2. Increased attention to priority themes

The Commission devoted special efforts in 1999, as it did in previous years, to giving fresh impetus to a number of its activities and priorities. Safeguarding and promoting employment, in particular, continued to be a priority receiving sustained support: the European Employment Strategy, for example, which was formally launched at the extraordinary European Council in Luxembourg in November 1997, was consolidated during 1999. A complete review of the national action plans for employment was undertaken and resulted in recommendations to the Member States on how best to honour their commitments. The Commission guidelines on employment adopted in 1998 were expanded in 1999 to include new goals, such as lifelong training, access to the information society, the involvement of the social partners in the organisation of work and the incorporation in the programmes of equal opportunities for men and women. In its resolution on the employment guidelines, the Council stressed the role of the Structural Funds, and particularly the ESF, in achieving the goals of the European Employment Strategy. The regulations governing the Structural Funds in 2000-06 require the Member States to include the employment guidelines, and more generally the principles set out in the European Employment Strategy, in their programmes.

Elsewhere, following the adoption of the guidelines on national aids, the Commission asked the Member States to submit it a draft national map of regional aids showing the regions proposed for the derogations permitted by the Treaty and the ceilings on the intensity of investment aid or aid to create jobs linked to investment. Because they were sent late, the maps of some Member States could not be approved before the end of 1999.

A closing seminar on spatial planning was held in Brussels in February and the final version of the ESDP (European spatial development perspective) was adopted at the informal Council in Potsdam in May. The options proposed in the ESDP are included in the new programming for 2000-06.

3. The final preparations for the 2000-06 programming period

Following the proposed regulations to govern the Structural Funds which the Commission had drawn up in 1998, 1999 was a crucial year for actual preparations for 2000-06, since it saw the adoption of a large number of decisions.

On 24 and 25 March at the extraordinary European Council in Berlin, the Heads of State and Government reached agreement on Agenda 2000, which fixes the financial perspective for the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the whole period 2000-06. In the case of the Structural Funds, it also decided the overall funding for each Fund and for each Objective. The Heads of State and Government also agreed on the funding for structural assistance to the applicant countries over the period 2000-06.

Furthermore, after lengthy discussion and consideration by the various Community institutions, the proposed regulations adopted by the Commission in March 1998 were adopted by the Council in May and June 1999: the Regulation on the EAGGF was adopted on 17 May and all the regulations concerning the Structural Funds, including the general Regulation, were adopted on 21 June. All these regulations apply to appropriations for the 2000-06 programming period from 1 January 2000. The regulations establishing the new pre-accession instruments were also adopted by the Council on 21 June: these are the regulations on the ISPA (instrument for structural policies for pre-accession), SAPARD (pre-accession instrument in the field of agriculture and rural development) and the regulation coordinating pre-accession assistance.

Once these new regulations had been adopted, on 1 July the Commission, in accordance with Agenda 2000, approved decisions on the indicative allocation by Member State of the commitment appropriations for all the Objectives, the allocations to each Community Initiative, the list of regions eligible under Objective 1, including those benefiting from transitional support, and the ceiling on the population eligible under Objective 2 in each Member State.

The general Regulation on the Structural Funds gives the Member States four months from the adoption of the lists of areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 to send the Commission their draft programming documents ('plans'). Since the list of regions eligible under Objective 1 throughout the Union was approved on 1 July, the Commission received most of the plans for this Objective before 31 December 1999. Most of the plans were considered acceptable straight away by the Commission and negotiations with the Member States could begin quite quickly with some programmes being adopted by the Commission in the first quarter of 2000. The lists of areas eligible under Objective 2 were drawn up later because the criteria were more complex and specific national features had to be taken into account. This meant that the Commission received no Objective 2 plans before 31 December. However, all except those for Italy were received between January and the end of April 2000.

B. Equal opportunities for men and women: the theme of the 1999 Annual Report

In each of the last four years, the Annual Report on the Structural Funds has picked out a theme relevant to all four Structural Funds. To date, the subjects covered have been: the environmental dimension of assistance (1995), support for technological development in the regions (1996), action to help small businesses (1997) and local development (1998). This year, the report looks at measures to promote equality between men and women and, more specifically, the improvements made in incorporating this political priority in the Funds' programmes.

The principle of equality for men and women ("equal opportunities")

Equality between women and men in the Treaty

Equality between women and men is a basic principle of democracy and respect for humankind. The Union has been the driving force in promoting equal opportunities for women and men. The Treaty of Amsterdam strengthens the basis for measures to promote equality between women and men. Article 141 provides a specific legal basis for adopting measures to ensure the application of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, including the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. Finally, Article 141 also allows Member States to adopt or maintain positive-action measures for the under-represented sex in respect of professional careers. Article 2 of the Treaty of Amsterdam formalises the Community commitment to gender mainstreaming (see box in section 2.1.2. of this Report), by establishing equality between women and men as a specific task of the Community as well as a horizontal objective affecting all Community tasks.

Equality between women and men as a productive factor

While the promotion of equality between women and men is usually regarded as a matter of social justice, it is often also believed to be a burden or a constraint on economic growth and development, perceived as a luxury that countries may not be able to afford under current competitive conditions. However, it is well documented that promoting equal opportunities should improve labour market efficiency and better use of human resources. The importance of women in today's labour market cannot be overstated. Demographic projections show that Europe's population is ageing, which has far-reaching consequences on health, pensions and intergenerational solidarity and on employment. This means that the employment growth that we need for coming decades depends largely on getting more women into the labour force.

Gender gaps in the labour market. The present situation.

Active participation by women in the labour market has been increasing continuously over the last 30 years - women have accounted for almost the entire growth of the Union's workforce over the last 10-15 years. Women's employment has risen from just over half (54%) of the level of men's to over 70% at present - but yet the gender gaps remain:

-in almost all Member States unemployment rates are higher for women than for men;

-the gender gap in employment rates is almost 20%, on average, amongst the Member States;

-women's employment is reduced with the number of children in the household. This does not hold true for men. Women perform the vast bulk of unpaid work at home, including care for children and other dependants;

-even in countries with high participation and employment rates the labour market remains very segregated and women remain over-represented amongst part-time workers, often on an involuntary basis. The wage gap between women and men remains considerable (28% on average at EU level).

The above data show the importance of the gender-mainstreaming of employment policies and structural policies, which constitute the main Community instrument for promoting cohesion, improving employment and integration prospects and for achieving sustainable development.

The European Employment Strategy

There has been considerable progress over the last years. Equal opportunities is now an integral part of the European Employment Strategy. Member States have committed themselves to improving gender gaps in employment, reconciling family and working life and adopting a gender-mainstreaming approach in implementing their employment policies. The Employment Guidelines recognise the significance of gender equality to the economy. Equal opportunities is now a matter of both social justice and of good economics.

Taking account of equal opportunities in the Structural Funds

In recent years, greater attention has been also paid to how the Structural Funds can have a greater impact on equality between women and men. This resulted in a 1996 Council of Ministers resolution on the mainstreaming of equal opportunities for women and men in the Structural Funds.

This effort has been continued subsequently at various levels: a methodological study on the application of the principle of equal opportunities in assistance under the Structural Funds was carried out in 1997 and its results were published in March 1998. Another study, based on good practice observed in Germany, the United Kingdom and France, was presented at a seminar on the subject at Gelsenkirchen in January 1999. These considerations helped ensure that the principle of equality for men and women was more firmly incorporated in the new regulations governing the Funds in 2000-06.

Accordingly, the new regulations on the Structural Funds for 2000-06 contain new features on the integration of equal opportunities for women and men. Member States and regions will have to carry out an in-depth ex-ante analysis from a gender perspective, setting appropriate selection criteria for projects and monitoring all activities from a gender perspective. This means that indicators and statistics have to be broken down by sex. Member States will also have to promote balanced participation by women and men in Monitoring Committees and involve the authorities responsible for equality.

The principle of equality for men and women is asserted in 13 of the 56 articles of the new general Regulation on the Structural Funds [1].

[1] Regulation No (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999.

But the integration of equal opportunities into the Structural Funds has an importance which goes well beyond its legal justification. The eradication of inequalities between men and women on the employment market will increase the overall effectiveness of the plans and programmes of the Structural Funds. Growth, competitiveness and employment can only be ensured by the full mobilisation of all, men and women alike.

The aims of the Structural Funds and equality for men and women correspond very closely, as can be seen from these examples:

*expanded possibilities for men and women to participate at all levels of the labour market make investments in human resources more effective and efficient;

*improved qualifications and professional skills for women help increase productivity and opportunities for employment and promotion;

*the economic activities established by women often provide an innovative response to employment opportunities and local needs;

*improved transport services and childcare facilities give women more opportunity to gain access to the employment market and create new sources of jobs.

Chapter 1 : Major events of 1999

1.1. The preparation of the 2000-06 programming period

1.1.1. The Berlin agreement, a reference framework for the structural policies in 2000-06

At the extraordinary European Council held in Berlin on 24 and 25 March 1999, the Heads of State and Government reached agreement on Agenda 2000.

Cohesion policy in the 15 Member States:

The commitment appropriations available for cohesion policy in the 15 Member States during the period 2000-06 amount to EUR213.01 billion (at 1999 prices). This is less than the EUR239.4 billion (at 1999 prices) proposed by the Commission in March 1998 but nevertheless reflects the high political priority given to the cohesion effort. It is broken down as follows:

-EUR195.01 billion for the Structural Funds;

-EUR18 billion for the Cohesion Fund.

The Heads of State and Government also agreed on the allocation to each of the three Objectives of the Structural Funds and to the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance for assistance outside the regions eligible under Objective 1:

-EUR135.95 billion for Objective 1, 69.7% of total funding for the Structural Funds;

-EUR22.45 billion for Objective 2, 11.5% of total funding for the Structural Funds;

-EUR24.05 billion for Objective 3, 12.3% of total funding for the Structural Funds.

Structural assistance for the countries applying for accession [2]:

[2] Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

The Berlin European Council approved the amounts proposed by the Commission for structural assistance to the countries applying for accession in 2000-06, EUR46.860 billion (at 1999 prices):

-EUR7.28 billion for the Instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA);

-EUR39.58 billion for post-accession structural assistance.

In addition, SAPARD (Community assistance for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development) will have EUR520 million per year for the applicant countries until they actually join.

The Commission decisions following adoption by the Council of the Regulations governing the Structural Funds:

Once the new Regulations on the Structural Funds [3] had been adopted, on 1 July, the Commission took seven decisions [4] concerning Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and the FIFG which were the necessary preliminaries to implementation of the new programming period, 2000-06:

[3] Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds; Regulation (EC) No 1261/1999 of 21 June 1999 on the ERDF; Regulation (EC) No 1262/1999 of 21 June 1999 on the ESF; Regulation (EC) No 1263/1999 of 21 June 1999 on the FIFG; Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the EAGGF.

[4] OJ L 194, 27.7.1999, pp. 47 et seq.

-four decisions fixing an indicative allocation by Member State of the commitment appropriations for Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and the FIFG outside the Objective 1 regions respectively;

-one decision on the funding allocated to each of the Community Initiatives;

-one decision drawing up the list of regions covered by Objective 1, including the regions receiving transitional support;

-one decision establishing a population ceiling for each Member State under Objective 2.

It should be noted that, unlike the previous programming period 1994-99, rural development measures within areas eligible under Objective 2 will no longer be financed by the EAGGF-Guidance Section, but by the EAGGF-Guarantee Section (the instrument which finances the common agricultural policy).

*Indicative allocation of commitment appropriations by Member State (see table):

The indicative allocations of appropriations by Member State were laid down by the Commission pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 and the conclusions of the Berlin European Council.

Period 2000-06 (commitment appropriations; EUR million; 1999 prices)

>TABLE POSITION>

(1) Excluding Community Initiatives and innovative measures

(2) Including appropriations for Peace (2000-04)

(3) Including appropriations for the special programme for Swedish coastal areas

Objective 1

For the regions eligible under Objective 1, the method involves allocating for each inhabitant of the eligible regions an amount of aid equal to a percentage of the gap between the level of per capita GDP in the region concerned and the Community average. This percentage reflects the level of prosperity of the Member State to which the region belongs. A supplement is added for regions where unemployment is particularly high. This method results in a direct link between the extent of the problems which all the eligible regions of a Member State face (regional prosperity and unemployment) and the effort made by the Union to help those regions. It therefore tailors financial support to reflect the difficulties of the regions.

In 2000 the regions receiving transitional support under Objective 1 will receive the same treatment as those regions fully eligible under that Objective. Accordingly, their level of prosperity will be assimilated to that of a region whose per capita GDP is 75% of the Community average. However, no region receiving transitional support under Objective 1 may receive in 2000 aid greater than 75% of the level received in 1999. Between 2001 and 2003, the annual funding provided as transition support will be tapered in linear fashion until in 2004 it reaches a per capita intensity equivalent to that which areas eligible under Objective 2 receive.

It should however be noted that some Member States have, in agreement with the Commission, tailored the annual profile of the assistance to regions receiving transitional support under Objective 1, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the general Regulation on the Structural Funds.

Objective 2

In the case of the areas eligible under Objective 2, the commitment appropriations were allocated on the basis of an equal level of per capita aid for all the areas eligible (EUR41.4 at 1999 prices).

The appropriations for transitional support under Objective 2 were allocated among the Member States concerned on the basis of the difference between the population eligible under the former Objectives 2 and 5(b) in 1994-99 and the population eligible under the new Objective 2 in 2000-06.

Objective 3

The appropriations for Objective 3 were allocated among the Member States using the following criteria: long-term unemployment, unemployment among young people, the level of employment, the gap between the sexes in access to the labour market, the level of education and the level of poverty.

Allocation of FIFG appropriations outside Objective 1

FIFG appropriations outside Objective 1 were allocated according to two main criteria: (1) the relative size of the fisheries sector in each of the Member States concerned and the specific needs of the sector, and (2) the relative progress made in implementing the 1994-99 programmes.

*Funding for each of the four Community Initiatives

On 1 July 1999 the Commission also decided on the commitment appropriations allocated for 2000-06 to each of the four Community Initiatives provided for in the general Regulation on the Structural Funds. At 1999 prices, this amounted to:

-Interreg III: EUR4 875 million (cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation);

-Equal: EUR2 847 million (combating discrimination on the labour market);

-Leader +: EUR2 020 million (targeted measures for rural development);

-Urban: EUR700 million (urban areas in crisis).

*Lists of areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 (see map of eligible areas at the beginning of this Report):

In 2006 the areas receiving assistance under Objectives 1 or 2 will cover 41% of the population of the Union as compared with 50% in 1999. This geographical concentration, together with the financial concentration of Objective 1, will mean that assistance under the Structural Funds can be targeted on the most seriously affected areas.

Objective 1:

The list of regions eligible under Objective 1 in 2000-06 was drawn up by the Commission pursuant to Article 3 of the general Regulation on the Structural Funds. These regions have a population of 92 212 000 people, 22% of that of the Union.

Objective 2:

Under the general Regulation on the Structural Funds (No 1260/1999), the population of the areas eligible under Objective 2 may not exceed 18% of that of the Union. Since Ireland, Greece and Portugal are entirely covered by Objective 1 or transitional support under Objective 1, 12 of the 15 Member States are concerned by Objective 2.

In accordance with Article 4(2) of the general Regulation, the ceiling on the eligible population for each Member States was calculated on the basis of four factors:

-the population in the NUTS III areas with meet the Community criteria for eligibility (Article 4(5) and (6));

-total unemployment and long-term unemployment outside the regions eligible under Objective 1;

-total unemployment and long-term unemployment in densely populated areas;

-the "safety net", which limits to one third the maximum reduction in the eligible population in a Member State as compared with that covered by the former Objectives 2 (industrial areas undergoing conversion) and 5(b) (fragile rural areas).

Once it had defined the ceilings on eligible population, the Commission asked the Member States concerned to send it their proposals for areas eligible under Objective 2 by 31 August. These proposals were received between 16 August and 3 December. The Commission decided to group the acceptable proposals (i.e. those that were complete and in conformity with the rules) according the date they were received so that those Member States which had been first to submit proposals in accordance with the statutory provisions, could begin implementing their programming rapidly. In 1999, the Commission therefore took decisions of principle on the areas eligible under Objective 2 on the following dates:

-26 October, Finland, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands;

-24 November, Germany;

-22 December, United Kingdom and Spain.

After consulting the three Committees provided for in the general Regulation on the Structural Funds, the Commission took its final decision for the first four Member States mentioned above on 22 December 1999. The list of areas eligible under Objective 2 in the other Member States concerned apart from Italy was adopted early in 2000.

The Commission decisions concerning the pre-accession instruments ISPA and SAPARD

For the first time, a genuine pre-accession strategy has been established to prepare for an enlargement of the Union. Regulations (EC) Nos 1267/1999 and 1268/1999 adopted by the Council on 21 June 1999 set up respectively the following new pre-accession instruments:

-a structural instrument for pre-accession (ISPA) which will provide assistance in a manner similar to the Cohesion Fund to prepare for accession to the Union of the following applicant countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. ISPA has EUR1 040 million (at 1999 prices) per year to provide assistance for investment in the environment and transport infrastructure;

-an instrument for Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development (SAPARD) in these ten countries which has EUR520 million (at 1999 prices) per year.

ISPA:

On 20 July 1999 the Commission took a decision of principle laying down the indicative breakdown by beneficiary country of the total assistance under ISPA. This was based on the criteria set out in Article 4 of ISPA Regulation, population, area and per capita GDP.

On 21 December, the ISPA Management Committee gave a favourable opinion on the draft breakdown, following which the Commission adopted its final decision on 7 March 2000.

SAPARD:

In July 1999, the Commission adopted a decision on the indicative allocation of the annual Community financial contribution to pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development [5] and at the end of 1999 published Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999.

[5] Decision 1999/595/EC.

Each applicant country was allocated aid from SAPARD on the basis of objective criteria such as the agricultural population, the area of agricultural land, the level of prosperity (GDP) and its particular territorial situation.

1.1.2. Adoption of the new Regulations on the Structural Funds (2000-06)

The Commission had adopted its proposals for Regulations in preparation for the new programming period in March 1998 [6]. These proposals were considered and discussed by the various Community institutions throughout 1998. The Berlin extraordinary European Council on 24 and 25 March 1999 resulted in an overall agreement on Agenda 2000, including the financial perspective for 2000-06, which enabled the Council officially to adopt the series of Regulations in May and June 1999: the Regulation on the EAGGF was adopted on 17 May [7] while all the other Structural Fund Regulations were adopted on 21 June 1999 [8]. All the Regulations apply from 1 January 2000.

[6] COM(1998) 131 final, 18 March 1998.

[7] Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999.

[8] Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions; Regulation (EC) No 1261/1999 on the ERDF; Regulation (EC) No 1262/1999 on the ESF; Regulation (EC) No 1263/1999 on the FIFG.

These new Regulations simplify the legislative framework of the Funds:

*the former "framework" and "coordination" Regulations are merged into a single general Regulation (1260/1999), which contains all the provisions applying to all the Funds; previously these were scattered over several Regulations;

*the ERDF, ESF and FIFG Regulations are retained in a simplified form;

*a single Regulation on support for rural development by the EAGGF replaces the nine previous regulations; it contains all the rural development measures which may be financed by either the Guidance or Guarantee Section of the EAGGF.

The general Regulation reflects the desire for greater efficiency in the use of the Structural Funds, principally through :

*a reduction to three in the number of Objectives and the provision of transitional support to regions which cease to be eligible;

*a reduction to four in the number of Community Initiatives: the continuing Interreg and Leader; a new Initiative promoting means of combating discrimination on the labour market, Equal; and the continuation of Urban, which targets urban areas in crisis. There is a major simplification: each Community Initiative will be financed by only one Fund but each Fund may extend its scope to include activities normally supported by the other Funds.

*clarification of the respective responsibilities of the Commission and the Member States, who have primary responsibility for the implementation of the Funds; within each country, the participation of the various partners is extended to strengthen the principle of partnership ;

*provisions to simplify the programming and implementation of the Funds: the programmes adopted by the Commission will be based on the strategy and priority topics and on the arrangements for implementation; implementation of the measures will be the responsibility of the Member States through a "programming complement";

*new provisions governing management, monitoring and evaluation: a precise description of the duties of the managing authorities and Monitoring Committees, a description of the content of the annual reports on implementation, definition of the goals of evaluations and monitoring indicators;

*installation of a simpler but more rigorous system of financial management: automatic annual budgetary commitments by the Commission; payment of an advance when the programme begins followed by interim payments reimbursing actual expenditure certified by the Member States, with the final balance being paid when the item of assistance is closed;

*enhanced financial control.

The Fund Regulations also contain some simplifications:

The ERDF Regulation makes few changes: the ERDF will continue to support three types of investments: productive investment in firms, particularly small firms, infrastructure and endogenous development, including local employment initiatives.

The ESF Regulation is in line with the new Title on employment introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam. This means that the ESF will contribute to the European Employment Strategy in five priority fields: active labour market policies, social inclusion, life-long training, adaptability and improving employment opportunities for women.

The FIFG becomes a fully fledged Structural Fund.

The new EAGGF Regulation seeks to establish an integrated and sustainable rural development policy through a single instrument which will ensure greater coherence with the common agricultural policy (CAP). There are three major development priorities: strengthening the agriculture and forestry sector, improving the competitiveness of rural areas and preserving the environment and rural assets. The arrangements for implementing the EAGGF Regulation are set out in the implementing Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 and the transitional rules on support for rural development are contained in Regulation (EC) No 2603/1999 adopted in December 1999.

1.1.3. The proposed guidelines for the Community Initiatives for 2000-06

During 1999, the Commission drew up draft guidelines for the four new Community Initiatives for 2000-06 (Interreg, Urban, Leader and Equal). Naturally, the various Community institutions were consulted on these proposals before they were adopted by the Commission.

*The draft guidelines for Equal were adopted on 13 October 1999. They are intended to develop cross-border cooperation to promote new means of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. Equal also covers the social and vocational integration of asylum seekers. Once these proposals had been adopted, the Commission began consultations with the Member States and the European Parliament, and the final version of the guidelines for Equal was adopted on 15 April 2000.

*The draft guidelines for Leader + were adopted on 14 April 2000. Leader + is intended to promote integrated strategies to stimulate rural development. Its aims are to support innovative pilot projects through local action groups and encourage exchanges of experience and transnational cooperation.

*The Commission adopted the final text of the guidelines on Interreg III on 28 April 2000. The Initiative has three strands: strand A concerns cross-border cooperation, i.e. the promotion of integrated regional development between border regions; strand B concerns transnational cooperation, that is, a contribution to harmonious territorial integration throughout the European Union; strand C seeks to increase interregional cooperation and so improve the policies and techniques of interregional economic development. The guidelines for 2000-06 are based on experience in 1994-99 and are intended to build on the results already obtained by ensuring that the regions and areas involved coordinate theirs efforts and engage in genuine cooperation: accordingly, they should implement joint strategies and programmes and create joint administrative structures. To this end an information day on Interreg III was held on 29 November 1999.

*The Commission adopted the guidelines for Urban on 28 April 2000. This Initiative has two major aims: (a) promoting the preparation and implementation of particularly innovative strategies for the economic and social regeneration of small and medium-sized towns or crisis-hit areas of large urban centres; (b) extending and exchanging knowledge and experience on sustainable urban regeneration and development in the European Union.

1.1.4. Preparation of the programmes for 2000-06: the first stages

*Following the adoption of the Regulations for 2000-06, a number of subsequent stages were laid down prior to formal adoption of the programming documents:

*Immediately after the Fund Regulations were adopted, the Commission drew up the Guidelines intended to help the national and regional authorities prepare their programming strategies for each of the Objectives 1, 2 and 3. These guidelines were adopted on 1 July 1999 [9] and have three main pillars: (i) improving regional competitiveness; (ii) promoting employment, the Community's first priority; (iii) integrating urban and rural development.

[9] COM (1999) 344 final, 1 July 1999.

*The Commission drew up the lists of regions and areas eligible under the territorial Objectives (Objectives 1 and 2). The list of regions eligible under Objective 1 was drawn up for the whole Union on 1 July 1999 using the only criterion involved (per capita GDP), and at NUTS II regional level (administrative region). Since the criteria for eligibility under Objective 2 were more numerous and more complex (see Article 4 of the general regulation on the Funds, Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999) and apply to lower-level areas (NUTS III), the lists were drawn up for each Member State separately. That is why the zoning for Objective 2 in certain Member States could not be definitively fixed until early in 2000 (principally France and Italy).

*Once the lists of eligible regions and areas had been adopted, the Member States had four months to draw up the draft national or regional programmes (or "plans", i.e. draft CSFs or SPDs) which they then sent to the Commission.

*After receiving a plan which met all the statutory conditions, the Commission had five months to adopt the corresponding programme (CSF or SPD). That was a time for intensive negotiations within the Commission and with each Member State to adjust the content of the plans and agree a final document. Similarly, the Commission had five months to adopt the operational programmes, which the Member States could submit either with the CSF to which they relate or at a later date.

Once the SPDs/OPs were adopted, the Member State had a further three months to send the Commission a "programming complement". In this document, it is the prerogative of the Member States to specify certain provisions of the SPDs and OPs (detailed content of measures; categories of final beneficiaries; financing plan for each measure; arrangements for the computerised exchange of data between the Member State and the Commission).

The vast bulk of the Objective 1 plans reached the Commission before 31 December 1999. Only the draft SPDs for three French overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana) were received after that date (10 January 2000). Most of the plans were considered acceptable by the Commission and negotiations with the Member States could begin quite quickly with some programmes being adopted by the Commission in the first quarter of 2000 (the two SPDs for Finland and the SPD for Austria).

In the case of Objective 2, the lists of eligible areas were drawn up later than in the case of Objective 1 because of the more complex nature of the criteria to be taken into account. That is why the Commission received no plans by 31 December. All the plans for Objective 2 were received between January and April 2000.

For the programming of appropriations under the human resources programmes (Objective 3), all the plans were submitted to the Commission before the end of 1999 and negotiations with the Member States had already begun on most of them.

In the case of rural development, only the first stage in the preparation of the plans had been reached at the end of 1999. The rural development measures to be included in the programmes for Objectives 1 and 2 are specified in the preparatory plans for these programmes. However, in the case of certain areas not totally eligible under Objective 2, the rural development measures may form part of a larger project including areas not eligible under the Objectives. These rural development plans are therefore drawn up at the geographical level considered the most appropriate. As far as possible, the rural development measures applicable in an area must be incorporated in a single plan. These plans, drawn up on the basis of an ex-ante evaluation by the authorities designated by the Member State, were to be submitted to the Commission no later than 3 January 2000, following consultations with the relevant regional authorities and organisations.

Furthermore, all assistance for rural development must include agri-environmental measures.

1.2. Development of thematic priorities for cohesion

1.2.1. The European Employment Strategy: more integrated assistance from the Funds

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Employment Strategy gathered new momentum. Following the extraordinary European Council on employment held in Luxembourg in November 1997, all EU governments started to implement the new policy co-ordination approach by setting common objectives (Employment Guidelines), establishing National Action Plans and jointly monitoring progress (Joint Employment Reports). In 1999, the Luxembourg process was further consolidated and a full annual cycle was completed in accordance with Article 128 of the Treaty, whereby the review of the national measure plans has led for the first time to recommendations to Member States on how they should implement their commitments in respect of the common objectives of the Employment Strategy.

Since their first adoption in 1998, the Employment guidelines have centred on four pillars reflecting the main political priorities: improving employability, developing business spirit, encouraging adaptability in business and the work force, and strengthening the policies for equal opportunities These priorities were spelled out in a set of 21 guidelines, which have been further adapted and developed, in line with the assessment of national action plans and the employment situation, in order to incorporate new objectives. In 1999, the guidelines were developed so as to include new objectives such as lifelong learning, access to the information society, involvement of the social partners in improving work organisation, and gender mainstreaming.

The Joint Employment Report for 1999 analyses the employment situation in Europe, which remains characterised by a low employment rate of 61%, low participation by women and older people in the labour market and persistent high rates of long-term and youth unemployment. In response to these challenges, the European Employment Strategy has become the accepted framework for reform, including labour market policies, tax and benefit systems, education and training systems and employment services. There is now a clear move towards a more preventative approach to youth and adult long-term unemployment, although some Member States are more advanced than others in complying with the common targets of offering to all young and adult unemployed a new start before they have completed 6 or 12 months of unemployment. Furthermore, a majority of Member States have reached the 20% benchmark for the participation of the unemployed in training and other similar active measures. The importance of lifelong learning and the role of the service sector are beginning to be seen more strategically by Member States, and they show an increasing commitment to the equal opportunities pillar. On the other hand, progress on improving business spirit remains unclear, whereas in the area of adaptability progress is disappointing.

In its resolution on the Employment Guidelines for 1999, the Council underlined the support the ESF can give to the objectives of the Employment Strategy, notably through its contribution to the qualitative development of human resources. In particular, the ESF should promote the necessary shift in the policy mix from passive to active labour market policies, and give more emphasis to preventative instead of purely curative measures. The Structural Funds Regulations for the period 2000-06 and the Guidelines for their operation require Member States to integrate the programming of the Structural Funds assistance, in particular ESF-supported programmes, with the implementation of the Employment guidelines and, more generally, the European Employment Strategy.

The recommendations addressed to Member States on the implementation of their employment policies reinforce this orientation for most of them, as they focus on areas where the contribution of the ESF is relevant, such as labour market policies for the prevention of youth and long-term unemployment, vocational training, and policies for promoting equal opportunities between women and men.

1.2.2. A new map of national regional aid

Following the adoption of the guidelines on national regional aid [10], the Commission invited the Member States to send it a draft national map of regional aids showing the regions proposed for derogations under Articles 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty and the ceilings on the intensity of aid for initial investment or aid for investment-related job-creation for each region and the relevant ceilings on cumulation.

[10] OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

Although some countries (Spain, Italy, Luxembourg) did so only in December, all the Member States sent their draft regional aid maps during the year. After considering their proposals, the Commission approved the draft maps submitted by Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Finland, and the parts of the maps relating to regions eligible for a derogation under Article 87(3)(a) in Germany and Portugal.

However, the Commission expressed doubts about the compatibility with the Treaty of the drafts from some Member States. It therefore initiated proceedings under Article 88(2) against the proposals concerning the maps of Belgium, France and the Netherlands, and the parts of the maps concerning the regions eligible for a derogation under Article 87(3)(c) in Germany and Portugal.

Because they were sent late, the maps from the other Member States could not be approved before the end of 1999. While approval is pending, to the extent that the maps of regional aids lay down the list of regions where investment aids, whether or not part-financed by the Structural Funds, may be granted to large firms, the countries concerned may no longer grant aid of that type from 1 January 2000. That suspension, however, applies only to State aid for regional purposes, and in no way affects assistance from the Structural Funds to part-finance aid schemes for other purposes or which does not include aides to firms.

1.2.3. Progress in spatial planning

After a European-wide debate, promoted by the Commission and the Member States in close co-operation, culminating in eight transnational seminars in 1998 and a concluding forum in Brussels in February 1999, the first final document on the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) was adopted in May 1999 at the informal Council of Ministers responsible for spatial planning in Potsdam. The Ministers and the responsible member of the Commission emphasised that this was one more important step in European integration. For the first time a jointly shared reference instrument for spatial development is at the disposal of decision-makers at all levels of the Union. Three basic policy aims for the spatial development of the Union are proposed:

*development of a balanced and polycentric urban system and a new urban/rural relationship;

*securing parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge, and;

*sustainable development, prudent management and protection of nature and the cultural heritage.

For each of the policy aims the ESDP suggests concrete policy options, making it a suitable and operational tool for achieving a sustainable and territorially balanced development of the EU. The status of the document is non-binding, it does not provide for any new responsibilities at Community level and respects the subsidiarity principle. In order to promote the application of the ESDP, at their informal meeting in Tampere in October 1999 the ministers responsible for spatial planning and urban/regional policy and the European Commissioner for regional policy agreed on an action programme which includes the mainstreaming of the ESDP through the Structural Funds and the application of its policy orientations in appropriate Community policies and in the preparation of the enlargement of the European Union.

1.3. The continuation of recent work

1.3.1. The territorial pacts for employment: results so far and a publicity conference

Launched as part of the confidence pact for employment in 1996, this pilot measure was applied in 89 areas of the 15 Member States to a total population of over 35 million people.

Starting from an analysis of the area and supported by Community technical assistance, a broad partnership was organised in the various areas concerned to draw up a plan of integrated measures for employment. This plan then received support from the Structural Funds thanks to the margins for manoeuvre contained in programming. By the end of 2001, the action plans will have had funding of EUR1 600 million (including EUR500 million from the Structural Funds), which should create or directly maintain 55 000 jobs [11].

[11] Commission staff working paper "Second interim progress report on the Territorial Employment Pacts" SEC(1999) 1932, 26 November 1999.

Publicity for this approach and its first results in preparation for the 2000-06 programming period was provided by a conference organised by the Commission in the form of an ideas exchange.

The conference was held in Brussels from 8 to 10 November 1999 and attended by some 830 people. On this occasion, 59 "instruments" derived from the action plans for the territorial pacts for employment and designed to be transferred were presented in the course of over 1 200 bilateral meetings between pact coordinators and representatives of local authorities and national administrations.

The main contributions stressed:

*the substantial support provided by the Finnish Presidency to this approach by its Minister of Labour, and by the Committee of the Regions, represented by its President. Both speakers stressed the potential for job-creation which existed at local level and its links with the European employment Strategy;

*the Commission guidelines for the 2000-06 programming period [12] designed to include the territorial pacts in the programmes under the Objectives of the Structural Funds.

[12] Commission staff working paper "Guide to the Territorial Employment Pacts 2000-06" SEC(1999) 1933, 17 November 1999.

1.3.2. The continuation of methodological work on the evaluation of programmes

In preparation for the new programming period, the Commission continued the methodological work begun in 1998. The working papers on ex-ante evaluation, monitoring indicators and the performance reserve were the subject of lively discussions in the technical group on evaluation. These documents were distributed to the Member States and placed on the "Inforegio" Internet site.

Methodological consideration on evaluating the impact on employment continued using a study of practice in the Member States. Selecting examples of good practice (e.g. the calculation of net impact in the U.K. programmes), the Commission sought to encourage exchanges of methodological experience and know-how with assistance from the administrations concerned in order to be able to measure correctly the potential and actual impact on employment of structural assistance.

Progress was also made in developing methodologies for monitoring and evaluation in the field of human resources. The new guidelines were tested during the final evaluation exercise and validated together with the Member States. The guidelines include common monitoring criteria, a typology for the impact of assistance in the field of human resources and, in particular, the link between the effects on employment and employability.

Chapter 2 : implementation of programmes in the member states

2.1. General presentation of programming

2.1.1. The programmes adopted in 1999

1999 was the last year of the 1994-99 programming period. This meant that very few new programmes were adopted since all the programming was being implemented.

Only five new items of assistance were adopted in 1999 under the various Objectives. These comprised two operational programmes under Objective 1 which it had not been possible to adopt before: one included the territorial pacts for employment in the programming in Spain at a total cost of EUR64.6 million and the other was a programme to develop ecological buses in Greece at a total cost of EUR37.4 million. In addition to these two operational programmes, three global grants were also adopted in the Objective 1 regions of Italy at a total cost of some EUR45 million.

In all, these five new items accounted for only 0.1% of the total assistance from the Funds allocated to the various Objectives in 1994-99.

At the same time, a further 25 programmes under the Community Initiatives were adopted during the year. Apart from two Interreg II C (transnational cooperation) programmes, one for the Atlantic area and one to combat drought in Greece (EUR13.4 million each), these were very low-budget programmes (no more than EUR1.5 million). Most of these 22 new programmes were for the SMEs Initiative.

2.1.2. General overview of implementation

At the end of 1999, programming for the Structural Funds Objectives in 1994-99 was being implemented through 610 items of assistance, mostly under Objectives 1 and 2. In addition, assistance under the Community Initiatives was being implemented through 524 programmes.

In all, therefore, assistance from the Structural Funds for 1994-99 was being implemented through 1 134 programmes.

Assistance from the Structural Funds 1994-99 (CSFs and SPDs) in EUR million at 31 December 1999

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

Following the faster pace of implementation of assistance in 1997 and 1998, 1999 saw the complete implementation of programming, as the charts below show.

CSFs/SPDs: Implementation of appropriations 1994-99 over all Objectives

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

//

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

During this final year of implementation, 93.47% of the appropriations available for the year for Objectives 1 to 6 were committed and 87.09% paid. That meant that, at the end of the programming period, 99% of total assistance had been committed. There was a significant speed up in commitments during 1999, a year which accounted for 21% of all commitments made since 1994. The situation varies slightly from one Member State to another, but to a lesser extent than in previous years. Only two Member States (Belgium and Denmark) committed 100% of assistance in the period. Most committed 99% although some had lower rates: Luxembourg (98%), Austria (98%) and the United Kingdom (96%).

With regard to payments too, there was a clear improvement in 1999, with the overall rate of implementation standing at 75%. It should be noted that payments at local level for 1994-99 may be made until 31 December 2001. Here too, there are some disparities between the Member States. As in 1998, the Member States with a high rate of implementation of payments are principally the "cohesion countries", that is, the least prosperous states which are the main beneficiaries of the Structural Funds: Spain (81%), Portugal (89%) and Ireland (87%). At the other extreme, some of the most prosperous Member States in the Union had a lower rate of implementation of payments than the Community average.

Implementation was highest for Objectives 1 and 3, where commitments reached 99% and 100% respectively and payments reached or fell just short of 80%, above average results. By contrast, delays in implementing payments for Objectives 2, 4 and 5(b) persisted. In the case of Objective 2, where progress was slowest, the delays may be explained by the fact that the programmes for 1997-99 were adopted during 1997 so that not all the measures under them could actually be implemented and most of the relevant payments will be made in 2000.

Equal opportunities for men and women in the national initiative programmes:

Gender mainstreaming aims at the systematic integration of the respective situations, priorities and needs of women and men into all policies. Its aim is to promote equality between women and men and to mobilise all general policies and measures specifically for the purpose of achieving equality. The effects of policy on the respective situations of women and men are taken into account in the planning stage and in the phase of implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Mainstreaming is a strategy to promote equality between women and men in a more effective way. It is important to keep in mind that, when we embrace "mainstreaming", we do so as an addition to our existing mechanisms and positive action measures in favour of women or the under-represented sex. We are in fact talking about a complementary dual approach: horizontal action across the board, plus targeted, specific action where appropriate.

Mainstreaming is about transforming general policies and making them gender-sensitive. This means that policies should take into account the differences in the lives of women and men, seek to promote equality generally and address inequalities. It means designing assistance to ensure that constraints are overcome and that the needs and interests of women and men are met equally.

The Commission has made efforts to promote specific measures aimed at improving the situation of women through successive multi-annual Action Programmes and to implement gender mainstreaming in all policies.

The 1996 Commission Communication on "Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities" gives a definition of the concept of "mainstreaming" and states the commitment of the Commission to adopt a policy based on "mobilising all general measures specifically for the purpose of achieving equality". This was the formal launching point of the commitment of the Commission to a policy based on mainstreaming and it has served as basis for all subsequent activities.

2.1.3. Implementation of Objectives 1 (regions whose development is lagging behind) and 6 (regions with a low population density)

Five items of assistance adopted in 1999 concerned Objective 1 (see point 2.1.1.). These new items required finance of only EUR147 million, 0.15% of total assistance from the Structural Funds for Objective 1 in 1994-99.

At the end of 1999, Objective 1 was being implemented by a total of 219 forms of assistance (SPDs, OPs, global grants, major projects). Two SPDs (both adopted in 1995) were implementing Objective 6 in the northernmost regions of Sweden and Finland.

Implementation of appropriations

As in 1998, with Objective 3 Objective 1 recorded the highest rates of implementation of appropriations in 1999. The pace of programme implementation continued to increase, as the charts below show:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

//

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

In the case of Objective 1, virtually all the appropriations for the period had been committed by the end of 1999 and 78% had been paid. The faster pace of implementation, which began in 1997, was confirmed. 1999 was the last year of the programming period, and commitments must be implemented before 31 December. Good performances in implementing Objective 1 were recorded chiefly among the main beneficiaries of the Funds: Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Germany, all of which had rates of implementation above the Union average. Outstanding were Portugal (99% of appropriations committed and 89% paid) and Ireland (99% of appropriations committed and 87% paid); Greece reached the Community average, almost making up in 1999 its accumulated delays in implementing payments. As was noted in 1997 and 1998, the Member States which continued to be slow in implementing Objective 1 in 1999 were still the most prosperous countries: Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In Italy the implementation of appropriations in 1999 speeded up considerably, but, except in the case of commitments, not enough to make up the backlog which had built up since the beginning of the period.

The situations in the two countries concerned by Objective 6 continued to be very different: while the implementation of commitments in both countries reached 100%, the rate for payments in Finland was much higher than in Sweden (65% and 54% respectively). Overall, these rates of implementation are well below the Community average for the Objectives as a whole. However, it should be recalled that the Objective 6 programmes were not adopted until 1995, following the accession of Sweden and Finland.

2.1.4. Implementation of Objective 2 (areas undergoing industrial conversion)

Following the start in 1997 of the new programming period (1997-99) and the adoption that year and in 1998 of all the programmes concerned, no new Objective 2 programmes were adopted in 1999. That year was therefore one of consolidation of implementation at all levels.

Implementation of appropriations under Objective 2

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

//

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Implementation of the programmes adopted only at the end of 1997 or in 1998 did not start until 1999 and so the rate of implementation of payments appears quite low (60% of total assistance for the period). Payments at local level for these programmes may, however, continue until 31 December 2001.

During 1999 the implementation of commitments speeded up considerably, amounting to 25% of the total for the period. Nevertheless, 3% of total appropriations for the period (EUR477.5 million) could not be committed by 31 December and so will have to be reinstated, since no appropriations can be transferred from 1994-99 to 2000-06.

2.1.5. Implementation of Objectives 3 and 4 (human resources and labour market)

Measures to promote equal opportunities in the field of human resources :

In the case of Objective 3, reallocations were made during the last quarter of the year to provide extra funds for the priorities of the European Employment Strategy, particularly to promote active labour market policies for young people, the participation of women in these policies and the incorporation of the gender dimension into these programmes.

Because of their nature and aims, the Objective 4 programmes aimed at various sectors of the economy do not include specific measures to promote equal opportunities although some measures do benefit women, particularly in the field of vocational retraining.

*Implementation of Objective 3 (long-term unemployment, integration of young people and inclusion in the labour market)

Objective 3 is horizontal in nature (it covers the whole territory excluding the Objective 1 regions, which have an integrated approach) and targets various groups: unemployed young people, the long-term unemployed and those threatened with exclusion from the labour market.

Following the launch of the European Employment Strategy in 1997, the programmes were adjusted to take account of the new guidelines.

Implementation of appropriations - Objective 3

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

//

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

By the end of 1999, all the appropriations for the period had been committed and 80% paid, which is well above the average for the Objectives as a whole.

*Implementation of Objective 4 (industrial change and systems of production)

Objective 4 too is horizontal (the whole Community territory excluding the Objective 1 regions). It seeks to extend workers' employment opportunities and skills, particularly among those in greatest danger of unemployment. Measures include vocational training, monitoring and advice, networking and improving on-going training systems. The programmes therefore reflect the priority given to adaptability in the European Employment Strategy.

Implementation of appropriations - Objective 4

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

//

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

The improvement in the implementation of appropriations noted in 1998 continued in 1999. Specifically, substantial efforts were made in the United Kingdom, which had not submitted its Objective 4 programme until 1998, and in Italy. This meant that all the appropriations for the period could be committed by the end of 1999, but implementation of payments reached only 69%, partly because of the highly innovative nature of some measures. Nevertheless, all payments should be implemented during 2000, including those for the United Kingdom and Italy, the two Member States where delays are greatest.

2.1.6. Implementation of Objective 5(a) (structural adjustment in agriculture and fisheries)

Objective 5(a) - agriculture:

Objective 5(a) - agriculture is a horizontal Objective concerned with agriculture and the modernisation of agricultural structures throughout the Union and so is linked to the common agricultural policy; it also provides assistance for forestry.

In 1999, the regulations on which the Objective is based (Regulations (EC) Nos 950/97, 951/97 and 952/97) were brought together in a single rural development Regulation (No 1257/1999), which applied from 1 January 2000. The Commission then adopted in February the Regulation concerning aid to producer groups (No 243/1999 [13]), in March a Decision amending the list of less-favoured areas (No 251/1999 [14]) and in July a Regulation on producer groups and associations of such groups (No 1606/1999 [15]).

[13] Commission Regulation (EC) No 243/1999 of 1 February 1999 amending Regulations (EC) No 478/97 and (EC) No 20/98 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96.

[14] Commission Decision of 23 March 1999, OJ L 96, 10.4.1999, p. 29.

[15] Commission Regulation of 22 July amending Regulation (EEC) No 220/91 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 952/97.

The Commission amended the CSF on the improvement of the conditions for the processing and marketing of agricultural products in Italy in order to increase the total amount. During the year, it also adopted twelve amendments to SPDs, affecting seven Member States.

Measures to promote equal opportunities in agriculture

The horizontal measures under Objective 5(a) applied during 1994-99 contain few specific measures for equal opportunities. However, some installations of young farmers concern women. Women may also benefit from investment aid, agri-environmental measures and measures concerning the processing and marketing of agricultural products. They are chiefly concerned by the promotion of projects relating to the manufacture of local products on the farm, particularly regional products, which provide extra income for agricultural holdings. They promote rural tourism projects and restoration work which is often linked to the direct sale of products on the farm and to craft activities.

They call on replacement services where these are available (particularly in cases of sickness). Most rural areas suffer severely from the lack of services in many areas: education, health, child-care and assistance for old people. The new legislation on rural development allows these to be promoted in all regions (Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999).

Implementation of appropriations

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

//

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

As in the case of the other Objectives, implementation of Objective 5(a) - agriculture continued to improve in 1999, particularly as regards commitments. By the end of 1999, 96% of the appropriations for the period had been committed and 70% paid. Nevertheless, these rates are lower than the average for the Objectives as a whole. Here too, there are considerable disparities among the various Member States: as in 1998, the lowest rates of implementation were in Italy and the Netherlands.

Objective 5(a) - fisheries:

The specific aims of the FIFG under Objective 5(a) - fisheries may be summed up as:

-for the fishing fleets: balance between the fishing effort and available resources ("adjusting fishing capacity"), without endangering the essential renewal of fleets and the modernisation of vessels;

-in the other fields (aquaculture, processing and marketing of products, port facilities, etc.): modernisation and rationalisation of the various factors and units of production to improve the profitability and competitiveness of firms in the sector and increase supply.

Accordingly, the priorities fixed for the selection of finance granted are:

-for the fleets: an irreversible reduction in fishing capacity (definitive laying up of fishing vessels; establishment of joint ventures); compliance with the reduction targets laid down in the "multiannual guidance programmes - MGP";

-in the other fields: modernisation of facilities, compliance with health standards; reduction of environmental impact; diversification of production.

Measures to promote equal opportunities in the fisheries sector:

The Commission intends to have a study on the role of women in the fisheries sector carried out, summarising all the available information on this subject. It will also encourage the Member States to include in the new programming of the FIFG for 2000-06 measures to promote equal employment opportunities in the fisheries sector and measures to help mothers with small children in small in-shore fisheries (under Articles 11 and 17 of the new FIFG implementing Regulation).

Implementation of appropriations for Objective 5(a) - fisheries:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

//

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

In 1999, some twenty programmes had to be reprogrammed on one or more occasions, either because of delays in implementation, to adjust the financial breakdown among measures or to incorporate the results of the annual indexation.

During the year, progress was made in implementing the backlog of appropriations caused by the stagnation in 1998: by 31 December 1999 all the appropriations for the period had been committed and 73% paid. This is in line with the average for the Objectives as a whole.

Most of the Member States which still had a backlog in 1998 eliminated it, in some cases by reducing the initial allocation to the programmes (Italy, United Kingdom, Denmark).

2.1.7. Implementation of Objective 5(b) (development of rural areas)

Objective 5(b) is a regionalised Objective designed to facilitate the development and structural adjustment of rural areas outside the Objective 1 regions. During 1999, about 110 amendments were made to the programming documents for the 12 Member States concerned. These were intended to bring the finance available into line with the measures making most progress.

Measures to promote equal opportunities in rural areas:

There are few specific measures in the programmes for the Objective 5(b) areas. Those submitted concerned women in business (Sweden) and vocational training aimed specifically at women, a measure not regarded as effective, either because the type of training selected was ill adapted to the labour market or because it did not meet the aspirations of the women concerned.

Although there are few precise figures on the number of women benefiting from the various measures (except, in some instances, for vocational training), women have benefited mainly from projects to diversify activities in rural areas.

On the other hand, the EAGGF has financed a large number of measures for young farmers. These normally supplement the installation grant and comprise in particular measures offering support, training, guidance and technical assistance. They supplement the horizontal measure and make it more effective by providing agricultural advisers to guide and prepare the young farmers, both men and women, and help them choose their method of working.

Implementation of appropriations

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

//

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

The implementation of appropriations speeded up sharply in 1999, particularly as regards commitments. This was due partly to the improved targeting of measures and to adjustments to measures following the interim evaluations carried out in 1998. Many programmes were amended as a result to bring them more closely into line with Community priorities, such as support for employment (through measures to support firms in France, Finland and the United Kingdom) and the improvement of the rural environment in Belgium and Denmark.

By the end of 1999, 99% of the appropriations for the period had been committed and 68% paid. This meant that Objective 5(b) was continuing to lag behind as regards payments (the second lowest rate of implementation, after Objective 2). While most Member States had satisfactory rates of payment (about 70-75%), other Member States did not succeed in making up the backlog: this was particularly true of Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands. The 1998 mid-term review revealed certain special features which explain the delay in implementation in Italy: the separation of procedures for implementing the Objective 5(b) programmes from those for the ordinary regional programming, the predominance of aid schemes with a large number of small projects, the complexity of the national rules to be observed when carrying out projects and, most important, the length and complexity of calls for tenders. In Belgium, the two programmes in Flanders continued to suffer delays, mainly because of problems in operating the regional partnership.

2.1.8. Implementation of the Community Initiatives

This chapter does not cover all the Community Initiatives (CI) but merely reviews the main features of 1999.

The reallocation of finance carried out in 1998 at the request of Parliament resulted in a substantial speeding up in the implementation of the Community Initiatives in 1999. The reallocations provided a further EUR100 million for the Peace Initiative (reconciliation in Northern Ireland) with a corresponding reduction in the assistance for certain other Initiatives experiencing greater difficulties in implementation.

Adoption of new Community Initiative programmes:

During 1999, 25 new Community Initiative programmes were adopted, 22 providing very small individual amounts (EUR0.2 to 1.9 million) under the SMEs Initiative. An Urban programme (regeneration of crisis-hit urban areas) was also adopted for the Brussels-Capital region (EUR1.4 million). Two more costly programmes were adopted under Interreg II C (transnational cooperation): one for the Atlantic area (Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom), the other to prevent drought in Greece. Each of these two new programmes has funding of EUR13.4 million.

The Adapt and Employment Initiatives:

The EU-wide evaluations, along with the work of the Thematic Focus Groups, began to produce their first concrete results. The Member States and the Commission drew specific strategic lessons from this work, which should allow the most important results of the Initiatives to be integrated into mainstream policy provision at European level and, through the European Employment Strategy, at national level.

Specifically, in January 1999, a conference on "Building territories for the millennium" took place in Northern Ireland, to capitalise on the outcomes of the Thematic Focus Group on territorial approaches in the initiatives. In June the UK hosted a conference on "Empowering the excluded" (Employment-Integra), and in November the Thematic Focus Groups on "Crossing the job threshold" (Employment and Adapt) and "Empowerment of young people" (Employment-Youthstart) held a joint conference in Helsinki and Stockholm.

The Leader II Initiative:

During 1999, the beneficiary groups (the LAG - Local Action Groups) took the decisions required to approve individual projects so that all Community funding could be committed by the end of the year. The LAG also worked hard on finalising the international cooperation agreements provided for in their programmes.

The Pesca Initiative:

The fact that Pesca involves three Structural Funds has considerably complicated its management, at both Community and national level. It has been decided not to continue the Pesca Community Initiative in the new programming period 2000-06 but to assist the fisheries sector solely through the FIFG, whose assistance can be supplemented by the ERDF and the ESF in the areas dependent on fisheries eligible under the regional programmes for Objectives 1 and 2.

As regards the transnational measures under Pesca, the following should be noted:

-the Commission launched the fourth and final call for proposals for transnational projects for cooperation and networking between areas dependent on fisheries. As a result, 15 projects, which will receive Community assistance worth about EUR800 000, were selected;

-the third Pesca thematic conference, on "The future of aquaculture in Europe" was held on 5 and 6 November in Santiago de Compostela (Spain);

-four Pesca interregional meetings were held in 1999: in February in Galway (Ireland) on the future of aquaculture, in April in Preveza (Greece) on the same topic, in June in Turku (Finland) on women and fisheries and in December in the Azores (Portugal) on the situation with regard to fisheries in the outermost regions and the islands.

The Community Initiatives and equal opportunities:

The Employment-Now Initiative: 1999 was the final year of the Employment-Now programme and saw the culmination of five years of innovative work across the EU. Over the lifetime of Now, some 1 900 projects tested many different approaches to the full inclusion of women in the labour market, and the lessons learned by these projects are being incorporated into the design and implementation of employment and training policy and practice in every Member State. At European level the Commission organised a Thematic Focus Group which examined in detail the question of the desegregation of the labour market, using the concrete experiences of Now and Adapt projects. The outcome of this work will be published in various formats during 2000. The policy and implementation lessons of Now were used during 1999 in the design of the new human resource Community Initiative, Equal, where questions of inclusion and anti-discrimination are central. In this way the priority given to equality of opportunity by the Now programme will be carried through into Equal.

Some measures under the Urban Initiative are specially aimed at women and their environment: they may include the establishment or expansion of nurseries and child-care facilities in urban areas in difficulties and adjustments to their timetables. In Italy, an innovative measure concerning a "network against the violence suffered by women" was launched. This pilot project, which began in the second half of 1999, is located in Catania, Naples, Rome, Venice (lead city) and Palermo, with Cosenza, Reggio Calabria, Foggia and Lecce as associated cities. The creation of this network is intended to identify and investigate the environments at risk, select the types of assistance which may be used in response to the violence which women suffer inside and outside the home and so devise a methodology to achieve this.

The Leader Initiative also helps women. Many measures, although not specifically directed at women, have helped promote their activities. This is demonstrated by a report of the Observatory on rural development, submitted to the rural women group in the Advisory Committee on rural development [16]. Women make up 28% of those leading LAG (local action groups), political leaders and agricultural technicians. This figure is as high as 60% in Finland. Of women project promoters, 26% are concerned with rural tourism or processed products, 22% with services and shared facilities and 21% with new technologies. Women have also contributed directly to the creation of 18% of the jobs stemming from this Initiative (village restoration: 12%, tourism: 12% and the agri-food industry: 8%). Most of these measures comprise micro-projects which do not figure in the national initiative programmes.

[16] This rural women group was set up in 1998. It is made up of representatives of European-level farming and rural development organisations.

Two transnational Leader II projects selected as their topic the promotion of women's activities and publicity, information and awareness-raising work is directed to this public. All the measures have had considerable impact in the areas concerned and the Leader finance has facilitated access to other sources of funds.

In the case of Pesca, in June 1999 the Commission organised an interregional meeting under this Initiative on the subject of women and fisheries.

Implementation of appropriations

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

//

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

Following the reallocation of appropriations among the Community Initiatives, by the end of 1999 95% of total assistance for the period had been committed and 57% paid. The commitment of virtually all the assistance means that measures carried out on the spot can be paid by 31 December 2001.

The disparities in the rates of implementation of the various Initiatives tended to decline in 1999, at least as regards commitments. In fact, commitments appear fairly uniform at around an average of 95% for the Initiatives as a whole; the Pesca, Adapt and Employment Community Initiatives, together with Resider and Rechar, have the highest rate of commitments. The rates for Peace and SMEs are lower: in the case of Peace, because the reallocation of appropriations resulted in an increase in total funding of EUR100 million (25% of the original amount) while, in the case of SMEs, the poor rate of commitment is due to the vary late adoption of certain programmes in 1998 and 1999, because of their innovative elements, particularly as regards local partnerships.

The variations in progress in terms of payments are more marked, ranging from 52% to 74%. As in 1998, Employment and the industrial conversion Initiatives (Rechar, Konver, Retex - but not Resider) recorded the highest rates of implementation of payments. It should be noted that implementation of Adapt, which was lagging substantially behind in 1998, has improved considerably and in 1999 reached the average for the Initiatives as a whole. As in the case of the CSFs and SPDs, payments for the Community Initiative programmes may be made until 31 December 2001.

2.1.9. Innovative measures and technical assistance

Each Fund may finance innovative measures or technical assistance up to the following maximum percentages of annual funding: ERDF 1.5%, EAGGF 1%, ESF 1.5% and FIFG 2% (see Annex 4).

Budget heading B2-1600 (environmental measures under the Structural Funds) was established by the European Parliament in 1997. Implementation in 1999 continued the satisfactory trend recorded in 1998 with 100% of appropriations being committed by the end of the year. Measures financed in 1999 included the purchase of satellite images for the "Corine Land Cover 2000" project, environmental education and the development of the landscape in Portugal (Alentejo), a seminar on the promotion of sustainable development in Berlin and a pilot project on the same subject in Upper Normandy.

A report on the measures carried out in 1997-98 was sent to the European Parliament in March 1999.

Innovative measures and equal opportunities

As in the case of the national initiative programmes and the Community Initiatives, some innovative measures promote equal opportunities for men and women.

As regards interregional cooperation, a seminar was organised under Recite for the networking of centres of resources to encourage the integration of women into economic life.

An Ecos-Ouverture programme is preparing the applicant countries to make equal opportunities a priority.

In rural areas, targeted measures were adopted in 1999: of the 16 new measures adopted in 1999, 13 concerned projects for women farmers or women living in the countryside. These measures include improving the skills and status of women and structuring services to those living in the countryside in France, a electronic service network for women farmers and women in the countryside in Sweden and the establishment of a network of childcare centres in rural areas in Spain.

Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation

New measures adopted in 1999: (See Annex 4)

*Virtually all the new commitments were for interregional cooperation. In the case of internal interregional cooperation and under the Recite II programme, the Commission approved 14 projects costing a total of EUR28.7 million. This meant that the programme has committed a total of EUR111.5 million for 56 interregional cooperation projects involving a total of 295 partners.

-During 1999 the 56 projects completed the first phase of an eight-month work programme at the end of which each project leader was required to submit a verification report on feasibility which the Commission used to decide (following a meeting with the project partners, the technical assistance bureau and two outside experts) whether the project should continue. The Commission agreed that, so far, 41 of the 42 projects which have completed this first phase should continue. DG REGIO's goals were (i) to verify the feasibility of the projects after the networks had been operating for eight months and to halt implementation of those for which the first phase had not proved satisfactory, (ii) to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each project by undertaking an intensive monitoring of some of them, (iii) to suggest improvements which could be made to the project on the basis of the feasibility phase with the help of outside experts. Two seminars were organised, one for leaders of projects concerned with the internationalisation of SMEs and the other for networks promoting equal opportunities. In addition, a seminar on the administrative and financial obligations of project managers was held in 1999.

-The Commission launched 63 Ecos-Ouverture projects in the field of external interregional cooperation. These projects were selected from more than 500 proposals submitted, demonstrating the very high level of interest by local authorities in cooperation at European level which compensates for the procedural difficulties inherent in measures of this type. The programme prepares for the forthcoming enlargement at decentralised level in a number of fields of vital importance to the authorities in the CEEC such as the preparation of regional development strategies, the economic development of cultural assets, equal opportunities, the environment and aid to small firms.

-As in previous years, two Europartenariat events were held: in Vienna (Austria) in May and in Potsdam (Germany) in October. They were linked to "Phare-Partnership" meetings and provided the occasion for over 44 000 contacts relating to cooperation projects between small firms in the Union and those in the CEEC. The Commission is currently undertaking an evaluation of Europartenariat in order to establish the value added over the last ten years and suggest the changes required in view of the new challenges facing small firms on international markets.

The intermediate phase (RISI 1 and RISI 2) of the Regional Information Society Initiative, which seeks to implant the concept of the Information Society in the least developed regions of the Union, was completed in 1999. The success of RISI has resulted in finance for a second phase (RISI+) to further the aims of incorporating the Information Society in the regional development strategies, mainly through finance for Structural Funds programmes. In October 1999, 13 "mono-regional" innovative projects were launched, with Community finance of some EUR250 000 per region in order to test some measures planned for the first phase. As regards the Regional Strategies for Innovation (RIS), in 1999 21 regions completed preparation of a strategy and an action plan designed to improve public policy and know-how on the promotion of innovation in small firms in the regions concerned. The action plan should mean that in future these regions improve the quality and quantity of public and private expenditure on innovation in order to make their economies more competitive. The success of the RIS led the Commission to support a second phase (RIS+) to take further the goals of promoting innovation in regional development strategies by financing pilot projects stemming from the RIS action plan. Since July 1999, 25 RIS+ projects have been launched with Community finance of about EUR250 000 per region.

-Alongside the new measures selected in 1999, some pilot projects begun in earlier years continued. These included the six RTT projects for technology transfer based on interregional cooperation, which bring together some 30 organisations in various regions of the Union and different sectors: textiles, aquaculture, clean technologies and recycling, footwear, etc. which have continued to implement their action plans. Similarly, virtually all the 26 urban pilot projects (1997-99) were extended, at their own request, to enable them to continue their work until the end of 2000. The urban audit begun in 1998, whose results will be published in 2000, continued in 1999, collecting some 30 indicators of the quality of life in 58 of the largest cities in Europe. Furthermore, the 15 Terra regional planning pilot projects reached cruising speed in 1999. The annual meeting of partners was held in Finland, as was a technical seminar on indicators.

Measures financed under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation (EUR million):

>TABLE POSITION>

Technical assistance under Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation:

Under Article 7, the ERDF may spend up to 0.5% of its annual funding on studies, technical assistance and information.

In 1999 preparation and monitoring work accounted for about 43% of total commitments: these measures included 27 new commitments concerning the continuation of the Territorial Pacts for Employment until the end of 2001 in 10 Member States at a cost to the ERDF of EUR100 000 each. Another major component of this type of measure was the promotion of cross-border cooperation (EUR3 million). Information and publicity measures (18% of new commitments) concerned principally a multimedia exhibition on cross-border cooperation in the field of regional planning to support the Interreg II C Community Initiative. The regional studies (12% of new commitments) went mainly to the establishment of an on-going system of labour force surveys in the Member States (LFS - Labour Force Survey) and to a grant to extend the regionalisation of national accounts. Conferences, colloquia and seminars (about 8% of new commitments) included finance for a conference on "Sustainable development durable and regional planning in Europe", improvement of the quality of Objective 2 programmes through exchanges of experience in the United Kingdom and the euro-Mediterranean colloquium in Palermo.

Technical assistance under Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation (EUR million):

>TABLE POSITION>

Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation:

New sources of employment

1999 was the year in which a large part of the work on the employment and training pilot projects under Article 6 started to contribute to the capitalisation process initiated under the Third pilot System. This exercise enabled the Commission to further promote its local development policy throughout all employment-related policies. Some of the projects launched in 1996 had come to an end by the end of 1999. The information gathered from the final evaluation reports already seems to confirm the job-creation potential of local development and the new sources of jobs as identified in the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. As part of its information and dissemination policy, the Commission drafted an Article 6 Project Directory, containing short descriptions and contact data for projects funded under the 1996 and 1997 calls for proposals. The Brochure is scheduled to be published in 200