Opinion on the 'Structural Funds innovatory measures 1995-1999 - Guidelines for the second series of actions under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation` (96/C 100/25)

On 5 December 1994, the Committee of the Regions, referring to Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, decided to draw up an Own-initiative Opinion on the above-mentioned subject.

The matter was referred to Commission 1 for Regional Development, Economic Development, Local and Regional Finances. Mr Bengt Holgersson and Mr Dennis Pettitt were appointed Rapporteurs.

In drawing up the Opinion, the Rapporteurs have also had regard to the European Commission document 'Structural Funds innovatory measures 1994-1999 - Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation proposed priorities for 1994-1999`, and to the draft supplementary Opinion of Commission 4 on Urban Policies.

At its 9th Plenary Session (meeting on 20 and 21 September 1995), the Committee of the Regions adopted the following Opinion.

Introduction

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and, in particular, Article 130 thereof;

Whereas the Treaty provides for the Community to develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion and in particular for it to aim at reducing disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions;

Whereas this aim has been assisted by the support under Article 10 of ERDF for a range of cooperative and innovatory projects carried out jointly by local and regional authorities:

Preliminary remark on the European Commission's approach

The Committee of the Regions regrets that the European Commission has already announced calls for tenders in September 1995 in respect of a number of project types under Article 10 of the ERDF, without waiting for the Committee to deliver its Opinion, and without Commission working documents being made available in all official languages.

General Observations

1. The experience of regional and local authorities of the first period of the operation of Article 10 of the ERDF Regulations suggests wide-ranging support for the studies and pilot schemes which have been undertaken under initiative. The Committee of the Regions fully supports the continuation of these initiatives into the second period. It also welcomes the amendment to the Structural Funds regulations which enables all three Funds to support innovative actions. The COR would wish to see some pilot projects funded by ESF and EAGGF, to encourage the use of these Funds for innovative actions. The Commission should move towards an integrated approach to the funding available for innovative projects from all three Funds.

2. Article 10 initiatives have:

- been successful in bringing together different Community regions to exchange experiences, particularly between eligible and non-eligible regions;

- begun to address problems of border regions within and outside the Community; and

- begun to examine spatial consequences of Community policies, recognizing that the effects of such policies may go beyond national frontiers.

3. The provisions of Article 10 are widely recognized as a potentially valuable and flexible instrument whereby the Community is able to support inter-regional projects of an innovatory nature outside the general thrust of the main ERDF programmes. The ability of non-eligible regions to share their experiences and participate in Community programmes, in partnership with less-advantaged areas, is seen as a valuable means of promoting cohesion and a wider awareness of community objectives and activities.

4. The essential nature of Article 10 funding is as a catalyst or testing-ground for innovatory experiments in cooperation and development. The projects funded have been on a small-scale, which are capable of being introduced on a large-scale if proved successful after evaluation. Both Interreg and Urban Community initiatives developed from the experience gained from projects funded by Article 10.

5. The Committee of the Regions is disappointed, therefore, to note that the estimated available resources for the period 1994-1999 are significantly below 1 % maximum allowed by the Regulations. Indeed, it is not clear from the document how the proposed budget of ECU 400 million for 1996-1999 has been derived.

6. The Commission is asked to consider whether additional funding could be allocated to these measures, up to the amount permitted in the Regulations. The Commission should also consider reserving a larger proportion of the funds for flexible purpose than envisaged in the guidance, as it is quite natural that the Article 10 funds, given their experimental purpose, might be used for purposes which are difficult to anticipate today.

7. Whilst recognizing the potential of Article 10 for promoting the aim of great cohesion and convergence, the experience of local and regional authorities in seeking funding in the period 1989-1993 suggests that certain amendments and improvements need to be made to the administrative process in the second period so as to:

- maintain enthusiasm for the proposed actions,

- secure best value for scarce resources, and

- limit wasted work by applicants.

8. It is noted that the need to improve management methods is acknowledged by the Commission in its guidelines. However, the guidelines still contain too many detailed requirements which appear to be opposition to the innovatory, yet small-scale purpose of Article 10.

9. Some general principles for Article 10 funds, drawing on past experience, are set out below:

a) Article 10 projects need clear objectives. This is particularly so for cross-border and inter-regional cooperation where the common theme of a joint project must be clear;

b) clear selection criteria are required for all measures; the bidding process was often time-consuming and the criteria for acceptance of projects unpredictable and lacking in transparency. Bids should not be rejected without consistent reasons, resulting in wasted effort on the part of the applicant.

The Commission should consider funding follow-up work to re-visit projects to assess their effectiveness and durability;

c) the administration of projects under Article 10 should start from a 'Bottom-up` perspective. Local and regional authorities have in the past and will in the second period be major partners in such projects and they, together with their national associations and the COR should be involved in deciding criteria for the distribution of Article 10 funds; and in the preparation of projects, so as to ensure the compatibility of the projects with the development strategies adopted at regional and local level;

d) priority should be given to initiatives which stimulate new forms of cooperation between municipalities and regions;

e) continued encouragement should be given to cooperation between the poorer and more prosperous regions;

f) it is also felt in some regions that, in relation to inter-regional cooperation generally, there had been, in the first period, a substantial imbalance of funding in favour of cross-border as opposed to other inter-regional cooperation. In addition, the cross-border cooperation funded through Interreg has itself been made difficult for those regions with extensive coastlines by the Commission's wish to give greater emphasis to cooperation across land frontiers. The Commission should consider a more equitable balance of funding for projects between contiguous and non-contiguous regions, and ensure that coastal regions are not disadvantaged in the access to funds;

g) projects should, wherever possible, be funded on a multi-annual basis;

h) experience gained by partners from cooperative projects is likely to be valuable to other regions and the European Commission. There should, therefore, be more efforts made to disseminate the results of projects, and to use this experience to influence future policies;

i) consideration should be given to more publicity in the localities for projects funded under Article 10, so as to enhance the awareness of the public of the contribution of the Community;

j) as emphasized by Commission 4, in many areas innovative local and regional economic development measures must take account of the role of large and medium-sized cities as agents of economic development;

k) the measures funded under Article 10 should be extended during 1995-1999 in line with the Commission proposal, so as to cover the linking of EU towns and regions with their partners in neighbouring Central and Eastern European countries and in the Mediterranean. During this period cooperation projects in all areas eligible for Structural Funds subsidies should be started in the relevant border regions, so as to improve their accession capability.

10. The Committee of the Regions, whilst expecting that the European Commission will wish to have some regard to geographical balance in distributing resources in support of Article 10 projects, is of the view that the first priority for the Commission in such distribution must be conformity to the relevant criteria. This does not prevent use of a relatively wide range of cooperation arrangements as a means of insuring flexible utilisation of Article 10 resources? The key criterion for selection must be the quality of the project and not its subject matter or geographical considerations.

11. The establishment of the COR has reinforced the role of regional and local authorities both in influencing Community policies and ensuring that these policies are better explained. The Commission proposes to keep Member States informed of its intentions through annual reports to the Advisory Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions.

12. However, the COR believes that local and regional authorities working through the COR could play a significant role in spreading information about both successful and less successful projects, at local and regional level, ensuring that important lessons can be learnt by a wide audience. The proposal to provide the COR with an annual report in inter-regional co-operation is an important first step in the involvement of the Committee and member authorities in this process. However, the Commission should go further by ensuring that membership of the Advisory Committee for Regional Development and Conversion is not confined to representatives of the Member States but is also open to representatives of the local and regional authorities.

13. The Committee of the Regions would point out that the aim of ERDF Article 10 funding is to support innovative projects and so gain experience of new regional development concepts and aid schemes which can then be assembled and worked into the debate on the future planning and direction of European aid instruments in the policy areas in question. To increase transparency it is necessary to draw comprehensively on the experience gained during the reference period and take them into proper consideration when devising new intervention mechanisms. The Committee therefore calls upon the Commission to regularly inform it of the acceptance of any priorities laid down in the working document. It also proposes that a joint conference be organized by the Committee of the Regions and the European Commission, in conjunction with the local and regional authorities involved in Article 10 funding, with the aim of exchanging ideas and reaching conclusions on the future direction of Community structural aid.

Comments on specific proposals for the future

a) New priorities for the period 1995-1999

14. The COR gives its full support to the continuation of activities under Article 10 and the concentration on a limited number of priorities for the new period as envisaged in the Commission's guidelines. The emphasis on the promotion of cross-border, inter-regional and transnational cooperation is welcomed, together with support for transnational activities in the field of spatial planning, and policy development for urban areas.

15. The general principles to be applied in the new period are supported. A wider geographical coverage is welcomed as a recognition of the need for closer relationships with Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltic states and countries around the Mediterranean. However, it should be recognized that this may lead to a dilution of resources, given the proposed constraints on budgetary provision. This, in turn, suggests that attention needs to be given to ensuring an application process based on clear selection criteria, so as to minimize wasted effort on the part of applicants. The emphasis on actions which contribute to the generation of economic activity and employment is supported. Attempts must be made to achieve greater synergy with other Community programmes such as Phare and Tacis; and care taken to avoid any overlap with other EU programmes, such as Urban and Med URBS, Employment and Adapt PCIs and the fourth framework programme; in the case of technological developments and telematics projects, there is a need for co-ordination with the fourth framework programme and other EU initiatives in the field of technology.

16. However, whilst supporting the general thrust of the proposals, the Committee is concerned at proposals in relation to the financial and administrative arrangements.

Finance

17. The Committee reaffirms its wish to see the Commission make use of the 1 % of funds for Article 10 projects allowed under the Regulations, in view of the clear wish of local and regional authorities to take maximum advantage of this flexible and innovative instrument.

18. There is great concern at the proposal by the Commission to fund, in general, fewer but larger projects under Article 10 in the second period. This is primarily as a result of the proposal to place a lower limit of ECU 1 million on many categories of projects. This lower limit is, in the view of the Committee, set too high, and will result in the exclusion of smaller or less prosperous authorities.

19. Whilst understanding the reasons behind the proposal - higher visibility for European Union funding and simplified management - the danger is that the essential nature of Article 10 funding - to provide finance to small, innovative projects and to encourage cooperation amongst all types of authorities - may be lost. If the threshold is set too high, only larger, wealthier authorities or those with significant previous experience may feel able to apply.

20. In addition to lowering the threshold for projects, the Commission is urged to explore the possibilities of:

- a start-up fund to contribute to the application costs of smaller and poorer authorities, as envisaged in the draft Opinion of Mr Howitt MEP on behalf of the European Parliament;

- the possibility of larger authorities or national and regional associations acting as agents, project managers, or lead authorities on behalf of smaller authorities when requested by the smaller authorities to do so.

21. There is much knowledge and experience at local and regional level of the areas of work to which Article 10 is directed. Experience shows that projects are most successful where this local knowledge is utilized. The COR is of the view that local and regional authorities should continue to be able, in their own right, to propose projects, apply for project funds and manage projects with appropriate involvement from their national associations, AER and CEMR, instead of using consultants. This is particularly true in relation to cooperative networks, whereas consultants are more appropriately employed in monitoring and assessment.

22. The COR welcomes the recognition in the guidelines of the role of regional and local authorities as partners. The COR notes the proposal in relation to Recite that groups of regional and local authorities or their national organizations may be asked to put forward projects. This approach is welcomed and might usefully be applied to other Article 10 initiatives.

23. However, the Committee would prefer to see greater emphasis placed on the involvement of authorities in the composition of the 'Management Bodies` envisaged for the management and monitoring of implementation of the programme. The Committee is also concerned that, in respect of the programme on spatial development, the involvement of regional and local authorities is strengthened and not left only to the Member State. The COR is of the view that elected representatives of local and regional authorities should be represented on monitoring committees.

b) Inter-regional cooperation and regional economic innovation

24. The Committee notes the proposal to combine into one programme actions in support of internal and external inter-regional cooperation and innovative measures.

Internal cooperation

25. As a consequence of the European integration process the different parts of the continent have come closer to each other at both economic and political levels. As a result, local and regional levels to a greater extent will need to address conditions outside the border of its own nation. The Committee therefore welcomes the continued emphasis on internal inter-regional co-operation.

26. However, with the continuation of this programme, there is a need for the Commission to clarify the balance between cross-border initiatives and those between regions with non-contiguous borders. An equitable balance needs to be produced which, at the same time, does not place coastal regions at a disadvantage. The COR would also recommend that a closer cooperation occur between the poorer and the more prosperous areas as suggested by the Commission, but that such cooperation should not be confined to contiguous areas.

Pacte

27. There is wide-ranging support for the concept of linking poorer regions with more prosperous ones. Cooperation at local and regional level forms the basis of much work towards European integration. The variety of structures, responsibilities and competencies suggests there is much to be learnt from such co-operation.

28. The Pacte programme has contributed significantly to the introduction of towns and regions, to the experience of inter-regional cooperation through links with more experienced counterparts. Experience of the Recite programme suggests that projects obtaining the best results had often benefitted beforehand from financing from Pacte.

29. The Committee is therefore concerned to see that the Commission does not propose to maintain the B2 600 Budget line, which finances the Pacte programme. The Committee does not agree with the Commission's view, in the guidelines, that a distinction is no longer justified between raising awareness through the Pacte programme and follow-up programmes using Recite. The Commission should re-consider this proposal.

Recite

30. The COR supports the proposed types of inter-regional cooperation which may be possible under this programme. Past experience of local and regional authorities supports the comment in the document that projects involving a relatively small number of authorities achieve better results.

31. The COR supports the Commission proposal to widen the areas eligible to include regions with natural common interests e.g. within the Mediterranean, the Baltic and North Sea areas. This should also be done for regions bordering Central and Eastern European states which have signed agreements with the EU and should also apply to other Article 10 initiatives.

External inter-regional cooperation, including Ouverture/ECOS

32. There is strong support in regional local authorities for measures to promote inter-regional cooperation between such authorities in the Union and in Central and Eastern Europe. It is important that such measures include efforts to support the consolidation of democracy in Eastern Europe, particularly within areas of the former Soviet Union.

33. The COR is pleased that the Commission has recognized the experience of local and regional authorities in this area in proposing that they be lead partners in applying for funds to programmes under this measure. The COR welcomes the progress made - for instance under ECOS/Ouverture - in integrating Phare and structural fund resources in projects. In order to ensure that parties participating in a project are treated equally, it is important that it be possible to make a financial contribution towards expenditure by participants from Central and Eastern Europe.

Innovative actions

34. There is general support for the three themes proposed for the first phase.

- actions relating to the regional policy aspects for the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment;

- the development of cultural assets and the European heritage.

35. The conditions influencing regional development work at regional and local level are now changing. Some of the factors which affect this are:

- the reduced economic resources of the national state;

- the tendencies of the internationalization of the national economy;

- the increased possibilities of the local and regional levels to affect work;

- increased rate of cooperation between the different organizations in society;

- the need to promote sustainable development as a response to widespread environmental pressure.

36. The conclusions are, that the local and regional level to a greater extent will create 'their own` future. It is at these levels where 'local` knowledge can be developed and in the longer term directed towards indigenous development. There is therefore a greater need for knowledge and a development of methods on how the local and regional level can contribute to regional development. Therefore, the COR wants to emphasize the importance of the contributions within this area, to be primarily prioritized for this kind of pilot studies. Priority should also be given to dissemination of results, whether by documents or conferences and seminars, making full use of local and regional authorities in this process.

Mobilization of indigenous forces for regional development

37. Modern research has shown that the regions which are able to best create unity, have the best qualifications for furthering their economic development. Beyond the public political institutions, it is the ability of the people in their own close environment to build up the fellowship and the unity which establishes the hotbed for lasting economic improvement. Therefore, the COR would like to strongly recommend the proposal. Experiences, i.e. from the development in the countryside, also show that the work must be built upon a comprehensive view. The projects must be integrated and coordinated with the rest of the local activity in order to be successful. Unconventional methods, sometimes in connection with new methods, are often successful. Rules must be flexible so as to encourage local solutions to local problems. Therefore, alternative methods are required and should be adapted to the smaller scale.

Technological development and telematics within poorer regions

38. The COR recommends the proposal but would like, at the same time, to emphasize that this is one of the areas where a cooperation between poorer and more prosperous regions, can add the most. The concentration of the efforts should therefore be expanded to include such cooperation. In addition, the COR emphasizes the importance of developments in IT as a support for greater decentralization.

The importance of culture in regional development

39. Several investigations show the increasing significance of culture as a developing factor. Therefore, it is important that cultural issues are integrated into the development of municipalities and regions. However, there are different views on the extent of the significance of culture in this context. Pilot projects will, therefore, be useful and the COR recommend the proposal.

Spatial planning at European level

40. The COR is of the view that work in this area should be in support of:

- social development;

- economic development and employment;

- the role of local and regional authorities in the planning process.

41. A continuation of support for networks of exchange of experience between border areas under Article 10 is welcomed. There is an increasing recognition at all levels of government of the need for a European-level examination of spatial issues and the work on 'Europe 2000` has been seen as valuable.

42. The COR welcomes the affirmation by Ministers in charge of spatial planning and regional policies meeting at Strasbourg on 30 and 31 March 1995 of the importance of spatial planning for economic and social cohesion and the sustainable and balanced development of the Member States of the European Union.

43. The COR therefore welcomes the expression of this affirmation in the proposals by the Commission for three types of measure under Article 10:

- pilot actions in the major trans-national European planning areas: here, the COR would wish to see the Commission give firmer support to the involvement of regional and local authorities, rather than leave it to the discretion of the Member State;

- innovative pilot projects in specific areas: here, the COR welcomes the recognition that the main parties will be regional and local authorities;

- a measure to disseminate knowledge and promote cooperation.

44. The COR wishes to point out that the enlargement of the Union will introduce regions with economic and geographic characteristics somewhat different from many other Member states. Sparsity of population and widely-separated town and cities create different relationships between town and county and the infrastructure which serves them. Article 10 projects may be useful in supporting information networks to exchange experiences of the particular problems of such areas. This also applies to Article 10 projects in Central and Eastern European states which have signed agreements with the EU, in order that they might be brought into the EU integration process.

45. The criteria for programmes must enable projects to proceed based on the particular characteristics and circumstances of every Member State.

The role of cities

46. The COR would support the recognition by the Commission of the need to give more attention at Community level to the problems of cities and to contribute to the implementation of urban policies developed at national, regional and local levels.

47. The COR welcomes the Urban initiative as a potentially valuable contribution to addressing the problems of urban areas.

48. The actions to be supported by Article 10 as a complement to Urban are supported, but there needs to be much greater clarity and transparency in the way in which projects are selected. Clear criteria need to be established.

49. Whilst the proposed projects aimed at the joint solution of common problems, support for innovative projects and the promotion of public/private sector cooperation will make a significant contribution to an urban development strategy, more attention should be given to the role of cities in economic development and of the capacity of local and regional administrations to bring together parties which can contribute to the creation of new employment opportunities.

Urban pilot projects

50. The COR would suggest that decisions on Article 10 pilot projects need to be made by the Commission on the basis of the truly European importance of proposals, in particular their innovative and demonstrative character. Priority should be given to those bids which show genuine commitment to developing trans-national working on urban regeneration.

Conclusions

51. The COR welcomes the continuation of support for the range of initiatives under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation. The Commission is asked, however, to consider whether the proposed budgetary allocation is adequate.

52. The COR is of the view that the Commission should make available resources up to the 1 % permitted under the Regulations.

53. The Commission is asked to ensure that local and regional authorities are responsible for the management and decision-making process for Article 10 projects.

54. The Commission is also asked to take into account a number of suggestions contained in the Opinion relating to the application process; the balance of funding between types of initiatives and the dissemination of information arising from the projects, all of which are intended to ensure better use of resources for the support of projects for cooperation and development amongst regional and local authorities.

Done at Brussels, 21 September 1995.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Jacques BLANC

APPENDIX

Supplementary Opinion of the Committee of the Regions

On 5 December 1994, the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions, acting under Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, decided to draw up an Own-initiative Opinion on the above-mentioned subject.

Commission 4 on Urban Policies was made responsible for drawing up a supplementary Opinion. The Rapporteur was Mrs Mary Freehill.

The supplementary Opinion is appended to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions (CdR 303/95) adopted at its 9th Plenary Session (meeting of 21 September 1995).

Introduction

Commission 4 has taken the initiative in drawing up a supplementary Opinion on the Article 10 measures from the standpoint of urban development. In view of the great importance of urban projects within the framework of Article 10 policies, it believes this supplementary Opinion can significantly complement the Opinion which is to be prepared by Commission 1 for Regional Development, Economic Development, Local and Regional Finances.

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Whereas

1. cooperation in projects financed under Article 10 contributes significantly to social and economic cohesion within the European Union;

2. such projects also help to increase European integration;

3. local and regional authorities frequently play an important part in implementing the different projects and thus help to bring Europe closer to the citizen;

4. the large and medium-sized cities which have an important role to play in economic development also face major social problems;

5. cities must adapt to the transformation processes created by the internal market;

6. cities bear a major responsibility for sustainable development,

Commission 4 of the Committee of the Regions notes:

7. with approval, that the policy pursued under Article 10 will broadly be continued, although a number of important amendments have been introduced;

8. that the amount available for Article 10 activities falls considerably short of the 1 % limit fixed in the ERDF Regulation;

9. with approval, that local and regional authorities have been assigned an important role in the local and regional economic policy proposed by the European Commission;

10. with approval, that the Urban pilot projects are to be continued in a new form;

11. that a substantial proportion of the funds are earmarked for urban projects;

12. that the amount made available per project is being increased and that projects will be considered for funding over several years;

13. with approval, that cooperation between the public and private sectors is being encouraged;

14. that Article 10 will continue to cover both inter-regional and cross-frontier projects in which local and regional authorities play a particularly important part;

15. that the Commission foresees great scope for cooperation with local and regional authorities in Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area;

16. with approval, that these proposals already anticipate the possible accession of new Member States;

17. that cooperation at local and regional level with Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean contributes to the economic development of those areas, furthers understanding of the specific needs of outlying regions and plays a significant part in strengthening democracy;

18. that the European Commission intends to intensify the collection of statistical material, particularly in the field of urban development;

19. with approval, that the Commission has made substantial provision for activities contributing to the dissemination - via seminars, conferences and studies - of the knowledge acquired in the different projects;

20. with approval, that Directoria is to be continued;

21. that application procedures were unnecessarily complicated in the past and the different verification criteria were insufficiently clear;

22. with approval, that improvements to programme management are proposed, thereby increasing the transparency of the policy;

23. with approval, that the Committee of the Regions will receive annual progress reports on the different projects;

Is of the opinion:

24. that the resources available for Article 10 of the ERDF must be increased to the 1 % figure mentioned in the Regulation;

25. that the proposed priorities should be endorsed;

26. that, in view of the above-mentioned observation on the importance of cities in economic development, cities must also be allocated a substantial proportion of the Article 10 funds;

27. that innovative local and regional economic development measures must pay particular attention to the role of large and medium-sized cities as agents of economic development;

28. that whilst the proposed projects aimed at the joint solution of common problems, support for innovative projects and the promotion of public-/private-sector cooperation will make a significant contribution to an urban development strategy, they pay insufficient attention to the role of cities in economic development and of the capacity of local and regional administrations to bring together parties which can contribute to the creation of new employment opportunities;

29. that the two above-mentioned roles for cities must be more clearly spelt out in the policy;

30. that the projects must contribute to the attainment of the new employment priority set out in the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment;

31. that the projects must also contribute to sustainable economic development in conjunction with the urban environmental policy that has been developed by DG XI, following the local Agenda 21 in environmental urban projects;

32. that attempts must be made to achieve greater synergy with other Community programmes such as Phare, Tacis and Med URBS;

33. that care must be taken to avoid any overlap with other EU programmes, such as the Urban, Employment and Adapt PCIs and the fourth framework programme;

34. that, in the case of technological developments and telematics projects, there is a need for coordination with the fourth framework programme and other EU initiatives in the field of technology;

35. that an increase in the funding of individual projects will lead to a reduction in their number which could undermine the goal of bringing Europe closer to its citizens; it must be necessary therefore to continue smaller projects like in the Pacte programme;

36. that, whilst the Article 10 initiatives in the field of land-use planning must be continued, they must be open to revision in the light of the results of the IGC discussions;

37. that the proposed 5 % reserve of the total available budget should be used to support a more flexible approach to project proposals which cannot be covered by the normal procedures;

38. that the procedures must be further simplified and the criteria made more transparent;

39. that the proposed new administrative structure and greater dissemination of results will significantly help to increase the impact of projects financed under Article 10;

40. that the proposed efficiency measures must be supported;

41. that, inter alia having regard to the Committee Opinion on urban policy in the EU, this underlines the necessity of an integrated approach to urban policy by the EU as an orientation for the demonstration projects;

42. that the involvement of the Member States must be limited to improved coordination of local, regional, national and European policies for economic development;

43. that membership of the Advisory Committee for Regional Development and Conversion must not be confined to representatives of the Member States but must also be open to representatives of the local and regional authorities;

44. that great importance must be attached to the broadest possible dissemination of the knowledge and experience acquired in the different projects;

45. that the (statistical) information collected by the European Commission can make a valuable contribution to the increased impact of policy developed at local and regional level and that the attention paid to the collection of information on urban development is to be welcomed;

46. that high priority must accordingly be given to the widest possible dissemination at the lowest possible cost, of the information obtained,

and therefore calls on

the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to take account of the comments of the Committee of the Regions in the further development of policy under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation.