Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "The regions in the new economy - Guidelines for innovative measures under the ERDF in the period 2000-2006"

(2001/C 144/19)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Draft Communication from the Commission to the Member States - "The Regions in the new economy, Guidelines for Innovative Measures under the ERDF in the period 2000-2006" - adopted on 11 July 2000;

having regard to the Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), stating that "At the initiative of the Commission ... the Funds may finance innovative actions ... [which] contribute to the preparation of innovative methods and practices designed to improve the quality of assistance under Objectives 1, 2 and 3";

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 10 November 2000, under the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, to draw up an opinion on the subject and to direct Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross Border and Inter-regional Cooperation to prepare its work on the subject;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 1 on 22 November 2000 (CdR 351/2000 rev. 1), rapporteur Mr O'Neachtain, Member of Galway County Council, Member of West Regional Authority (IRL/EA);

having regard to the previous Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Structural Funds Innovatory Measures 1995-1999 - Guidelines for the Second Series of Actions under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation, (CdR 303/95)(2) 21 September 1995 (Rapporteurs: Holgersson and Pettitt);

considering that these guidelines directly effect regional and local authorities with the management of innovative measures;

that the new proposed guidelines for 2000-2006 introduce a number of significant differences in the application and administration of innovative measures in comparison with the previous programming period;

the need for proposals that are clear, simple and transparent to the Commission, to Regional/Local Authorities and to final beneficiaries;

the need for flexible rules governing measures to promote regional innovation, to facilitate the divergence of administrative and legal organisation at regional level throughout the Union and the objective of promoting effective partnership within these diverse regions;

the role that innovation and technology transfer can play in helping to develop lagging regions and the desirability of promoting such innovation and technology transfer in the least bureaucratic way possible;

that the innovation measures under the ERDF are intended to complement mainstream regional assistance under Objectives 1 and 2;

the innovation measures are one of few EU opportunities that many regions of Europe have to formulate programmes within their regions and seek funding from the EU for uniquely regional proposals,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 36th plenary session on 13 and 14 December 2000 (meeting of 13 December).

The Committee of the Regions

1. supports the continuation of innovative measures under the ERDF and the role of regions in formulating and promoting innovation;

2. welcomes these draft guidelines for innovative measures under the ERDF 2000-2006 and wishes to see these measures in place as quickly as possible;

3. regrets the fact that the Communication was addressed to Member States and not to the Committee of the Regions (the designated consultative body for Local and Regional Authorities) and to the European Parliament;

4. believes that these innovative measures are an opportunity to develop capacity of Regional/Local Authorities with respect to Community procedure and practices;

5. welcomes the identification of regions whose Regional Authorities are eligible for funding, in particular the clarification in the draft Communication that in, Ireland, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, the NUTS III level Regional Authorities will be invited to make a proposal and would strongly reject any further proposals to change this position;

6. would further propose that innovative measures under Article 22 should also apply in regions that are currently eligible, in whole are in part, under Objective 1 in transition and Objective 2 in transition in order to reinforce the links with ERDF co-financed programmes;

7. considers that in some Member States, this eligibility should also be extended to other statutory public authorities with a pronounced regional remit;

8. recognises the need for practical subsidiarity and for regions to have a direct link with the EU, without being subject to undue financial or administrative control by central governments;

9. welcomes the structured cooperation between those responsible for the management of innovative measures and those in charge of Objective 1 and 2 programmes, however these innovative measures should not be operated as another mainstream Operational Programme;

10. recommends that regions, whose programmes are approved, should be empowered to be the management, control and payment authority for that Programme. If the Commission consider that this might give rise to legitimate concern in particular cases then these concerns should be addressed by appropriate training and capacity building measures;

11. wishes to see a strong emphasis on implementation of individual projects within the regional programmes. Because of the 2-year timeframe for completion of programmes, strategies should be clear, short and quickly approved to ensure that pilot projects/innovative actions are not inhibited due to time constraints;

12. calls for payment schedules from the Commission to regions to be clearly set out in the financial instructions. The procedures should be simple and transparent for both the Commission and the regions. Final payments should not be unduly delayed;

13. wishes to promote subsidiarity, therefore, the payment, control and management of the programmes should be the responsibility of the respective region, this in itself may be innovative in some countries. The COR does not agree that the payment and control agents, in all Member States, be the same as under Objectives 1 and 2 programmes;

14. recommends that regions be eligible to apply for a second programme once the final financial and other reports for the first programme have been received and approved by the Commission without undue delay.

15. urges the Commission to be flexible in interpreting the three priority themes proposed in the draft guidelines. These themes are relevant and important for the promotion of innovation at regional level. However, thematic rationalisation, and the reduction of the number of themes to three, should not result in any stifling of opportunities for promoting innovation at regional level;

16. suggests that under the theme, Regional economy based on knowledge and technological innovation, the content of a Programme could be extended to include:

- purchase of external expertise,

- analysis of infrastructure - what exists, its potential,

- analysis of skill needs particularly in SMEs,

- prioritise infrastructure needs - particularly telecommunications in rural regions,

- establishment of technological and knowledge research centres, to raise awareness of the considerable importance of the interplay between the public, private and the social economies in promoting development in the regions;

17. suggests that under the theme of e-Europe Regio, the following could also be included:

- establishing Internet sites for regional services,

- supporting SME to improve Internet sites, by research, training and innovative content (e.g. digital images, links, etc.),

- providing local authority services over the Internet,

- pilot use of local radio broadband;

18. suggests that under the theme of Regional Identity and Sustainable Development, the following could also be included:

- a use of technology to preserve cultural and linguistic identity,

- research and identify, regional sustainable economic activities,

- opportunities and threats of e-procurement;

19. considers technology transfer to be of significant benefit to regions lagging behind, therefore the transnational cooperation element should be clarified at the outset and incorporated into approved programmes;

20. wishes to emphasise the necessity of skills training to fully utilise technologies and innovations. Particularly with SMEs, if skills training does not happen with the introduction of new technologies, the full long-term benefits will not be realised;

21. recognises that the real test of any strategy is the success or otherwise of pilot projects. These projects must not be unduly restricted or overburdened with unnecessary auditing and control requirements. The Regional Authorities are competent to ensure good financial management administered in a simple, transparent fashion;

22. proposes that as part of the dissemination and discussion on the Annual Report action, an annual conference/seminar should be held, in cooperation with the Committee of the Regions and representatives of the Regions and their partners, to assess progress on the approved Programmes.

Brussels, 13 December 2000.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos Chabert

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 100, 2.4.1996, p. 124.