Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Draft Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)"

(2000/C 51/20)

On 19 October 1999 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned draft communication.

The Committee decided to appoint Mr Barros Vale as rapporteur-general for its opinion.

At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 9 December 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 78 votes to one, with five abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The present opinion has been drawn up subject to the constraints imposed by the fact that the Committee is being consulted, as a matter of urgency, at an early stage in the institutional procedure. The tight deadline obliges the Committee to be systematic and home in on the key issues if it is to offer its opinion in good time. The Committee may issue a more detailed opinion on the Interreg III programme at a later date, using the traditional format. This later opinion will be able to consider the experience and lessons drawn from the operational measures which preceded the programme, and assess its future prospects.

1.2. In any event, the Committee welcomes Commissioner Barnier's move to consult it at this stage, and hopes that this will become standard practice in such situations.

2. General assessment

2.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal, which follows its past recommendations to reduce the number of Community initiatives and extend their scope and capabilities. However, the Committee regrets that the Commission's proposals are not backed by information on the results of activities during the previous period.

2.2. The Committee welcomes the plan to involve the economic and social partners more closely in the various stages of the programme.

2.3. The proposal to oblige the regional authorities to involve local organisations right from the design stage of each programme is also a welcome step. The fact that the programmes will not depend solely on the central authority, but also on local players and operators, should make it easier to adapt them to the situation on the ground in each group of regions concerned, and should also make for more decentralised and effective action.

2.4. The Committee approves the proposal to select projects on the basis of competitive calls open to both the public and private sectors, as this will make the process more transparent.

2.5. The Committee welcomes the Commission's decision to pay the ERDF contributions into a single bank account in the name of the managing or paying authority, who will in turn transfer them to the bodies and authorities designated to implement the various sub-programmes and measures; only then will payments be made to the final beneficiaries.

2.6. The Committee also welcomes the possibility of loans being secured from the EIB.

2.7. The Committee endorses the requirement that Member States ensure that between 50 % and 80 % of their indicative allocation goes to Strand A. The Committee thinks that the 6 % (EUR 292 million) allocated to Strand C should be broken down as follows: 3 % for projects selected by the Commission under the terms specific to Strand C; 3 % for projects that link in with and strengthen projects approved under Strands A and B.

2.8. The Committee is pleased to note the Commission's continuing concern to promote the development not only of border regions within the EU but also of those on the EU's external borders, with a view to enlargement.

2.9. The Committee welcomes the efforts to coordinate the various Community initiatives, as is apparent from the opening-up of the programme to measures in the fields of rural development and fisheries structures.

2.10. The Committee is pleased to see that measures to be funded inside and outside the EU have separate budgets, with the former financed from the ERDF and the latter from other financial instruments.

2.11. The Committee also approves the flexibility offered to the Member States when deciding on the breakdown of funds by strand (while still respecting the margins set by the Commission), border and region.

2.12. The Committee welcomes the use of a Monitoring Committee comprising representatives of local, regional and (where relevant) national authorities, alongside representatives of the socio-economic partners and non-governmental organisations. This will promote a wider perspective and hence more appropriate action.

2.13. Finally, the Committee points out that the budget allocated to the programme is rather modest in view of its ambitious and extensive scope, especially as other Community initiatives have been discontinued.

3. Recommendations

3.1. So that action can be taken to remedy any shortcomings, the Committee feels it extremely important that Interreg be the subject of an implementing report, and that a comparative table of the various Interregs be compiled. No such table exists at present.

3.2. The Committee considers that the Commission should play a greater role in the monitoring and implementation bodies for Interreg, inter alia in order to provide more impetus and encouragement.

3.3. Since Interreg is to operate in conjunction with other Community programmes such as Phare, Tacis, MEDA and PASI, and as the procedures for each fund vary greatly, the Commission should coordinate procedures in order to prevent any blockages.

3.4. The Commission should include Kosovo and Montenegro among the Adriatic regions eligible for Interreg, as they are cross-border regions which currently face serious structural problems.

3.5. In order to promote good practice in the application of the Community initiatives and to make projects more rigorous and credible (as shown by experience with other initiatives such as Leader), the Commission should require each project to be monitored by a statutory auditor or similarly qualified expert.

3.5.1. Again in the interests of rigour and credibility, and in order to ensure that the general regulation's guidelines are respected, the Committee considers that the Commission should make sure that the Member States and local/regional authorities genuinely involve the economic and social partners. It should also make sure that this involvement is more than just a declaration of principles, and continues throughout the framing and implementation of the programme.

3.6. The Committee also suggests that when selecting projects, particular attention be paid to their structural impact, so that they do not peter out when their Interreg support comes to an end, as is often the case. The aim should be to create self-sustaining long-term infrastructure.

3.7. The Committee also thinks that projects should be highly entrepreneurial and should involve objective, practical cooperation. They should be sustainable and increasingly successful over the long term.

3.8. The Committee recommends that careful attention be paid to the outermost regions, now that the Regis initiative has been subsumed into Interreg.

3.9. The Committee considers that the Commission should ensure that the programmes proposed by the Member States place maritime regions, islands and upland areas on an equal footing with other regions, as otherwise these types of region could find themselves lagging behind other border areas from the same country.

3.10. The creation of three strands within Interreg is intended to precisely delimit the geographical scope of the projects presented within each strand. However, the Committee fears that worthwhile projects could be rejected because they are transversal and do not fit neatly into one particular strand. The Committee considers that when assessing projects, a reasonable degree of flexibility will be needed in order to cater for such cases, provided that the projects are relevant and worthwhile within the context of cooperation.

3.11. In order to build on the results of the first two Interreg programmes and ensure that projects designed to get enterprises and administrations to work together can be completed, the Committee thinks that it is necessary to continue to support initiatives of this type which were launched during Interreg II.

3.12. The Committee suggests the following alterations in the priorities and measures proposed by the Commission:

- Strand A - Point 2

- Business spirit and SMEs: Development of trans-European networks and infrastructure, and of economic relations between SMEs (...) information, training (...).

- It must be possible to part-finance operational expenditure by cross-border organisations for a longer period than that proposed by the Commission.

- Tourism: (...) cultural tourism, sports tourism, environmental tourism (...).

- Strand A - Point 6

- Improvements to other infrastructure: Improvement of information, training and communication networks, services and centres.

- Strand A - Point 8

- Cooperation between citizens and institutions: (...) to promote employment. This action must focus particularly on young people, given that this is a strategic requirement for future convergence of the social, cultural and economic conditions of the regions concerned.

3.13. Lastly, systems must be introduced at all tiers of decision-making for evaluating and approving applications, for making payments and for monitoring. The aim should be to speed up proceedings in order to minimise risks, encourage operators, and set the programme in train promptly. Generally speaking, this was not the case in the past with Interreg.

Brussels, 9 December 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI