ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM ( 83) 566 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/0 215 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the open ing to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 vom  27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
C0MC83) 566 final
Brussels, 3 October 1983
EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
(Eighth report from the Commission to the Council)

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
C0MC83) 566 final
.S·
Brussels, 3 October 1983
EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
(Eighth report from the Commission to the Council)
C0MC83) 566 final

EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
Eighth Annual Report (1982)
;  ·  .  .  ^  D.G. XVI
Manuscript finished in August 1983

PREFACE
Article 21(1) and (2) of the Council Regulation establishing a European 
Regional Development Fund provide as follows:
"1. Before 1 October each year the Commission shall present a report to 
the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social 
Committee on the implementation of this Regulation during the 
preceding year."
"2. This report shall also cover the financial management of the Fund and 
the conclusions drawn by the Commission from the checks made on the 
Fund's operations."
The obligation to present an annual report is reinforced, where non-quota 
measures are concerned, by Article 6(2) and (3) of the Council Regulations 
instituting specific Community measures, which read as follows:
"2. At the end of each year, the Member State concerned shall present to 
the Commission a report on the progress made in carrying out the 
■  special programme by reference to the information required in the 
^ :  Annex to this Regulation. These reports should enable the Commission 
to satisfy itself that the special programme is being executed, to 
observe its effects and to establish that the different operations 
J··  are being carried out in a coherent manner. They shall be forwarded 
:  to the Regional Policy committee."
"3. On the basis of these reports and the relevant decisions, the 
Commission shall report under the conditions laid down in Article 21 
-  of the Fund Regulation."
iii

NOTE
As the second Periodic Report on the Economic and Social Situation of the 
Regions of the Community is now being drafted, this Report covers only the 
most important aspects of ERDF operations.
Accordingly, the following changes in content and layout have been made as 
compared with the Seventh Report for 1981:
• Chapter II, "Regional Policy in 1981" (together with the related
statistical annex) has been dropped from the 1982 Report. However, 
some of the topics discussed in that chapter have been included in the 
Annex: sheets on the regional development programmes presented by the
Member States (Annex Sheet N. 1) and on the integrated development 
operations (Annex Sheet N. 2) ;
• Chapter IV, "Regional Analysis of Fund Activity", has also been 
omitted. However, the overall aspects of the geographical 
concentration of Fund assistance in certain regions are discussed in 
the final chapter, which also gives a brief statistical review of ERDF 
assistance from 1975 to 1982, considers its impact on employment and 
examines complementarity, additionality and the ERDF's overall impact 
on regional development.
A point to be borne in mind is that some of the figures given in various 
chapters of the report cannot be directly compared. For example, the 
figures on commitments and payments shown in Chapter III under the heading 
"Payments and settlement of commitments" do not give any breakdown of Fund 
activities by type of investment or by region, and to describe this aspect 
use has been made of the statistical statements published with each batch 
of decisions. In those statements, the amounts in national currency are 
converted into ECU at the exchange rate applying in January of the 
relevant year, and in Chapter II the conversion coefficients used are the 
exchange rates for converting national currencies into ECU applying in 
January 1982. In Chapter III, on the other hand, commitments and payments 
are shown, in accordance with budget regulations, at the exchange rates 
for each month, with commitments being revalued monthly in line with 
fluctuations in exchange rates. This difference in the methods used to 
calculate the ECU amounts given in the report means that there are 
discrepancies between the figures in Chapters II and III, but they are too 
small to affect the orders of magnitude shown.
Similarly, the figures shown for the numbers of applications submitted and 
projects examined or approved "for the financial year 1982" must be 
distinguished from the figures for applications submitted and projects 
examined or approved "during the calendar year 1982" (see point 24 of 
Chapter II and point 96 of Chapter V) .
v

I CHAPTER I ~ INTRODUCTION
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
1. The European Regional Development Fund is the only Community 
instrument set up for the sole purpose of assisting development in 
the Community's less-favoured regions. It is used to buttress 
national regional development measures with a view to reducing 
regional imbalances in the Community. It makes grants for investment 
projects (infrastructures, production of goods and services) in the 
reigons and areas eligible for regional assistance from Member 
States. Such projects must be financed by or receive assistance from
x the Member State in question.
2. Until 1973, the Community showed steady and sustained growth, but it 
was unbalanced. There was no Community regional policy on a scale to 
reduce this imbalance; to develop one in the present economic 
circumstances is not easy. Because of the large budget deficits, 
there is little room for measure under budgetary policy, and the need 
for cuts in expenditure reduces the financial resources earmarked 
for regional policy. Furthermore, the economic crisis has been so 
severe that structural problems have also arisen in the developed 
regions, and certain regional imbalances have been further 
aggravated. It is no coincidence that the countries with the greatest 
regional disparities are the very ones that are least able to solve 
them, since they are also faced with the most serious economic 
problems. The short-term measures adopted by governments to combat 
the recession, although apparently necessary for political and
x social reasons, should not obscure the fact that the gap is as wide 
as ever between regions with the advantage of natural assets and 
opportunity for development, and those regions handicapped by low
' i :  incomes and structural unemployment.
3. The upturn expected in the economy will probably alleviate but not 
solve the structural problems afflicting the less-favoured regions. 
Without an active regional and structural policy, there cannot 
therefore be any real progress towards economic integration. As an 
arm of such a policy, the Regional Fund is however only one element 
in a large whole. To this extent, the impact of regional policy 
cannot be fully assessed without taking account of the Community's 
other financial instruments and policies and without viewing the 
assistance they provide in the light of the present economic 
situation.
Chapter I - Introduction

SUMMARY OF FUND ACTIVITY IN 1982
Quota section '
4. Under the ERDF Regulation, adopted by the Council in March 1975(1) 
and amended in February 1979(2) and December 1980(3 ), the Commission 
is required to present an annual report on the financial management 
of the Fund and on the conclusions drawn by the Commission from the 
checks made on the Fund's operations. This annual report covers the 
Fund's activities in 1982.
5. Together with continued discussions on the proposed amendment of the 
ERDF Regulation^) presented in October 1981, the main events in 1982 
were the implementation of the specific regional development 
measures, known as "non-quota measures", adopted by the Council in 
October 1980, and the presentation in November of proposals for a 
second series of non-quota measures(5).
6. In the absence of a Council decision on the revised ERDF Regulation, 
the Commission decided to use again in 1982 the quotas which had 
applied in 1981, under Article 2(3) (a) of the Fund Regulation^) .
7. The funds available (commitment appropriations) for the quota 
section in 1982 amounted to 1,817.7 Mio ECU, of which 1,669.0 Mio ECU 
represented the budget allocation for 1982 and 148.7 Mio ECU derived 
from appropriations released, sums carried over from the previous 
year, and adjustments to take account of fluctuations in the ECU 
rate. Although this amount represents a substantial increase over 
the previous year and almost all the appropriations available were 
committed (1,812.1 Mio ECU), the Commission was not able to make 
grants to all the eligible projects submitted. Grant decisions on 149 
investment projects on which the Fund Committee had already given its 
opinion in 1982 had to be deferred to 1983. It is also evident that 
the Member States with the most serious regional problems would have 
submitted an even greater number of applications if the Fund's 
endowment had been larger.
8. In the interests of efficiency and sound financial management, the
Commission adopted a fairly flexible approach in using budget 
resources not taken up by certain Member States and granted Greece, 
Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom a volume of ERDF assistance 
that was in excess of their quotas for 1982, with the difference to 
be counted against their quotas for 1983. ^yos^-i-mU
Regulation (EEC) No. 724/75 of 18 March 1975 (O.J. No. L 73, 
21.03.75).
Regulation (EEC) No. 214/79 of 6 February 1979 
(O.J. No. L 35, 09.02.79) .
Regulation (EEC) No. 3325/80 of 16 December 1980 
(O.J. No. L 349, 23.12.80).
Document C0M(81) 589 final, 26.10.1981.
Document COM(82) 658 final, 18.11.1982. ■
Doc. COM(82) PV 644, point X.
2

9. In 1982, by the end of the appraisal procedure, the Commission had 
approved 63.9% of the projects examined. During the year, the 
Commission adopted a total of 535 grant decisions under the quota 
section involving a total amount of 1,864.30 Mio ECU (81.7% of the 
assistance applied for) in respect of 3,277 investment projects.
v  Since 1975, 17,771 projects and 30 studies have been approved,
bringing the total amount of aid granted to 7,198.65 Mio ECU 
(7,186.89 Mio ECU for projects and 11.76 Mio ECU for studies).
10. Of the 1,864.30 Mio ECU granted in 1982, 12.8% was for industrial and 
service sector projects (1975-82: 21.3%), which were expected to 
result in the creation or maintenance of 48,148 jobs (1975-82: 
506,477 jobs) and 87.1% for infrastructure projects (1975-82: 
78.7%), with the remainder being used to finance studies.
In 1982, aid granted to infrastructure projects again exceeded the 
70% ceiling laid down in the ERDF Regulation. The low level of 
'  :  investment in the industrial, craft industry and service sectors was
largely due to the economic situation. The Commission, however, is 
concerned at the small proportion of resources devoted to the 
productive sector and considers that the Member States must make a 
special effort to remedy this state of affairs and to meet the 
mininum target of the ERDF Regulation(7).
11. Payment appropriations available for the quota section amounted to 
1,015.0 Mio ECU, plus 33.6 Mio ECU carried over from 1981. Payments 
in 1982 were up 20% over the previous year, amounting to 950.7 Mio 
ECU (as against 791,409 Mio ECU in 1981), i.e. 92.2% of the budget 
appropriations available for the quota section. Total payments made 
since the Fund was set up amount to 53.9% of total appropriations 
committed. The Commission considers that this percentage is 
satisfactory, since payments from the Fund are made only after 
payment of the national aids taken as a basis for calculating Fund 
assistance and national aids are paid only as and when the project is 
carried out.
12. Since the revision of the Fund Regulation in 1979, grants from the 
Fund have been possible in respect of payments made by Member States 
as from the twelfth month preceding the date on which the grant 
application was received by the Commission, for investment projects
î not completed by that date. For instance, 37% of the projects 
? financed in 1982 had been started in 1981, 39% were begun during the 
same year as the grant decision, and a small number will begin in 
1983.
7 Article 4(1)(b) of the Fund Regulation. 
Chapter I - Introduction 3

13. In administrative terms, the new simplified procedures governing 
grant, applications for small investment projects (costing less than 
10 Mio ECU) have produced a marked improvement in the prompt 
provision of full information to the Member States and efficient Fund 
management. Nevertheless, there were practical difficulties for the 
Commission, particularly during the second half of the year, since 
small projects accounted for 97% of the total number of projects 
examined (representing 41% of the assistance applied for) and more 
than 65% of the applications submitted, equivalent to nearly 70% of 
the commitment appropriations available in 1982, were not received 
until the period September-November. The Commission has always 
endeavoured to meet the wishes of the national authorities in this 
area; however, in view of the practical difficulties, it must insist 
that applications be submitted in a more even flow throughout the 
year, in accordance with the Regulation, and it must refuse any 
application received after the deadline.
By no means all the applications were properly completed; many had to 
be supplemented by the Commission staff on the basis of further 
information requested from the Member States. It proved generally 
less difficult to obtain additional information in those Member 
States which allow the Commission to have direct contact with the 
relevant regional and local authorities.
14. In 1982, the Member States again made no use of the possibility 
afforded by Article 4(2)(b) of the ERDF Regulation, which provides 
that Fund assistance for infrastructure projects may consist wholly 
or in part of a rebate of three percentage points on loans made by 
the EIB. This is because Member States prefer to obtain ERDF 
assistance under their quotas within a relatively short period, in 
the form of an amount based on the progress of the projects rather 
than in the form of an interest subsidy comprising payments spread 
over a relatively long period, i.e. the term of the EIB loan. Yet 
making use of this possibility would increase the impact of the 
assistance provided by these two financial instruments, firstly by 
allowing a number of investors easier access to credit and secondly 
by allowing more resources to be channelled to regional development 
through the Fund.
15. Eight studies relating to ERDF operations were co-financed (2.07 Mio 
ECU) under Article 12 of the Fund Regulation. This number is well 
below that which the Commission believes should be financed from this 
type of Fund assistance.
4

Non-quota section
16. With regard to the non-quota section the specific Community measures 
financed on the basis of the special programmes approved by the 
Commission began to be implemented as from the second half of 1981.
Commitment appropriations available under the non-quota section in 
1982 amounted to 151.189 Mio ECU (of which 90.5 Mio ECU were entered 
in the 1982 budget and 60.7 Mio ECU were carried over from 1981). 
During the year, 32.7 Mio ECU were committed, bringing the total 
amount committed since 1981 to 73.3 Mio ECU (i.e. nearly 34% of the 
total available for five years was committed in 18 months). The 
payment appropriations available amounted to 62.22 Mio ECU. Payments 
amounted to 22.42 Mio ECU during the year, covering a series of 
:r commitments for the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Italy and 
• - ■ ' ■ s  Belgium.
Remarks .  v
17. The Commission stresses the importance of publicizing Fund
assistance. Such information obviously has a much greater impact if 
Fund assistance can be seen to be additional to national expenditure
.  :  and if the projects financed can be identified individually. The
Commission notes with satisfaction that the authorities in some
Member States, both at national and at regional and local levels, 
continue to cooperate with it in this matter. It considers it 
essential that other Member States agree to provide more public 
information in this respect. The Commission is in any case
considering changes in the way the lists of projects published in the 
Official Journal are presented so as to make these a more useful 
source of information. Particular importance attaches to this in the 
context of the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament.
18. The Commission feels bound to stress the importance of Fund
assistance being additional to national regional development 
expenditure. Observing this principle is the only way of ensuring a 
real increase in the total assistance provided to regions and hence 
of improving the public credibility of Community measures. The 
Commission however finds it difficult to establish the real ratio 
between national expenditure and the amounts received from the Fund 
and hence to determine to what extent Community assistance has been 
genuinely additional to national expenditure.
Chapter I - Introduction 5

19. The amended Fund Regulation and the Council resolution on the 
guidelines for Community regional policy(8) give more prominence to 
the role of regional development programmes. The ERDF Regulation 
provides that Community assistance may be granted only if the project 
forms part of a regional development programme. The ERDF has in this 
way obliged the Member States to draw up regional development 
programmes in accordance with a common outline prescribed by the 
Regional Policy Committee. It thus exerts some influence over the 
programmes by providing a consistent framework for them. Gradually, 
as the programmes are improved and planned with greater 
thoroughness, the basis for regional policy coordination in the 
Community is being created. This coordination process has barely 
begun, the preparation of the first series of programmes having taken 
several years. At the present stage the aim is to make them more 
comparable and to include recognition of the repercussions of other 
structural policies, whether at national or Community level. 
Accordingly, as stated in the Commission’s recommendations to the 
Member States on this subject, the regional development programmes 
should be regularly updated and supplemented. By the end of 1982, all 
the Member States had notified the Commission of their new regional 
development programmes, which are set out in summary form in Annex 
Sheet N. 1.
20. The efforts launched in 1979 to put through a number of integrated
regional development operations demonstrated the usefulness of this 
coordinated approach, despite the difficulties encountered. In 1982, 
the Community budget included for the first time an amount of 2 Mio 
ECU to enable the Commission to contribute to the financing of 
preparatory studies for integrated operations. (The situation 
regarding the first integrated operations is set out in Annex Sheet 
N. 2, which also contains details of ERDF activities in regions 
covered by integrated development programmes: the Western Isles in
the United Kingdom and Lozere in France.
21. The Regional Policy Committee met five times in 1982. It elected a 
new Chairman, Mr. B. ATTALI,  and a new Vice-Chairman, 
Mr. J.R. EYSINK-SMEETS. The Committee examined a document on 
Community regional policy presented by its former Chairman, Mr. NOE, 
and the "second generation" regional development programmes referred 
to it (those for the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and the 
Flanders region of Belgium). It discussed the broad lines of the 
Second Periodic Report on the Economic and Social Situation of the 
Regions of the Community and delivered opinions on 112 major 
infrastructure projects.
Council Resolution of 6 February 1979 concerning the guidelines for 
Community regional policy (O.J. N. C 36, 6.2.1979, p. 10).
6

CHAPTER II - FUND ACTIVITIES
QUOTA SECTION
INTRODUCTION AND METHOD OF WORK
22. The work of the Fund's quota section falls into three consecutive 
? ,.r phases: .
Phase 1: The Commission's departments examine the investment
projects proposed in the grant applications submitted by 
the Member States and select eligible projects, which then 
become the subject of "draft decisions"(’) (see points 5 
to 9 of this Chapter).
Phase 2: The Commission refers to the Fund Committee for an 
opinion(10) the projects it has examined and accepted. The 
referral arrangements are as follows:
• for investment projects costing 10 Mio ECU or more, 
. - t  · '  cfi- referral is automatic. In the case of infrastructure
projects, the Commission consults the Regional Policy 
:  ad CommitteeC11) before seeking the opinion of the Fund
" Committee;
. i f  i s · for investment projects costing less than 10 Mio ECU, 
the Commission applies the prior information
procedure(l2) sending the Member States simplified 
lists of the investment projects for which
applications have been received. The Fund Committee is 
consulted:
- on draft decisions to reject an application where 
- / -  ■  the Member State concerned so requests;
!  ~ — on all other draft decisions in respect of which
■ -  the Commission or a Member State would like to
\ t ~.  —  -  have the opinion of the Fund Committee.
’ The "draft decisions" and the resultant "decisions" generally group 
investment projects in the same way as the grant applications 
submitted to the Commission under Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation.
10 Article 16 of the Fund Regulation. Projects are presented at Fund 
Committee meetings, which generally take place four times a year.
11 As provided for in Article 5(2) (a) of the Fund Regulation.
12 This procedure was introduced in 1979 under Article 5(2) (a) and (b) of 
the Fund Regulation.
Chapter II - Fund activities

Phase 3: Following the prior information procedure and the opinion
delivered by the Fund Committee, the Commission 
decides(13) on the aid to regranted and the benefiting 
projects grouped "in decisions"(9) receiving assistance 
(see point 33 of this Chapter) .
23. It should be noted that, with certain exceptions: :
• projects examined "for 1982" are projects contained in grant 
applications which have reached the Commission during the twelve 
months from October 1981 to September 1982(1 ;
• the projects referred to the Fund Committee for an opinion are 
projects accepted on completion of the examination procedure for 
1982, plus projects proposed in earlier years which had not been 
fully examined and had been provisionally set aside;
• the grant decisions taken in 1982 concern the projects accepted 
on completion of the procedure described above and which could be 
financed out of the 1982 budget, together with projects accepted 
at the last examination in 1981 but on which no decision had been 
taken owing to a shortfall in resources from the 1981 budget.
These facts explain why, within one calendar year, no direct 
comparison can be made between the figures for the stages of 
examination, referral to the Fund Committee and the decision, all 
described below.
24. This Chapter deals only with investment projects, not studies, even 
though they belong to the Fund's quota section. The Commission takes 
the grant decisions for studies without consulting the Fund 
Committee, but informs the Member State concerned by such decisions.
Consequently, the amounts relating to studies must be added to those 
for investment projects (see Annex Table 1). -
However, in the chapter "Financial Management and Control", the 
aggregate amounts relating to the figures for commitments and 
payments cover both investment projects and studies financed by the 
ERDF.
13 Decisions are generally adopted in series (allocations of grants) 
four times a year, shortly after the Fund Committee meetings.
14 In fact, this period is more exactly determined by the deadline by 
which applications must be submitted for the last Fund Committee 
meeting of the year to be able to deliver an opinion on the projects 
concerned.

Table 1
ERDF quota section (excluding studies!. 
Investment projects examined for 1982,
Number of projects, assistance applied for, investments concerned
(Mio ECU)
By Member State Industry,craft ind. & services Infrastructure
Nber of projects(a)  
Assistance (b)  
Investments (c)Invest, of  
10 Mio ECU  
or moreInvest, of  
less than  
10 Mio ECUTotalInvest, of  
10 Mio ECU  
or moreInvest, of  
less than  
10 Mio ECUMountain  
or hill  
areasTotalTOTAL
(a)
B (b)  
(c)1
2.50
23.954
1.18
11.115
3.68
35.061
1.84 
15.0220
8.85
33.609
1.60
5.6130
12.29
54.2335
15.97
89.29
(a)
DK (b)  
(c) :43
2.76
32.9143
2.76
32.912
5.72
34.53109
9.38
27.07:111
15.10
61.60154
17.86
94.51
(a)
D (b)  
(c)16
14.72
394.01142
16.29
393.61158
31.01
787.622
3.73
28.4987
26.83
109.77:89
30.56
138.26247
61.57
925.88
(a)
GR (b)
(c)1
5.76
66.9021
7.88
41.9822
13.64
108.886
110.85
352.43163
84.46
286.15169
195.31
638.58191
208.95
747.46
(a)
F (b)  
(c)3
5.51
68.82180
15.72
238.10183
21.23
306.9228
311.77
2733.441013
78.44
321.95-1041
390.21
3055.391224
411.44
3362.31
(a)
IRL (b) , j .  *  
(c)4
8.12 
51.5236
21.69
119.4940
29.81 
171.0116
88.27
2021.63-3
0.32
1.0019
88.59
2022.6359
118.40
2193.64
(a)
X (b)  
(c)2
10.01
50.68344
54.23
287.80346
64.24
338.4833
594.11
2672.782093
317.10
1004.7726
21.91 
77.692152
933.12
3755.242498
997.36
4093.72
(a)
L (b)  
(c)- - - -1
2.23
7.44;1
2.23
7.441
2.23
7.44
(a)
NL (b)
(c)-17
8.66
81.9817
8.66
81.982
11.95
58.301
0.70
3.50:3
12.65
61.8020
21.31
143.78
(a)
UK (b)  
(c)10
42.58
268.8944
10.69
78.1554
53.27
347.0437
132.10
1412.28577
235.12
846.2920
3.75
12.12634
370.97
2270.69688
424.24
2617.73
(a)
EUR 10 (b)  
(c)37
89.20
924.77831
139.10
1285.13868
228.30
2209.90127
1260.34
9328.904064
763.11
2640.5458
27.58
96.424249
2051.03
12065.865117
2279.33
14275.76
Chapter II - Fund activities

SUBMISSION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS
25. Again this year Member States were too slow in the first months in 
submitting their grant applications to the Commission; this meant 
that Commission departments were required to deal with two thirds of 
the investment projects for 1982 in a very short space of time before 
the Fund Committee’s last meeting of the year. The delaying of 
applications until the last date on which they can be accepted for 
examination throws the work of the Commission departments and of the 
Committee out of balance and means that almost 70% of the grants made 
for 1982 were decided and committed at the end of the year(ls). The 
Commission is considering what steps can be taken to improve this 
situation.
Table 2 '  ,  .
ERDF quota section (excluding studies under Article 121. ;  -
Breakdown bv investment category of assistance and 
investment relating to applications examined in 1982. :
Investment
categoriesAssist.  
requested 
Mio ECUInvest.- 
ments 
Mio ECUAssist.  
requested 
in %Invest.- 
ments 
in %
- Industry, craft industry, 
and services.
Projects costing 
10 Mio ECU or more. 
Projects costing less 
than 10 Mio ECU.89.20
139.10924.77
1285.133.9
6.16.5
9.0
Total. 228.30 2209.90 10.0 15.5
- Infrastructure.
Projects costing 
10 Mio ECU or more.
Projects costing less 
than 10 Mio ECU.
Projects costing less than 
than 10 Mio ECU in mountain 
or hill areas(1).1260.34
763.11
27.589328.90
2640.54
96.4255.3
33.5
1.265.3
18.5
0.7
Total. 2051.03 12065.86 90.0 84.5
TOTAL. 2279.33 14275.76 100.0 100.0
(1) Within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on 
mountain and hill farming in certain less-favoured areas.
See Table 5.
10

26. The Commission, in the interests of making a better selection of 
r projects, has for several years asked Member States to submit
applications for grants totalling more than their quotas in the Fund. 
In 1982 Greece, Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom did so and 
applied for amounts substantially larger than their entitlements for 
the year.
27. During the year, the Commission examined grant applications 
concerning 5,117 investment projects: 657 of them had been submitted 
before 1982 and 4,460 were submitted in 1982. Taken together, the 
projects examined for 1982 (broken down by Member State in Table 1) 
were the subject of applications for assistance totalling 
2,279.33 Mio ECU (an increase of 11.6% over 1981) and represented
-  investment totalling 14,275.76 Mio ECU. Table 2 gives a breakdown in 
nominal value and as a percentage of the assistance applied for and 
of the investment concerned by investment category within the 
meaning of the Fund Regulation.
OUTCOME OF EXAMINATION OF GRANT APPLICATIONS
28. Of the 5,117 investment projects examined, 3,185 projects were 
accepted on completion of the examination procedure. The 1,932 
projects which failed to obtain a Commission grant decision in their 
i  .  favour did so for the following reasons:
: f  ■ '  · 1,284 Projects were not fully documented and the Commission
{  requested further information; when the dossiers are complete,
\ ,i  some of these projects may receive ERDF assistance;
• 422 projects were rejected because they related to sensitive 
industries (e.g. where there are risks of structural 
overcapacity);
• 194 projects failed to fulfil the formal conditions laid down by 
the Fund Regulation (location in an assisted area, minimum of 10
•  ·  jobs to be created, investment to cost more than 50,000 ECU,
■  :  investment not to be completed by the date on which the
■lit. c - f  Commission receives the grant application) or did not respect 
>·»»£ certain Community procedures, e.g. with regard to public 
contracts ;
Chapter II - Fund activities 11

• 18 projects were rejected because they made no clear 
contribution to the development of the region in question, or 
because the aid schemes from which they benefited were 
incompatible with the Community's competition rules, or because 
the nature of the investment did not conform to the guidelines 
adopted by the Commission;
• 14 projects were withdrawn at the request of the member States 
which had submitted them.
Table 3 gives a breakdown of the number of rejected projects by
Member State and by investment category.
Table 3 :  -·''; ;  · · ’  ·  ·  ·
ERDF quota section ('excluding studies under Article 121.  >
Breakdown of the number of investment projects rejected 
on completion of the examination procedure 1982,
Industry, handi- Infrastructure
Member craft and services
State Invest, of Invest, of Invest, of Invest, of Mountain Total
10 Mio ECU less than 10 Mio ECU less than or hill
or more 10 Mio ECU or more 10 Mio ECU areas
B- 1- 3 2 6
DK - 4- - - 4
D 2 7 - 8 - 17
GR - - 1 2 - 3
F 1 56 - 858 - 915
IRL - - 1 - - 1
I 183 8 772 - 963
NL_9_ _ _9
UK 1 4 1 7 1 14
EUR 10 4 264"1650 31932
29. Added to the 3,185 investment projects accepted on completion of the 
examination procedure for 1982 grant applications were a further 150 
projects on which no decision could be taken after examination in 
earlier years. Table 4 gives a breakdown by Member State of the 3,335 
investment projects which were the subject of "draft decisions" in 
1982.
12

Table 4
ERDF quota section (excluding studies under Article 121. 
Outcome of examination of investment projects in 1982.
Number of projects
Member for 1982 Carried forward Accepted on
from previous completion of
State examined accepted years and 1982
accepted examination
in 1982 procedure
B 35 29 8 37
DK 154 150 - 150
D 247 230- 230
F 1224 309 9 318
GR 191 188 52 240
IRL 59 58 - 58
I 2498 1535 79 1614
L 1 1 - 1
NL 20 11 1 12
UK 688 674 1 675
EUR 10 5117 3185 150 3335
CONSULTATION OF THE FUND COMMITTEE
30. In accordance with the procedure under Article 16 of the ERDF 
Regulation, draft decisions were referred to the Fund Committee for 
its opinion on all large projects costing 10 Mio ECU or more, and on 
small projects costing less than 10 Mio ECU(16) for which referral to 
the Committee was requested by a Member StateC17 ) .
The Fund Committee held four meetings in 1982, in March, May, July 
and November. The March meeting dealt solely with a non-quota 
specific measure; at the other three meetings the Committee's 
opinion was obtained on draft grant decisions.
16 For infrastructure investments in this category, the Commission, 
3. before seeking the opinion of the Fund Committee, consults the
Regional Policy Committee (see Article 5(2)(a) of the Fund 
Regulation).
17 Article 5(2) (a) and (b) of the Fund Regulation.
Chapter II - Fund activities 13

31. Of the 3,335 investment projects accepted by the Commission, 704 were 
discussed by the Fund Committee.
This year again, the Prior information procedure introduced in 1979 
greatly simplified the work of the Committee, for, of 3,178 projects 
costing less than 10 Mio ECU, only 547 (17%) needed to be discussed 
at the meetings. The Committee also examined the 157 projects 
costing 10 Mio ECU or more. None of the projects referred to the 
ERDF Committee was rejected; six were withdrawn at this stage by 
Member States, on only one no opinion was delivered; all the rest 
were endorsed.
32. At the end of the day, of the 3,335 investment projects accepted on 
completion of the examination procedure, 3,329 projects were 
approved as qualifying for a grant decision by the Commission. 
However, owing to a shortfall in budget resources in 1982, 149 of 
these projects will have to wait until 1983 to be the subject of a 
grant decision. ;  -
Table 5
ERDF quota section ('excluding studies under Article 12). 
Grant decisions in 1982: number of investment projects, 
investment, assistance granted under each allocation.
Allocation of grants in Total
March June Sept. Dec.
Number of projects 89 770 333 2077 3269
Amount in Mio ECU
- of investments
- of grants531.82
78.382981.54
299.742931.34
205.815727.94
1278.3112172.64
1862.24
GRANT DECISIONS
33. After having obtained the necessary opinions of the Regional Policy 
Committee and the Fund Committee in accordance with the Fund 
Regulation, the Commission in 1982 adopted decisions on grants to 
3,269(18) investment projects for a total of 1,862.24 Mio ECU(19). 
As in previous years, there were four allocations of grants (see 
Table 5).
18 Out of the 3,329 projects finally accepted for 1982, 149 must wait 
until 1983 to be the subject of a grant decision (see point 32). To 
the 3,180 remaining projects must be added 89 accepted in 1981 but 
where to be financed in 1982 (see last paragraph in point 33).
19 This figure does not cover the ERDF financing of part of the cost of 
studies under Article 12 of the Fund Regulation (see point 46).
14

Table 6
KRDF quota section (excluding studies under Article 121.
Investment projects examined for 1982.
Number of projects, assistance applied for, investments concerned
(Mio ECU)
By Member State Industry,craft ind. & services Infrastructure
Nber of projects(a) Invest, of Invest, of Invest, of Invest, of Mountain TOTAL
Assistance (b) 10 Mio ECU less than Total10 Mio ECU less than or hill Total
Investsments (c) or more 10 Mio ECU or more 10 Mio ECU areas
(a) 2 10 12 1 17 7 25 37
B (b) 3.46 3.49 6.95 1.84 8.21 1.53 11.58 18.53
(c) 46.46 33.07 79.53 15.02 32.47 5.87 53.36 132.89
(a) - 39 39 2 111_113 152
DK (b) - 2.52 2.52 5.72 9.46- 15.18 17.70
(c) - 31.21 31.21 34.50 27.40 61.90 93.11
(a) 14 135 149 2 79_81 230
D (b) 10.89 15.73 26.62 3.73 25.01 - 28.74 55.36
(c) — 253.31 376.95 630.76 28.49 91.41 - 119.90 750.66
(a) 1 23 24 12 176_188 212
GR (b) 5.76 8.56 14.32 113.12 97.09 - 210.21 224.53
(c) 63.00 47.83 110.83 458.31 472.52 * 930.83 1041.66
(a) 2 129 131 28 153_181 312
F (b) 2.68 11.25 13.93 299.91 30.54- 330.45 344.38
(c) 27.64 166.15 193.79 864.06 113.99 - 978.05 1171.84
(a) 5 43 48 15 _ 3 18 66
IRL (b) 9.10 23.71 32.81 81.17 - 0.32 81.49 114.30
(c) 69.39 151.27 220.66 2004.63 - 1.00 2005.68 2226.29
(a) 2 161 163 20 1383 26 1429 1592
I (b) 10.01 38.53 48.54 366.32 183.99 19.99 570.30 618.86
(c) 50.67 205.69 256.36 2015.97 590.99 73.72 2680.68 2937.04
(a)- - - _ 1- 1 1
L (b) - - - - 2.23 - 2.23 2.23
(c) - “ “ - 10.80 - 10.80 10.80
(a)_8 8 2 1_3 11
NL (b) - 4.81 4.81 11.95 0.70 - 12.65 17.46
(c) - 41.38 41.38 40.85 3.50 44.35 85.73
(a) 8 39 47 36 554 19 609 656
UK (b) 77.84 9.44 87.28 136.43 2221.83 3.37 361.63 448.91
(c) 1439.35 68.28 1507.63 1401.25 802.94 10.80 2214.99 3722.62
(a) 34 587 621 118 2475 55 2648 3269
EUR 10 (b) 119.74 118.04 237.78 1020.19 579.06 25.21 1624.46 1862.24
(c) 1950.32 1121.83 3072.15 6863.08 2146.02 91.39 9100.49 12172.64
Chapter II - Fund activities

The 89 projects in the first 1982 allocation had already been
accepted in November 1981 as qualifying for grant decisions, but no
decisions had been adopted for lack of funds.
Investment projects
34. Table 6 gives for each Member State and for each investment category 
within the meaning of the Fund Regulation:
• the number of investment projects having received grant aid "
• the volume of investment assisted and
• the amount of grants. ..........— -  -.....
Of 
the total amount of grants, 33% went to projects in Italy and
almost 25% to the United Kingdom. France and Greece come next with
18.5% and 12% of the assistance granted. These percentages reflect 
the principle of the geographical concentration of ERDF operations 
and the quotas allocated to the Member States.
35. The discrepancies noted between the distribution of grants and the 
quotas for each Member State stem chiefly from the Member States' 
take-up of their quota in earlier years and the increase or decrease 
in the shares falling to each them in 1982 out of the initial budget 
allocation as a result of a positive or negative balance of 
appropriations at the end of 1981 (see Chapter III, Table 11). For 
the purposes of Fund management, the Commission takes the view that 
the quotas allocated to Member States meed not to be strictly adhered 
to within any one year - in which there may be too few grant 
applications to use up the quota or some may be rejected - but over a 
long period.
36. Table 7 gives a breakdown of the aggregate amount of grants and of 
investment by category of investment project for 1981 and 1982; it is 
discussed below.
37. The proportion of grants to projects involving an investment of 
10 Mio ECU or more was 61.1%, which reflects the priority given to 
large projects pursuant to Article 7(5) of the ERDF Regulation. The 
projects concerned are for the most part large infrastructure 
projects absorbing almost 55% of ERDF grants and particularly 
significant in France, Ireland and the Netherlands (87%, 71% and 
68.5% of the amount of grants made in these countries).
16

Table 7
ERDF quota section (excluding studies under Article 121.
Breakdown (in % of grants
by investment category!.
Industry, handi- Infrastructure
craft and services
Member 1 .nvest 1 nvest ]mvest I nvest ^oun- 1'OTAL
State 0 Mio < 1’ otal0 Mio < tain/ I'otal
I:cu or0 Mio ÎCU or 0 Mio 1lill
more ECU more ECU cireas
In1981
B I _34.834.8_34.131.165.2100.0
DK ---59.940.1 -100.0100.0
D20.039.659.64.835.6 -40.4100.0
GR -3.33.338.358.4 -96.7100.0
F14.815.430.250.619.2 -69.8100.0
IRL 6.510.517.080.2 2.70.183.0100.0
I 0.33.53.871.125.1 -96.2100.0
L --.  - -100.0 -100.0100.0
NL ---84.215.8 -100.0100.0
UK 13.0 4.517.527.253.1 2.282.5100.0
EUR 10 5.46.511.952.934.7 0.5j  88.1 100.0
In 1982
B18.718.837.59.944.3 8.362.5100.0
DK -14.214.232.353.5 -85.8100.0
D19.728.448.16.745.2 -51.9100.0
GR 2.63.86.450.443.2 -93.6100.0
F 0.83.34.187.0 8.9 -95.9100.0
IRL 8.020.728.771.0 -0.371.:100.0
I 1.66.27.Î59.329.7 3.292.7100.0
L ----100.0 -100.)  100.0
NL -27.527..3  68.5 4.0 -72..3  100.0
UK 17.3 2.119.+ 30.4 49.4 0.880.5 100.0
EUR 10 6.46.412.8 54.7 31.1 1.487.2 100.0
38. Of the infrastructure projects costing 10 Mio ECU or more, 30% have 
>  -  benefited from grants of up to 40% of the expenditure incurred by the 
public authorities(20) ,  a possibility introduced by the amended ERDF 
Regulation of February 1979, while 13% of these projects received 
grants of less than 30%.
20 Projects which are of particular importance to the development of the 
region, Article 4(2)(b) of the ERDF Regulation.
Chapter II - Fund activities17

39. The proportion of grants to industry, craft industry and services was 
only 12.8% of total grants in 1982, with substantial differences 
between Member States: the proportion was 48% in Germany, 38% in 
Belgium and some 28% in Ireland and the Netherlands, but only 19% in 
the United Kingdom, 14% in Denmark and under 8% in the other 
countries. Overall, this situation is a slight improvement on 1981, 
when ,  the percentage of Fund resources devoted to the productive 
sectors (11.9%) was the lowest since the Fund's establishment, but is 
still very far from the target of 30%. Under Article 4(1) (b) of the 
ERDF Regulation, the 70% limit on the proportion of Fund assistance 
devoted to infrastructure investment does not apply to the 
individual Member States, but to all ERDF resources in the quota 
section and must be complied with over a period of three years.
While this slippage has not yet given rise to legal problems, it is 
still evidence of a trend to which the attention of Member States 
should once again be drawn.
In seven Member States, the proportion of grants to industry, craft 
industry and services was higher in 1982 than in 1981 - considerably 
higher in the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland. By contrast, in 
France such grants accounted for only 4% of ERDF grants made in 1982 
(compared with 30% in 1981), while in the Federal Republic of Germany 
the proportion fell by 12 points from 60% in 1981 to 48% in 1982.
40. At Annex B, Tables 2, 4 and 6 and a short summary show the categories 
of investment assisted by the Fund.
Transport, with 36%, and water engineering, with 29%, still take up 
nearly two thirds of the assistance granted by the Fund to 
infrastructure projects. However, the categories of infrastructure 
financed vary from one Member State to another, depending on national 
policies and regional priorities.
Studies
41. In 1982 the Commission decided to make grants totalling 2.07 Mio ECU
to the following studies:
• a study on the use of hydroelectric energy in Greenland:
0.12 Mio ECU; ■< ' — -·- .....- - · · : · - ·  ·  ■  -·- . . .
• 
a study on the decentralization of transport services in Greece: 
0.07 Mio ECU;
• a study on the improvement and utilization of the Alifana rail
network at Naples: 1.47 Mio ECU;
• a study on the renovation of the petrochemical complex and the 
development of the Gela area in Sicily: 0.19 Mio ECU;
18

• a feasibility study on the construction of a road between Newry 
in Northern Ireland and Dundalk in Ireland: 0.04 Mio ECU divided 
equally between the study in Ireland and the study in Northern 
Ireland;
• a study on the use of lignite in Northern Ireland: 0.12 Mio ECU;
• a technical study on the construction of a breakwater at the port 
of Mallaig, Scotland, 0.06 Mio ECU.
42. Table 8 shows that the Fund's expenditure on studies under Article 12 
is rather unbalanced geographically and in the numbers of 
applications: but it should be remembered that for the Member States 
and the Commission alike this new type of co-financing has its 
experimental sides both as regards the selection(21) ,  on the basis of 
their features and usefulness of the study subjects submitted, and as 
regards their implementation and their monitoring by the Commission.
.  ' . i t T a b l e  8
ERDF quota section Studies under Article 12.
Situation at 31.12.82 - 1980-82(11
MemberNumber of 
applicationsNumber of studies 
assistedNumber of studies 
for which paiement 
already madeStud-
dies
compl.
State198019811982TotalNumber Amount 
Mio ECU(2)Number Amount 
Mio ECU(3)Number
B
DK
D
GR11133 2.604 2 1.069 1
-2133 0.180 - - -
£
IRL
I1
35131
112
592
150.613
7.814 3 0.708 1
NL
UK 22595 0.365 1 0.110-
EUR 10 3918197628 11.576 6 1.887 2
(1) From 1975 to 1979, ERDF involvment in studies was limited 
to one operation in Ireland and the United Kingdom
(2 studies in 1976), bringing the number of studies financed 
by the Fund since 1975 to 30).
(2) Converted into ECU at the rate obtaining in January of the year 
of the decision.
(3) Converted into ECU at the rate obtaining in the month of payment.
21 The principal criteria for selection were: a close link with
investment projects, the importance of these projects for the 
development of the region and the complementary nature of the Fund
Chapter II - Fund activities 19

To start with, the Commission's departments selected only 28 studies 
out of the 76 submitted; this meant that relatively few of the 
Italian applications received in 1980 were accepted. When the 
priorities were established, some studies were rejected on the 
following grounds:
• questionable eligibility; for example, studies that were too 
general in character or had no direct link with Fund operations;
• the studies were in fields of applied research or were rather 
costly; for example, in mining or geothermal energy research.
43. The state of progress of the co-financed studies is unsatisfactory; 
payment claims have been put in for only six studies, with the result 
that less than one fifth of the total committed has been paid. In 
this regard Greece, Italy and United Kingdom are behindhand.
Generally speaking, the delays appear to be caused by postponement of 
the studies and the lack of experience among certain departments, 
particularly regional government, in launching and following up this 
type of project(22).
NON-QUOTA SECTION
IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC MEASURES
44. As provided for in Article 13 of the ERDF Regulation, specific 
Community regional development measures financed under the non-quota 
section are to include measures "linked with Community policies and 
with measures adopted by the Community in order to take better 
account of their regional dimension or to reduce their regional 
consequences". On a proposal from the Commission, a first series of 
non-quota measures was adopted by the Council on 7 October 1980. 
These measures seek to promote the development of certain 
Mediterranean regions (the Mezzogiorno and South-West France - 
Regulation (EEC) N. 2615/80) in the context of the enlargement of the 
Community, the creation of new activities in certain areas seriously 
affected by the restructuring of steel industry (in Belgium, Italy 
and the United Kingdom - Regulation (EEC) N. 2618/80) and in 
similarly hard-hit shipbuilding areas (in the United Kingdom - 
Regulation (EEC) N. 2617/80), and an improvement in the security of 
energy supply in inland areas in the Mezzogiorno (Regulation (EEC) N. 
2618/80). A measure to assist border areas in Ireland and Northern 
Ireland (Regulation (EEC) N. 2619/80) was also adopted.
** During the first half of 1983 the Commission's departments approached
the Member States concerned in an attempt to remedy this situation. .

45. These non-quota measures differ from those under the quota section of
the Fund as regards both the nature of operations assisted and the
financing procedures(23):
• they combine a range of initiatives to improve the economic 
environment for firms and harness the indigenous development
7 potential of the regions benefiting; they are designed to help
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and craft industries
and to promote innovation, rural tourism and alternative sources 
of energy;
• they are implemented in the form of special multiannual
programmes presented by Member States and approved by the 
Commission;
• the contribution from the Fund's non-quota section to these
programmes amounts to 220 Mio ECU for the period 1981-85; the 
commitments each year depend on the funds available in the budget 
and on the progress of the programmes;
• the grants made and annual commitments are expressed directly in 
ECU and not in national currency as is the case with grant 
decisions for projects assisted under the quota section of the 
Fund.  2 3
Table 9
Grants for non-auota programmes.
Total Commit- Commit- Commitments 1981
Programmes allocat- ments mentsand 1982 as % of
ions ov. 1981 1982 total
v  .  · -  £  }("' ,  T  ;_v5 years Mio ECU Mio ECU allocation
Mio ECU
France (Enlargement) ; 5515.56 12.67 51.3
Italy (Energy) 16 5.03 -d) 31.4
Italy (Enlargement) 6516.13 -d) 24.8
Ireland (Border areas) 16 3.22 -(1) 20.1
United Kingdom
(Border areas) 80.47 -(1) 5.9
United Kingdom (steel-
making areas) 33 -12.76 38.7
United Kingdom
(Shipbuilding) 17 -6.51 -  38.3
Belgium (Steel-
making areas) 60.17 0.80 16.2
TOTAL · ■ 216 40.58 32.74 33.9
(1) Since the first tranche of the 1981 grant for this programme was
not exhausted, no commitments were made under the second
tranche in 1982.
23 See Sixth ERDF Annual Report (1980), p. 4.
s  i
Chapter II - Fund activities

46. By the end of 1982, the Commission, after consulting the Fund 
Committee, had approved all the special programmes forming the first 
phase of the specific measures adopted by the Council, with the 
exception of that for the steel-making areas in Italy. (The 
assistance allocated to this programme amounts to 4 Mio ECU out of a 
total of 220 Mio ECU for the whole non-quota programme.) Table 9 
provides details of the grants and commitments in 1981 and 1982 for 
each of the programmes so far adopted.
Although there was some delay in launching the specific measures 
(caused in some cases by the need to adopt special national rules and 
by the switch from "individual project" procedures to "multiannual 
programme" procedures),  virtually all the measures are now under 
way. Their implementation is steadily approaching a normal level in 
that the commitments made in 1981 and 1982 account for one third of 
the total allocation for the five-year period (see chap. Ill, point 
76).
In 1982, a first tranche of commitments was released for the 
shipbuilding and steel area programmes in the United Kingdom, while a 
second tranche for financing new measures was activated for the 
enlargement programme in France and for the steel area programme in 
Belgium.
The implementation of the specific regional development measures 
under the non-quota section is described below.
PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
47. The enlargement measure: Regulation (EEC) N. 2615/80 ' '  "
Under this measure, Community assistance totalling 65 Mio ECU and 
55 Mio ECU respectively has been granted to the special programme for 
the Mezzogiorno and to that for South-West France (Aquitaine, 
Midi-Pyrénées and Languedoc-Roussillon). These two programmes are 
designed to encourage economic activities outside agriculture and to 
diversify employment opportunities with a view to correcting the 
unfavourable effects of Community enlargement. They comprise 
measures to help small and medium-sized enterprises and craft 
industries, to promote innovation and to boost rural tourism.
Italy
The programme presented by Italy for implementing the enlargement 
measure was approved by the Commission on 3 December 1981. The wide 
range of operations provided for in the Regulation necessitated 
changes in national and regional laws, and this delayed commencement 
of the programme.
■ i  ' > f ·  :
As a first step, the Italian authorities have decided to concentrate 
the available resources on aids to enterprise, to be followed by the 
financing of more conventional projects, notably infrastructure 
projects.

The Cassa per il Mezzogiorno was made responsible for the programme 
on 28 May 1982 under Law N. 748/75 and the Ministerial Decree of 27 
July 1976. Involved in its execution are the regional governments, 
numerous public agencies such as the Istituto d'Assistenza per lo 
Sviluppo del Mezzogiorno (IASM),  the Finanziara Méridionale Trading 
(FIME TRADING),  the Centro di Formazione et Studi per il Mezzogiorno 
(FORMEZ) and Iniziative per il Sud (INSUD),  various trade 
associations such as the Associazione Nazionale Agricoltura e 
Turismo (ANAGRITUR) and the Confederazione Italiana della Piccola e 
Media Industria (CONFAPI),  and regional groupings of cooperatives.
In all, 120 projects under the non-quota measure were submitted, 
mainly by trade associations and semi-public agencies. Only 66 of 
these were approved; to finance them in full, the Community would 
need to allocate 96 Mio ECU to the special programme, much more than 
the actual allocation of 65 Mio ECU. Assistance will go mainly to 
SMEs and to innovation projects, taking up 76% of the Community's 
contribution, the balance going to craft industry and to rural 
tourism.
The breakdown of expenditure at 30 November 1982 was as follows 
(examples of projects assisted are given in brackets):
• For SMEs: 48% -  :  ■,
sectoral analyses: 19.7% (mainly the agri-food and footwear 
;  industries);
— management advisory services: 7% (a new technical assistance
centre for SMEs, craft businesses and cooperatives in
Sicily);
— common services: 9.5% (a common service for several
industries in Calabria);
- information briefings: 11.5% (micro-electronics, energy
-  conservation);
‘  - access to risk capital: 0.3%.
o: For innovation: 9.5%
(feasibility studies on behalf of electronics companies);
• For the craft industry: 12.7%
(appointment of technical assistants in mountain areas);
• For rural tourism: 29.8%
.  :  - tourist accommodation: 0.8%
;  - promotion of tourism: 24.9% (including regional and
provincial offices responsible for promoting farm holidays);
- tourist facilities: 4.1%.
An information briefing on the opportunities offered by Regulation 
2615/80 was held on 25 June 1982; and various information campaigns 
were launched by the agencies implementing the programme (e.g. by 
FORMEZ with regard to information on innovation).
Chapter II - Fund activities23

France
The programme presented by France for implementing the enlargement 
measure was approved by the Commission on 10 June 1981.
The Délégation à l'Aménagement du Territoire et à l'Action Régionale 
(DATAR) - Mission du Grand Sud Ouest - is responsible for the 
programme. Involved in its implementation are numerous public and 
semi-public agencies such as the Agence Nationale pour la 
Valorisation de la Recherche (ANVAR) and the Agences Régionales 
d'information Scientifique ou Technique (ARIST),  and various trade 
associations (chambres of commerce and industry, chambres de 
métiers).
The starting-up phase took longer than planned because of the need 
for changes to the legislation on tourism and for new special 
management procedures; for example a special commission involving 
locally elected representatives was set up to award innovation aids.
At 1  December 1982, the breakdown of expenditure was as follows:
• For SMEs: 55.5%
- sectoral analyses: 2.41? (three market intelligence units - 
Centres d'Observation de Documentation et d'information sur 
les marchés (CODIM) - to work in close association with the 
regional scientific and technical information agencies 
(ARIST) and provide information on the economic prospects 
for individual techniques and products);
- investment: 32.9% (energy conservation, automation of
production processes, modernization of sawmills in the 
Pyrénées, etc.);
- management and common services: 7.3% (aid for SMEs calling 
in consultants);
- infrastructures :  9.3% (communications with industrial and 
craft industry zones);
- briefings: 2.4% (technology exchanges,  energy conservation
- access to risk capital: 1.2%;
•-'....■A
• For innovation: 29.0% v
- information on innovation: 8.5% (meetings and events 
organized by ANVAR, a new network of technological 
advisers);
- application of innovation: 13.5% (including two new
r procedures: consultancy contracts for calling in
technological advisers and feasibility studies carried out 
on behalf of 40 companies);
• For the craft industry: 2.5% -n . ■ · · · ’  y-: ■  · ·
- information for craft workers: 0.8% (four new decentralized 
units of the chambres de métiers);
- promotion of craft activities: 1.7% (enhancing the market
value of pine furniture); .  . , s  ......

• For rural tourism: 20%
— tourist accommodation: 13.9% (assistance for small country
' ■ ■ ■ ■  *? inns and restaurants and for farmhouse accommodation);
;‘ v·  - promotion of tourism: 1.2% (three new département booking
offices);
— tourist facilities: 4.9% (local museums, signposting of
!  tourist routes, etc.);
The projects assisted under the non-quota section during the first 
year should eventually create 2,000 new jobs.
The public authorities are mounting a vigorous campaign to inform 
potential recipients and trade interests about the possibilities 
offered by the special programme. In particular, over 4,000 copies of 
a newsletter are sent out regularly by the DATAR - Mission du Grand 
Sud Ouest, the purpose being to keep firms informed of the 
arrangements for implementing the special programme.
In their first annual report, the French authorities say that, for 
investment aids among others, the financial resources available for 
SMEs or for tourist accommodation are already clearly inadequate.
48. The steel areas measure: Regulation (EEC) N. 2616/80
The purpose of this measure is to promote activity and employment in 
the areas adversely affected by the restructuring of the steel 
industry. It provides for the reclamation of rundown industrial 
sites and urban localities, the creation or expansion of consultancy 
firms and common services, the promotion of innovation in industry 
and the services sector and easier access to risk capital for SMEs.
Italy "
At the end of 1982 the Italian authorities had not yet presented to 
the Commission the special steel areas programme for the province of 
Naples.
Belgium £  '
The programme presented by Belgium was approved by the Commission on 
17 December 1981. It covers the steel-making areas in the provinces 
of Luxembourg, Liège and Hainaut (except the districts of Ath and 
Tournai) and has been allocated Community assistance totalling 6 Mio 
ECU.
The programme is to be carried out by the Ministry of the Walloon 
Region as regards new technologies and the SMEs, and managed by the 
technological contracts unit (Cellule de Gestion des Contrats 
Technologiques, CGCT).
Because most of the planned measures are the first of their kind in 
Belgium, special implementing and budget management procedures have 
had to be introduced, and this has caused some delays.
Chapter II - Fund activities 25

Given the limited funds available, the Belgian authorities have 
decided to focus on the promotion of technological innovation. Four 
types of support measure are planned:
• financing of feasibility studies:
- .internal feasibility: innovation specialists
("technological development experts") to be placed at the 
disposal of SMEs in order to identify their internal
technical potential for innovation;
- external feasibility: appraisal from market surveys based on
product and cost considerations of the way in which
innovation potential identified should be exploited;
- technological feasibility: taking over of responsibility for 
R&D projects, including prototype development, with a view 
to conducting the necessary innovation tests;
• circulation of a regular newsletter on innovation; ·  ■
• a new specialized agency providing information on request;
• surveys of the market potential abroad for licensing agreements.
The "internal feasibility studies" have been allocated the largest 
share of the grant (around half of the total cost of the programme) .
The preparatory phase of the operation, which will involve 88
enterprises, has been completed; by the end of 1982, a group of 12 
selected companies had recruited a "technological development 
expert".
The other measures in the programme will be launched in 1983.
A number of information campaigns, especially in the press, have been 
mounted by the Belgian authorities. .  .  · ,  .  . . .  ,  :„
Widespread interest has been shown in the operation and it is already 
apparent that the funds available are inadequate.
United Kingdom .  .  ■>·.,· · « ■ . .  .k,  ;  , <  :  -  . -  ·  ·
The special programme for the steel areas measure was approved by the 
Commission on 29 April 1982. ,
The programme covers the Strathclyde region, the counties of 
Cleveland, Clwyd, South Glamorgan, West Glamorgan and Gwent and the 
employment office area of Corby. It has been allocated Community 
assistance totalling 33 Mio ECU.

The Department of Industry and the Scottish Economic Planning 
Department are responsible for the programme and the local 
authorities are involved in its execution.
The UK authorities have decided to concentrate on the rehabilitation 
of industrial sites. However, among the aids to enterprise a special 
effort has been made in Scotland with the introduction by the 
Scottish Economic Planning Department of the Business Plan Service. 
Companies can call in this low-cost advisory service, which is 
independent of the private sector, to draw up their financing plans. 
Most of the financial institutions in Scotland use the Business Plan 
as a basis on which to take swift decisions on finance applications.
At 31 December 1982, the breakdown of expenditure was as follows:
• rehabilitation of industrial sites: 73% (59 projects are already 
under way);
• management advisory service: 17.1% (58 companies have taken
advantage of this facility);
• common services: 3.7% (9 grant applications have been accepted);
• innovation promotion: 5.6%.
• business access to risk capital: 0.6%.
New activities on redeveloped sites are expected ultimately to 
provide jobs for 10,000 people.
The possibilities offered by the special programme have received 
very wide publicity:
• announcements in Parliament and in the regional and national 
press by the Department of Industry, the Scottish Economic 
Planning Department, the Welsh Office and the Department of the 
Environment;
• SMEs have been notified of the aids available in notices to 
banks, chambers of commerce and the local authorities;
• several briefings have been held, notably in Strathclyde at the 
inauguration of the Business Plan Service.
This information campaign has generated considerable interest among 
both local authorities (elimination of industrial decay) and SMEs 
(aids to enterprise).  Several hundred companies submitted aid 
applications and in less than eight months close on half of the 
financial assistance available for the entire programme was 
committed. The UK authorities say in their annual report that aid 
applications will certainly outrun the money available.
49. The shipbuilding areas measure in the United Kingdom: Regulation 
(EEC) N. 2617/80
The United Kingdom special programme for the shipbuilding areas 
measure was approved by the Commission on 20 July 1982.
Chapter II - Fund activities27

This programme, allocated Community assistance totalling 17 Mio ECU, 
concerns the Strathclyde region, the counties of Cleveland, Tyne and 
Wear, Merseyside and the Belfast urban area. It is designed to 
promote activities that will provide new jobs and, in particular, to 
encourage the creation and development of SMEs in the areas adversely 
affected by the restructuring of the shipbuilding industry. It 
comprises measures identical to those in the United Kingdom steel 
areas programme.
The Department of Industry, the Department of Economic Development 
(Northern Ireland) and the Scottish Economic Planning Department are 
responsible for the programme and the local authorities are involved 
in its execution.
As in their steel areas programme, the UK authorities have decided to 
concentrate on the elimination of industrial blight.
At 31 December 1982, the breakdown of expenditure was as follows:
— rehabilitation of industrial sites: 81% (43 projects have 
been started) ;
— management advisory service: 16% (30 companies have availed 
themselves of this service);
— innovation promotion: 3%. .  ' ;  -
New activities on the reclaimed sites are expected to create 5,000 
new jobs.
An extensive information campaign has been launched by the 
Department of Industry, the Scottish Economic Planning Department, 
the Department of Economic Development (Northern Ireland) and the 
Department of the Environment. It is directed at Parliament, the 
press and SMEs (through notices to banks, chambers of commerce and 
the local authorities).
The local authorities (site reclamation) and SMEs (aids to promote 
innovation) have shown considerable interest. It is already apparent 
that grant applications will outrun the money available.
The energy measure in Italy under Regulation (EEC) N. 2618/80
The programme, which has been allocated Community assistance 
totalling 16 Mio ECU, was approved by the Commission on 10 June 1981.
It includes measures for improving the security of energy supply in 
mountain areas in the Mezzogiorno, including the construction or 
overhaul of small hydroelectric power stations, a survey of 
resources and of sites suitable for small hydro installations and the 
construction of small-scale wind-power and biomass-energy plants.
The Cassa per il Mezzogiorno was made responsible for the programme 
on 28 May 1982, under Law N. 748/75 and the Ministerial Decree of 27 
July 1976. The Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica (ENEL) and the 
Istituto d'Assistenza per lo Sviluppo del Mezzogiorno (IASM) are 
involved in its execution.
In 1982, investment was concentrated on three mini power stations in 
Sardinia, Calabria and Campania. The projects concerned with the 
survey of hydro resources were completed and the authorities signed 
contracts with the firms that are to perform the work.

A wind-power plant was constructed in Sardinia.
The feasibility study on the use of biomass and the related projects 
were completed. Contracts are being negotiated with the farms where 
the trials will be conducted and with the industrial companies that 
will supply the equipment.
A briefing to publicize the possibilities offered by Regulation 
2618/80 was held on 25 June 1982.
51. The border areas measure in Ireland and Northern Ireland: Regulation 
EEC N. 2619/80
This measure is designed to improve the economic and social situation 
in the border areas of the two countries, which are among the most 
disadvantaged areas of the Community. It involves measures to foster 
tourism, improve tourist facilities, develop communications and 
promote craft industry and small business.
Cross-border cooperation is a feature and regular meetings have been 
held between the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and its Irish 
counterpart (Bord Fàilte) with a view to improving coordination. One 
result of this cooperation has been the joint publication of two 
tourist brochures. In addition, one of the tourist information 
offices that is to receive non-quota assistance is financed jointly 
by the two boards.
Ireland
Ireland's programme for the border areas measure was approved by the 
Commission on 10 June 1981. It has been allocated Community 
assistance totalling 16 Mio ECU and covers the counties of Donegal, 
Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth.
The Department of Finance is responsible for implementing the 
programme, and bodies such as the Irish Tourist Board (Bord Fàilte) 
and the Irish Export Board (Coras Trachtala Teo - CTT) as well as the 
local authorities are involved in its execution.
The information for 1982 is not yet available.
At the end of 1981, the breakdown of expenditure was as follows:
— tourist accommodation: 23.6% (extension or modernization of
· / 2 2  hotels, construction of holiday accommodation on some 60 
i  farms);
. .  - promotion of tourism: 4.3 % (financing of six tourist
offices, printing of information brochures);
— tourist facilities: 35.0% (a national park, a museum,
pathways and access areas to lakes or rivers);
■  · . _-sd1  ,  _ improvement in communications with tourist areas: 16%
(improvements to several stretches of secondary roads);
— development of transport activities;
— development of and support for the activities of SMEs: 13.5% 
(a new craft centre, market analysis, trade promotion 
assistance);
In 1981, the special programme helped to provide or preserve over 200 
jobs.
Chapter II - Fund activities29

The public authorities publicize the scheme in various ways, notably 
at the time of the annual budget decisions relating to the financing 
of the Special Border Areas Programme Fund, set up in 1980.
It looks as through the money available under the special programme 
will be sufficient to meet the aid applications.
Northern Ireland
The United Kingdom's programme for the border areas measure was 
approved by the Commission on 10 June 1981. It concerns the areas of 
Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh, Fermanagh, Dungannon, Armagh, Newry 
and Mourne and has been allocated Community assistance totalling 
8 Mio ECU.
Full information on the programme in 1982 has not yet reached the 
Commission.
The specific measure launched by the Community has highlighted the 
need to encourage local initiatives as a means of promoting and 
stimulating economic activity in the border areas, particularly the 
tourist trade.
Following the information campaign that accompanied the launching of 
the programme in June 1981, the district councils concerned have 
submitted proposals for tourist accommodation and facilities and the 
promotion of tourism and for improvements in communications.
NEW PROPOSALS FOR NON-QUOTA REGULATIONS
52. In their annual reports on the implementation of the non-quota 
specific measures, several Member States say that the resources 
available already fall short of covering all the applications 
received and satisfying the interest shown, particularly in the aids 
to enterprise. Some Member States make the point that similar 
measures are needed to assist other regions or sectors of the economy 
that are also experiencing serious difficulties.
The same view had been expressed by Parliament when it approved the 
Commission's proposals almost unanimously on 11 March 1980.
The Commission took account of these observations in its six 
proposals for a second series of non-quota measures, transmitted to 
the Council on 19 November 1982, for which it recommended assistance 
totalling 710 Mio ECU over five years.
The measures proposed concern the regions seriously affected by 
industrial decline and the southern regions of the Community. Their 
thrust is threefold:
30 >

1. Strengthening and extending measures currently being implemented
The Commission proposes that four of the five non-quota measures 
introduced in 1980 should be widened in scope, with the addition 
of 390 Mio ECU to the initial total of 196 Mio ECU. The measures 
in question are those for enlargement, energy, shipbuilding 
areas and steel areas.
The increased resources would be allocated as follows: a twofold 
increase for the enlargement measure (an extra 120 Mio ECU) and 
the shipbuilding measure (an extra 17 Mio ECU), the addition of 
23 Mio to the initial total of 16 Mio ECU for the energy measure, 
and a very large increase for the steel areas measure, adding 
230 Mio ECU to the initial 43 Mio ECU.
The Commission proposes that all except the energy measure 
should include the provision of business advisory services. This 
means identifying job-creating economic initiatives and advising 
existing or potential firms about access to financial aids and 
public services. For the steel and shipbuilding areas measures, 
the Commission also proposes aids to investment by SMEs based on 
the results of market research. These investment aids would be in 
the form of capital grants and, in the case of the steel areas 
b · . ;  .  measure, in the form of interest subsidies on Community global 
-bni loans.
■  ■ ■  i ?  Steel-making areas
The Commission attaches special importance to the steel areas 
measure, as can be seen from the increase it is proposing - 
230 Mio ECU. It is seeking to tie in this measure even more 
closely with the Community's policy of restoring the 
competitiveness of the Community steel industry, which means 
bbi cutbacks in production capacities. Action under the non-quota 
section to create alternative activities in the areas concerned 
is planned in two stages:
• During the first stage, the current measure would be 
-b·. I* extended to take in a few more areas in the United Kingdom
and in France where the recent sharp decline of the steel 
industry is aggravating existing regional disequilibria. An 
amount of 92 Mio ECU would be allocated to this stage;
• The second stage is to assist those areas that will have to 
contend with substantial job losses under the restructuring 
programmes for the steel industry that Member States are to 
submit to the Commission. An amount of 138 Mio ECU would be 
spent on this stage.
chapter II - Fund activities31

Extension of certain measures to include Greece
Under the Commission's proposals, Greece would benefit under two 
of the second series of non-quota measures. They would concern 
only the islands, whose remote location seriously impedes their 
development.
The first measure is aimed at reinforcing the economic fabric of 
the islands in view of the future enlargement of the Community to 
include Spain and Portugal. The operations planned are the same 
as those under the present enlargement measure now under way in 
certain areas of France and Italy. The islands would also 
benefit from projects to improve communications with the 
mainland, the construction of water desalination plants and 
protection of the environment.
The second measure is designed to improve the security of energy 
supplies by making better use of new techiques for hydroelectric 
power and alternative energy sources. The Greek islands would 
therefore be included in the existing measure for the 
Mezzogiorno, to which would be added a new geothermal energy 
operation. Planned assistance for the two measures totals 60 Mio 
ECU over five years, of which 40 Mio for the enlargement measure 
and 20 Mio ECU for the energy measure.
New measure to assist textile and clothing areas
The Commission proposes that an amount of 260 Mio ECU be devoted 
to improving the physical environment, encouraging the 
development of SMEs and fostering industrial innovation in 
certain areas adversely affected by the restructuring of the 
textile and clothing industry. This measure is intended to 
benefit the main textile areas in Belgium, France, Ireland, 
Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which have all 
sustained substantial job losses.
It is aimed at promoting new economic activities as alternatives 
to the textile and clothing industry and is similar in approach 
to the steel and shipbuilding areas measures (see (a) above).

CHAPTER III - FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
BUDGET RESOURCES AVAILABLE
53. This analysis of financial management concerns both the quota and 
non-quota sections of the Fund. The grant operations under the two 
sections are described in Chapter II.
54. In 1982, the Fund's total allocation of commitment appropriations 
adopted by the budgetary authority was 1,759.5 Mio ECU, of which 
1,669 Mio ECU for the quota section (Chapter 50 of the budget) and 
90.5 Mio ECU for the non-quota section (Chapter 51). This 
represented an increase in nominal terms of 14.3% over 1981 
(1,540 Mio ECU). The total allocation amounted to 7.6% of the General 
Budget of the European Communities in 1982, against 7.3% in 1981.
55. The budgetary authority fixed the Fund's total allocation of payment 
appropriations at 1,075 Mio ECU, of which 1,015 Mio ECU for the quota 
section and 60 Mio ECU for the non-quota section, an increase of 
31.2% in nominal terms over 1981 (819.20 Mio ECU).
UTILIZATION OF COMMITMENT APPROPRIATIONS
QUOTA SECTION
56. Operations for the adjustment, release and transfer of 
appropriations carried out during the year in connection with the 
■  financial settlement of Fund grants affected the total amount of 
commitments available for appropriation from the quota section. At 
the end of the day the appropriations available for 1982 amounted to 
:  t  1,817.694 Mio ECU, compared with an initial allocation of 1,669 Mio 
:  :  i ECU adopted by the budgetary authority (see Table 10.1).
Chapter III - Financial Management and Control 33

Tahle 10
Budgetary situation 1982
1. Use of commitment appropriations
(Mio ECU)
Commitment appropriations available for 1982 Use in 1982
Commitments
made
(2)Appropriations 
available 
at 31.12.82Appropriations
entered
in 1982 
budgetAppropriations
outstanding
from
1981
(D (a)Appropriations made available by:
release of 
previous 
commitmentsexch.-rate fluc­
tuations affect­
ing amounts prev. 
releasedTotal
1669.000 58.349 48.653 41.692 1817.694 1812.131 5.564
2. Use of payment appropriations
(Mio ECU)
Payment appropriations available in 1982 Payments made in 1982 Payment appropriations unused 
at 31.12.1982
Carry-over 1981 
(1) (b)Appropriations 
for 1982Total Out of carry­
over from 1981Out of appro­
priais for 1982Total Out of carry-over 
from 1981Out of appro­
priations for 1982
33.629 1015.000 1048.629 33.629 917.045 950.674 - 97.955
3. Commitments made
(Mio ECU)
Commitments
1975-1981
unpaid
at
1.1.1982Amounts
released
and
adjustmentsCommitments rnac’e in 1982 Unpaid
commitments 
1975-1981 + 
1982
commitmentsCommitments
paid in 
1982Commitments
still to be 
paid at 
31.12.82Out of
appropriations 
outstanding 
from 1981Out of
appropriations 
for 1982Total
2247.723 - 90.345 58.349 1723.782 1812.131 3969.509 950.674 3018.835
(1) (a) Including transfer from the non-quota to the quota section of commitment appropriations totalling 39.370 Mio ECU.
(1) (b) Including transfer to the non-quota section of payment appropriations totalling 17.771 Mio ECU.
(2) Less amounts released from 1982 commitments (0.226 Mio ECU) and adjustments due to exchange-rate 
fluctuations (11.712 Mio ECU)

Table 11
ERDF quota section.
Use of commitment appropriations in 1982.
(Mio ECU)
Appropriât- Appropr- Appropriations made Total appro- Commitment Balance Rate of
Memberions entered iations available through priât ions appropriât- outstanding utiliz-
State in outstand- Release Fluctuations available for ions used up at at ion of
1982 budget ing from operations in ECU commitment in year-end appropr.
(allocation) 1981(1) rate (e) = (a) + (b) + 1982(2) (h) =
(a) (b) (c) (d) (c) + (d) (f) (g) = (e)-(f) (f)/(e)
B 18.526 25.164 1.063 1.434 46.187 16.965 29.222 36.7
DK 17.691 0.906 0.218 0.710 19.525 17.418 2.107 89.2
D 77.609 18.188 3.019 -4.864 93.952 58.312 35.640 62.1
GR 216.970 -53.030 0.012 5.489 169.441 213.297 -43.856 125.9
F 227.651 85.783 3.800 20.209 337.443 325.359 12.084 96.4
IRL 99.139 -12.052 14.385 0.170 101.641 114.037 -12.396 112.2
I 592.328 -47.602 22.936 18.690 586.352 604.899 -18.547 103.2
L 1.168 0.093 0.027 0.140 1.428 2.042 -0.614 143.0
NL 20.696 5.334 - -1.994 24.036 18.323 5.713 76.2
UK 397.222 35.566 3.193 1.708 437.689 441.479 -3.790 100.9
EUR 10 1669.000 58.349 48.653 41.692 1817.694 1812.131 5.563 99.7
(1) Including 18.979 Mio ECU carried over from 1981 and 39.370 Mio ECU from the non-quota section.
(2) Including 1.984 Mio ECU for studies carried out under Article 12 of the Fund Regulation.

57. The difference of 148.694 Mio ECU is accounted for by: _
• the carry-over of 18.979 Mio ECU outstanding from 1981,
• 39.370 Mio ECU, which was the balance of 1981 commitment 
appropriations from the non-quota section not taken up in 1982 
and transferred to the quota section at the end of 1982 with the 
approval of the budgetary authority, as provided for in Article 
2(3)(b) of the Fund Regulation, and
an additional 90.345 Mio ECU made up of:
• 41.692 Mio ECU from adjustments to take account of exchange-rate 
fluctuations within the European Monetary System(24), and
• 48.653 Mio ECU released through decommitment action by the 
Commission(25) following, particularly, the withdrawal of 
industrial projects (16.8 Mio ECU), the failure or partial 
failure to attain initial job-creation targets(26) (8.5 Mio ECU) 
and a change in the method of financing a major infrastructure 
project (11.4 Mio ECU).
58. The Fund's quota activities examined in Chapter II led to the 
commitment in 1982 of 1,812.131 Mio ECU, including 1.984 Mio ECU for 
eight studies carried out pursuant to Article 12 of the Fund 
Regulation. Out of the commitment appropriations available this left 
an unused year-end balance of 5,563 Mio ECU.
59. Table 11 gives for each Member State details of the financial 
operations concerning the commitment appropriations available under 
the budget. The balances shown in the penultimate column will be 
added to or deducted from Member States' shares for the 1983 
financial year.
Some Member States (in particular Greece, Ireland, Italy, and the 
United Kingdom) took up in advance part of their 1983 quotas, while 
others did not use up all the appropriations allocated to them: 
Germany, which has the largest balance in nominal terms, Belgium, 
whose balance is the largest in relative terms, France, the 
Netherlands and Denmark. Under the circumstances and in the interest 
of sound financial management, the Commission used these budget 
appropriations to grant Greece, Ireland, Italy, and the United 
Kingdom assistance from the Fund over and above their 1982 quotas, 
the difference to be charged against their 1983 quotas.
24 Commitments and payments within the quota section are calculated on 
the basis of national currencies and accounted for at the monthly 
exchange rate.
25 Committed appropriations are released under Article 9(6) of the Fund 
Regulation where information supplied to the Commission by Member 
States, notably in support of their payment claims, or findings of 
on-the-spot checks show that a project has not been completed or has 
been implemented in such a way as to justify payment of only part of 
the intended grant. The unused amount resulting is made available for 
grants to other investments located in one of the eligible regions of 
the same Member State.
26 This triggered among other things application of the limits to ERDF
assistance laid down in Article 4(1) (a) and (2) (a) of the Fund 
Regulation. -  - .  ■
3A
(

60. The overall balance of 5.563 Mio ECU outstanding at the end of 1982 
is in fact the total cumulative balance since the Fund’s inception. 
It represents only 0.3% of the commitment appropriations available 
for the year and less than 0.8%o of commitments made during the 
period 1975-82 (over 7,050 Mio ECU).
Table 12 provides a synopsis of the balance of commitment 
appropriations outstanding at each year-end since the Fund was set 
up. We find that available appropriations have been used up almost 
entirely since 1975.
;  Table 12
ERDF quota section.
Balances of commitment appropriations outstanding each vear-end.
(Mio ECU)
YearBudget
appropriat­
ionsAppropriations 
available for 
commitment (1)Appropriations 
used up 
(2)Balance 
outstanding 
at year-end
75/77 1030.40(3) 1047.23(3) 1032.20(3) 15.03(3)
1978 581.00 599.84 556.36 43.48
1979 900.00 973.65 970.43 3.22
1980 1106.75 1169.64 1137.79 31.85
1981 1463.00 1615.17 1596.19 18.98
1982 1669.00 1817.69 1812.13 5.56
(1) Including appropriations carried over from the previous year 
and appropriations made available through release operations 
and through adjustments in respect of commitments remaining 
payable from previous years to take account of fluctuations in 
the ECU rate.
(2) Commitments for the respective years adjusted to take account 
of fluctuations in the ECU rate.
(3) Budget appropriations, 1,300 Mio u.a.; appropriations 
available for commitment, 1,312.33 Mio u.a.; and appropriations 
used, 1,301.64 Mio U.A. This leaves a balance of 10.69 Mio u.a. 
converted into ECU at the rate ruling in January 1978.
Chapter III - Financial Management and Control ' 37

Table 13
ERPF non-quota section
Budgetary situation 1982
Î 1. Use of commitment appropriations
(Mio ECU)
Commitment appropriations, available for 1982 Appropriations
used in 1982
commitments
made.  Commitment
appropriations
available 
at 31.12.82Appropriâtions
entered 
in 1982
budgetAppropriations
outstanding
from
1981Available from:
Transfer to quota section Total
90.500 60.689 39.370 111.819 32.739 79.080
2. . Use of Payment appropriations
(Mio ECU)
Payment appropriations available in 1982 Payments made in 1982 Payment appropriations unused 
at 31.12.1982
Carry­
over from 
1981Appropr­
iations 
for 1982Transfer to 
quota-sectionTotal Out of carry­
over
from 1981Out of appropr­
iations 
for 1982Total Out of carry­
over
from 1981Out of appropr­
iations 
for 1982
20.00 60.00 17.777 62.223 2.223 20.200 22.423 - 39.800
3. Commitments made
(Mio ECU)
1981 commitments 
unpaid 
at 1.1.1982Commitments made in 1982 1981
commitments 
unpaid 
at 31.12.81 
+ 1982 
commitmentsCommitments
paid in 
1982Commitments
still to be 
paid at 
31.12.82Out of
appropriations 
outstanding 
from 1981Out of
appropriations 
for 1982Total
33.305 21.319 11.420 32.739 66.044 22.423 43.621

NON-QUOTA SECTION
61. A maximum amount of 220 Mio ECU was set aside for the first five 
non-quota measures approved by the Council on 7 October 1980. The 
t  first eight special programmes approved by the Commission between 
June 1981 and July 1982 took up 216 Mio ECU(27), this being the Fund 
contribution for their duration.
The total amount of appropriations available for commitment in 1982, 
151.189 Mio ECU, was made up of 90.500 Mio ECU entered in the 1982 
budget and 60.689 Mio ECU outstanding from the 1981 budget. Of the 
latter amount, a balance of 39.370 Mio ECU was not used up in time 
and as a result was transferred at the end of 1982 to the quota 
section(28). While approving this transfer, the budgetary authority 
j  did however request that the appropriations so withdrawn from the 
non-quota section be restored to it during 1983 (see Table 13).
62. Decisions taken to grant aid under the non-quota section resulted in 
a commitment in 1982 of 32.739 Mio ECU, leaving, taking account of 
the transfer already mentioned, an unused balance of 79.080 Mio ECU 
to be carried into 1983.
63. Table 14 gives for the non-quota section the balances of commitment 
appropriations remaining available in previous years and the 
transfers so far made to the quota section.
The carry-overs and the transfers to the quota section shown in the 
table reflect delays in starting up the non-quota section which call 
for the following observations:
• the Commission's proposal for the establishment of a non-quota 
section dates back to June 1977; the section was set up in 
February 1979; although the first proposals under this section 
were made as early as October 1979, they were not adopted by the 
Council until October 1980;
• implementation of the specific measures has entailed a shift of 
emphasis at national level from "individual project" financing 
to "multiannual programme" financing and, since some of the 
measures have been the first of their kind, special rules have 
had to be introduced in a number of cases.
As a result, the Commission could not approve the first batch of 
special programmes drawn up for the first five specific Community 
measures until June 1981 and the first commitments could not be made 
until that year. Since then, an amount of 73.327 Mio ECU has been 
committed, representing 34% of the Fund's total five-year allocation 
of 216 Mio ECU for the first eight non-quota special programmes (see 
Table 19 at point 76).
27 An extra 4 Mio ECU has been earmarked for the steel areas programme in 
Italy.
28 As provided for in Article 2(3) (b) of the Fund Regulation.
Chapter III - Financial Management and Control 39

Table 14
ERDF Quota section.
Carry-overs and transfers to quota section.
(in Mio ECU)
YearBudget
appropriat­
ionsAppropriations 
available for 
commitmentAppropr­
iât ions 
used upTransfer 
to quota 
sectionBalance 
outstanding 
at year-end
1978 29.05(1) 29.05(1)--d) -d)
1979 45.00 45.00 - - 45.00
1980 58.25 103.25 - 45.00 58.25
1981 77.00 135.25 40.59 33.97 60.69
1982 90.50 151.19 32.74 39.37 79.08
(1) In 1978 the appropriations for the non-quota and quota sections 
were still combined in the budget.
SETTLEMENT OF COMMITMENTS (PAYMENTS)
64. For 1982, the Fund's total initial allocation of payment 
appropriations entered in Chapters 50 (quota section) and 51 
(non-quota section) of the budget was 1,075 Mio ECU, including 
125 Mio ECU originally entered in Chapter 100 (provisional 
appropriations) and transferred during the year to Chapter 50 (quota 
section). The allocation of payment appropriations thus represented 
61% of the total initial allocation of commitment appropriations 
(1,759.5 Mio ECU), against 53% in 1981. In the previous financial 
year, payment and commitment appropriations amounted to 819.2 Mio 
ECU and 1,540 Mio ECU respectively.
QUOTA SECTION
65. The payment appropriations originally entered in the 1982 budget for
the quota section stood at 1,015 Mio ECU, including the 125 Mio ECU
in Chapter 100. With the carry-over to 1982 of the balance of
i ' r 15.852 Mio ECU outstanding at the end of 1981, the appropriations
initially available for payment in 1982 totalled 1,030.852 Mio ECU. 
At the end of the year, the unused balance of 17.777 Mio ECU from the 
non-quota section's 1981 payment appropriations was transferred to 
the quota section(29), giving a total of 1,048.629 Mio ECU for 
payment appropriations available for 1982 (see Table 10.2).
29 As provided for in Article 2(3)(b) of the Fund Regulation.

66. Payments made in 1982 totalled 950.674 Mio ECU, of which 0.506 Mio 
ECU for studies carried out pursuant to Article 12 of the Fund 
Regulation, compared with 791.409 Mio ECU in 1981, an increase of 
20% .
Although the flow of payments as a percentage of the total volume of 
commitments dipped slightly (53.9% in 1982 against 54.3% in 1981), 
over 90% of the appropriations available at the beginning of the year 
were used up, and this for the third year running: the rate of 
utilization for 1982 was 92.2%. Without the transfer of the 125 Mio 
ECU initially entered in Chapter 100, some of the payments charged to 
the 1982 budget would have had to come out of the 1983 budget.
67. Payment claims submitted by Member States during 1982 actually 
amounted to 974.552 Mio ECU, not 950.674 Mio ECU. The difference is
7  due mainly to the amounts held back by the Commission from the 
payments claimed, pending notification by the Member State concerned 
of all the information required under Article 8(1)(b) of the Fund 
Regulation, and to the recovery of amounts released during the year.
Table 15
ERDF quota section
Payments made in 1982 - Commitments still to be paid at the end of
1982.
(in Mio ECU)
Commitments Payments Commit-
1975-81 Commit- Payments as %of ments
Member still to be ments commitments to be paid
State paid at end 1982 at end
1981 (1) 1981 198275/8175/82 1982
B 14.249 16.965 9.17010.558 68.066.6 20.656
DK 21.301 17.418 10.685 14.572 65.269.1 24.147
D 102.015 58.312 36.189 61.648 64.069.9 98.679
GR 120.836 213.297 122.001 152.346 49.159.4 181.787
F 337.266 325.359 62.159126.177 52.448.3 536.448
IRL 79.667 114.037 79.322 91.550 69.772.4 102.154
I 1028.596 604.899 210.164 276.966 42.743.41356.529
L 1.405 2.042 0.962 0.06367.648.6 3.384
NL 43.162 18.323 5.662 3.23551.545.3 58.250
UK 408.881 441.479 255.096 213.559 67.762.7 636.801
EUR 10 2157.378 1812.131 791.409 950.674 54.353.93018.835
(1) Amounts adjusted to take account of commitments released and 
adjustments for fluctuations in the ECU rate.
68. Table 15 shows for each Member State and for the Community as a whole 
the situation with regard to payments. It also gives the flow of 
payments (commitments settled as a percentage of commitments made 
since the Fund's inception) and, for purposes of comparison, shows 
the pattern at the end of 1982 and at the end of 1981.
Chapter III - Financial Management and Control 41

Table 16
ERDF Quota section.
Settlement of commitments in each financial year
Commitments Commitments Payments made in 1982 against Total Commitments Payments
Member unpaid at 1982 commitments in payments unpaid against
State 31.12.1981(1) (1) 1982 at 31.12.82 commitments
75-77 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 at end 1982
Mio ECU 7.Mio ECU 7. MioECU Mio ECU Mio ECU in 7.
B 14.249 0.716.965 0.90.954 0.498 0.960 3.008 1.680 3.458 10.558 20.656 66.6
DK 21.301 1.017.418 1.0 - -0.040 1.56610.778 2.188 14.572 24.147 69.1
D 102.015 4.758.312 3.20.118 4.587 5.84719.738 22.784 8.574 61.648 98.679 69.9
GR 120.836 5.6213.297 11.8 - - - -63.607 88.740 152.347 181.788 59.4
F 337.266 15.6325.359 18.0 1.237 0.516 6.67929.671 28.186 59.888 126.177 536.448 48.3
IRL 79.677 4.0114.037 6.30.424 0.637 1.077 6.40935.486 47.518 91.551 102.154 72.4
I 1028.596 47.3604.899 33.4-1.314 13.405 54.268 87.199102.110 21.296 276.964 1356.530 43.4
L 1.405 0.1 2.042 0.1 - - -0.063 - - 0.063 3.384 48.6
NL 43.162 2.018.323 1.0 - - -2.701 0.309 0.225 3.235 58.249 45.3
UK 408.881 19.0441.479 24.4 1.219 7.92912.085 39.839 99.815 52.672 213.559 636.800 62.7
EUR 10 2157.378 100.01812.131 100.0 2.638 27.572 80.956190.194 364.755 284.559 950.674 3018.835 53.9
(1) Amounts adjusted to take account of amounts released and fluctuations in the ECU rate.

69. Comparing the figure of 53.9% with those for 1981, 1980, 1979 and 
1978 (54.3%, 56.4%, 53.2% and 53.3% respectively) reveals that, 
although the allocation has grown, the time-lag between the flow of 
commitments and the flow of payments has remained virtually 
unchanged. This time-lag stems inevitably from the Fund's rules: 
when a grant decision is taken, the total amount of the grant is 
committed immediately, whereas settlement of the commitment, i.e. 
the actual payment of the grant, is staggered over several years in 
step with the outlay by Member States and progress of the investment 
projects financed. - -r:  ;r. . .
70. Table 16 gives the breakdown for each Member State of payments made 
in 1982 against the corresponding commitments made in previous 
years.
71. The overall rate of payment differs quite markedly between
Member States. It improved in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland  
and Italy, although Italy, with a rate of 43.4%, remains below  
the Community average. Italy is making strenuous efforts to  
make up the backlog accumulated in previous years. France  
(48.3%), Luxembourg (48.6%) and the Netherlands (45.3%) were also  
below the Community average, with a sharp drop in the rate of  
payments compared with 1981 in all three countries. The figure  
of 62.7% for the United Kingdom, although lower than that recorded  
in 1981 (67.7%), is still well above the Community average."
Table 17
ERDF quota section.
Breakdown of payments in each year bv Member State.
%of payments made
Member
State 19751976197719781979198019811982
B 0.01.70.82.30.60.91.21.2
DK 1.71.51.60.51.81.31.31.5
D 0.03.66.716.6 9.06.94.67.6
GR ------15.4 7.2
F 17.812.112.316.020.213.7 7.913.6
IRL 7.76.85.98.06.49.610.0 8.6
I48.942.740.130.828.034.326.630.5
L 0.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.1
NL 3.12.30.82.51.71.10.71.2
UK20.629.131.723.232.232.132.228.5
EUR 10 100.0100.01100.0 100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
\
Chapter III - Financial Management and Control43

72.Table 17 gives the breakdown between Member States of payments from
the Fund every year since 1975.
Although payment appropriations are not subject to quota 
arrangements, it will be seen from this Table that, compared with the 
quotas for commitment appropriations, there have been considerable 
delays.in claiming payments in recent years, particularly in the case 
of Italy.
73. Table 18 summarizes the settlements of payment appropriations since 
the Fund was set up.
Since the Fund was set up, annual allocations of payment 
appropriations have totalled 3,897.585 Mio ECU. At 31 December 1982, 
3,799.630 Mio ECU had been accounted for by payments made since 1975, 
representing a rate of utilization of 97.5%.
Table 18
ERDF quota section. -
Payment appropriations since 1975. j 1 '
YearBudget
appropriationsPayments
madeBalance of credits 
remaining 
since 1975
Mio U.A. Mio ECU Mio U.A. Mio ECU Mio U.A. Mio ECU
1975(1)
1976(1)
1977(1)
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982150.000
300.000
400.000122.310
229.051
294.530
525.000
483.000 
392.375
(2)+16.000 
799.200 
(2)+ 3.342 
1015.000 
(2)+17.77790.628
277.372
372.50874.058
213.052
275.699
254.892
513.148
726.698
791.409
950.67459.372
82.000
109.49248.252
64.252 
83.083(1)
353.191
323.043
0.0
4.720
15.852
97.955
Total 3897.585 3799.630 97.955
(1) Units of account converted into ECU at the average rate for 
the year.
(2) Transfer from the non-quota (chap. 51) to :  .  
the quota section (chap. 50).
74. In 1982, the amounts involved in the settlement of commitments 
through application of the accelerated payments procedure(30) can be 
put at 268 Mio ECU, against 230 Mio ECU in 1981. Accelerated payments 
thus accounted for 28% of total payments made in 1982, against 29% in 
1981.
30 ERDF Sixth Annual Report (1980), point 140.

NON-QUOTA SECTION
75. An appropriation of 60 Mio ECU was entered in the 1982 budget for the 
settlement of commitments made under the non-quota section. 
Including the carry-over to 1982 of 20 Mio ECU of payment
,v ,  appropriations outstanding at the end of 1981, appropriations 
, available for payment at the beginning of the year stood at 80 Mio 
ECU. At the end of the year, an amount of 17.777 Mio ECU, 
, ,  ; - ·  representing the balance of 1981 payment appropriations unused in 
1982, was transferred to the quota section(31).
76. Payments made in 1982 in respect of all the non-quota special 
programmes approved to date totalled 22.423 Mio ECU. At the end of 
the year, and taking into account the transfer mentioned, the balance 
of payment appropriations outstanding stood at 39.8 Mio ECU.
Table 19
■  ERDF non-auota section.
Commitments and payments in respect of special programmes.
(in Mio ECU)
SpecialTotal
allocationCommitments Payments
programmes over 5 yrs Date Amount Date Amount
France - 
enlargement55.000 13/10/81
22/09/8215.563 
12.66615/10/81
03/12/824.669
3.800
United Kingdom - 
border areas8.000 02/10/81 0.473 22/12/81
02/12/820.142
0.284
United Kingdom - 
steel areas33.000 24/05/82
13/12/825.280
7.48015/12/82
15/12/825.280
2.244
United Kingdom - 
shipbuilding areas17.000 16/09/82
03/12/822.570
3.94015/12/82
15/12/822.570
1.182
Ireland - 
border
areas16.000 02/10/81 3.216 15/10/81
31/03/82
09/10/820.965
0.965
0.965
Italy - energy 16.000 16/10/81 5.026 30/12/81 1.508
Italy -enlargement 65.000 23/12/81 16.135 02/12/82 4.841
Belgium -
steel areas6.000 23/12/81
22/09/820.175
0.80327/09/82
27/09/820.053
0.241
Total 216.000 73.327 29.709
31 As provided for in Article 2(3)(b) of the Fund Regulation. 
Chapter III - Financial Management and Control

Table 19 gives for each special programme the situation with regard 
to the settlement of commitments resulting from the payments made. 
Overall, the balance of commitments made in 1981 and 1982 and still 
to be paid amounts to 43.621 Mio ECU (see Table 13.3).
Although the start-up of the eight special programmes proved 
difficult(32) and while a number of them are still running somewhat 
behind schedule, they are steadily moving into a normal pattern of 
execution. In spite of the fact that the Commission did not approve 
the last of the eight programmes until July 1982 (the first having 
been approved in June 1981), 34% of the total of 216 Mio ECU had 
been taken up and 40.5% of the commitments made had been settled by 
31 December 1982.
CONTROLS
INSPECTIONS
77. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Fund Regulation, grants are paid out
upon presentation by the Member State concerned of statements 
certifying the public expenditure incurred (the basis for Fund 
assistance) and the existence of detailed supporting documents. The 
latter do not, however, have to accompany payment claims: the
conformity of the statements presented to the Commission with the 
supporting documents is verified on the occasion of on-the-spot 
checks carried out pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Fund Regulation 
on a sample of projects aided by the Fund.
As provided for in Article 9(4), on-the-spot inspections are also 
made in order to verify the conformity of completed projects with 
the proposals as originally presented to the Fund and that of 
administrative practices with Community rules, particularly as 
regards public tendering. Assessment of the conformity of projects 
implemented with the operations financed also involves verifying 
the degree of success in achieving specific employment and 
production targets in the case of industrial projects and 
utilization targets in the case of infrastructure projects, where 
they had been indicated in the grant applications, a practice which 
is generally followed only projects costing'10 Mio ECU or more. ;
78. Since in 1982 statements of expenditure relating to non-quota 
specific measures were not presented by Member States in time for a 
schedule of checks to be drawn up, on-the-spot inspections were 
confined to projects financed under the quota section. During the 
year the Commission did, however, carry out in two Member States 
its first examination of Fund operations under the non-quota 
section in preparation for future on-the-spot checks. It was 
primarily concerned with how these operations were being financed 
and administered.
79. During 1982, the Court of Auditors was associated with three 
on-the-spot inspections by the Commission.
80. In 1982, on-the-spot checks were made by the Commission (involving 
officials fron the Directorates-General for Regional Policy
'  32 See point 63 of this Report,
46

and for Financial Control) in respect of 204 projects, compared 
with 223 in 1981 and 202 in 1980. This brought the number of 
projects inspected on-site since the Fund was established to 1,268. 
The projects inspected in 1982 accounted for Fund assistance 
totalling 338 Mio ECU, against 355 Mio ECU in 1981 and 140 Mio ECU 
in 1980. This figure can be compared with the commitments of some 
5,250 Mio ECU for the period 1975-81 and with the payments made of 
2,850 Mio ECU in the same period. It should also be noted that the 
total number of projects inspected in 1982 involved investment 
amounting to around 2,375 Mio ECU.
81. During the year, the Commission continued its action to deal with 
"dormant" projects(33).  Alongside the general examination that the 
Commission carries out periodically in conjunction with the Member 
States, it continued its enquiries, introduced on a regional basis 
in 1981, using on-the-spot checks to identify, in association with 
the administering authorities, projects where payments had fallen 
behind schedule. The purpose is to discover the causes of such 
delays and to speed up the processing or closure of files, either 
by final payment if the projects have been completed or by 
releasing the appropriations allocated if they have not been 
carried out. In 1982, 359 "dormant projects" were inspected (as
against 236 in 1981 and 209 in 1980). Following these inspections, 
14 projects have lost their grants (the appropriations being 
released), 27 have been the subject of further payment claims and 
22 the subject of a final claim to close the file.
ASSESSMENTS
82. In 1982, France withdrew its objection to Commission officials 
joining in inspection visits to industrial concerns. The checks 
were therefore carried out in accordance with Article 9 of the Fund 
Regulation, on the basis of the arrangements already applied in the 
other Member States. As a result, the Commission terminated the 
measures withholding payments from the industrial projects that 
Commission officials had not been authorized to inspect.
83. On-the-spot checks in 1982 did not reveal any operation of a 
fraudulent nature, i.e. no case of undue financial benefit being 
obtained by way of an illegal procedure.
84. Generally speaking, on-the-spot inspections carried out during the 
year revealed occasional flaws in the information supplied by 
Member States in grant applications and in payment claims. They 
also brought to light some tardiness in informing the Commission of 
the completion of projects, delaying the closure of files.
85. In response to this situation, the Commission took the action it 
had announced in 1981(34) for clearing files on projects dating 
back to 1975, 1976 and 1977. As a result, appropriations committed 
for projects which have far overrun their original schedule will be 
released automatically. The Commission will gradually extend this 
procedure to files from subsequent years that have not yet been 
closed.
33 Projects for which no payment claim has been received for some 18 
months.
34 ERDF Seventh Annual Report, point 163.
Chapter III - Financial Management and Control47

CHAPTER IV :  PUBLICITY FOR PUND ACTIVITY
86.  The Commission takes the view that the Fund's activities should be 
given the widest possible coverage. First, the public has the 
right to be informed about how the Community administers the 
resources for which taxpayers in Member States foot the bill. 
Second, Fund operations, being in support of practical projects 
with a fixed location, are a particularly apt advertisement for the 
direct benefit the public derives from the Community; this point is 
even more important in the run-up to the second direct election of 
the European Parliament.
The Fund Regulation stipulates(3S) that investors must be informed 
that part of the aid granted to them has been provided by the 
Community. It also requires that grants for infrastructure projects 
be given suitable publicity. In addition, a list of projects 
assisted by the Fund must be published in the Official Journal of 
the European Communities. As before, the actual information to be 
published is specified in agreements with the individual Member 
States.
87. The Commission continued and expanded the information campaigns it 
has mounted since the Fund's inception. It has found that, among 
the publicity measures taken, information supplied to the press and 
on-site signboards still have the greatest public impact, 
particularly in countries where individual projects can be 
identified and where Fund assistance is highest (Ireland, Italy and 
the United Kingdom).
PRESS INFORMATION
88.  After each series of grant decisions, the Commission published a 
press release, regional grant statistics and lists of aided 
projects, the content of which varies according to the agreement 
with each Member State. All this information is very widely 
circulated by the Commission's information offices in the Member 
States, and some countries also conduct their own press campaigns 
every time an allocation of grants is announced. .
In addition to the general press releases covering all the grant 
allocation decisions, the Commission has provided separate 
information on grants in each recipient country since the end of 
1981.
35 Article 10 of the Fund Regulation.
Chapter IV :  Publicity for Fund Activity 49

Press releases have also been issued whenever the Commission has 
adopted programmes for implementing the non-quota specific 
measures. A special effort was made to publicize the Commission's 
proposals for the second series of non-quota measures. In addition 
to the accompanying press release, the Commission Member 
responsible for regional policy gave a press conference on 21 
October for representatives of the world press accredited to the 
European Communities.
89. By and large, such information is given more prominence in the 
regional and local press than in the national press. There are 
frequent reports in Irish, Italian and United Kingdom newspapers, 
but less press coverage in France and Germany. The information 
released for the latter two countries does not make it easy for 
journalists or newspaper readers to identify the individual 
projects aided by the Fund, whereas the lists for Ireland, Italy 
and the United Kingdom are fairly detailed and name each project, 
which certainly makes the information more useful to journalists 
and more interesting to readers. The relatively higher level of 
Fund assistance in these three countries may also explain the 
greater public interest shown there in Fund activities.
The Commission is studying ways of keeping the general public in 
all Member States more closely informed, notably through the 
regional and local press, of the practical aspects of Community 
policies, especially ERDF activities.
SIGNBOARDS f
90. Member States are required to mesure that signboards are erected at 
the sites of major infrastructure projects to show that they are 
being financed in part by the Fund(36).
Many signboards have now been erected in Italy and the United 
Kingdom. More often than not, however, the Commission does not 
receive enough details on the number of signboards put up, and the 
reports which the national authorities are required to present to 
the Commission each year arrive very late and in many cases are 
incomplete.
According to the Commission's present information, signboards have 
been erected for some 2,050 projects since the Fund was set up, 
including around 600 projects in 1982. The table below shows the 
numbers of signboards put up in each country.
36 Article 10 of the Fund Regulation. istis v,·.* Of
50

Table 20
ERDF quota section.  
On-site signboards.
Member Number of projects Situation at
State with signs year-end :
B 38 1981(1)
»K ,  ,  ,  . 7 1982
d \ ::  ; 57 1982
gr ‘  ! 3 4 7 Vino o; 1982
p ■  ■ ■  ·  · - -  ' ■  Ij.-i::!1" 40 ’, t .  1981(1)
IRL 94 1982
I 841 1982
l ’4 5-x > 1982
NT. " " ' - 14 •riic·'. 1982
UK 611 1982
EUR 10 2053 "
(1) No information sent in on the number of signboards
erected in 1982 •
NON-QUOTA MEASURES: INFORMATION ACTIVITY BY NATIONAL 
AUTHORITIES
91. The Regulations concerning the non-quota measures impose certain 
publicity requirements on the national authorities. The special 
programmes must among other things indicate how trade interests and 
the general public are to be informed of the possibilities offered by 
the programmes and how the Community's contribution is to be 
'  publicized. In addition, in their annual reports on the
implementation of the programmes the authorities in the Member 
States are required to inform the Commission of their infgrmation 
activity(37).
37 See points 47 to 51 for the information campaigns conducted for each
special programme under the non-quota section.
51Chapter IV :  Publicity for Fund Activity

PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL
QUOTA SECTION
92. The list of projects receiving grants from the Fund must be published  
every six months in the Official Journal. Since 1978 it has not been  
possible to keep to this timetable, and occasionally the lists have  
been published only once a year and with considerable delay. The  
list of projects approved in 1980 was not published until July  
1982(38).
!  - .  :
These delays are due mainly to staff shortages. The technical and 
translation workload involved in preparing the lists has increased 
significantly: in 1982, 3,273 projects were listed, compared with
1,183 in 1975. In spite of these constraints, the time-lags have been 
shortened recently - the projects covered by the first three grant 
allocations of 1981 were published in September 1982(39) and those 
covered by the fourth allocation in December 1982(40) while those 
covered by the first two allocations of 1982 were published in March 
1983(*1).
Unfortunately, these lists provide little information since they are  
not allowed to identify projects; some Member States do not permit  
this identification. The lists published in the Official Journal are  
therefore standardized on the basis of the lowest common  
denominator. The Commission is endeavouring to improve this  
situation.
NON-QUOTA SECTION
93. Under the Regulations adopted by the Council in October 1980, the 
special programmes presented to the Commission by the Member States 
for the non-quota specific measures must be published in the Official 
Journal. Of the nine programmes, eight were transmitted to the 
Commission and adopted by the end of 1982 (six of them in 1981 and 
two in 1982). However, none of them was published in the Official 
Journal in 1982, publication being expected in 1983. This serious 
ci.,, delay is due first and foremost to staff shortages for translation 
and typing. As a result the first set of non-quota programmes will be 
published in the Official Journal so late that the public will lose 
interest in them. Since such delays are virtually inevitable, the 
Commission has decided that, for the second series of non-quota 
measures proposed in November 1982, the programmes will simply be 
published "by the Commission", and this does not necessarily entail 
publication in the Official Journal or translation into all the 
official languages of the Community.
O.J. N. C 191, 26.7.1982.
O.J. N. C 246, 7.9.1982.
O.J. N. C 347, 31.12.1982.
O.J. N. C 85, 28.03.83.
52

INFORMING INVESTORS
94. The Commission has continued to write to investors informing them of 
grant decisions in their favour. The letters are sent direct or, in 
the case of investors in France, through the responsible national 
authorities. Without these letters, investors, and especially 
private investors, would in many cases probably have no idea that the 
Community was helping finance their projects. In 1982, the 
Commission sent out over 3,000 such letters.
Chapter IV :  Publicity for Fund Activity53

CHAPTER V :  THE ERDF'S ACTIVITIES FROM 1975 TO 1982
A BRIEF REVIEW
I
QUOTA SECTION
95. Between 1975 and 1982, the Commission's departments examined 22,500 
investment projects costing more than 65,634 Mio ECU for which 
applications for ERDF aid totalling more than 8,761 Mio ECU had been 
submitted.
i  Following the Commission departments' examination of the grant 
*  applications, 17,838 investment projects were referred to the ERDF 
Committee (after the infrastructure projects costing 10 Mio ECU or 
;  more had been submitted to the Regional Policy Committee).
At the end, 17,771 investment projects received grants totalling 
7,187 Mio ECU.
96. Up to 1978, all projects were referred to the Fund Committee for its 
opinion after debate (a total of 6,611 projects from 1975 to 1978). 
From 1979, the prior information procedure enabled discussion to be 
limited to 3,479 projects, i.e. only 20% of the 11,383 investment 
projects referred by the Commission to the Fund Committee between 
1979 and 1982 (Table 21).
It should also be pointed out that a great many projects were not 
formally submitted to the Commission, following close contacts and 
discussions between its competent departments and the national 
authorities concerned.
Chapter V :  The ERDF's activities from 1975 to 1982 55

Table 21
ERDF quota section (excluding studies under Article 12).
Number of projects submitted to the Commmission.  referred to the
ERDF Committee and granted aid M l .
Period 1975-78 Period 1979-82 Total
19751976197719781979198019811982
Number of projects
- received by 
Commission
- referred to Fund 
Committee
- of which discussed by 
Fund Committee since 
introduction of prior 
information procedure1492
12491788
16302246
19912070
17413427
2925
6563127
2502
12143768
2465
9054582
3335
70422500
17838
Number of projects 
covered by an ERDF 
grant decision 1182154520201600283525612759326917771
(1) The data relate to calendar years and, for the reasons given 
in Chapter II, point 5, do not provide a basis for a direct 
comparison as regards the Fund's administration within any 
one year.
97, After eight years of Fund activity, it is interesting to take an 
overall look at the Member States' reactions to the large number of 
decisions before the Commission. In all, 3,192 draft decisions 
grouping together 17,838 investment projects were discussed. The 
Commission itself adopted 816 draft decisions for which no Member 
State had sought referral to the Fund Committee. It referred 236 
draft decisions to the Committee under the procedure set out in 
Article 16 of the Fund Regulation; of these, 17 were negative 
proposals and 10 were withdrawn following discussion with the 
Committee. Of the remaining 2,349 draft decisions, 2,329 were 
endorsed by the Committee (see Table 22).
It will be seen from Table 22 that in the vast majority of cases all 
the national delegations endorsed the draft decisions referred to 
the Committee by the Commission. Only in a very few cases did some of 
the delegations reject a draft decision or abstain from voting.
Generally speaking, therefore, the Member States approved the 
projects selected by the Commission.
This selection is also apparent from the large number of projects not 
granted ERDF assistance by the Commission (see point 28, Table 3). 
decisions were disapproved by more than two delegations, although a 
negative qualified majority was not reached (Table 22).
56

Table 22
ERDF quota-free section.
Draft decisions submitted for the opinion of the Fund Committee.
1975-1978 1979-1982 Total
Total number of draft
decisions requiring
an opinion 1242 1107 2349
- decision rejected 0 0 0
- no opinion given 1 19 20
- decision endorsed 1241 1088 2329
r1  In most cases, the votes against or abstentions by one or more  
delegations did not relate to the grant decision as a whole but only  
to some, or even one, of the investment projects covered.
98. Of the 17,771 projects that were the subject of grant decisions 4,723  
were investment projects in the industrial, craft industry and  
services sectors, and 13,048 were infrastructure projects (Table  
.  23).
• The projects financed since 1975 represent a total investment of  
some 60,025 Mio ECU, while the aid granted totalled almost  
7,187 Mio ECU (i.e. 12.0% of the total investments aided). Of  
this aid, 78.5/? went to infrastructure projects and 21.5% to  
projects in the industrial, craft industry and service  
sectors(42); 56% of the aid was allocated to 752 projects costing  
more than 10 Mio ECU each and 44% to 17,019 projects costing less  
than 10 Mio ECU each.
• According to the estimates given by the national authorities,  
the projects financed in the industrial and service sectors  
should create or preserve more than 500,000 jobs.
• The main industries receiving assistance from the Fund were, in  
descending order, motor vehicle and components manufacture (24%  
of aid granted),  the chemicals industry (7%) and the agri-food  
industries (7%). These industries also received the largest  
amounts of assistance for projects costing more than 10 Mio ECU  
each. However, the electrical engineering, electronics and  
metalworking industries benefited most (see Annex Table 3).
• The transport and water-engineering sectors received the most  
aid from the ERDF in respect of infrastructure investments: 33%  
and 24% respectively (see Annex Table 5).
*2 As early as 1975, however, the Fund Regulation had provided for  
assistance for these branches of the economy (Article 4(1)(a)), and as  
from 1981 a ceiling of 70% was laid down in the Regulation for  
assistance for infrastructure projects (Article 4(1)(b)).
Chapter V :  The ERDF's activities from 1975 to 1982 57

Table 23 '  ... / .  .
ERDF quota section. '  yC
Grant decisions 1975-1QR2.
(Mio ECU)
By Member State
Nber of projects(a)  
Assistance (b)  
Investments (c)Industry, craft ind. A services Infrastructure
TOTAL Invest, of  
10 Mio ECU  
or moreInvest, of  
less than  
10 Mio ECUTotalInvest, of  
10 Mio ECU  
or moreInvest, of  
less than  
10 Mio ECUMountain 
or hill 
areasTotal
(a)
B (b) 
(c)9
12.03
188.6953
13.99
180.9162
26.02
369.601
1.84
15.02204
36.78
141.6937
6.29
22.58242
44.91
179.29304
70.93
548.89
(a)
DK (b) 
(c)1
0.73
11.30127
8.23
113.12128
8.96
124.429
25.51
110.86421
45.55
170.92430
71.05
281.78558
80.02
406.20
(a)
D (b) 
(c)67
79.76
2295.691161
128.75
2880.871228
208.51
5176.5610
36.07
298.19557
142.05
524.99567
178.11
823.181795
386.62
5999.74
(a)
GR (b) 
(c)1
5.76
63.0047
16.71
105.4248
22.48
168.4226
208.30
875.79411
242.37
1118.33“437
450.67
1994.12485
473.15
2162.54
(a)
F (b) 
(c)63
128.75
2718.481231
144.85
2129.051294
273.60
4847.5390
623.68
2290.141172
224.81
839.59130
13.87
46.241392
862.36
3175.972686
1135.96
8023.50
(a)
IRL (b) 
(c)25
53.73
1511.91208
78.57
521.93233
132.29
2033.8451
244.77
5876.49336
62.51
226.9072
13.07
45.02459
320.35
6148.41692
452.64
8182.25
(a)
I (b) 
(c)20
112.43
897.331108
229.29
1270.211128
341.72
2167.54134
1599.25
13797.334618
740.64
2400.521080
65.67
240.495832
2405.56
16438.346960
2747.28
18605.88
(a)
L (b) 
(c)“ ~ “ 9
7.12
39.93“ 9
7.12
39.939
7.12
39.93
(a)
NL (b) 
(c)3
12.41
132.418
4.81
41.3811
17.22
173.7911
51.63
291.9129
29.79
118.79-40
81.42
410.7051
98.64
584.49
(a)
UK (b) 
(c)86
416.88
5290.82505
100.43
782.02591
517.31
6072.84145
418.79
6120.573357
773.63
3188.13138
24.80
90.723640
1217.22
9399.424231
1734.53
15472.26
(a)
EUR 10 (b)  
(c)275
822.48
13109.644448
725.63
8024.914723
1548.11
21134.5477
3209.82
29676.3011114
2305.25
8769.791457
123.71
445.0513048
5638.78
38891.1417771
7186.89
60025.69
58

NON-QUOTA SECTION
99. The first specific measures instituted under the non-quota section  
were adopted in 1980 but were not actually implemented until 1981 or  
1982 (see point 46). While it is still too early to establish an  
overall picture of the ERDF's activities in this field, the first  
annual implementing reports provide a number of pointers (see point  
47).
100. It is already clear that the non-quota section has paved the way for
major innovations in the Community's approach to regional
development.
Firstly, the reasons given for the non-quota measures and the choice  
of areas based on Community criteria help to highlight the Community  
regional policy's own identity.
Secondly, the "multiannual programmes" approach goes some way to  
ensuring that the measures applied to a particular area are  
coordinated and that their aims are consistent with the wider aims  
set out in the regional development programmes. In addition, the  
preparation and implementation of non-quota programmes should  
encourage a closer association between the parties and interests  
involved at local and regional levels. The measures themselves,  
which are for the most part new, enable the most to be made of the  
regions' own development resources.
Finally, the non-quota measures provide for the joint financing, by  
the Community and the Member State concerned, of Community aid  
schemes. The Regulations adopted in 1980 describe these schemes in  
detail, covering the territory eligible, the categories of  
recipient, the basis and duration of aid and the level of the  
Community's contribution. The first experiences of operating the  
non-quota section show that in many cases these schemes have led  
Member States to introduce aid arrangements which did not exist  
before and which Community financial assistance has made possible.
Chapter V :  The ERDF's activities from 1975 to 198259

APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF GEOGRAPHICAL CONCENTRATION
101. The Fund Regulation stipulates that the only regions and areas which  
may benefit from the Fund are those assisted areas designated by  
Member States for the purposes of their regional aid schemes. In  
order to give the greatest effect to ERDF assistance, however,  
priority is given to investment projects in national priority areas,  
with account being taken of the principles for the coordination at  
Community level of regional aids.
Table 24
ERDF nuota section.  
ERDF's budget allocation.
Amount of the Share of total
ERDF's allocation Community budget
in Mio ECU in %
1975 257.6(1) 4.8
1976 394.3(1) 5.6
1977 378.5(1) 4.9 Z
1978 581.0 4.6
1979 945.0 6.1
1980 1165.0 6.7
1981 1540.0 7.3 ' ■
1982 1759.5 7.6
(1) Original amounts in Mio U.A. converted
into Mio ECU.
102. Parallel with the growth in the total volume of ERDF assistance  
between 1975 and 1982 (from 257.6 Mio ECU in 1975 to 1,929.5 Mio ECU  
in 1982, see Table 24), there has been a marked geographical  
concentration of the aid granted: the share taken by Ireland, Italy  
and the United Kingdom was almost 60% in 1977, 72% in 1980 and 63.5%  
in 1982 (following Greece's accession). It should also be noted that,  
overall, the aid granted in 1981 and 1982 was equivalent in nominal  
terms to the amounts of assistance granted between 1975 and 1980  
(Table 25). . . .
60

Table 25
F.RDF quota section.
Breakdown of commitments bv Member State. 1975-1982.
Member
State1975-1978 1979-1980 1981-1982 1975-1982
(a) CD (b) (c)(a) (2) (b) (c)(a) (3) (b) (c) (c)
B 1.49 28.8 1.83 1.39 20.7 0.99 1.11 19.6 0.58 0.98
DK 1.29 23.9 1.51 1.20 23.1 1.10 1.06 36.8 1.08 1.18
D 6.34 145.6 9.23 6.00128.1 6.10 4.65 115.9 3.40 5.50
GR - - - - - -13.00 461.6 13.54 6.51
F 14.87 276.8 17.54 16.86 354.2 16.87 13.64 476.6 13.98 15.63
IRL 6.46 92.5 5.86 6.46139.2 6.63 5.94 219.2 6.43 6.36
I40.00 572.6 36.29 39.39 861.9 41.04 35.49 1254.3 36.80 37.95
L 0.10 2.0 0.13 0.09 1.3 0.06 0.07 3.6 0.11 0.10
NL 1.69 35.0 2.22 1.58 33.6 1.60 1.24 31.3 0.92 1.41
UK27. 76 400.7 25.39 27.03 537.8 25.61 23.80 789.3 23.16 24.38
EUR 10 100.00 1577.9 100.00 100.00 2099.9 100.00 100.00 3408.2 100.00 100.00
(a) quota for the Member State. '  t
(b) amounts in Mio ECU. ,  s
(c) the Member State's actual share of assistance. .......; · "  ....
(1
) Under the 1975 Fund Regulation and taking into account the 6 Mio ECU added to Ireland's  
quota and deducted from the quotas of the other Member States except Italy.
(2) According to the amended Fund Regulation which came into force on 1  January 1979 to take  
account of the 2 % increase granted to France for its overseas departments.
(3) According to the amended Fund Regulation which came into force on 1  January 1981 following  
Greece's accession and the continuation, according to the decision of the Commission, of these  
quotas for 1982 in the absence of a Council decision on the revision of the Fund Regulation.

103. The most striking feature, however, is that the share allocated to  
the regions given top priority (Greece, Mezzogiorno, Ireland,  
Northern Ireland, Greenland, French Overseas Departments) increased  
from 35% in 1977 (excluding Greece) to more than 58% in 1982, when  
Greece received 12.05% of the assistance given (see Table 26 and  
Annex Tables 8 and 9).
This concentration also indicates that the amounts of ERDF  
assistance per head in these regions are the highest in the Community  
(see Table 27 and Annex Table 10). .  . . .  . .  . . .
Table 26 1  -  '  ‘  '  ;
ERDF quota section.
Grants to the most disadvantaged regions as % of  
total F.RDF aid granted each year.
Region 1975 1977 1980 1982
Groenland 0.46 1.52 0.68 0.67
D.O.M. 1.74 0.53 2.74 7.29
Ireland 5.99 4.99 6.84 6.13
Northern Ireland 5.59 3.70 2.84 2.22
Mezzogiorno 31.25 24.26 31.13 30.20
of which
Abruzzi 1.78 3.84 3.75 1.51
Molise 0.30 0.67 0.33 0.41
Campania 9.33 5.44 9.14 16.00
Puglia 8.26 5.52 2.89 2.86
Basilicata 0.52 0.70 1.10 0.55
Calabria 0.67 1.62 5.96 3.54
Sicilia 5.64 4.58 6.11 3.60
Sardegna 4.75 1.89 1.85 1.73
Ellas - - -12.05
of which
Ana. Ster. Kai Nisoi - - - 1.11
Kentr.Dyt. Makedonia - - - 1.41
Pelop. Dyt. Ste. Ellas - - - 2.38
Thessalia - - - 1.36
Anatoliki Makedonia - - - 1.02
Kriti - - - 1.40
Ipiros - - - 0.69
Thraki - - - 0.98
Nisoi Anat. Agaiou - “ - 0.98
TOTAL 45.03 35.00 44.23 58.56

T * Table 27
1 · ;  ERDF quota section.
ERDF assistance bv region and per capita for the most
disadvantaged regions.
Assistance Assistance
Region per capita per capita
1982 1975-1982
Groenland 264.04 1272.24
D.O.M.. of which
Guadeloupe 145.34 197.23
Guyane 188.77 346.85
Martinique 141.47 193.59
Réunion 54.83 112.43
Ireland 33.62 132.56
Northern Ireland 26.81 144.98
Mezzogiorno, of which : 27.74 116.45
Abruzzi 22.70 110.01
Molise 23.14 106.80
Campania v 54.48 143.13
Puglia 13.59 58.08
Basilicata 16.48 88.64
Calabria 31.65 125.65
Sicilia 13.44 129.52
Sardegna 20.03 123.99
Ellas : 23.29 49.25(1)
Ana. Ster. Kai Nisoi 5.22 16.25(1)
Kentr. Dyt. Makedonia 15.60 40.85(1)
Pelop. Dyt. Ste. Ellas 34.52 56.50(1)
Thessalia 36.35 71.34(1)
Anatoliki Makedonia 44.77 70.99(1)
Kriti 52.16 77.05(1)
Ipiros 29.07 75.67(1)
Thraki 52.95 120.20(1)
Nisoi Anat. Agaiou 52.56 133.71(1)
(1) The figures of course relate only to 1981 and 1982
in the case of Greece.
104. As regards the treatment of priority regions or areas within each  
Member State, the situation in 1982 was as follows:
• in Belgium, Fund assistance was confined to the areas defined by  
the Commission Decisions of 26 April 1972(43) and 22 July  
1982(**) on aid granted under Article 11 of the Belgian Economic  
Expansion Law of 30 December 1970;
• in Denmark, 70.0% of Fund grants went to Greenland;
O.J. L 105 du 4.05.1972, p. 13.  
«« O.J. L 312 du 9.11.1982, p. 18.
Chapter V :  The ERDF's activities from 1975 to 198263

• in Germany, 62.4% of Fund assistance was granted to the
Zonenrandgebiet (eastern border areas) and the top priority  
development zones;
• in Greece, Fund assistance was spread over the whole country with  
the exception of almost all of the prefectures of Athens and  
Thessaloniki;
• in France, 88.4% of assistance went to the regions of
Nord-Pas-de-Calais,  Lorraine, the West and South West, Corsica  
and the Overseas Departments;
• in Ireland, 33.0% of assistance went to the designated areas  
situated mainly in the west of the country;
• in Italy, all the Fund assistance was allocated to the  
Mezzogiorno;
• in the Netherlands, Fund assistance was restricted entirely to  
the two priority areas in the north and south of the country;
• in the United Kingdom, some 86% of grants went to projects in  
priority areas, i.e. Northern Ireland, the Special Development  
Areas and the Development Areas.
105. Generally speaking, the Commission, while it is aware that  
establishing regional priorities may occasionally cause, for  
national authorities, difficult problems of balance between regions,  
considers that the drive to concentrate assistance should be  
continued and stepped up.
THE IMPACT OF FUND ASSISTANCE ON EMPLOYMENT
106. One of the main objectives of the Fund is to create and safeguard  
jobs in predominantly agricultural regions and in regions undergoing  
industrial change or with structural underemployment. In recent  
years, the fall-off in industrial investment due to the economic  
crisis and the increase in unemployment in all the Member States have  
given greater prominence to the role which the ERDF can play in this  
sphere.
64

07. The number of jobs created is not the only criterion for choosing  
projects; the desire to strengthen the competitiveness of the  
regional economy through the development of high-productivity  
industries is also important. Balanced regional development requires  
infrastructure and sufficiently developed capital-intensive as well  
as labour-intensive investment projects.
Infrastructures promote employment. They are the necessary basis for  
growth and for the development of industrial and service activities  
which generate jobs. Their construction means extensive work in the  
building and public works sectors, which, although temporary,  
frequently extends over several years, and their upkeep and  
maintenance means not inconsiderable numbers of permanent jobs. Some  
infrastructure projects are so large that they directly generate or  
maintain a large number of long-term jobs.
In the industrial and service sectors, capital-intensive firms may  
under certain conditions help to create a large number of jobs  
through the development of sub-contracting and by generally  
increasing purchasing power, which in turn generates new activities.  
In addition, with their injection of high technology, firms in the  
sunrise industries, frequently have a favourable impact on the  
general level of regional development.
108. According to the information contained in the Member States grant  
applications, the projects subsidized by the Fund's quota section in  
1982 in the industrial and service sectors should create 42,432 jobs  
and preserve 5,716 jobs, 70% of these as a result of projects costing  
less than 10 Mio ECU each.
For the employment impact of assistance under the Fund's non-quota  
section, see points 47, 48, 49 and 51).
Chapter V :  The ERDF's activities from 1975 to 1982 65

Table 28
F.RDF quota section. v.
Annual forecasts of jobs created and preserved.  1975-1982.
Jobs BDK DGRFIRLILNLUKEUR 10
1975
created
preserved1195
0592
372059*
00
024571
7205795
6012819
2700
00
013183
060214
1087
1976
created
preserved666
0479
1005577
00
019209
6092538
1943674
00
00
021350
37153493
1274
1977
created
preserved935
0283
014548
40930
014688
15586163
14014826
00
00
09970
699261413
12783
1978
created
preserved799
00
07029**
33180
018774
19835181
07453
00
0420
014423
1193054079
17231
1979
created
preserved495
102991
08229
00
022639
272511598
559795
660
00
010370
1215264117
15100
1980
created
preserved1014
0820
09093
5750
018730
20003359
09259
00
050
6859307
329451632
6554
1981
created
preserved170
00
09234
12591958
019757
14297717
03924
2770
00
010484
314353244
6108
1982
created
preserved701
01291
06784
1021663
676998
8849601
06541
00
0287
08566
466342432
5716
1975-1982
created
preserved5975
1024456
13762553
93473621
67145366
1190851952
44968291
6130
0757
68597653
42545440624
65853
TOTAL 6077459371900 3688157274524016890401442140198506477
(*) Including 242 jobs created by an infrastructure project of 10 Mio ECU  
or more.
(**) Including 24 jobs created by an infrastructure project of less than  
10 Mio ECU.
66

109. The fact that the proportion of industrial and service sector  
investment projects financed by the Fund was very low in 1981 and  
1982 led to an appreciable reduction in the Member States' estimates  
of jobs created or preserved in those two years (Table 28). The  
slight drop in the number of jobs created in 1982 compared with the  
previous year, despite an increase in total grants to industrial and  
service sector projects (237.8 Mio ECU as opposed to 198.2 Mio ECU),  
may be due to the fact that in 1982 a larger proportion of aid in the  
industrial, craft industry and service sectors went to large-scale  
projects (50.5% as against 45.7% in 1981). Large-scale projects  
create fewer jobs in proportion to the amount of Fund assistance  
and/or investment involved than small projects.
The highest forecasts for jobs created or preserved through Fund aid  
in 1982 were in Ireland (9,601 jobs) and in the United Kingdom  
(13,229 jobs).
110. The estimates given in Table 28 show that since 1975 assistance from  
the quota section has helped to create the largest number of jobs in  
those Member States which have received most aid in the industrial,  
craft industry and service sectors (France and the United Kingdom).  
There are quite wide discrepancies between the figures for the  
different Member States, which may be due in part to differences in  
the sectoral breakdown of the industrial projects receiving Fund aid  
and in the economic situation of the Member States. In the case of  
large-scale projects, Fund aid per job created has been highest in  
Greece, Belgium and the United Kingdom, and lowest in Ireland,  
Denmark and France; in the case of small-scale projects, aid per job  
created was highest in the Netherlands and Belgium and lowest in  
France and Denmark. ■
111. It should not be concluded from this, however, that Fund aid should  
be reserved exclusively for small and medium-sized investment  
projects. Many experts agree that the best regional development  
impact can be obtained by decentralizing "activity clusters"  
comprising investment projects of varying size and type in the  
secondary and tertiary sectors. Large-scale industrial projects can  
play a leading role in generating spillover activities and by helping  
to raise the general scientific and technological level.
Chapter V :  The ERDF's activities from 1975 to 1982

112. At any rate, any assessment of the impact of ERDF assistance on  
employment must be based on a review of the results of regional  
development programmes and on statistical surveys rather than on the  
above figures, which are merely forecasts. Apart from the  
uncertainty inherent in any assessment of the influence of  
investment on employment even at individual firm level(45), it is  
very difficult to estimate the number of jobs created, particularly  
under present circumstances. The impact of the recession on European  
regions means that it will take time for the new jobs planned  
actually to become available. Furthermore, the fact that over 87% of  
ERDF aid in 1982 was allocated to infrastructure projects, for which  
job creation figures are not supplied by the Member States,  
emphasizes the difficulty of fully possessing the impact of Fund 
assistance in this field.
113. These figures should therefore be treated with the utmost caution,  
since they are merely the sum of national estimates which are not  
fully comparable. They may also change radically after a project has  
been completed.
Some jobs may have been eliminated when new jobs were created or  
announced; new jobs have been or may have been given to workers from  
other sectors.
An investment project may generate jobs of varying duration, with  
various combinations as to staff skills and conditions of employment  
in the firm, and it may appreciably alter the division of tasks.
Then again, in many cases, the desire to create or maintain jobs must  
give way to the need to keep the company in business, since the  
dictates of technological and economic development may mean that a  
firm can find or recover a competitive position only by shedding 
jobs.
THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPLEMENTARITY AND ADDITIONALITY AND THE 
POSSIBILITY OF COMBINING NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY AIDS
114. In order to clear up a number of misunderstandings about how the  
principles of complementarity and additionality are to be  
interpreted, it may be useful to rehearse the basic thinking set out  
in the previous ERDF annual reports.
115. The eleventh recital to the Fund Regulation states that "the Fund's  
assistance should not lead Member States to reduce their own regional  
development efforts but should complement these efforts".
The principle of complementarity is justified by the need to speed up  
the restructuring and development of Member States' economies in  
order to rectify the main structural and regional imbalances in the  
Community and, in so doing, to further the integration process by  
bringing the national economies into closer convergence.
As a rule, the notion of complementarity is associated with that of  
the effectiveness of Community action, in the sense of a larger  
number of beneficiaries, more generous financing aids, new measures,  
a different or wider scope for a particular measure, and so on.
45 See the Court of Auditors' report on the granting of aid to regional  
investments (O.J. C 345, 31.12.1982).
68

It is more than the simple summing of the financial resources  
available at national and Community levels for regional development,  
even though this quantitative aspect is without doubt important.  
That some Member States have introduced new regional policy measures  
that did not exist before or would not have come into being but for  
the non-quota specific measures is an example of the qualitative  
dimension of complementarity. "Complementarity" thus means a  
quantitative and qualitative improvement in Member States' regional  
development measures made possible as a result of Community  
-  intervention.
116. "Additionality" will be used below to mean more specifically the  
quantitative aspect of using Community aids to top up the resources  
made available by Member States (overall additionality) or to add  
directly to the resources of the individual public or private  
investor (individual additionality). Such additionality may thus  
pose the problem of combining national and Community aids for  
investment projects in the productive sector.
On this definition, additionality is almost always a necessary but  
not sufficient condition for complementarity.
117. It is difficult to frame and apply the right arrangements for  
ensuring that the concept of overall additionality is put into  
practice in the different Member States in ways consistent with  
institutional and administrative set-up peculiar to each of them.  
However, the Commission has sought to secure transparency in the  
national budget systems with regard to amounts received from the ERDF  
and their allocation (Article 19 of the Fund Regulation).
With regard to the use of financial resources made over by the  
Community, most Member States indicate as a rule that they have  
already taken overall account of Fund assistance when deciding on the  
budget appropriations for regional development. Even so, it is  
extremely difficult, particularly at a time of general budget  
retrenchment, to gauge whether Fund resources are being used on top  
of national expenditure, in other words whether or not national  
budget commitments for regional development would have been lower in  
the absence of repayments from the ERDF. The answer to a question so  
broadly framed is bound to be hypothetical.
The budget rules in force in Member States can be summed up as  
follows:
Belgium;  There is no special budget heading for payments from the  
Fund. A special article in the budget (Ways and Means Budget)  
stipulates inter alia that Fund assistance is to be applied to  
expenditure of the Economic Expansion and Conversion Fund. Fund  
grants are allocated to the regions on the basis of predetermined  
quotas. In some cases though, they are applied without reference to  
the regional allocation, being used to top up the financing of  
certain infrastructure projects (rural infrastructures).
Denmark;  Assistance expected from the Fund appears under a special  
budget heading. On the expenditure side, it is lumped together with  
the regional aids for industry administered by the Ministry of Trade.  
In the case of infrastructure projects, there is a heading entitled  
"Ministry for Greenland - Capital investments financed by the ERDF".  
(In two particular cases, full transparency and additionality have  
been achieved.)
Chapter V :  The ERDF's activities from 1975 to 1982 69

Germany:  The budget has a special heading for amounts received from  
the Fund. On the expenditure side, 5 % of Fund contributions goes  
direct to the Land of Berlin; of the balance, part remains credited  
to the Federal budget and part is used to defray expenditure under  
the heading "Federal transfers to the Lander in respect of industrial  
and infrastructure investments". These transfers are made on the  
basis of an apportionment formula agreed in advance between the  
Lander.
Greece:  A special budget heading exists for payments from the Fund.  
The appropriations are not broken down by item of expenditure.
France:  The Finance Law includes a budget heading for Fund assistance  
entitled "Other payments from the budget of the Communities".  
However, the appropriations are not earmarked for the different  
ministries. .  ...
Ireland:  Assistance from the Fund is clearly identified in the
national budget. Infrastructure grants are allocated to investment  
programmes, in which additional resources from the Fund are  
identified separately. Fund assistance for investments in the  
productive sector are included in the overall amount of State aids  
earmarked for industry, services and tourism.
Italy:  Special budget headings exist for both revenue and
expenditure operations. Grants received from the Fund are  
transferred to the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno either as complementary  
financing or for onward transfer to other agencies.
Luxembourg:  State aids to productive investment have no ERDF
component. Fund grants to infrastructure investment are paid direct  
to the agency responsible for carrying out the projects.
Netherlands:  Revenue and expenditure in respect of Fund assistance  
are shown under special budget headings. The budget report contains  
details on the application of Fund assistance, including a list of  
projects aided.
United Kingdom:  In the case of productive investments, the budget  
estimates show expected revenue from the Fund. These payments are  
assigned to the headings for regional development premiums or  
regional selective assistance or are allocated to the department  
responsible for tourism. Special budget headings exist for  
infrastructure project grants. Appropriations voted by Parliament  
are net of revenue from the Fund. Most infrastructure grants are  
transferred to the agencies responsible for the projects. However,  
for infrastructure projects financed with the help of central  
government, the monies received from the Fund are deducted from the  
amount eligible for central government financing.
118. It is apparent from this cursory look at Member States' arrangements  
for guaranteeing budget transparency of the use of payments from the  
Fund's quota section that the situation in the Community is far from  
uniform.
119. Budget transparency must not, however, be taken to mean that  
complementarity is necessarily the order of the day. Indeed, perfect  
budget transparency, implying the availability of all statistical  
data, does not constitute automatic proof of compliance with the  
principle of complementarity. Nevertheless, since budget  
transparency is one of the factors implying that the principle of  
additionality has been complied with, it is conducive to its
" attainment.
70

This was the background to the Commission's proposal of 26 October  
1981 introducing, in addition to Article 19, the provisions of which  
have been retained, new arrangements(46) for promoting  
implementation of the additionality principle.
20. Overall additionality as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs has  
occasionally been confused with individual additionality, where Fund  
contributions to individual projects would be passed on direct to  
investors by national governments, thereby constituting an  
additional source of financing for investors. With regard to  
investments in industrial and service activities, Article 4(2)(a) of  
the Fund Regulation does in fact stipulate that the Fund's  
contribution may either supplement aid granted to the investment by  
public authorities or remain credited to those authorities and  
considered as a partial repayment of such aid. Until now, Member  
States have virtually always opted for the latter arrangement and  
none of them has used appropriations from the Fund to introduce a  
system of combined aid for industrial, craft industry or service  
activities, although some of them may do so at a later date.
Among the arguments militating against the combination of national  
and Community aids for investments of this kind are the  
discrimination it produces in favour of a relatively limited number  
of investors whose projects would qualify for Fund assistance, and  
the need to take account of the principles of Community coordination  
and to abide by the rules on competition as they apply to regional  
aid schemes. Even though in some cases the combination of national  
and Community aids might act as an additional incentive in  
channelling investment to the regions suffering the most serious  
difficulties, it is not always feasible on account of the ceilings  
laid down by the principles of coordination of regional aid systems.  
In any event, topping up the funds for an individual project does not  
necessarily imply that without Fund assistance that project would  
not have been carried out and so does not necessarily ensure  
complementarity. Individual additionality (i.e. the use of
Community resources to top up national aids for a particular  
investment project) is a different matter in the case of  
infrastructure grants.
121. For infrastructure investment projects, part or all of the  
assistance received from the Fund is in some cases transferred to the  
local or regional authorities concerned, thereby highlighting the  
direct contribution made by the Fund to the development of the  
regions in question.
Some Member States transfer direct to the parties concerned grants  
received from the Fund for infrastructure projects. Fund  
, · ;  contributions to infrastructure projects in several regions of the  
b, Mezzogiorno, for instance, are paid direct to the investor or to the  
regional or local authorities. The Luxembourg Government transmits  
Fund grants to the local authorities responsible for the investment  
projects singled out for Fund assistance. In the United Kingdom, the  
Government transfers to the local authorities, which are entities 
separate from central government, grants awarded by the Fund for  
infrastructure projects carried out by them. This reduces local  
authority borrowing for such projects. However, because of its  
policy of strict budget austerity, the Government does not, as a  
rule, authorize the authorities in question to use the savings thus  
generated to promote other projects.
*6 New Article 8(3) (f).
Chapter V :  The ERDF's activities from 1975 to 1982 7 1

In Northern Ireland, where the port infrastructure projects granted  
Fund assistance are normally carried out by central government or by  
agencies that are a direct offshoot of it, agreements have been  
reached whereby Fund grants are distributed, for example, among the  
different authorities in the province to enable them to meet future  
needs.
Even so, transfer of Fund resources to the local authorities  
responsible for carrying out infrastructure projects does not mean  
that complementarity or even additionality has necessarily been  
achieved, since in the final analysis it may have had no effect on 
the total amount of aid and the finance that the Member State would  
have released in the absence of Fund intervention.
122. Consequently, if we wish to establish that "topping up" has taken  
place and to measure and assess its impact, we need to be in  
possession of information on a very wide range of highly complex  
facts and data, including the institutional and administrative  
structures in each Member State, its budget and public finance set-up  
and practices, national policies and their execution over time and in  
each region, identification of the measures under those policies  
that are in keeping with Community initiatives, and statistics on the  
application and development of those measures.
123. However, this assessment can be based only on the knowledge acquired  
by the administering departments in devising, framing and hammering  
out Community intiatives and from their implementation and  
day-to-day management. Not all this knowledge can be backed up by  
proof or statistical data.
IMPACT OF THE ERDF ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
124. Much is said of the need to ensure that ERDF resources have maximum  
impact on the regions concerned.
It should not be forgotten that the ERDF has a two-fold impact,  
political and economic. At the political level, the ERDF represents  
for the regions concerned, and in particular for the public agencies  
and regional and local authorities receiving assistance, the  
tangible expression of Community solidarity. This is particularly  
true in the United Kingdom and Italy, which together account for some  
60% of ERDF grants.
Nor is there any denying the economic impact of the ERDF's  
contribution to investment projects, infrastructure investment  
projects, in particular, especially those financed by regional and  
local authorities.
But it would be a delusion to try to measure these effects in  
statistical terms. The volume of ERDF resources is much too small to  
produce changes that can be measured in macroeconomic terms.
Nevertheless, in certain spheres of activity and in certain regions,  
the impact of ERDF assistance is beginning to show. For example, ERDF  
grants are partly responsible for the current improvement of  
telecommunications in Ireland and of natural gas and water supply in  
the Mezzogiorno.
72

125. Even a tentative assessment of the impact of Fund intervention on a  
region’s economic and social development would be a highly complex  
exercise dependent on the scope for evaluating the quantitative and  
qualitative aspects of regional development policy and on the  
definition of the Fund's role.
Beyond the accounting aspects and conformity with the rules, the  
checks carried out at microeconomic level (i.e. on individual  
projects) permit no more than an appraisal of the degree of success  
in achieving specific project objectives, where they had been 
defined at the outset. At macroeconomic level, any attempt to  
measure the Fund's role by statistical means will invariably remain  
highly problematic.
126. The Commission takes the view that the actual impact of investment  
aid depends ultimately on the economic and financial environment of  
the firms concerned and on the range of measures taken by the  
authorities to promote development.
v Fund initiatives, or at least those under its quota section, only  
,  :  provide a back-up to regional policy measures decided at national
level and are superimpred on national regional aid schemes. Since the  
prime responsibility for regional policy lies with the Member 
States, the Commission's role is to help coordinate and steer their  
regional policies.
127. Firmer coordination of regional policy objectives, which is  
essential to any eventual convergence of Member States' economies,  
is a feature of the proposed amendment of the Fund Regulation which
v the Commission sent to the Council in 1981. In its proposal for a
-  recasting of the Fund Regulation, the Commission has not only
-  redefined the objectives of Community regional policy but also  
suggested fundamental changes in the arrangements governing Fund  
intervention designed to enhance its impact, notably in the field of  
job creation, and to augment its effectiveness:
• The Commission has proposed that (with the exception of
investment projects costing more than 40 Mio ECU) the system of  
individual project financing be replaced in due course by a  
system of programme co-financing, particularly for State aid
;  schemes covering industrial, craft industry and service
activities. This should ensure that aid schemes are more closely  
tailored to the regions' priority needs.
.  ■  · The report on the implementation of regional development
programmes which Member States would be required to submit to the  
Commission each year would therefore include quantified  
ÿ information on the impact of regional measures in terms of
investment and jobs.
• By the same token, the requirement that Member States notify the
Commission, within three years of completion of measures
financed by the Fund, of the number of jobs actually created as a  
result of Fund-aided investments in industrial, craft industry  
and service activities should enable the Commission not only to  
direct Fund operations more effectively but also to gain a better  
-  overall idea of their regional impact, particularly on
employment.
Chapter V :  The ERDF’s activities from 1975 to 1982 ‘  73
(6)

APPENDIX A. SHEETS
ANNEX SHEET N. 1
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES
By the end of 1982, new (second generation) regional development  
programmes from all ten Member States(*7) had been notified to the  
Commission. These new programmes were based on the Common Outline of  
1975(AS) and the Commission Recommendation of 1979(4,)>
1 .  BELGIUM
A new Programme for Flanders was notified to the Commission in 1981,  
and after additional information had been received in 1982, it was  
approved by the Regional Policy Committee. In 1982 a new programme  
for WalIonia was notified, and at the end of the year it was under  
examination by the Commission's departments.
The programme for Flanders, which covers the period 1981-85, has been  
worked out for the same development "clusters" as the first  
programme. The main objective is the creation of new jobs, as a total  
of 115,000 extra jobs will be needed in the period 1981-85 in the  
sectors chosen (for Flanders as a whole, 230,000 jobs). Other  
important objectives concern transport infrastructure, tourism,  
housing, urban development and the environment. Supporting measures  
include regional aid, job schemes, export promotion schemes, R&D,  
industrial estates, ports and waterway systems, roads and  
environmental protection.
The programme for WalIonia (1982-85) covers the development zones in  
conformity with the Commission Decision of 22 July 1982. Top priority  
goes to the renovation of the industrial structure and the creation  
of new jobs, as in the development and conversion zones about 190,000  
additional jobs will be needed by 1985 (340,000 in Wallonia as a  
whole). Apart from regional aid, other measures include the  
restructuring of the industrial sectors experiencing difficulties  
and the development of agriculture, forestry, and tourist and  
communications infrastructures.
The only exception is Berlin(West) for which a new programme has not  
yet been received.
“8 O.J. n. C 69, 24.3.1976. -
O.J. n. L 143, 12.6.1979.
Appendix A. Sheets.75

2. DENMARK
New programmes for Denmark and GReenland were notified to the  
Commission in 1981 and 1982. The Regional Policy Committee approved  
both of them. The programme for Denmark (1981-85) covers the same  
four regions as the previous one; the main objectives are a more even  
regional distribution of economic activities and the creation of new  
jobs. The job shortfall in the four regions is estimated at more than  
50,000 for 1985. Apart from regional aid, the key development  
measures will be investments in ports, roads, industrial estates,  
communications and education. The total cost of infrastructure  
investments having a direct impact on the development of the four  
regions is put at over DKR 2,000 Mio in the period 1981-84.
The main objectives in the programme for Greenland are the creation  
of a more diversified economy and the replacement of foreign workers  
by local people. Planned measures include loans and guarantees for  
private enterprise and infrastructure investment projects in  
priority areas such as energy, airports and telecommunications.  
Housing, vocational training and werehousing facilities also feature  
prominently. In the years 1982-84.the State is expected to spend  
about DKR 600 Mio a year on investments (budget estimates).
3. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OP GERMANY
The 18 new programmes notified to the Commissin in 1981 have been  
approved by the Regional Policy Committee. These programmes, which  
come under the Tenth Outline Plan (1981-85), cover 29.8% of the total  
population, as against the previous figure of 36%. The aim is to  
create 270,900 new jobs in the programme period and to preserve  
208,500 jobs. In addition, 269 key locations and a number of tourist  
development areas have been selected for special development  
measures. Apart from regional aid to industry and tourism, aid will  
be available for the development of economic infrastructures linked  
to industrial and tourist development. In the programme period, a  
total of DM 6,273 Mio will be available for aid to industry and  
tourism (corresponding to total investments of DM 53,816 Mio).  
Assistance for infrastructure projects is expected to total DM  
796 Mio, for investments totalling DM 1,719 Mio.
4. GREECE
The regional development programme for Greece was notified in 1980  
and additional information was supplied in 1981 and in 1982, mainly  
on the regional aid schemes. The Regional Policy Committee has  
approved the programme.
The programme covers the period 1981-85 and takes in all the regions  
of Greece except the Athens metropolitan area. Its main objectives  
are to stem internal migration to the large urban centres and to  
ensure that every region keeps a demographically and economically  
viable population through the creation of new jobs and a reduction in  
regional imbalancies. Apart from generous regional aid for industry  
and tourism, mainly investment grants, major infrastructure projects  
will be carried out in a variety of fileds: industrial estates,  
transport and telecommunications, power supply and distribution,  
environmental protection and education. Total investment at 1980  
prices in the regions by central government and public-service  
enterprises is put at DR 357,000 Mio and DR 304,000 Mio  
respectively.
This programme is now under review in the context of the new  
Five-year Economic and Social Development Plan.
76
i

5. FRANCE
New programmes covering the period 1982-83 were notified to the  
Commission in 1982 and were still being examined by the Commission's  
departments at the end of the year. These programmes, which are  
intended to bridge the gap until a new five-year plan (1984-88) is  
drawn up, will be filled out and amplified once the regions have  
worked out their own programmes and these have been coordinated at  
national level as provided for in the new arrangements for  
reginalization. They are concerned primarily with stabilizing and  
then reducing unemployment and with overhauling industry. Important  
measures include aid to industry and tourism, vocational training  
and communications infrastructures.
6. IRELAND
The 1981-85 programme covering the whole of Ireland was notified to  
the Commission in 1981 and has been approved by the Regional Policy  
Committee.
The main objective is the creation of new permanent jobs. It is  
estimated that the programme measures will generate 8,000 extra jobs  
every year. Special emphasis will be placed on the manufacturing  
(export oriented) and private service sectors. Important measures  
include a diversified regional aid scheme and infrastructure  
programmes for energy, telecommunications, transport, water and  
public sanitation. Total public expenditure on directly productive  
investment projects(50) in the period 1981-85 is put at some IRL  
2,200 Mio (at 1981 prices), and about IRL 3,900 Mio (at 1982 prices)  
will be spent under the infrastructure programmes (excluding social  
infrastructures) in the same period.
7. ITALY
The new 1981-85 programmes for the Mezzogiorno were notified to the  
Commission in 1981 and additional information was provided in 1982.  
The Regional Policy Committee has since approved these programmes.
The main problems in the Mezzogiorno are an inadequate industrial  
fabric, the vulnerability of the agricultural and tertiary sectors  
and especially the imbalance between labour supply and demand. This  
imbalance, already very serious, will grow even worse during the  
programme period as the demand for jobs is expected to grow by some  
500,000.
The prime development objectives for the Mezzogiorno, which is a key  
component of the medium-term development strategy for the Italian  
economy, are to strenghten the productive system, assist the large  
metropolitan areas experiencing difficulties and the declining  
areas, and remedy the most serious infrastructure deficiencies.  
There is a wide and varied array of incentives for industry, tourism  
and services together with infrastructure and vocational training  
programmes and programmes for developing agriculture and the main  
sectors of industry.
50 The estimates for tourism relate to the period 1981-82.  
Appendix A. Sheets.77

8. LUXEMBOURG
A new 1981-85 development programme for Luxembourg was notified to  
the Commission in 1982 and was still being examined at the end of the  
year.
The creation of 7,500 new jobs is a priority objective, since a loss  
of 4,000-10,000 jobs is expected in the steel indudstry alone in the  
period 1980-90, at the same time as a substantial growth the  
workforce. Other important objectives are harmonious reginal  
development and infrastructure improvements in the transport, water  
supply, energy, environment, health and education sectors. A  
comprehensive package of anti-crisis measures has been approved,  
along with measures to diversify industrial structures, promote  
tourism and modernize agriculture. The cost of the major  
infrastructure investment projects will be somne LFR 10,000 Mio in  
the period 1981-85.
9. THE NETHERLANDS V ...—'V ’
New development programmes for 1982-85 were notified to the  
Commission in 1982 and were still under examination at the end of the  
year. The programmes concern the North and the South Limburg regions  
of the country.
In the North, the main objectives are to reduce unemployment in the  
region by creating at least 14,000-18,000 new jobs, improve economic  
and social infrastructures, decentralize administrative departments  
and bring order into the labour market. In South Limburg too, the  
main objective is to reduce regional unemployment. South-Limburg the  
main objective too is the reduction or elimination of the regional  
component of unemployment.
The planned measures include regional aids and specific  
infrastructure programmes. A total of HFL 840 Mio has been earmarked  
for the North region for the period 1982-85 (HFL 280 Mio for  
improvements in the economic structure, HFL 240 Mio for  
infrastructures and HFL 320 Mio for labour market measures).
10. UNITED KINGDOM 1
New programmes for 1981-85 were notified to the Commission in 1981,  
but the Regional Policy Committee deferred consideration pending the  
submission of further information. The United Kingdom Government has  
undertaken to submit new revised programmes.
78

ANNEX SHEET N. 2
INTEGRATED OPERATIONS UNDER THE COMMUNITY'S STRUCTURAL FUNDS
-···"'> “ ■  ■ ’  ··»' :i·' ..■  -  ■ ■ ■ · ' ■ · · · '
Tn
te.grar.ed regional development operations
1. In 1979, the Commission's departments adopted guidelines(5l) for  
encouraging integrated regional development operations.
These integrated operations consist of a coherent programme of  
measures and public and private investments relating to a limited  
geographical area, to which the Member States' national and local  
authorities and the Community contribute on a complementary basis,  
the latter through its financial instruments for structural policy  
purposes (5 2) .
2. In 1982 the Commission continued its efforts in connection with the  
projects for integrated operations in Naples and Belfast.
3. In the General Budget for 1982, the Community had for the first time
budget resources specifically earmarked for the preparation of  
integrated operations: 2 Mio ECU were assigned under Item 5410,
"Preparatory studies for integrated operations".
4. Item 5410 enables the Commission to participate in financing the  
studies necessary for the preparation of integrated operations: the  
preparation of a new integrated operation, or the acceleration or  
launching of a new stage of an operation already under way. In this  
context the Commission gives priority to the following:
• studies with the greatest likelihood of producing operational  
results which could directly and immediately be applied by the  
national public authorities and by the Commission of the  
European Communities;
• studies aimed at clarifying problems causing bottle-necks in the  
launching or progress of integrated operations;
• studies relating to parts of integrated operations which,  
because of their nature and complexity, require special  
preparation within an integrated operation;
• studies which may be of methodological value to the integrated  
approach to development.
These preparatory studies must be at the initiative of, or at least  
receive the support of, the competent authorites in the Member State  
concerned.
5* COM(79) Min 509 of 21.3.1979, item XXIV, p. 85.
52 See Points 61 to 64 of the Fifth Annual Report (1979) on the European  
Regional Development Fund.
Appendix A. Sheets.79

5. In 1982 the Commission committed an amount of 0.41 Mio ECU for four  
studies (under Item 5410) on: '  .  , ,  . .  „
• the preparation of a new stage of the integrated operation in  
Naples ;
• the improvement of two historical quarters in the centre of  
Naples;
• a feasibility study of an integrated operation based on the
introduction of a multi-modal transport system, linking Western  
Europe to the Middle East via the Salentina Peninsula, Epirus and  
Thessaly (two studies) .  ,  e
As these studies were approved by the Commission only at the end of  
1982, no payments have yet been made for them. These commitments  
leave a balance of 1.59 Mio ECU out of the 2 Mio ECU entered in the  
1982 budget. The Commission did not seek the transfer of this balance  
for the 1983 exercise - an amount of 2 Mio ECU being again assigned  
in the budget for preparatory studies for integrated operations.
Item 5411 "Community measures in the framework of integrated  
operations" was allocated 16 Mio ECU in 1982. These appropriations  
are for the financing of specific measures in the framework of  
integrated operations, in conjunction with the national or local  
authorities, where such measures are not covered by the Community's  
financial instruments.
The Commission had hoped to use the funds from this budget Item in  
1982 to implement a Council Regulation (EEC) instituting a specific  
measure to promote housing in Northern Ireland within the framework  
of an integrated operation in Belfast. The Commission had presented  
this proposal to the Council in November 1981. Unfortunately, the  
Council was unable to reach agreement on it(s;5).
The Commission then set about preparing an alternative solution and  
came up with a new proposal, sent to the Council in April 1983, for a  
specific measure to promote urban renewal in Belfast. The Council  
adopted the Regulation in June 1983.
80

Table 29 
F.RDF
Integrated operation in Naples: Projects financed bv the Fund In 1982
(Mio ECU)
Investment ERDF cont - Number o f Description of projects
ribution projects
5.016 1.003 6Various industries
9.009 2.703 1Distribution centre for fruit and vegetables at Nocera Pagani
29.101 11.641 1Purification of Alto Sarno area
23.505 9.175 1Purification of Foce dei Regi Laghi area
101.860 40.744 1Depolluting the Bay of Naples (North Naples)
177.834 71.127 1Depolluting the Bay of Naples (East Naples)
6.553 2.621 1Depolluting the Bay of Naples (Afragola and Casoria) 2e instalment
46.353 18.416 1Aqueduct in West Campania
16.118 6.447 1Supply to the reservoirs of Scudillo and Capodimonte
4.104 1.642 1Enlargement of reservoir at S. Clemente
4.244 1.273 1Sewerage network at Casoria
4.132 1.239 1Roads at Casoria
0.353 0.141 1Drinking and industrial water supply network at Giugliano
1.824 0.466 1Electric cable at Foce Sarno
7.745 3.098 2Water supply to the area of Flegrea Napoli-1e and 2e instalments
5.904 1.771 1Extension of breakwater at the port of Torre Annunziata
2.597 0.779 1Rough road at Naples (Pomigliano d'Arco)
6.649 1.995 1Tangential road East-West of Naples and hospital area
3.731 0.935 1Modernization of railway line Benevento-Napoli
2.985 1.435 1Study Project for strenghtening 4 modernizing Alifana railway line
459.617 178.651 26Total
3.466 0.788 1Restoration of the "Villa Campolieto" monument
2.440 0.714 6Restoration of monuments in various municipalities
5.329 1.599 33Port works in various municipalities
10.969 3.291 11Port works in various municipalities
5.108 1.648 24Water and sewerage works in various municipalities
27.312 8.040 75Total
29.384 11.754 1Railway line Eatt-West Naples and Industrial area
54.340 21.736 1Railway in urban area of Naples and Alifana line
55.229 22,091 (ailway in urban area of Naples and Alifana line
(stretch between Colli Aminei-Secondigliano) 3rd instalment
138.959 55.581 3 1total
885.883 848.372 104 erand total

Integrated operation In the Naples area
7. In Naples, a preparatory study part-funded by the Community has  
identified guidelines for the conduct of the integrated operation.
In particular, this study has thrown further light on the  
implications of the major problems to be addressed by the integrated  
operation, namely:
• overcrowding, which creates conflicts concerning the designation  
of residential areas and industrial areas;
• unemployment and a poorly skilled workforce, together with an  
over-bloated services sector;
• the lack of basic infrastructure (transport, water supply,  
public hygiene and health).
8. The basic dossier, updated at the end of March 1982, provides for  
measures at a total cost of around 7,462 Mio ECU, 68% of which could  
be funded from the resources currently available.
A permanent office responsible for monitoring the integrated  
operation has been set up in Naples. This office, which has no -  
decision-making power, has the task of monitoring progress of the  
integrated operation on the spot, centralizing all useful  
information, warning of any delays or problems, and preparing the  
ground for meetings of the technical working group(5*). ,
9. In 1982, the ERDF contribution to projects in the area covered by the  
integrated operation amounted to 242 Mio ECU. The breakdown is shown  
in Table 29.
Integrated operation in Belfast
10. In 1982, aid from the ERDF for projects in the area covered by the  
integrated operation amounted to 5.76 Mio ECU, broken down as  
follows:
• Industrial infrastructure 0.07 Mio ECU
• Internal urban transport and linked projects 3.43 Mio ECU
• Port of Belfast 2.13 Mio ECU
• Drainage system from the River Lagan 0.14 Mio ECU
The technical working group is composed of the persons mainly  
responsible for the Practical application of the resources provided  
by Community, national, regional and local funds. This working group  
is intended to be the hub of the integrated operation. It must,  
firstly, monitor closely the preparation and implementation of the  
various parts of the integrated operation and, secondly, brief  
policymakers on the choices to be made and the decisions to be taken.
82

Integrated development programmes
11. The integrated development programmes' (IDP) place emphasis on 
development planning for an area or small region in which natural  
handicaps and existing agricultural structures account for the low  
level of productivity and in which there is very little scope for  
alternative activities. To ameliorate the difficult situations the  
idea is to draw up programmes for promoting simultaneously the  
development both of agriculture and of the non-agricultural sector,  
starting from the situation and specific resources of the area.
12. The basic IDP regulations provide that the EAGGF Guidance Section,  
over and above its commitments under existing directives and  
regulations, is to make an additional financial contribution, to  
fund "new" measures or to facilitate and speed up implementation of  
the measures already provided for. These operations must be  
supported by measures financed under the Community's other  
structural funds: aids for training-development under the European  
Social Fund and ERDF measures to promote infrastructures and  
productive activities, including aids for SMEs, the craft industry  
and rural tourism.
Three IDPs were adopted in 1981, for:
• the Western Isles in the United Kingdom(ss);
• the Department of Lozère in FranceC56);
• the South East of Belgium(57).
A start has been made on the IDPs for the Western Isles and for  
Lozère, but the IDP for the South East of Belgium has not yet been  
notified to the Commission.
The Western Isles Integrated Development Programme
13. The Western Isles have to contend with severe natural handicaps.  
Apart from agriculture, the main activities are fishing and craft  
activities. Communications and transport infrastructures are crucial  
to the development of the Western Isles.
ERDF assistance will go priéarily to transport infrastructures (sea,  
air and land links), rural infrastructures (water, electricity,  
alternative sources of energy, industrial buildings), tourism and  
the craft industry (weaving, knitting, and processing of seaweed).
In 1982, assistance under the ERDF quota section for the Western  
Isles amounted to 0.87 Mio ECU.
55 Council Regulation (EEC) N. 1939/81 (Western Isles of Scotland).
O.J. N. L 197, 20.7.1981.
56 Council Regulation (EEC) N. 1940/81 (Lozere).
O.J. N. L 197, 20.7.1981.
57 Council Regulation (EEC) N. 1941/81 (Belgium).
O.J. N. L 197, 20.7.1981.
Appendix A. Sheets.83

The Lozère Integrated Development Programme
The Lozère IDP places emphasis on developing the region's main  
resources (stockfarming and forestry) and is designed to speed up  
implementation of the development plans provided for in Directive  
72/159/EEC on the modernization of farms.
The ERDF's participation in the programme is two-fold: under the  
quota section, financing of projects designed primarily to improve  
road links with the rest of the country; under the non-quota section  
co-financing of development measures to assist the craft industry,  
SMEs, the distributive trades and rural tourism within the framework  
of the specific "enlargement" measure. As initially submitted, the  
IDP envisaged assistance from the non-quota section of just under FF  
49 Mio (or some 7.5 Mio ECU). As the moment, the Lozère departmental  
authorities have proposed that the non-quota section provide  
assistance totalling 1.49 Mio ECU. Expenditure on non-agricultural  
activities under this section is expected to have totalled 0.27 Mio  
ECU in 1982.
In 1982, grants totalling 0.05 Mio ECU were granted to Lozère under  
the quota section.

APPENDIX B. STATISTICS
85
Appendix B. Statistics \  ^

Annex Table 1
Summary of Fund aid decisions.
Aid granted to Member States.
(Mio ECU)
1982 1975-1982
Member Investment Stud- Quota-free TotalInvestment Stud- Quota-free Total
State projects iesTotal section Fund projects iesTotal section Fund
(D 81-82(1)
B 18.53_18.53 0.80 19.33 70.93_70.93 0.98 71.91
DK 17.70 0.12 17.82- 17.82 80.02 2.60 82.62 - 82.62
D 55.36- 55.36 - 55.36 386.62 -386.62 - 386.62
GR 224.53 0.07 224.60 - 224.60 473.15 0.19473.34 - 473.34
F 344.38-344.38 12.67 357.05 1135.96 -1135.96 28.23 1164.19
IRL 114.30 0.02 114.32- 114.32 452.64 0.79453.43 3.22 456.65
I 618.84 1.66 620.50 - 620.50 2747.27 7.812755.09 21.16 2776.25
L 2.23- 2.23- 2.23 7.12 - 7.12 - 7.12
NL 17.46- 17.46- 17.46 98.64 -98.64 - 98.64
UK 448.91 0.20 449.10 19.27 468.37 1734.53 0.371734.90 19.74 1754.64
EUR 10 1862.24 2.071864.30 32.74 1897.04 7186.88 11.767198.65 73.33 7271.98
(1) Amounts committed by way of annual allocations of aid granted to quota free programmes.
The aid decisions for the quota free section are made in ECU and not in national currency.

MAIN TYPES OF PROJECT FINANCED
Comments on Annex Tables 2, 4 and 6
. ■ ■ ■ : $ , i rc ,
Tndustrv. craft industry and services
1. The assistance granted in 1982 to 621 industrial, craft industry and  
service projects amounted to 237.767 Mio ECU (40.7% of the  
583.65 Mio ECU in national aids taken into account); the grants went  
to investments of a total cost of more than 3,072 Mio ECU which,  
according to estimates sent to the Commission, should mean the  
creation or preservation of about 48,000 jobs.
2. The Fund contributed nearly 120 Mio ECU to 34 projects costing more  
than 10 Mio ECU each and representing a total investment of 1,950 Mio  
ECU which are expected to create or preserve about 14,100 jobs. In  
addition, 587 projects costing less than 10 Mio ECU and representing  
an investment totalling 1,122 Mio ECU received aid amounting to  
118 Mio ECU and according to the estimates should create or preserve
34.000 jobs.
For the projects costing more than 10 Mio ECU, there is a sharp  
increase in the average cost of the investments assisted by the Fund  
to 57.4 Mio ECU in 1982, against 32.1 Mio ECU(58) in 1981 and  
47.7 Mio ECU over the period 1975-82, though it is true that one  
project alone received over 50 Mio ECU in 1982, for an investment of  
over 1,246 Mio ECU. The ERDF grants to these projects represent only 
6.1% of total investment and 37.2% of national aids (the 1981  
percentages being 6.6% and 48.2% respectively). The average grant  
per project was 3.5 Mio ECU, compared with 2.1 Mio ECU in 1981 and
3.0 Mio ECU over the period 1975-82.
3. For projects costing less than 10 Mio ECU, the average investment
involved and the average grant per project remained much the same as  
in 1981, at 1.9 Mio ECU and 0.2 Mio ECU respectively, and fairly  
close to the averages for the period 1975-82 (1.8 Mio ECU and
0.16 Mio ECU). The Fund's contribution to these projects stood at  
10.5% of total investment and 45.1% of total national aids (8.7% and  
45.9% in 1981).
4. These figures show that in 1982 the Community's contribution as a  
proportion of national aids was lower, especially for large  
projects. At the same time, national aids to investments costing less  
than 10 Mio ECU seem to have been increased because, despite a larger  
contribution from the ERDF as a proportion of the investments, its  
share as a proportion of national aids declined.
58 In 1981, the average size of investments (and therefore aid granted)  
for projects of more than 10 Mio ECU was relatively small (see point  
56 of the Seventh Annual Report (1981) of the ERDF).
Appendix B. Statistics 87

Infrastructure
5. During the year 2,648 infrastructure projects for a total investment  
of 9,100 Mio ECU received ERDF assistance amounting to 1,624.4 Mio  
ECU, 17.855J of the investment calculation basis.
Almost 63% of this asistance was granted to 118 infrastructure  
projects costing more than 10 Mio ECU (1,020.19 Mio ECU), making an  
ERDF contribution of 33.6% of eligible public expenditure (31.2% in  
1982) and an average grant per project of 8.6 Mio ECU compared with
8.2 Mio ECU in 1981 and 6.7 Mio ECU over the period 1975-82.
The 2,530 infrastructure projects costing less than 10 Mio ECU  
received Fund assistance amounting to 604.27 Mio ECU, which is about  
27% of total investment and 30% of national aids. The average grant  
has been 0.24 Mio ECU per project for the average investment of  
0.88 Mio ECU in 1982, compared with 0.30 and 1.09 in 1981 and  
0.19 Mio ECU and 0.73 Mio ECU over the period 1975-82. The 55 small  
mountain and hill area infrastructure projects submitted under  
Article 4(1) (c) of the Fund Regulation received assistance totalling
25.2 Mio ECU, an average grant per project of 0.46 Mio ECU for an 
average investment of 1.66 Mio ECU (compared with 0.23 Mio ECU in  
average grant and 0.86 Mio ECU in average investment per project for  
the other small infrastructure projects) .
6. For major projects, the assistance granted breaks down as follows:  
32% (329.6 Mio ECU) for water supply projects; 31% (312.5 Mio ECU)  
for transport; 24% (250.1 Mio ECU) for energy projects; 10% for  
telecommunications. To take the analysis a step further, 85% of  
grants in the transport sector went to infrastructure projects in  
France (98.66 Mio ECU), the United Kingdom (98.30 Mio ECU) and Italy  
(69.93 Mio ECU), 77% (254.17 Mio ECU) of grants to water supply  
projects went to Italy; and 72% of grants to energy, projects and  
telecommunications projects went mainly to France (179.17 Mio ECU)  
and to Greece (72.49 Mio ECU).
For the smaller projects (including mountain and hill area
infrastructures), the tables show that the main sectors to benefit  
were transport (268.7 Mio ECU, or 45% of grants), water supply  
(143.1 Mio ECU, or 24%) and infrastructures for productive  
activities and telecommunications (68.6 Mio ECU and 66.7 Mio ECU  
respectively, or 11% of grants to infrastructure projects costing  
'  less than 10 Mio ECU). Nearly 97% (259.59 Mio ECU) of assistance to  
the transport sector went to the United Kingdom (103.67 Mio ECU),  
Italy (100.7 Mio ECU) and Greece (55.22 Mio ECU); 76% of grants to  
water supply projects went to Italy (71.26 Mio ECU) and the United  
Kingdom 36.93 Mio ECU); and 57% of assistance for telecommunications  
projects also went to the United Kingdom (38.43 Mio ECU). The bulk of  
assistance to infrastructures connected with productive activities  
went to projects in the United Kingdom and Italy, and a smaller  
amount to Germany.
88

>Ό•απ >3
D iΗ·
X
a
C Aer
Ρ>rrκ­ι «rrΗ·ηtoNACE
15
22
23
24
25
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
41/42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 
61 
66 
81Annex Table 2
Investment-  projects financed from the Fund in  
Rreakdown by investment category;. 
TnAnsrrv. craft industry and services...
Main sectors of activity
Nuclear fuels
Production and 1st processing of metals
Extraction of minerals other than
metal and energy products
Non-metallie mineral products
Chemicals
Metal products
Mechanical engineering
Office and data processing machines
Electrical and electronic engineering
Motor vehicles and accessories
Other transport equipment
Precision and optical instruments
Food, drink and tobacco
Textiles
Leather
Footwear and clothing  
Timber and woorden furniture^
Paper and paper products; printing,
publishing
Rubber and plastics
Other manufacturing products
Wholesale distribution except recovery serv.
Hotels and catering
Credit institutions
Total number of projects  
Total investment (in Mio ECU)  
Amount of national aids taken into  
consideration (in Mio ECU)
Total assistance (in Mio ECU)
Total number of jobs announcedor ) 10 Mio ECU
(a) number of projects
(b) amount of assistance (in Mio ECU)
(c) number of jobs announced(a)(b)
50.4
13.7
0 .8
4.1
5.9
13.6
9.8
8.6
3.8 
2.4
1.8
0.5
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.7(O
34
1950.32
321.86
119.74
141434000
1125
50
261
1015
2363
1805
1329
835
276
348
90
60
60
126
400< 10 Mio ECU
(a)
12
3
56
35
80
58
12
50
22
13
19
44
12
3
21
41
22
61
11
3
5(b)
3.7
0.3
10.2
7.9
12.8
10.1
4.8 
17.3
6.4
3.1
4.4
6.9 
1.6 
0.8 
4.8
5.1
3.5 
11.7
1.3
0.2
0.5(c)
451
53
2235
1196
3928
3215
1418
5485
1856
831
1651
1765
697
248
2733
1613
896
2301
934
85
157
587
1121.83
261.79
118.04
34005Total
(a)
1
16
3
57
38
80
62
16
53
25
15
21
46
12
3 
21 
42
22
62
1 1
4 
6 
1(b)
50.4
17.4
0.3
11.0
12.0
12.8
16.0
18.4 
27.1 
15.0
6.9
6.8
8.7 
1.6 
0.8
4.8
5.6
3.5
12.8
1.3
0.7
1.5
1.7
621
3072.15
583.65
237.78
48148(c)
4000
1576
53
2285
1457
3928
4230
3781
7290
3185
1666
1927
2113
697
248
2733
1703
896
2361
934
145
283
400
oo
V O

Annex Table 3
Investment, projects financed from the Fund 1975-198L.  
Breakdown bv investment category;
Industry, eraft industry and services.
VOO
NACE
15
16
21
22
23
' 24
25
26
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
41/42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 
61 
66 
81 
83Main sectors of activity
Nuclear fuels
Production and distribution of electric
power, gas, steam and hot water
Extraction and preparation of metal ores
Production and 1st processing of metals
Extraction of minerals other than
metal and energy products
Non-metallic mineral products
Chemicals
Man-made fibres
Metal products
Mechanical engineering
Office and data processing machines
Electrical and electronic engineering
Motor vehicles and accessories
Other transport equipment
Precision and optical instruments
Food, drink and tobacco
Textiles
Leather
Footwear and clothing
Timber and woorden furniture
Paper and paper products; printing,
publishing
Rubber and plastics
Other manufacturing products
Building and construction
Wholesale distribution except recovery serv.  
Hotels and catering  
Credit institutions
Financial and insurance auxiliaires;real  
estate;services supplied to enterprises
Total number of projects  
Total investment (in Mio ECU)  
Amount of national aids taken into  
consideration (in Mio ECU)
Total assistance (in Mio ECU)
Total number of jobs announced= or> 10 Mio ECU <10 MioECU Total
(a)(b)(c)(a)(b)(c)(a)(b)(C)
472.4599330.8167773.261
._71.935471.9354
13.080041.230454.21104
1644.769019822.5699111467.213892
10.2 65375.41480385.61545
1423.4682236264.11816637687.524988
4669.8983621543.811613261113.621449
21.956061.746183.61021
89.2251565288.44271066097.645225
2742.71194442365.235369450107.947313
618.353763110.744903729.09866
2558.11617239089.753519415147.869691
49332.07341316237.020450211369.093863
819.537547914.075118733.511265
410.92610102Ί9.11175810630.014368
2555.5839238057.720916405113.229308
23.231310713.5775510916.78068_-_273.71996273.71996
212.1302016118.01649216330.119512
45.6144636141.91908736547.520533
911.8128521330.01310422241.814389
1723.0437137261.82588138984.830252___669.66783669.66783___30.19530.195
10.5 60141.6846152.1906
11.012611510.4422811611.44354
22.4160321.363043.72233
10.740070.532681.2726
275 4448 4723
13109.64 8024.91 21134.55
2065.63 1570.16 3635.79
822.48 725.63 1548.11
167777 338434 5062113aC
71rr3< :CO3rt>0 JTfaos
3
σ'
(a) number of projects
(b) amount of assistance (in Mio ECU)
(c) number of jobs announced

>•aT3n3a.t-··x
COAnnex Table 4
Investment projects financed bv the Fund in 1982,  
Breakdown bv investment category;  
Infrastructure.
Main sectors of activity
Infrastructure linked to productive activities  
Transport infrastructure  
Telecommunication infrastructure  
Energy infrastructure .
Water supply infrastructure  
Infrastructure protecting the  
environment
Educational, social, medical, cultural, sports
and leisure infrastructure
Total number of projects  
Total investment (in Mio ECU)  
Amount of national aids taken into  
consideration (in Mio ECU)
Total assistance (in Mio ECU)= or >
10 Mio ECU
(a)
4
53
9
1 2
36(b)
13.1
312.5 
100.3 
250.1
239.6
14.6
118
6863.08
3040.35
1020.1910 Mio ECU
(a)
207
1226
179
132
615
50
66(b)
68.6
246.6
66.2
26.7
140.7
9.0
21.3
2475
2146.02
1972.64
579.06Mountain or  
hillfarming  
area
(a)
37
1
16
1(b)Total
(a)
22.2
0.5
2.4
0.1
55
91.39
81.65
25.21211
1316
189
144
667
55
66(b)
81.7 
581.3 
167.0 
276.8 
472.7
23.7 
21.3
2648
9100.49
5094.64
1624.463
a >
C d3
3rr
a>
0)O
7 ?3
aO
0 — r .
£r o
30
M rr
3O'Wf >< 3
3 r-h3
3H«H·fD
w33Xr r<P 3
3 H£7)O03
nrrr ocr
rr3a.1 — »
rn >r o
3o '
r t >rr<
Orr
pjO'rr
n>
" Q
OC
3
<a• ·
H ·3
(a) number of projects
(b) amount of assistance (in Mio ECU)

V O
r\3
Annex Table 5
Investment projects financed bv the Fund 1975-1982.  
Breakdown by investment category:  
Infrastructure.
or > < Mountain or
Main sectors of activity 10 Mio ECU 10 Mio ECU hillfarming Total
area
(a)(b)(a)(b)(a)(b)(a) (b)
Infrastructure linked to productive activities 105453.0 2985481.3 40.63094 935.0
Transport infrastructure 1881009.0 3792810.623337.642131857.2
Telecommunication infrastructure 30320.1 860219.113314.11023 553.3
Energy infrastructure 28496.0 50097.8585.2586599.0
Water supply infrastructure 104804.3 2151522.6 9915.623541342.5
Infrastructure protecting the
environment 1177.1 9528.2 20.2108105.5
Educational, social, medical, cultural, sports
and leisure infrastructure 526.9 35292.6 10.1358119.6
Miscellaneous 623.4 37953.192750.31312 126.8
Total number of projects 477 11114 1457 13048
Total investment (in Mio ECU) 29676.30 8769.79 445.05 38891.14
Amount of national aids taken into
consideration (in Mio ECU) 11604.57 7795.38 392.14 19792.09
Total assistance (in Mio ECU) 3209.82 2305.25 123.71 5638.78
(a) number of projects
(b) amount of assistance (in Mio ECU)3<n
[Arf
3f D3rrCO 3 r D Û 3X oa  -j .
32 )Wrr
■"iC«
i- h
3*
3CL
sO
- s jLnI
>o00N9

Annex Table 6
Infrastructure projects 1982.
Assistance granted. In brackets :  number of projects.
(Mio ECU)
Count-Productive  
■  activitiesTransport Telecommu­
nicationsEnergy Water-
supplyEnvir­
onmentSocial 
infrastr.
tryNbei* Ass. NbeiAss.Nbei*  Ass. Nbei*  Ass. Nbei•  Ass. Nbei‘ Ass. Nbei- Ass.
Invest, 
costing 
10 Mio ECU 
or moreB
DK
D
GR
F
IRL
I2
1
13.73
4.42
4.962
2
17
2
65.72
10.88
98.66
17.02
69.938
172.49
27.81718.27
179.17
37.251
4
9
1211.48
22.08
20.66
254.171
21.84
11.28-
-
-  ' NL
UK--2
2211.95
98.30 --315.381021.22 11.52--
Invest. 
costing 
less than  
10 Mio ECUB
DK
D
GR
F
IRL
I
L
NL
UK4
56
7
30
1
1091.28
15.75
6.84
20.56
2.23
21.981
31
7
102
5
826
1
2530.20
3.39
2.31
55.22
1.65
81.03
0.70
102.071
2
140
360.16
0.14
27.93
37.9353
2
14
1
39
233.90
1.93
7.10
0.61
4.16
9.0010
26
11
48
418
1024.11
2.01
2.20
25.65
71.09
35.6637
133.00
5.982
3
3
7
33
182.63
2.80
2.14 
0.35
4.15 
9.22
B
DK--40.54----30.99----
Invest, in  
mountain 
& in hill  
farming 
areasD
GR
F
IRL
I
L
NL
UK--
3
240.33
19.68 --
-
-10.1710.15--
--61.6010.50--51.27----o
O
re’r >M3Hi
323>7 171r t7 1H·r — ’>71o3rfr t3£ro
33X
ororo H
a2 3«3O”
3oI— »
23_i.ro3ror tnO Nror t
Cl7 1
.020S3

Annex Table 7
Investment projects inspected in 1982 and  
since the establishment of the Fund fbv region')-
Number of projects inspected
Country 1975-1982 of which in 1982
and Industry, Industry,
Member States craft ind., Infra- craft ind., Infra-
services structure services structure
Vlaanderen 2 13 2_
Wallonie 3 6 - -
BELGIQUE/BELGÏE 5 19 2 -
Groënland_35_ 1
Nordjylland 7 - - -
Viborg 1 - -
DANMARK 8 35 - 1
Schleswig-Holstein 8 10— _
Niedersachsen 12 14 - 6
Nordrhein-Westfalen 15 2 - -
Hessen 8 5 - -
Rheinland-Pfalz 9 3 - -
Saarland 12 4 8 1
Bayern 15 10 - -
Baden-Württemberg 5 6 - -
DEUTSCHLAND 84 54 12 7
Ana. Ster.Kai Nisoi- 6 _ 6
Kriti - 9 - -
Makedonia 1 4 1 4
Peloponissos - 8 - 8
Thraki 1 9 1 9
ELLAS 2 36 2 27

Annex Table 7
Investment projects inspected in 1982 and
since the establishment of the Fund (bv region').
(continued- )
tNumber of projects inspected
Country 1975-1982 of which i n 1982
and Industry, Industry,
Member States craft ind., Infra- craft ind., Infra-
services structure services structure
Alsace 10 - —
Aquitaine - '  · 11 1 - -
Auvergne 14 7 9 3
Basse-Normandie 8 5 - -
Bretagne 6 5 - -
Champagne 9 - 9 -
Corse i,  '  ' - 11 - -
Languedoc-Roussillon 10 2 - -
Limousin 5 4 - -
Lorraine : 17 1 11 1
Midi-Pyrénées 8 3 - -
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 10 - - -
Pays de la Loire 7 6 - -
Poitou-Charente 9 3 - -
Rhones-Alpes 9 1 - -
D.O.M. 19 12 -
FRANCE 152 61 29 4
Donegal 5 9 5 5
North West ,  1 1 - -
West . . .  - ■ 3 3 - -
Mid West — 5 10 4 5
South West 6 10 - -
South East 6 2 - «
Midlands 2 2 - -
East 2 7 - -
North East * 2 1 - -
Multi-regional - 3 - -
IRELAND : 32 48 9 10
;.... ; is ■
_____i.4_..........|
j 
■'.tor . 
« ‘St
Appendix B. Statistics95

Annex Table 7
Investment projects inspected in 1982 and  
since the establishment of the Fund (bv region!,  
(continued!
Number of projects inspected
Country 1975-1982 of which i n 1982
and Industry, Industry,
Member States craft ind., Infra- craft ind., Infra-
services structure services structure
Abruzzi 13 8 7 —
Basilicata 15 26 - —
Calabria 14 37 - -
Campania 13 25- 1 1
Friuli-Venezia Giulia - 32 - -
Lazio 16 15 4 8
Marche 8 7 - -
Molise 6 10- -
Puglia 2 1 17 6 6
Sardegna 1 1 27 1 7
Sicilia 1 1 22 - 8
Multi-regional “ 4 2
ITALIA 128 230 18 42
LUXEMBOURG - 2 - -
Groningen 1 3 - -
Limburg - 1 - -
Friesland “ 1 —
PAYS-BAS 1 5 - -
Northern England 17 51 3 7
North West England 13 49 - -
Yorkshire & Humberside 14 24 4 4
Midlands 2 5 - -
South West England 14 23 8 4
Scotland 14 50 3 8
Wales 18 40 - -
Northern Ireland 16 15 - -
Multi-regional 1 - “
UNITED KINGDOM 109 257 18 23
EUR 10, per category 521 747 90 114
EUR 10, total 1268 204
96

Annex Table 8
Regional distribution of assistance from the Fund in 1982.
Member in ()Assistance 1982  
in Mio ECU
number of projects or studies
State Industry & 
servicesInfra­
structureMountain
infras­
tructureStudies Total
tflaanderen
Wallonie6.93(12) 1.53(1)
8.51(17) 1.53(7)- 8.46(13)
10.04(24)
BELGIQUE/BELGÜE 6.93(12) 10.04(18) 1.53(7) - 18.50(37))
Groenland 
Other regions 2.51(39)12.34(111)
2.84(2) _0.12(1) 12.46(112)
5.35(41)
DANMARK 2.51(39) 15.18(113) - 0.12(1) 17.81(153)
Schleswig-Holstein
Bremen
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Hessen
Rheinland-Pfalz
Baden-Württemberg
Bayern
Saarland
Berlin
Niedersachsen3.52(21)
0.13(3)
2.48(8)
2.38(30)
0.56(5)
5.64(23)
8.17(29)
3.70(30)0.85(7)
0.42(2)
2.48(2)
0.69(2)
0.12(1)
12.52(36)
3.93(2)
7.72(29)--4.37(28)
0.55(5)
4.96(10)
3.07(32)
0.68(6)
18.16(59)
12.10(31)
11.42(59)
DEUTSCHLAND 26.58(149) 28.73(81) - - 55.31(230)
Ana. Ster. Kai Nisoi  
Kentr.Dyt. Makedonia  
Pelop. Dyt. Ste. Ellas  
Thessalia
Anatoliki Makedonia
Kriti
Xpiros
Thraki
Nisoi Anat. Agaiou 
Multireg, projects0.16(1) 
1.26(5) 
0.69(4) 
0.43(1) 
0.21(2) 
0.53(2) 
2.35(4) 
2.93(4)
5.76(1)20.61(29)
24.94(25)
43.74(28)
24.83(17)
18.86(17)
25.60(30)
10.53(8)
15.39(16)
18.29(17)
7.42(1)-
0.07(1)20.77(30)
26.20(30)
44.43(32)
25.26(18)
19.07(19)
26.13(32)
12.88(12)
18.32(20)
18.29(17)
13.25(3)
ELLAS 14.32(24) 210.21(188) - 0.07(1) 224.60(213)
Appendix B. Statistics

Annex Table 8
Regional distribution of assistance from the Fund in 1982.
(continued')
Assistance 1982
in MioECU
Member in ()number of projects or studies
State Industry & Infra- Mountain Studies Total
services structure infras-
tructure
Haute-Normandie
Basse-Normandie 0.40(6) 3.39(2) - - 3.79(8)
Picardie 0.13(2) - - - 0.13(2)
Champagne-Ardenne - - - - -
Bourgogne 0.12(1) - - - 0.12(1)
Centre 0.18(3) - - - 0.18(3)
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 1.81(16) 6.91(2) - - 8.72(18)
Bretagne 0.69(11) 63.24(91)- - 63.93(102)
Pays de la Loire 1.22(9) 6.40(6) - - 7.62(15)
Poitou-Charentes 1.21(14) 3.51(1) - - 4.72(15)
Lorraine 1.19(11) 1.39(2) - - 2.58(13)
Alsace 0.30(5) - - - 0.30(5)
Franche-Comté 0.04(1)- - - 0.04(1)
Limousin 0.26(3) 5.19(1)- - 5.45(4)
Aquitaine 0.69(11) 10.98(22) - - 11.67(33)
Midi-Pyrénées 1.76(22) 32.14(14)- - 33.90(36)
Auvergne 0.13(3) 10.31(6) - - 10.44(9)
Rhônes-Alpes 2.68(2) - - - 2.68(2)
Languedoc-Roussillon 0.09(2) 9.22(27) - - 9.31(29)
Provence-Côte-d'Azur - - - - -
Corse - 29.94(2) - - 29.94(2)
Guadeloupe 0.15(1) 47.61(1) - - 47.76(2)
Guyane 0.22(3) 13.56(1) - - 13.78(4)
Martinique 0.37(2) 45.75(1) - - 46.12(3)
Réunion 0.28(3) 27.96(1) - - 28.24(4)
Multireg. projects - 12.92(1) - - 12.92(1)
FRANCE 13.92(131) 330.42(181) - - 334.34(312)
IRELAND 32.82(48) 81.18(15) 0.32(3) 0.02(1) 114.34(67)

Annex Table 8
Regional distribution of assistance from the Funds in 1982.
(continuedl
Member ] ! ' ■ ' *  'f' in ()Assistance 1982  
in Mio ECU
number of projects or studies
State Industry &  
servicesInfra­
structureMountain
infras­
tructureStudies Total
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Toscana
Marche
Lazio
Abruzzi ,
Molise
Campania " ‘
Puglia t 
Basilicata 
Calabria T  
Sicilia 
Sardegna
Multireg. projects10.11(39)
9.96(26)
16.99(36)
8.16(29)
0.56(3)
1.46(6)
4.32(24)5.74(47)
4.13(37)
21.23(29)
7.73(1)
279.82(353)
45.23(398)
9.64(55)
44.49(273)
62.86(30)
32.17(179)
37.25(1)19.99(26)1.47(1)
0.19(1)5.74(47)
14.24(76)
28.19(55)
7.73(1)
298.28(390)
53.39(427)
10.20(58)
65.92(305)
67.37(55)
32.17(179)
37.25(1)
ITALIA 48.54(163) 550.29(1403) 19.99(26) 1.66(2) 620.48(1594)
LUXEMBOURG - 2.23(1)- - 2.23(1)
Noord Nederland  
Limburg3.00(5)
1.81(3)5.98(1)
6.67(2) _8.98(6)
8.48(5)
NEDERLAND 4.81(8) 12.65(3) - - 17.46(11)
North
Yorkshire/Humberside
East Midlands
South-West
West Midlands
North-West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland  
Multireg. projects50.73(3)
0.69(4)
0.44(3)
26.07(12)
3.42(7)
5.91(18)54.44(88)
34.59(66)
2.49(4)
12.93(30)
49.57(96)
63.33(86)
105.46(139)
35.46(81)3.36(19) 0.06(1)
0.11(1)
0.02(1)105.17(91)
35.28(70)
2.49(4)
12.93(30)
50.01(99)
89.40(98)
112.30(166)
41.48(100)
0.02(1)
UNITED KINGDOM 87.26(47) 358.27(590) 3.36(19) 0.19(3) 499.08(659)
Appendix B. Statistics

Annex Table 9
Regional distribution of assistance from the Fund 1975-82.
Member in ()Assistance 1982  
in Mio ECU
number of projects or studies
State Industry &  
servicesInfra­
structureMountain
infras­
tructureStudies Total
Vlaanderen
Wallonie14.64(37)
11.67(25)20.92(131)
18.71(74) 6.32(37) _35.56(168)
36.70(136)
BELGIQUE/BELGÏE 26.31(62) 37.63(205) 6.32(37) - 70.26(304)
Groenland 
Other regions 8.79(128)61.83(425)  
11.26(5)- 2.60(3) 64.43(428)
20.05(133)
DANMARK 8.79(128) 73.09(430) - 2.60(3) 84.48(561)
Schleswig-Holstein
Bremen
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Hessen
Rheinland-Pfalz
Baden-Württemberg
Bayern
Saarland
Berlin
Niedersachsen30.80(134)
0.95(11)
19.26(134)
13.43(109)
19.48(119)
9.01(79)
32.24(156)
42.25(192)
42.92(294)24.25(93)
0.65(4)
10.37(15)
11.34(41)
2.35(23)
5.46(41)
51.48(168)
13.00(23)
21.86(4)
40.98(155)“
-55.05(227)
1.60(15)
29.63(149)
24.77(150)
21.83(142)
14.47(120)
83.72(324)
55.25(215)
21.86(4)
83.90(449)
DEUTSCHLAND 210.34(1228) 181.74(567) - - 392.08(1795)
Ana. Ster. Kai Nisoi  
Kentr.Dyt. Makedonia  
Pelop. Dyt. Ste. Ellas  
Thessalia
Anatoliki Makedonia
Kriti
Ipiros
Thraki
Nisoi Anat. Agaiou  
Multireg. projects0.16(1)
1.26(5)
0.75(5)
0.43(1)
0.29(3)
0.53(2)
3.77(5)
7.95(19)
1.62(6)
5.76(1)64.49(51)
67.37(52)
71.96(75)
49.15(48)
29.95(27)
38.07(54)
29.75(40)
33.64(41)
44.91(44)
22.85(5)-0.05(1)
0.14(2)64.70(53)
68.63(57)
72.71(80)
49.58(49)
30.24(30)
38.60(56)
33.52(45)
41.59(60)
46.53(50)
28.75(8)
ELLAS(*) 22.52(48) 452.14(437) - 0.19(3) 474.85(488)
(*) Ellas assistance 1981-82.
100

Annex Table 9
Regional distribution of assistance from the Fund 1975-82.
(continued!
Member in ()Assistance 1982  
in Mio ECU
number of projects or studies
State Industry &  
servicesInfra­
structureMountain
infras­
tructureStudies Total
Haute-Normandie 0.27(2) 0.27(2)
Basse-Normandie 5.50(34) 11.58(32) - - 17.08(66)
Picardie 0.89(12)- - - 0.89(12)
Champagne-Ardenne 6.05(22) - - - 6.05(22)
Bourgogne 0.71(10) - - - 0.71(10)
Centre 1.31(12) 0.17(2) - - 1.48(14)
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 71.15(117) 8.54(15) - - 79.69(132)
Bretagne 15.25(129) 191.77(155) - -207.02(284)
Pays de la Loire 24.49(119) 46.85(84)- - 71.34(203)
Poitou-Charentes 11.56(76) 32.52(147) - - 44.08(223)
Lorraine 46.27(145) 14.88(8) - - 61.15(153)
Alsace 5.41(51) - 0.05(1) - 5.46(52)
Franche-Comté 0.08(3) - - - 0.08(3)
Limousin 3.82(35) 43.56(71) 3;06(32) - 50.44(138)
Aquitaine 16.86(83) 48.47(98) 0.29(11)- 65.62(192)
Midi-Pyrénées 12.07(98) 78.14(184) 2.30(17) - 92.51(299)
Auvergne 6.51(41) 71.06(122) 1.43(13) - 79.00(176)
Rhônes-Alpes 18.36(70) 0.94(11) 0.70(3)- 20.00(84)
Languedoc-Roussillon 8.28(47) 45.86(166) 1.06(22) - 55.20(235)
Provence-Côte-d'Azur 1.61(18) - - - 1.61 (18)
Corse 0.15(2) 44.71(54) - - 44.86(56)
Guadeloupe 3.95(61) 59.72(30) 1.02(9) - 64.69(100)
Guyane 3.86(23) 21.14(26) 0.32(4)- 25.32(53)
Martinique 3.23(33) 57.55(29) 2.33(11) - 63.11(73)
Réunion 2.80(52) 54.15(27) 0.95(7) - 57.90(86)
Multireg. projects 12.92(1) “ - 12.92(1)
FRANCE 270.44(1295) 844.53(1262) 13.51(130) -1128.48(2687)
IRELAND 130.59(233) 306.45(387) 12.99(72) 0.79(3) 450.82(695)
Appendix B. Statistics

Annex Table 9
Regional distribution of assistance from the Fund 1975-82.
(continued- )
Member in ()Assistance 1982  
in Mio ECU
number of projects or studies
State Industry &  
servicesInfra­
structureMountain
infras­
tructureStudies Total
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Toscana
Marche
Lazio
Abruzzi
Molise
Campania
Puglia
Basilicata
Calabria
Sicilia
Sardegna
Multireg. projects1.00(5)
11.92(48)
61.14(242)
60.18(164)
4.66(14)
63.36(234)
76.55(175)
8.15(31)
7.86(38)
25.79(127)
8.79(50)42.14(282)  
2.19(1) 
35.99(252)  
61.08(215)  
76.03(130)  
28.42(181)  
710.01(796)  
146.26(555)  
43.36(513)  
227.41(948)  
446.89(229)  
184.97(635)  
355.29(15)3.09(72)
0.37(8)
I. 77(38) 
0.42(14) 
2.59(75) 
4.62(191) 
5.46(104) 
3.36(117)
26.46(261)
II. 28(115)  
3.36(85)5.62(8)
0.19(1)
2.00(6)45.23(354)  
3.19(6) 
48.28(308)  
123.99(495)  
136.63(308)  
35.67(270)  
783.61(1229)  
228.27(834)  
54.87(661)  
261.73(1247)  
484.15(472)  
199.12(776)  
335.29(15)
ITALIA 329.40(1128) 2340.04(4752) 62.78(1080) 7.81(15) 2740.03(6975)
LUXEMBOURG - 7.23(9) - - 7.23(9)
Noord Nederland  
Limburg9.99(6)
7.33(5)58.59(28)
24.49(12)- - 68.58(34)
31.82(17)
NEDERLAND 17.32(11) 83.08(40) - - 100.40(51)
North
Yorkshire/Humberside
East Midlands
South-West
West Midlands
North-West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland  
Multireg. projects124.32(112)
9.14(39)
2.13(11)
4.84(30)
103.40(62)
87.85(93)
87.31(132)
84.48(111)229.36(695)
99.63(392)
13.60(56)
39.94(148)
0.54(8)
126.13(501)
198.18(711)
355.11(746)
136.46(247)21.20(111)
3.20(27)0.13(1)
0.05(1)
0.06(1)
0.14(2)
0.02(1)353.68(807)
108.90(432)
15.73(67)
44.78(178)
0.54(8)
229.53(563)
286.08(805)
443.68(990)
224.28(387)
0.02(1)
UNITED KINGDOM 503.47(590) 1178.95(3504 24.40(138) 0.37(6) 1707.19(4238)
J
102*

Annex Table 10
Main social and economic indicators.
Member Population 1980 Assist./cap. Unempl. SDP/cap.
State 1000pop/km2 19821975/82 index (PPS)
1981ind 1979
BELGIQUE/BELGÏE
Vlaanderen 5627 416 1.50 6.32137.1 104.5
Wallonie 3228 192 3.1111.37164.6 86.4
DANMARK
Groënland 51 0264.041272.24. .
Other regions 3332 831.61 6.02 - -
DEUTSCHLAND
Schleswig-Holstein 2605 166 1.6821.13 60.6 96.3
Bremen 6951720 0.79 2.3076.1147.7
Nordrhein-Westfalen 17044 500 0.29 1.7447.3113.6
Hessen 5589 265 0.55 4.4340.2119.8
Rheinland-Pfalz 3639 183-6.0046.4103.4
Baden-Württemberg 9233 258 0.07 1.5733.4120.3
Bayern 10899 154 1.67 7.6836.7108.8
Saarland 1068 41611.33 51.73 68.8102.8
Berlin 1899 3956-11.51 74.4133.2
Niedersachsen 7246 153 1.5811.58 53.6 98.5
19821981/82 (Oind 1978
ELLAS* · ■
Ana. Ster. Kai Nisoi 3982 181 5.2216.25_96.2
Kentr.Dyt. Makedonia 1680 6815.60 40.85 -93.5
Pelop. Dyt. Ste. Ellas 1287 4634.52 56.50 77.8
Thessalia 695 5036.35 71.34 73.1
Anatoliki Makedonia 426 4544.77 70.99-66.7
Kriti 501 6052.16 77.05 * * ·72.5
Ipiros 443 4429.07 75.67 62.5
Thraki 346 4052.95120.20 -52.5
Nisoi Anat. Agaiou 348 5352.56133.71 -60.9
(*) Index for Greece: - unemployment 1981 =53.6
- GDP/cap (PPS) 1979 =57.6
Appendix B. Statistics103

Annex Table 10
Main social and economic indicators, 
('continued')
Member Population 1980 Assist./cap. Unempl. GDP/cap.
State 1000pop/km2 19821975/82 index (PPS)
1981ind 1979
FRANCE
Haute-Normandie 1645 134—0.16125.2 128.0
Basse-Normandie 1316 752.8812.98102.9 91.3
Picardie 1719 890.08 0.52110.6 104.4
Champagne-Ardenne 1348 53-4.49132.0 112.3
Bourgogne 1592 500.08 0.4594.5 97.0
Centre 2232 570.08 0.6695.0 98.7
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 3923 316 2.2220.31137.0 95.5
Bretagne 2660 9824.03 77.83 89.4 84.1
Pays de la Loire 2872 902.6524.84102.1 94.9
Poitou-Charentes 1539 603.0728.64101.5 82.9
Lorraine 2312 981.1226.45 96.4 99.7
Alsace 1565 189 0.19 3.4972.3107.2
Franche-Comté 1089 670.04 0.0794.8 98.5
Limousin 733 437.4468.81 92.6 81.4
Aquitaine 2581 624.5225.42109.2 96.1
Midi-Pyrénées 2272 5014.92 40.72108.0 81.5
Auvergne 1319 517.9259.89104.9 86.6
Rhônes-Alpes 4947 113 0.54 4.04100.2 108.6
Languedoc-Rous sillon 1838 675.0730.03131.0 95.8
Provence-Côte-d'Azur 3892 124-0.41128.7 106.5
Corse 230 27130.17 195.04 111.7 -
Guadeloupe 328* 193*145.34 197.23 - -
Guyane 73* 1*188.77 346.85 - -
Martinique 326* 296*141.47 193.59 - -
Réunion 515* 205*54.83112.43 “ -
IRELAND 3401 4833.62132.56 135.1 62.3
(*) number 1982
104

Annex Table 10
Main social and economic indicators, 
('continued')
Member
StatePopulation 1980 Assist.  /cap•Unempl.
index
1981GDP/cap.
(PPS) 
ind 19791000pop/km2 19821975/82
ITALIA
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 1245 159_36.3380.5 94.6
Toscana 3601 157 -0.8995.6 96.1
Marche 1418 146 4.0534.0571.5 84.2
Lazio :  ; 5074 295 2.8124.44130.5 84.5
Abruzzi 1242 11522.70110.01136.3 68.4
Molise ’  r - : - ' .  ; i 334 7523.14106.80113.6 59.9
Campania 5475 40354.48139.47182.1 57.3
Puglia 3930 20313.5958.08129.3 60.8
Basilicata 619 6216.4888.64222.8 61.2
Calabria 2083 13831.65125.65184.4 47.9
Sicilia 5012 19513.44129.52159.9 57.5
Sardegna 1606 6720.03123.99223.4 66.5
LUXEMBOURG 365 141 6.1119.8139.8124.3
NEDERLAND
Noord Nederland 1562 173 5.7543.91140.0 123.1
Limburg 1071 485 7.9229.71138.5 86.4
UNITED KINGDOM
North 3082 20034.12114.76167.6 89.7
Yorkshire/Humberside 4884 317 7.2222.30136.2 87.4
East Midlands 3779 242 0.664.16117.9 88.7
South-West 4343 182 2.9810.31100.8 85.3
West Midlands 5154 396 0.10137.7 86.6
North-West 6450 880 7.7535.59160.7 89.1
Wales
Scotland2778 13432.18102.98158.8 91.1
5153 65217986.10164.3 94.1
Northern Ireland 1547 11026.81144.98204.0 70.2
Appendix B. Statistics105

APPENDIX C. SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED
✓
< less than
> more than .
% percentage n-
Mio million .
Mrd '000 million :  a .·..·■ ./
ECU European Currency Unit /
DM Deutschemark
FF French franc :
LIT Italian lira .
HFL Florin(Guilder) · .  r·..'
BFR Belgian franc .  . .  .  ,
LFR Luxembourg franc
UKL Pound sterling
IRL Irish pound ,  ... .
DKR Danish crown .  ■  . . .  ;  .  · - ■
- i  v  *  .
DR Drachma '  ‘
GDP Gross domestic product at market prices
PPS Purchasing Power Standard
EC European Communities
ECSC European Coal and Steel Community
EUR 9 All member countries of the EC, except Greece
EUR 10 All member countries of the EC
Appendix C. Symbols and abbreviations used107

'  '  -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I - Introduction ....................................... 1
Preliminary remarks .  ......................................... 1
Summary of Fund activity in 1982 ...............................  2
Ch
apter II - Fund activities ................................... 7
Quota section ............................................. . .  7
In
troduction and method of work .............................  7
Sub
mission of grant applications .............................  10
Ou
tcome of examination of grant applications .................  11
Cons
ultation of the Fund Committee ............................. 13
Gr
ant decisions ............................................... 14
In
vestment projects ....................................... 16
Studies ..................................................... 18
Non-quota section ............................................. 20
Implementation of specific measures .........................  20
Prog
ramme implementation ..................................... 22
New proposals for non-quota regulations .....................  30
Ch
apter III - Financial Management and Control .................  33
Bu
dget Resources Available ..................................... 33
Utilization of Commitment Appropriations .......................  33
Quot
a section ...............................................33
Non-quota section ........................................... 39
Settlement of Commitments (Payments) ...........................  40
Quot
a section ...............................................40
Non-quota section ........................................... 45
Controls .......................................................46
Inspections .................................................46
Assessments .................................................47
Chapter IV :  Publicity for Fund Activity ....................... 49
Pr
ess Information .............................................49
Signboards .......................................................50
Non-quota measures: Information activity by national authorities .  51
Publication in the Official Journal ...........................  52
Quo
ta section ................................................. 52
Non-qu
ota section ........................................... 52
Informing Investors ........................................... 53
Chapter V :  The ERDF's activities from 1975 to 1982   55
A brief review ................................................. 55
Quota section ................................................. 55
Non-quota 
section ........................................... 59
Application of the principle of geographical concentration .... 60
The impact of Fund assistance on employment ......................64
The principles of complementarity and additionality and the
possibility of combining national and Community aids ..........  68
Im
pact of the ERDF on regional development ........................72
Appendix A. Sheets. ...........................................
Table of Contents

Annex Sheet N. 1  ................................. ............. 75
Re
gional Development Programmes .............................  75
An
nex Sheet N. 2  79
Integrated operations under the Community's structural funds .  .  79
Integrated regional development operations .................. 79
Integrated development programmes .........................  83
Ap
pendix B. Statistics .........................................  85
Ma
in types of project financed ...............................  87
In
dustry, craft industry and services .....................  87
In
frastructure .............................................  88
Ap
pendix C. Symbols and abbreviations used .................... 107
<  * .  . , , .. rt-’i ' . ' i i r S ' ?  V“ 'f.
,  .  ,  ,  -  v-’iviJ»si i.·:-
... ,· »  ,  · ,  asidlv" h tiis'Z - II
.  „  ,  .  ■  ,  ·  Hi
... . _  . -■■■,! ’ i f ,  f 'f jH  '  -s-3 fi · .··■ ?fti
i  * - V -  j· . ’:V : 'i'·-
: ·  .i-s?:·1 *'*
.. , sril io p-Cii: utno";
• r *  *  '
'  ,: .  * ‘ :>r,irtn’ j i · -
< ; v· ■ > · > ■ ' ■ , ■  rK'I I l·.':.-·!
.  -:i .T  i.?ijt X smr·?:.
■ t «iBiiiffoiq . ' - - I · - s
J".l. _ 1 J .... J . j> . I ■_ - ;
110

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Investment projects examined for 1982 ............. . 9
Ta
ble 2 Breakdown by investment category of assistance and
investment relating to applications examined in 1982 .............  10
Ta
ble 3 Breakdown of the number of investment projects rejected
completion of the examination procedure 1982 .....................  12
Ta
ble 4 Outcome of examination of investment projects in 1982. .  13
Table 5 Grant decisions in 1982: number of investment projects,
investment, assistance granted under each allocation .............  14
Tab
le 6 Investment projects examined for 1982 .....................  15
Ta
ble 7 Breakdown (in % of grants by investment category). ... 17
Table 8 ERDF quota section Studies under Article 12. Situation at
31.12.82 - 1980-82 ..............................................  19
Ta
ble 9 Grants for non-quota programmes ...........................  21
Ta
ble 10 Budgetary situation 1982 (ERDF quota section).............. 34
Table 11 Use of commitment appropriations in 1982 ..................  35
Ta
ble 12 Balances of commitment appropriations outstanding each
year-end ........................................................  37
Ta
ble 13 Budgetary situation 1982. (ERDF non-quota section). .  .  38
Table 14 Carry-overs and transfers to quota section .............  40
Ta
ble 15 Payments made in 1982 - Commitments still to be paid at
the end of 1982.................................................. 41
Table 16 Settlement of commitments in each financial year. ... 42
Table 17 Breakdown of payments in each year by Member State. .  .  43
Table 18 Payment appropriations since 1975 ......................  44
Ta
ble 19 Commitments and payments in respect of special programmes. 45
Table 20 On-site signboards ......................................  51
Ta
ble 21 Number of projects submitted to the Commmission, referred
to the ERDF Committee and granted aid.............................. 56
Table 22 Draft decisions submitted for the opinion of the Fund
Committee .........................................................  57
Ta
ble 23 Grant decisions 1975-1982................................ 58
Table 24 ERDF's budget allocation................................. 60
Table 25 Breakdown of commitments by Member State, 1975-1982. .  .  61
Table 26 Grants to the most disadvantaged regions as % of total
ERDF aid granted each year ........................................  62
Ta
ble 27 ERDF assistance by region and per capita for the most
disadvantaged regions .............................................  63
Ta
ble 28 Annual forecasts of jobs created and preserved, 1975-1982. 66
Table 29 Integrated Operation in Naples: Projects financed by the
Fund in 1982   81
Annex table 1  Summary of Fund aid decisions, aid granted to Member
States............................................................  86
Anne
x table 2 Investment projects financed from the Fund in 1982,
industry, craft industry and services.............................. 89
Annex table 3 Investment projects financed from the Fund 1975-1982,
industry, craft industry and services.............................. 90
Annex table 4 Investment projects financed by the Fund in 1982,
infrastructure ....................................................  91
Annex
 table 5 Investment projects financed by the Fund 1975-1982, 
infrastructure ....................................................  92
11
1

Annex table 6 Infrastructure projects 1982, assistance granted. .  93
Annex table 7 Investment projects inspected in 1982 and since the
establishment of the Fund (by region) .............................  94
An
nex table 8 Regional distribution of assistance from the Fund in
1982............................................................. 97
Annex table 9 Regional distribution of assistance from the Fund
1975-82.......................................................... 100
Annex table 10 Main social and economic indicators ..................  103
■  
' o f  T  ■ à f i i f s i l
112 List of Tables