C 226/68 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘9th and 10th Annual Reports of the Structural
Funds (1997 and 1998) ERDF — ESF — EAGGF — FIFG’
(2000/C 226/18)
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,
having regard to the 9th annual report of the Structural Funds (1997) — ERDF — ESF — EAGGF — FIFG
(COM(1998) 562 final);
having regard to the 10th annual report of the Structural Funds (1998) — ERDF — ESF — EAGGF —
FIFG (COM(1999) 467 final);
having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 2 June 1999, under Article 265(5) of the Treaty
establishing the European Community, to draw up an opinion on the subject and to direct Commission 1
for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion and Cross-Border and Inter-Regional
Cooperation to carry out the preparatory work;
having regard to the Draft Opinion adopted by Commission 1 on 2 February 2000 (CdR 220/99 rev. 3)
(rapporteur: Mr Willy Burgeon, President of the Union of Municipalities and Local Authorities of
Wallonia, B/PSE);
adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session on 12 and 13 April 2000 (meeting of 13 April).
1.General background 1.5. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was
set up accordingly in 1975. At first it was used only to provide
compensation for national regional policy measures, in linewith national quotas fixed by the Council of Ministers (
1).
1.1. This opinion has a dual purpose. First, it picks up the
main themes in the annual reports, and, second, it analyses thesituation in 1997 and 1998.
1.6. The 1972 (United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland),
1981 (Greece) and 1986 (Spain and Portugal) enlargementsled the European Community to look at the regional conver-
gence issue more closely. This led on to the question of the1.2. The COR will attempt to take an analytical approach,balance between geographical regions with differing levels offocusing as much as possible on Structural Fund strategies andindustrial intensity (North-South, peripheral countries). Thetheir impact over time, and treating 1997 as a turning pointeffects of German unification and the future eastward enlarge-between past and future reforms.ment of the European Union were also considered in this
context (
2).
1.3. To this end, a brief recap of the political intent
underlying the 1975 establishment of the Structural Funds and
1.7. Article 130c of the Treaty of Maastricht states that the the various reforms applied in 1984, 1988 and 1993 is useful.
ERDF is ‘intended to help redress the main regional imbalances
in the Community through participation in the development
and structural adjustment of regions whose development is
lagging behind and in the conversion of declining industrialregions’.The beginning
1.4. The origin of the Funds lies in the Treaty of Rome and
in its mission to promote ‘overall harmonious development’(1) CRISP weekly newsletter — 1998 No. 1605-1606: ‘La réforme
of the economies of the Member States and reduce ‘disparities des fonds structurels européens’ by Luc Vandendorpe, p. 6.
between the levels of development of the various regions and (2) CRISP weekly newsletter — 1998 No. 1605-1606: ‘La réforme
des fonds structurels européens’ by Luc Vandendorpe, p. 7. the backwardness of the least favoured regions’.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/69 Official Journal of the European Communities
The 1984 reform 1993 reform (3)
1.8. Two major changes were made in 1984, one technical 1.11. In addition to bolstering the main principles of the
and the other political: 1988 reform, the 1993 reform developed two of them further
and brought in a new concept:
(1) flat-rate national quotas were replaced with indicative
allocation bands for each country;
( 1 ) Concentration
(2) 20 % of ERDF funds were allocated directly to Community
programmes set up by the European Commission (1).
1.12. The principle concentrating funds in the poorest
regions of the Union was upheld, while focusing aid on six
priority objectives (1, 2, 3, 4, 5a and 5b). 1.9. The European Council thus gave the European Com-
mission a degree of financial autonomy. This change laid the
foundations for the principle of partnership between theEuropean Commission and the Member States.
(2) P a r t n e r s h i p
The 1988 reform (
2) 1.13. Partnership remains the cornerstone of the Structural
Fund management system. The reform strengthened verticalpartnership by simplifying formal Commission approval pro-
1.10. The 1988 reform equipped the Structural Funds with cedures. The importance of horizontal partnership was also
much more effective tools geared to furthering their goals: confirmed, as was the need to involve the social partners in
the process.
(1) Structural Fund spending doubled between 1987 and
1993, rising from 15 % of Community spending in 1988
to 31 % in 1993.(3) E v a l u a t i o n (
4)
(2) Essential changes were made to improve application of the1.14. In the Committee’s view this aspect of the reformFunds:
marked a major development. From this point on, the
Structural Fund regulations included an obligation for Member
— assistance was targeted at the poorest regions in the States and the Commission to conduct systematic programme
Community, evaluations before, during and after implementation.
— and focused on certain specific areas (infrastructure,1.15. The European conference on evaluation (Berlin, 2-development of SMEs, training);3 December 1996) thus specified three essential components
of a good evaluation:
— more attention was given to the necessary planning
and coordination of measures.— evaluations must be carried out before, during and after
the practical implementation of structural measures;
(3) Priority objectives and the concept of eligible areas were
established.— evaluations must be based on the qualitative and quantitat-
ive information available to managers and also on inter-
views with the beneficiaries; (4) The concepts of horizontal and vertical partnerships and
programming came into being.
— evaluations must apply a number of techniques and
(5) The concept of additionality (financing provided by ben- methodologies whose conclusions can be recognised as
eficiary States must not fall below the levels allocated valid by the experts.
before the Structural Fund contribution) was reaffirmed.
(3) Points discussed in the CRISP weekly newsletter — 1998
No. 1605-1606: ‘La réforme des fonds structurels européens’ by (1) CRISP weekly newsletter — 1998 No. 1605-1606: ‘La réforme
des fonds structurels européens’ by Luc Vandendorpe, p. 8. Luc Vandendorpe, pp. 14-19.
(4) Points discussed in the CRISP weekly newsletter — 1998 (2) Points discussed in the CRISP weekly newsletter — 1998
No. 1605-1606: ‘La réforme des fonds structurels européens’ by No. 1605-1606: ‘La réforme des fonds structurels européens’ by
Luc Vandendorpe, pp. 18-19. Luc Vandendorpe, pp. 9-14.
C 226/70 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
2.Agenda 2000 — cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation,
aimed at promoting harmonious and balanced spatialplanning;2.1. Having briefly recapped the history of the Structural
Funds, the Committee feels that activity in 1997 must be
— rural development;considered within the context of the future strategy provided
by the new 2000-2006 reform.
— human resources, paying special attention to equal oppor-
tunities.2.2. The Agenda 2000 reform was published by the
Commission on 16 July 1997. It had both an economic and a
political context. In economic terms, the background was belt-
tightening (resulting from the tough budgetary criteria imposed(3) Developing partnershipfor economic and monetary union), while the political back-
drop was enlargement of the European Union (
1).
2.6. Structural Fund measures will be made more effective
by means of a new approach to the partnership between theThe new reform centred on four pillars (2).Commission and the Member States. Programme management
will be decentralised to Member States and regions, while inreturn the Commission will demand a stricter selection process
for defining upstream priorities. (1) Continuing the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund
2.3. The continuation of the Structural Funds is part of
the ongoing drive towards regional convergence within the (4) Reinforcing evaluation systems
European Union. The continuation of the Cohesion Fund,
meanwhile, fits into a rationale of promoting social cohesion
2.7. Under Agenda 2000, the Commission has prepared and making it possible for the cohesion countries to carry out
proposals for framework regulations to govern the Structural national programmes aimed at fulfilment of the convergence
and Cohesion Funds for the 2000-2006 period, with a view to criteria for the third stage of economic and monetary union.
shoring up monitoring and assessment systems and controls.
The proposals include:
(2) Increasing concentration— a general regulation on the Structural Funds;
2.4. This principle is still central to the workings of the — specific regulations for each fund;
Structural Funds. Structural measures must thus focus more
closely on less-privileged communities, by targeting three main— a revision of the Cohesion Fund, andobjectives:
— a regulation on a new pre-accession instrument.— Objective 1: aimed at regions whose development is
lagging behind; determined in accordance with per capita
GDP;
3.The Structural Funds in 1997 — Objective 2: for the economic and social regeneration
of regions with structural problems. This covers areas
undergoing industrial conversion, urban areas and rural3.0. The points discussed in this section are based on orareas. The criteria used are broader than those used for thetaken from the European Commission’s 9th Annual Report onformer Objective 2;the Structural Funds 1997 (ERDF — ESF — EAGGF — FIFG).
— Objective 3: totally redefined, now aimed at specific human
resource development initiatives in all regions no longer
qualifying for Objectives 1 and 2.A. Overview
2.5. Again in the interests of simplification, the number of3.1. In 1997, during discussions on the future reform ofCommunity initiatives has been reduced to three:the Structural Funds (2000-2006) and their global approach
to economic and social cohesion policy, the proposal was
made to reduce the number of objectives, simplify procedures,(1) Points discussed in the CRISP weekly newsletter — 1998concentrate assistance and reduce the number of programmesNo. 1605-1606: ‘La réforme des fonds structurels européens’ byimplemented, particularly as regards the Community initiat-Luc Vandendorpe, p. 20.
ives. A call was also made to monitor the impact of Community (2) Points discussed in the CRISP weekly newsletter — 1998
assistance, and to set objective criteria for measuring the No. 1605-1606: ‘La réforme des fonds structurels européens’ by
Luc Vandendorpe, pp. 22-26. effectiveness of expenditure.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/71 Official Journal of the European Communities
3.2. It was also concluded that, in the interests of greater essential in view of the ambitious goals the Commission has
set itself. Three decisions were taken in this area in 1997, EU economic and social cohesion, the regions must diversify
their economic base and develop their innovation capacity. The resulting in:
Structural Funds must give firmer support to the acquisition
of knowledge and continuing training, and must stimulateemployment and competitiveness in all possible ways.1. data sheets on eligibility of expenditure;
3.3. The above thus contains references to such important2. a regulation (EC 2064/97) setting out the rules the Memberconcepts as diversification, innovation, employment and com-States must observe for financial control of operationspetitiveness.part-financed by the Structural Funds;
3.4. Work conducted in 1997 highlighted six priorities for3. internal Commission guidelines on the application of netadjustment of the Funds up until the end of 1999:financial corrections.
1. basic infrastructure
3.9. The thematic priorities for cohesion focus on five main
areas: 2. the productive environment
3. RTD and the information society(1) On the challenge of the information society, the report
rightly notes that the capacity of the regions to use thetools of the information society is an increasingly4. the environment and sustainable developmentimportant factor determining their competitiveness on
European and world markets.
5. human resources and education
(2) Regarding the urban agenda, the central concern is to draw
6. equal opportunities for men and women. up a coordinated and coherent response to a growing
number of urban problems. The urban dimension must beintegrated more strategically into future Union policies.
Cities are and will remain the motors of economic growth, 3.5. These priorities are designed to encourage national and
competitiveness and employment. regional partners to ensure the quality and effectiveness of
programmes.
(3) There is a need for a new Community Initiative for rural
development beyond 1999, to encourage private initiative 3.6. In 1997, the Commission adopted 88 new pro-
while safeguarding specific regional identity. grammes under the various objectives. Most, however, were
Objective 2 programmes for the 1997-1999 period. This is a
clear sign that safeguarding and promoting employment is an
absolute priority for future work. In addition to the current (4) Regional policy and competition policy. There are diver-
approach, the Commission has restated its intention to use gences between the territorial coverage of national regional
appropriate means, when the time comes, to summarise the aid and that of the regional objectives of the Structural
content of the territorial employment pacts and thus draw Funds. The population in areas eligible under the funds is
conclusions for job creation. greater than that of areas eligible for assistance from the
Member States.
3.7. Furthermore, 33 new Community initiative pro-
grammes were adopted. These included the final programmes (5) Cohesion and competitiveness must be strengthened
provided for under the initial allocation, plus five technical through research, technological development (RTD) and
assistance programmes, and the first programmes to be innovation. It is vitally important to direct these policies
financed following the distribution of the reserve decided by towards the productive fabric of the region.
the Commission in 1996. For the first time, it was possible to
confirm that all the Community initiatives originally plannedfor the 1994-1999 period had actually been implemented, to
varying degrees, in 1997.3.10. From a more practical standpoint, 1997 saw the full
implementation of programming. It marked the start of the
second part of the current programming period and the third
full year of the funds’ work, with the exception of Spain for 3.8. The SEM 2000 initiative, designed to improve the
management and control of the Structural Funds, will prove Objective 1 and Italy for Objective 2.
C 226/72 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
3.11. Special attention was given to the SME sector, which 3.14. More than ECU 1 billion, i.e. 5 % of payments made
over the year, corresponded to pre-1994 commitments, 40 % was earmarked 15 to 20 % of total fund resources. Several
points are worth noting here. Firstly, since the funds concen- of which went to projects in Italy.
trate financing on Objective 1 regions, larger sums have gone
to SME development in those regions than in the other eligibleareas. Secondly, SMEs are the companies most exposed3.15. Each of the Structural Funds may finance innovativeto industrial change, while also being good generators ofmeasures and technical assistance, i.e. for studies, pilotemployment. Objective 4 thus potentially concerns all workers,measures or technical assistance. In 1997, 49 new pilotand particularly those in danger of losing their jobs. This isprojects and innovative measures were set up, costing a totaltherefore preventive action, within an economic fabric madeof ECU 100 million, under Article 10 of the ERDF. They fellup largely of SMEs. Once again innovation will inevitably playinto three categories: urban pilot projects, spatial planninga driving role in SME development.pilot measures and TERRA interregional cooperation projects
in specific areas of spatial planning.
3.12. At the end of the 1994-1996 Objective 2 program-3.16. A further 200 innovative projects financed by theming period, unused appropriations amounting to ECUERDF were implemented in the following areas: new sources848 million were transferred to the 1997-1999 period. At theof employment, culture and heritage, regional innovationend of 1997, there were 1,026 programmes including 580strategies (RIS), technology transfer (RTT), information societyunder the various objectives and 446 under the various(RISI) and external (ECOS-Ouverture) and internal (Recite II)Community initiatives. 1997 was also a year of intenseinterregional cooperation.financial activity, as much work was done to clear the backlog
in payments of appropriations.
3.17. SME support provides the main theme of the Structur-
al Fund report for 1997. SMEs employ 66 % of the private
sector work force and generate 60 % of the turnover of EUThe following was committed:companies. Their growth is therefore a key factor in boosting
employment and reaching a higher level of economic and
social cohesion in the Union.
— 62 % of Community contributions for the 1994-1999
period (46 % paid);
3.18. For the current programming period (1994-1999),
15-20 % of Structural Fund resources are specifically devoted
to SME support, totalling between 23 and 30 billion ecus. This— 100 % of national programmes for all objectives in 1997financing is divided among a broad range of measures. The(for the first time in the 1994-1999 period), with themost important include:exception of Objective 5a (36 % of commitments for the
‘fisheries’ strand).
— aid for capital investment through direct grants or financial
engineering measures (venture capital funds);
The following was paid out:
— part-financing of business start-up areas;
— 100 % of the appropriations available for all objectives at — training (Objective 4 and the ‘Adapt’ Community
the end of 1997 (a clear improvement on 1996 when only Initiative);
two objectives were fully paid out);
— advice and information services;
— by the end of 1997, a cumulative total of 46 % of assistance
for the period. — measures to promote research and technological develop-
ment and integration into the information society;
— assistance for internationalisation.3.13. For the Community initiatives, 56 % of total assist-
ance for 1994-1999 was committed and 31 % paid out. In
1997, only 61 % of available commitments and 90 % (asopposed to 80 % in 1996) of available appropriations were 3.19. Information on programme implementation in the
Member States is provided in Annex I (Inforegio — Summary actually used. Following delays on certain Community initiat-
ives, plans are afoot with the Member States to reprogramme of the annual report / 17.12.1998 ‘L’action des Fonds struc-
turels en 1997’). financial resources and reallocate them among the initiatives.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/73 Official Journal of the European Communities
B.Evaluation and analysis of the impact of the Structural Funds 4.2. Alongside this principal theme, the 1998 report high-
lights four major aspects of Structural Fund activity in 1998 inthe area of economic and social cohesion:
3.20. The Committee notes that there were two clearly
defined objectives:
( 1 ) Adoption of the remaining programmes
(1) promoting the efficient use of the funds
The report states that as the penultimate year of the current
programming period, 1998 saw a consolidation of program- (2) preparing future programming of structural assistance.
ming including adoption of the last few programmes still to
be approved.
3.21. While the second should flow from the pooling of
ideas, the first, relating to the efficient use of funds, is relevant
here.( 2 ) Acceleration of financial execution
As with 1997, the Commission report notes that 1998 saw 3.22. The European Union’s structural policy is often
steps to clear the backlogs which had occurred at the beginning viewed as an important source of innovation in political and
of the programming period. administrative procedures. The analysis of regional disparities,
meanwhile, should enable major progress on theory.
( 3 ) Increased attention to priority themes3.23. There has therefore been a shift in focus from regional
growth to a mechanism to redistribute income between
regions and thus reduce regional disparities. A European
The priority task of safeguarding and promoting employment regional analysis is therefore based on the close intercon-
continued to require sustained support. Therefore, the Com- nection of positive and normative objectives (e.g. per capita
mission devoted special efforts in 1998, as it had the year GDP and unemployment rates). Furthermore, while the Struc-
before, to giving new impetus to a number of its activities and tural Funds are certainly a very important factor in furthering
priorities. It is important to note that the report states that interregional balance in the European Union, direct invest-
Structural Fund operations will gradually take account of the ment, business initiative, technological development and scien-
national action plans for employment, creating an overall tific research remain the vital means of helping the less
frame of reference for activities to promote human resources. prosperous Member States catch up.
Furthermore, with a view to gauging the true effectiveness and
impact of the Structural Funds in the beneficiary regions, a
series of mid-term evaluations was conducted during 1998under Objectives 1 and 6.4.The Structural Funds in 1998
Other thematic priorities were also studied more closely during4.0. The points discussed in this section are based on orthe year:taken from the European Commission’s 10th Annual Report
on the Structural Funds 1998 (ERDF — ESF — EAGGF —
FIFG). Certain particularly significant passages from the 1998 — Structural Fund assistance in the field of RTD and inno-
report are quoted in their entirety. vation;
— consistency between cohesion policy and competition
policy;
A. Overview
— synergy between cohesion policy and transport;
4.1. The 1998 annual report’s main theme is local develop- — sustainable urban development;
ment activities. Local development is a concept that has been
evolving for a number of years, and all tiers of authority arebecoming increasingly aware of its obvious benefits. — Europe-wide spatial planning through the ESDP.
C 226/74 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
(4) P r e p a r a t i o n s f o r t h e 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 6 p r o - stood at around 10 % at the end of 1998. Furthermore, it was
very unevenly spread over the regions, ranging from 3 % or gramming period
4 % in some to 20 % to 24 % in others.
Following the adoption of Agenda 2000 in July 1997, concrete
preparation for the 2000-2006 period began in 1998. Pro-4.6. The issue of jobs obviously relates directly to unem-posals for regulations to govern the Structural Funds in theployment. It is worth noting that a high rate of regionalcoming period were adopted by the Commission on 18 Marchunemployment leads to social exclusion, which makes unem-1998.ployment more resistant to an economic upturn. To remedy
this situation, an integrated strategy is needed combiningmeasures to strengthen the economic base of the regions withThe 1998 report reiterates the principles set out in Agendameasures to improve access to the labour market (mainly2000, which are enshrined in the General Regulation on thethrough training).Structural Funds:
— reduction of the priority objectives to three;4.7. Disparities in basic infrastructure and human resources
are tending to lessen, and there has also been progress in
— concentration of assistance on a smaller population and innovation and in improving the efficiency of the administrat-
concurrent adoption of transitional support for regions ive system.
which cease to be eligible;
4.8. The situation in the central and eastern European — reduction of the Community Initiatives to three (later
countries (CEEC) has changed quickly since 1993 or 1994. widened again to four), each financed by only one Fund
Most of the CEEC have finally begun to enjoy growth. (ERDF, ESF or EAGGF);
However, low production and inadequate productivity rep-
resent a considerable challenge for them, and the quality of— simplification of programming and of the implementationtheir infrastructure is in general well below that in the Union.of assistance;
— clarification of responsibilities for monitoring and evalua-4.9. In this context, the Commission rightly notes that thetion;Structural Funds will have a major role to play in tackling
these problems after enlargement. However, the report also
points out that considerable efforts will be required to install — simplification of financial management by introducing a
the structures required for management of the Funds before system of automatic annual commitments, with payments
the CEEC are ready to take part in the Union’s structural being used to refund proven expenditure;
policy.
— reinforcement of financial monitoring and the introduction
of a performance reserve.
4.10. Since the Member States were to begin preparing the
next generation of programmes during 1999, the Commission
considered it useful to draw up some preliminary draft
guidelines in 1998, the aim being to help the national and B.Preparation of the preliminary draft guidelines for the Funds for
regional authorities to prepare their programming strategies 2000-2006
for Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and their links with the Cohesion
Fund.
4.3. The Committee notes that the 6th periodic report on
the economic and social situation and development of the
regions formed, in the words of the annual report, ‘a basis for 4.11. The indicative guidelines are listed below, grouped
preparation of the preliminary draft guidelines for the Funds under three main headings:
for 2000-2006’.
4.4. This work demonstrated that the poorest regions were( 1 ) Improving regional competitivenesscatching up with the rest of the Union at an astonishing rate,
largely thanks to growing economic integration. Nevertheless,
the report stresses that the Structural Funds too have played
The measures quoted in the 1998 report are: developing an important part. The report states that the macro-economic
infrastructure for transport, energy, the information society, models used show that about one third of the convergence
research and the environment; stimulating the development of observed would not have been achieved without them.
integrated strategies for RTD and innovation at regional level;
supporting the activity of firms, particularly small firms, by
supporting innovation and research, industrial cooperation 4.5. Much remains to be done, however, particularly on the
employment front. The annual report states that despite the and networking, the development of human resources, risk
capital and services to help firms. economic upturn, unemployment in the Union as a whole
8.8.2000 EN C 226/75 Official Journal of the European Communities
( 2 ) Promoting employment — the Com- ( 2 ) Research, Technological Development
and Innovation munity’s top priority
The evaluation conclusions highlight the need for upgrading The plan mainly involves the new Objective 3 (labour market
of existing R&TD capacities, better targeting of measures and measures, combating exclusion, development of appropriate
more transparent selection criteria and the need to foster a training, introduction of positive measures for women), but
climate of more systematic evaluation of results and impact. also the new Objectives 1 and 2, with a common reference
framework for human resources.
More generally, the evaluations provide arguments for a clearer
shift towards measures focusing on innovation, the quality of
human resources and networking of players, in particular( 3 ) Integrating urban and rural develop-SMEs, at transregional and transnational level.ment in a balanced framework for the
spatial development of the Union
( 3 ) Environment
C. Interim evaluations
The report states that the study assessed both the environmen-
tal impact of Structural Funds programmes and the extent to
which these programmes are contributing towards sustainable4.12. In the following points, the Committee aims todevelopment.outline the main findings of the interim evaluations. The report
explains that these ‘seek to gauge the degree to which
programme implementation matches up to the original goalsThe evaluation concluded that the ex ante study of futureand, where appropriate, to propose adjustments in line withprogrammes should include an analysis of regional strengths,the degree of effectiveness achieved’.weaknesses, opportunities and threats, addressing both
environmental and economic issues.
4.13. 1998 saw the finalisation of four thematic evaluations
launched in 1997 (on SMEs, R&TD, environment, and equalopportunities within the ESF) and of the evaluation of one ( 4 ) Equal opportunities in ESF operations
horizontal topic (partnership). The main findings are outlined
below:
As compared with the previous period, gender breakdown has
improved in both background data and data on programming
and implementation, although there are naturally variationsfrom one Member State, and particularly from one Objective, (1) S M E e v a l u a t i o n
to another.
In the 1994-99 programming period, the SME sector will haveSecondly, there is a general tendency for women to be under-benefited directly from approximately EUR 21 billion spentrepresented in ESF measures.under Objectives 1, 2, 5(b) and 6. The evaluation concludes
that Structural Fund support has had a beneficial impact onSMEs.Lastly, the catalysing effect of Community assistance is a
constant feature carried over from the preceding period.
According to the report, case-study evidence points to the
value of financial engineering measures as a successful andsustainable form of assistance, although the introduction of(5) P a r t n e r s h i psuch schemes will be a longer term prospect in some regions
where the financial services sector is currently weak.
The Committee notes that partnership has also made a major
contribution to the management and implementation phase
The evaluation identifies a need for improved targeting of by bringing greater transparency, heightening the visibility of
assistance, while also highlighting the value of vertical and measures, improving organisational coordination and provid-
horizontal networks of SMEs, and the gains to be had from ing a degree of innovation and flexibility.
involving private-sector partners in programme adminis-
tration. The Committee would underscore the point made in
the report that whilst in general a more commercial approach However, its role should be strengthened with regard to the
transfer of good practice, monitoring and evaluation systems to SME assistance is recommended, this must be sensitive to
particular regional or sub-regional circumstances. and efficiency of programme management.
C 226/76 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Lastly, the report notes that a variety of forms and structures 4.18. The report states that the Committee has expressed
its support for the Commission’s strategic guidelines for of partnership can complicate management, but that this
problem could be overcome by introducing a single partner- regions whose development is lagging behind, and that it
welcomed with interest the integrated approach proposed for ship structure for each programme and distinguishing between
the roles of the various partners and their capacity to influence the new Objective 2, notwithstanding some doubts about the
eligibility criteria. decisions during each programming phase.
4.19. The annual report also mentions that the COR hasD. Financial control — ESF, ERDF, EAGGF — Guidanceasked for the partnership to be strengthened to help regional
and local authorities.
4.14. The main findings of the ESF visits were:
— failure to comply with the regulatory requirements on 4.20. On the other hand, the report states that while the
publicising measures; COR welcomed the Commission’s communication on urban
issues, it also invited the Commission to draw up an urban
policy that would complement those of the Member States.— too few — or no — inspections of part-financed measures;
— lack of transparency in programme selection criteria;
4.21. Lastly, turning to agricultural matters, the report
mentions the Committee’s opinion on the proposed regulation— failure to comply with the deadlines laid down foron support for rural development through the EAGGF. Thistransferring advances and payments to beneficiaries.opinion, which was adopted on 14 January 1999, stressed the
importance of the targets set in the proposal and supported its
principles. However, it had doubts about whether the goals of4.15. The points most frequently noted on the ERDF visitsrural development policy as defined at the Cork Conferencewere:could be achieved and drew attention to the inadequate finance
available, the failure to define the criteria for economic
viability, the inadequate account taken of the integrated — difficulties in identifying declared expenditure in the
approach and the lack of detail on the role of the regional and accounting systems for final beneficiaries;
local authorities in the partnership.
— failure to comply with the Community Directives on
public procurement;
— audit trail deficiencies which made it difficult to monitor
financial flows between the Community budget and final5.Conclusionbeneficiaries.
4.16. The EAGGF-Guidance Section visits detected:5.1. One major feature of 1997 and 1998 was the clearing
of the backlog which had arisen at the beginning of theperiod in implementing appropriations. Overall, programme — deficiencies in the management and inspection system;
implementation now appears satisfactory.
— part-financing of ineligible expenditure;
5.2. It should be noted, for both years, that the Union’s least — unlawful deductions;
prosperous Member States — the funds’ main beneficiaries —
generally registered the best implementation rates, in particular
— administrative errors resulting from overestimation of under Objective 1: Spain, Portugal and Ireland.
expenditure declared to the Commission.
5.3. The implementation situation for Community initiat-
ives (CI) is quite different as there are a number of delays. E.Dialogue with the Committee of the Regions
These are often the result either of the late approval of
programmes (many of which were adopted in 1996 and 1997following the allocation of the reserve), or of the specific 4.17. With regard to the future of the Structural Funds, the
report notes that COR opinions stress the importance of nature of certain CIs, for instance the partnership in Urban
and Interreg II, or the highly specialised and innovative economic and social cohesion as a pillar of integration and
solidarity in Europe. measures under the SMEs Community Initiative.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/77 Official Journal of the European Communities
5.4. Structural Fund action therefore fits into a framework — small-scale infrastructure, and infrastructure to support
small businesses; of diversification, innovation, employment and competi-
tiveness. With safeguarding and creating jobs the absolute
priority, partnership between the regions, cities and munici-— assistance for creating and safeguarding small firms thatpalities must be part of a local economy which spawnsare an integral part of the local economic fabric;sustainable local employment, and preferably generates value
added.
— promoting research and innovation within small busi-
nesses, and networking between small firms;
5.5. In its discussion of the 1997 report, the Committee of
the Regions felt that it would be useful to illustrate Structural— targeted training schemes for both managers andFund action for SMEs. The financing is divided among a vastemployees of businesses;range of measures directly targeting SMEs. The most important
include:
— developing tourism resources using local potential;
— aid for capital investment through direct grants or financial
— local development of agricultural and fishery resources; engineering measures;
— part-financing of business start-up areas;5.9. Alongside the main theme of local development, the
past year’s Structural Funds activities in support of economic
and social cohesion can be summarised under four broad — training, including management training;
headings:
— advice and information services;
— Adoption of the remaining programmes
— measures to promote RTD;— Acceleration of financial execution
— measures relating to the information society;— Increased attention to priority themes
— assistance for internationalisation through innovative— Preparations for the 2000-2006 programming periodmeasures, such as Europartenariat and Recite II, which are
intended to promote transnational commercial cooper-
ation among small firms or the SMEs Community Initiative.5.10. The Committee is pleased to note that greater
efficiency in the way the Funds are used will be sought,principally by encouraging wider use of instruments based on5.6. SMEs are gradually emerging as a structural policyfinancial levers (guarantees, capital holdings and repayablepriority, and this is reflected in the greater financial resourcesgrants), with variations in the maximum rates of assistance.provided by the most recent programming documents.This will help increase the impact of the Structural Funds on
economic and social structures and make the Union’s regions
and firms, particularly small firms, more competitive.5.7. The 1998 report focuses almost entirely on awareness
and strengthening of the concept of local development. Over
recent years this concept has become a fully-fledged political5.11. The Committee would also highlight the 1998philosophy. Although local development is not a priority asreport’s attention to the fact that unemployment in the Unionsuch at Community level, many recent decisions have takenas a whole stood at around 10 % at the end of 1998, despitegreater account of the territorial dimension of structuralthe economic upturn. Furthermore, it was very unevenlypolicies.spread over the regions. It is therefore important to be aware
that a high rate of regional unemployment leads to social
exclusion, which makes unemployment more resistant to an5.8. The Committee would stress the abiding importanceimprovement in the economy. A solution to this situationgiven to local development in the various strands of therequires an integrated strategy combining measures to improveStructural Funds, and welcomes the fact that this seems to bethe regional economic base with measures to improve accessthe chosen direction for the coming years. The Committeeto the labour market.notes that although it is difficult to quantify the proportion of
local development schemes across all programmes, taking alltypes of operation together it is estimated that in the current5.12. The Committee highlights the Commission’s com-programming period they account for about 10 % of overallments on the interim evaluations conducted during 1998. Theassistance from the Funds. Furthermore, it is estimated thatannual report makes five major points:local development accounts for about 15 % of Community
finance in areas eligible under Objective 2. The Committee
would stress that these measures are found under all the — regarding SMEs, the evaluation identified a need for
improved targeting of assistance, particularly through the objectives, as listed in the annual report:
C 226/78 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
creation of specialised intermediaries, preferably organised thermore, it should be noted that a variety of forms and
structures of partnership could complicate management. on a decentralised ‘one-stop shop’ basis;
5.13. The Committee of the Regions would also like to
— on the subject of RTD, the evaluations favoured a clearer make the following points:
shift towards measures focusing on innovation, quality of
— it hopes to see a strengthening of partnerships with local human resources, and networking of players, in particular
authorities; SMEs, at transregional and transnational level;
— it calls for the development of an urban policy to
complement the policies conducted by the Member States; — as regards the environment, the ex ante evaluation of
future programmes should include an analysis of regional— it is doubtful as to the chances of reaching the ruralstrengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, address-development objectives defined at the Cork conference,ing both environmental and economic issues;owing in particular to insufficient financial resources, the
failure to define criteria for economic viability, inadequateattention to the integrated approach and a lack of detail — attention must be drawn to the general tendency for
regarding the role of local and regional authorities in the women to be under-represented in ESF measures;
partnership.
5.14. Finally, the Committee would end its opinion by — the role of partnership should be strengthened with regard
to the transfer of good practice, monitoring and evaluation reiterating its strong support for all measures that confirm the
need to further local development. systems and efficiency of programme management. Fur-
Brussels, 13 April 2000.
The President
of the Committee of the Regions
Jos CHABERT