COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 03.07.19% 
C()M(%) 116 final 
COMMUNICATION OF THE COMMISSION 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATTON OF E.U. REGIONAL POLICIES 
IN AUSTRIA, FINLAND AND SWEDEN 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction 
2. Starting up Structural Fund actions 
Financial allocations 
* Definition of eligible areas 
Submission and approval of SPDs and Community Initiatives 
3. The implementation of Union regional policy 
Approval of programmes: 
Organisation of the implementation 
* Relevance and visibility of actions 
4. The added value resulting from the introduction of the Structural Funds Page 
3 
3 
3 
4 
4 
5 
5 
8 
9 
10 
Annex 1 : Adoption of Regional Development Programmes in the New Member States 
Annex 2: Submission and approval of SPDs and Community Initiatives 
Annex 3: Community Initiatives 
Annex 4: Dialogue and Regional Partnership 
Annex 5: Expenditure structure of SPDs according to standard classification 
\&, 
COMMUNICATION OF THE COMMISSION 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF E.U. REGIONAL POLICIES 
IN AUSTRIA. FINLAND AND SWEDEN 
1. INTRODUCTION. 
This Communication concerns the implementation of E.U. regional policy in Austria, Finland, 
and Sweden (i.e. Objectives 1, 2 and 6 and Community initiatives) from January 1995 to May 
1996. It complements a Communication adopted by the Commission last year relating to the 
other twelve Member States*. 
A detailed presentation of the funding decisions taken in the period covered by this 
Communication is given in Annex 1. The Communication reports on the start-up of Structural 
Fund actions in the new Member States, and on the added value of Structural Fund interventions 
in those countries. 
2. STARTING UP STRUCTURAL FUND ACTIONS 
Structural Fund measures are one of the most tangible and visible benefits of Union membership. 
That is why it was felt to be important that Fund assistance should become a, reality for citizens 
and companies in assisted areas as soon as possible. 
Council Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 amended by Council Regulation (EEC) 3193/94 provided 
that eligibility for assistance from the Structural Funds could be backdated to 1 January 1995 
provided that funding proposals were submitted before the 30 April 1995. It was desirable that 
this deadline should be met wherever possible. 
A great deal of preparatory work had been done prior to Accession by the administrations 
concerned, and assistance had been provided by the Commission's services through a series of 
workshops, seminars and other training support. This effort gathered pace especially after the 
référendums in each of the countries concerned. 
Financial allocations 
In January 1995, the Commission decided the allocation of Structural Funds between Objectives 
2 to 5(b)2 - the Act of Accession having already determined the total amount for each of the new 
Member States and within that the allocation for Objectives 1 and 6. In the case of Finland, it 
was made clear in that decision that the allocation for Objective 2 for the whole period could be 
reviewed. 
1 COM(95) 111 final, 29.3.1995. 
2 SEC(95) 28/3, 14.1.1995. 
Subsequently minor adjustments were made by the Commission to the initial allocations in 
Sweden and in Finland, in favour of Objective 6 areas-*, at the request of the Member States 
concerned. 
Definition of eligible areas 
The Act of Accession determined the geographical delimitation of assisted areas for Objectives 1 
and 6. In February and May 1995, the Commission adopted decisions determining areas to be 
covered under Objectives 2 and 5(b)^. Finland chose to limit the duration of the decision for 
Objective 2 areas to the period 1995-96. The other new Member States took up the opportunity 
offered by Council Regulation (EEC) 4253/88 for all programmes to be approved for the whole 
period from 1995-99. Finland's choice resulted from a desire to keep a margin of flexibility in the 
allocation of resources between Objectives. 
Submission and approval of SPDs and Community Initiatives 
All three new Member States chose to submit single programming documents for Objectives. In 
the case of Finland, in view of the exceptionally small populations of assisted areas, the similarity 
of the problems encountered, and the need to avoid excessive administrative complication, it was 
agreed that one Single Programming Document could be adopted for the Objective 2 areas as a 
whole and one for the Objective 6 areas as a whole. For the same reasons one Single Planning 
Document was adopted for the Objective 6 areas as a whole in Sweden. On the other hand, 
separate Single Programming Documents were adopted for each individual Objective 2 area in 
Sweden and in Austria. 
The dates of submission and of approval of SPDs and Community Initiatives are given in the 
tables at Annex 2. As can be seen in these tables, almost all Objective SPDs were submitted 
before the end of April 1995. The somewhat slower timetable for Sweden (Objective 2) reflects a 
decision by the Swedish authorities to await the results of the Referendum and General Election 
before launching preparatory work on a scale comparable to the effort already under way in the 
two other Member States concerned. 
Progress in adopting the SPDs released national and Commission staff resources to deal with 
Community initiatives*, but discussions on decentralised and simplified implementation 
arrangements have prolonged the time taken to approve certain INTERREG programmes in 
Finland and Sweden. Similar discussions are under way regarding URBAN. 
3 COM(95) 123 final/2, 12.5.1995. 
4 OJ No L 51, 22.2.1995 for Austria and Finland and OJ No L 123, 10.5.1995 for Sweden. 
5 Further details on the content of the above-mentioned Community initiatives are given in 
Annex 2. 
3. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF UNION REGIONAL POLICY 
The implementation of Union regional policy requires:- (a) the definition of national development-
related expenditure and setting the base line for monitoring additionality, (b) the approval of EU 
funding proposals, (c) the setting up and practical application of a partnership system for the 
management of EU credits and associated national and regional credits, and (d) ensuring that 
actions are seen to be relevant to their needs and to be effective by citizens and companies in the 
assisted areas, and by politicians and representatives of the social partners. 
The first of these issues (additionality) has been dealt with in a manner closely comparable to the 
approach followed for all other Member States. In the same way, comparable treatment is 
emphasised for the remaining three issues, but some specific aspects do arise in relation to the 
new Member States , as is explained below: 
3.1 Approval of programmes 
The approval of funding proposals generally involves a clarification of development priorities, 
and of the organisation and content of individual measures and of the eligibility of actions. This 
task in itself can require, on occasion, quite extensive redrafting of the initial proposals, and can 
be relatively time-consuming. 
But the adoption of the funding proposals was also the occasion for a policy debate with each of 
the three Member States, which can be summarised in schematic terms as follows: 
Austria1 
The definition by the Union of assisted areas under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) and the consequences 
that had for state aid intensities in particular in conformity with the Union's competition policy, 
widened differences of treatment between areas in the Austrian territory. 
The Union's regional policy aims to create or attract jobs to the areas where the less favoured 
population lives. In contrast, Austrian regional policy takes account also of the contribution that 
access to jobs created or maintained outside the assisted area can have. 
For these reasons, the high levels of assistance accorded to Burgenland as an Objective 1 area, 
and the new locational advantage of the region as a result of the comparatively high levels of aid 
to businesses that became possible, were a new factor in Austrian regional policy. 
Other points were: 
- the quantification of development targets, in particular job creation. The Austrian authorities 
wished to avoid a mechanistic or simplistic approach to the evaluation of results obtained, 
without denying the need to set precise goals; 
a focus on job creation, especially through S M Es. The Austrian authorities stressed that it is 
also important to maintain quality jobs where possible, including in larger companies. In their 
view, the scope for job creation through SMEs in assisted areas risked being overstated; 
the integration of labour market policy with other development action - the Commission urged 
a stronger focus on retraining those in work, and on the special problems of women; 
the complexity of the aid system for business in Austria. It was agreed that possible 
simplification and concentration of action should be examined in a mid-term review of 
regional action, on the basis of an initial experience. In the negotiation, the Commission 
sought to obtain the agreement of the Austrian authorities to a concentration on a limited 
number of priority project selection criteria, and to a clarification of co-ordination procedures 
and responsibilities; 
the accent put on 'regional management' structures in the regions - new structures directly 
linked to EU programmes designed to stimulate and animate project ideas on the ground are 
proposed by the Austrian authorities in the majority of programmes, implying comparatively 
large allocations of EU funds to technical assistance. 
Finland 
Accession to the Union in Finland took place in parallel with an important reform in regional 
government organisation and regional policy methods. Indeed these changes had been introduced 
in part in anticipation of the introduction of structural funding, and the approval and 
implementation of EU-cofinanced actions is the practical test of these new arrangements. 
As regards Objective 6 regions, the Finnish authorities proposed measures both for economic 
development and job creation, and social action for maintaining viable settlements in sparsely 
populated areas. The Commission, without wishing to make a sharp distinction between these two 
complementary types of action, nevertheless sought to strengthen the emphasis on the former -
economic development and job creation - as a means to the same end. 
Naturally, it was necessary to take account of the results of the Accession negotiations, in 
particular concerning the payment of compensatory allowances to farmers under Objective 5(a). 
For this reason, the share of Objective 5(a)-typc actions in the Objective 6 SPD is very high. 
Despite an very low co-financing rate, in some regions within the Objective 6 area this left little 
scope for the funding of general economic development actions, including other 5(a)-type 
measures, even though some rebalancing was agreed in the course of negotiations prior to the 
approval of the SPD. This problem has since been alleviated by increased national funding. 
It was also agreed: 
- to strengthen action related to information society applications and to reduce conventional 
infrastructure investment. This was also agreed for the Objective 2 SPD, with increased 
emphasis on encouraging international networking of SMEs, 
- to adopt an integrated package of rural policy actions with special arrangements for their 
implementation at a local level; in general to broaden the range of measures supporting the 
maintenance of population in rural areas and promoting development in addition to direct 
income support; 
- to strengthen training actions in particular those related to the specific development goals of 
the programme. There was only limited scope for co-financing Objective 3-type actions in 
Objective 6 areas in view of overall resource constraints. 
For both Objective 6 and Objective 2 SPDs, it was also agreed to strengthen the quantification of 
development aims and base-lines from which progress could be measured. 
Sweden 
In Sweden, the discussion mainly concerned how to focus the programmes better on job creation 
and enterprise especially in the private sector, and how to define more precisely the types of 
action to be funded. In parallel with Accession, new directions were introduced into Swedish 
regional policy, with greater emphasis on making the best of the productive potential of each 
area. Proposals coming up from the grassroots level needed some adjustment to reflect better 
these changes in national policy guidelines (which fitted well with EU policy guidelines also). 
The Swedish authorities proposed an ambitious quantification of development goals. 
As regards the Objective 6 area more particularly, 
- an innovative feature of the Swedish proposals is that a part of the county allocation should be 
determined by competitive bid. The practical organisation of this system is now being 
defined; 
- the proposal to establish a new Centre for Space and Environment Research in Kiruna is an 
important project to provide for the long-term viability of this settlement by continuing 
diversification into space-related activities, with a potential to stimulate in the local economy a 
new generation of commercial activities in related sectors. 
As regards Objective 2, a special feature in the Swedish approach has been the decision to 
concentrate on innovative forms of indirect support to SMEs, with a very limited place for the co-
financing of the continuation of existing policies, in particular direct aids to enterprises. A strong 
emphasis is placed on the promotion of networking activities of SMEs, both within their 
respective regions (co-operation with other local companies and with regional knowledge centres) 
and internationally. 
A feature of all Swedish development programmes is the strong emphasis on: 
- equality of opportunity and environmentally sustainable development, which are both 
horizontal themes and which are as such reflected in the specification of the programme as a 
whole; 
- information society applications - both in terms of measures specifically addressed to this 
theme, and as a method of work for the implementation of many other actions. 
3.2 Organisation of the implementation 
Turning now to the management of EU credits, the Commission has sought an in-depth 
discussion with the national and regional administrations of each of the new Member States on 
the main characteristics of the management system envisaged and its conformity with regulatory 
requirements, and the standard clauses attached to funding proposals. 
For this purpose, temporary working groups on organisational matters were set up in Sweden and 
Finland, bringing together the national and regional administrations with the Commission's 
services to review systematically all the main aspects of the implementation arrangements. The 
Monitoring Committees in these two Member States will have available to them a full report, and 
the opportunity to verify that the arrangements are comprehensive and sound, and that 
appropriate arrangements are being made to inform all those involved at every level. The 
Austrian authorities considered that it was not necessary to set up a formal group. They 
preferred a question and answer method whenever clarification of the standard clauses attached to 
the SPDs was required. In the case of Austria, Monitoring Committees are informed of 
implementation arrangements agreed by ôsterreichische Raumordnungkonferenz (ÔRÔK), 
especially as regards financial monitoring, evaluation procedures, publicity arrangements and the 
management of technical assistance credits. 
In tjie course of these discussions, a number of concerns have been expressed by all three 
Member States: 
- the need to simplify administration as much as possible given the small size and limited 
resources of the national and regional administrations involved; 
- the need for greater clarity on eligibility rules. At the same time, the need for flexibility 
reflecting the specific characteristics of each Member State - for example the characteristics 
of the public service in Sweden; 
- the need for the Commission to improve internal co-ordination between services particularly 
as regards the specification of monitoring, evaluation and financial reporting requirements. 
For its part, the Commission has also been concerned that financial flows should be clearly 
defined and as simple and rapid in operation as possible. Equally the Commission has sought to 
satisfy itself that project selection procedures take account of the specific aims of SPD measures 
and, more particularly, the project selection criteria laid down in the SPD. Finally the 
Commission has been concerned to ensure the transparency (ex post) of funding decisions, by 
ensuring the availability of appropriate data through the monitoring system or in other ways. 
Sweden and Finland have agreed to work towards establishing in 1996 capabilities for the on-line 
exchange of electronic data including monitoring information. In Austria, a priority is given to 
establishing better internal networking capabilities within the Austrian public administration, but 
links to the Commission's services are also envisaged and should be operational already for the 
ESF in 1996. 
3.3 Relevance and visibility of actions 
As regards the relevance and visibility of EU credits to final beneficiaries (especially citizens and 
SMEs), the Commission and the national and regional administrations have reviewed publicity 
arrangements and support for project promoters, and the definition of project submission 
procedures (open call or other methods). The Commission has pressed for a wider use of open 
calls for projects. 
Partnership 
The Commission has made constant efforts to encourage the full involvement of local and 
regional partners in implementation. It has equally encouraged a reflection on the involvement of 
elected representatives at every level, not only in programme definition but also in the strategic 
guidance of programme implementation. It has also encouraged the involvement of the social 
partners as members of the Monitoring Committees. This has been accepted without difficulty in 
all three of the new Member States, since it reflects the established institutional practice in all of 
those countries. A more extensive description of partnership arrangements is given in Annex 4. 
Visibility 
Particular attention needs to be given to the visibility of the Structural Funds to SMEs, since 
these play a key role in job creation. Typically, existing aid schemes are used in conjunction with 
EU structural funding, although in Sweden a particular emphasis is placed on innovative actions. 
Elsewhere also, new schemes are established (for example for INTERREG in Austria). The 
visibility of the Structural Funds is most evident for new schemes, since special application 
procedures are then needed. 
When Structural Funds co-finance existing aid schemes, visibility depends on it being possible to 
explain clearly the advantage to SMEs that results. This could be different criteria (or a more 
focused set of criteria); it could be a more simple and transparent, more equitable, or more rapid 
project selection procedure; it could be higher rates of grant; it could be new categories of eligible 
expenditure (clean technologies for example) or it could be simply the possibility to support more 
projects and more firms because of a larger budget for assistance in assisted areas. If, however, 
there is no perceptible difference on any of these grounds to SMEs, it is unlikely to be effective to 
mention on the application form or on the letter granting assistance that EU co-financing is 
involved. This concern is most acute in situations where the introduction of Structural Funding 
does not coincide with any changes to the established aid system, particularly if the EU assistance 
is spread across a large number of schemes with the result that even the budget effect is very 
limited in the majority of cases. 
It is still very early to draw conclusions, but, at least potentially, the visibility of EU assistance to 
SMEs is likely to be good in Sweden and also in Finland (perhaps to a lesser extent). In Austria, 
the difficulty has been and remains that no change to the existing aid system, which involves a 
very large number of schemes, is presently foreseen by the Austrian authorities, although a 
concentration of aid schemes is on the political agenda. 
THE ADDED VALUE RESULTING FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF THE 
STRUCTURAL FUNDS 
The introduction of the Structural Funds in the three new Member States is a unique opportunity 
to test the added value of Structural Funds in relatively prosperous Member States. Although it 
is always difficult to disentangle policy changes that resulted from the introduction of the 
Structural Funds from those that would have happened anyway, the issues that have arisen in the 
negotiation of funding decisions and implementation systems are a clear pointer. 
In this concluding section however, some further considerations can be highlighted. The first and 
perhaps the most important of all is the attitude of the national and regional administration. If 
there is a positive agenda for change in national regional policy, the movement and adjustment 
created by the introduction of the Structural Funds can help carry that agenda forward. In both 
Finland and Sweden, this appears to be the impression generally held. In the case of Austria, the 
strong emphasis on the geographical concentration of state aids, and the differential in aid levels 
between Objective 1 areas (Burgenland) and other areas has given rise to some criticism. The EU 
is said to focus too much on problem regions, whereas national Austrian policy was aiming to 
address structural problems across the whole territory. 
Beyond those general considerations, the introduction of the Structural Funds has undoubtedly 
had some important effects. 
Firstly, the precise definition of the concept of development expenditure within the national 
budget combined with the principle of additionality, gives a privileged position to cohesion 
policies at a time of general budgetary rigour. It shields cohesion policies for the duration of the 
programming period from cutbacks required for economic convergence. It makes it possible to 
discuss in operational ways the combination of cohesion and convergence goals. 
Secondly, in all three new Member States, the introduction of the Structural Funds has been the 
occasion for a detailed review of partnership arrangements. In Finland and Sweden there has 
undoubtedly been some move towards further decentralisation of the management of structural 
adjustment as a result. In all three Member States, the quality of the dialogue within the 
administration and with the social partners has been further strengthened. Again, in all three 
Member States, the introduction of the Structural Funds has created pressure for better and more 
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of the development effects of public expenditure. In 
general the transparency of the use of public finance is increased, and the need to show results in 
ways understandable to the general public is more strongly felt. Over time, the benefits in terms 
of the quality and effectiveness of development projects funded should become apparent. 
Thirdly, structural funding has undoubtedly influenced the national and regional agenda of 
structural adjustment policies in the three new Member States. It has done so both through the 
SPDs and through Community initiatives and Article 10 pilot actions, which latter especially 
serve to focus attention on issues of special importance for the Union. A special mention should 
be given to the benefits in terms of a widening of horizons within the Member States but 
especially with other Member States and, through the combination of INTERREG, 
ECOS/OUVERTURE and PHARE and TACIS programmes, with neighbouring third countries. 
The co-operation between INTERREG and PHARE programmes in particular can be seen as an 
element in the pre-accession strategy vis-à-vis countries which are candidates for future 
enlargement. 
The expected contribution to the building of democracy and new economic structures in the Baltic 
Sea Region and in areas of Russia bordering the Union represent an important opportunity. In a 
modest but still significant way, this contributes to building a better understanding and a sense of 
a community of interest. 
This widening of horizons may yet bring another benefit, namely the transfer of know-how from 
the three new Member States tor other assisted regions especially in the Union. The Accession of 
the three new Member States brought into the Union three countries with much to offer in this 
respect, whether in terms of open government partnership arrangements, the mastery of 
technology, modern labour market policies, or the reform of public services - the list is far from 
exhaustive. These potential benefits are not yet fully exploited, but networks of co-operation are 
growing very rapidly both within the framework of Structural Fund assistance and outside. 
10 
ANNEX 1 
ADOPTION OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES 
IN THE NEW MEMBER STATES 
ADOPTION OF THE SINGLE PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTS 
1. Objective 1: Burgenland (Austria) 
The Burgenland region of Austria is the only Objective 1 region in the three new Member 
States. In 1995, the average GDP of this region which borders three Central European 
countries was some 70% of the EU average. Its population of 270 000 inhabitants lives in 
a predominantly rural area with a surface of 4 000 km2. 
The Single Programming Document, submitted to the Commission on 20 April 1995 was 
adopted on 15 November 1995. It provides for a Structural Fund contribution of ECU 
165.6 million towards a total programme cost of ECU 831 million. 
Table 1. Objective J Burgenland: EU contribution by Fund 
1995 prices 
Trade and Industry 
Research and Development 
Tourism 
Agriculture and Environment 
Promotion of growth and stability 
in employment 
Technical assistance 
Total Total cost 
Ecu million 
56.8 
15.5 
38.7 
24.2 
26.3 
4.1 
165.6 ERDF 
Ecu million 
53.8 
12.5 
38.7 
0.7 
2.0 
107.6 ESF 
Ecu million 
3.0 
3.0 
25.6 
1.5 
33.1 EAGGF 
Ecu million 
24.2 
0.6 
24.8 
Table 2: Objective J Burgenland: EU, national public and private contributions 
1995 prices 
Trade and Industry 
Research and Development 
Tourism 
Agriculture and Environment 
Promotion of growth and 
stability in employment 
Technical assistance 
Total Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
360.9 
82.6 
191.5 
125.0 
63.0 
8.4 
831.4 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
56.8 
12.5 
38.7 
24.2 
26.3 
4.1 
165.6 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
114.4 
26.9 
63.2 
48.2 
26.8 
4.2 
283.6 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
187.7 
40.2 
89.6 
52.6 
10.0 
382.1 
S}1 
The overall goals of the development programme are : 
(i) to create a central European region with a strong dynamic in industry, commerce, 
tourism and agriculture; 
(ii) to narrow internal economic disparities, providing for a more homogeneous quality 
of life throughout Burgenland. 
A number of interesting general themes run through the programme : 
special attention is given to increasing job opportunities for women, for poorly 
qualified and young people in mainly rural areas as an essential contribution to 
maintaining the population and reducing the need for commuting; 
actions to train and upgrade of the local workforce are aimed at meeting the 
requirements of the local economy (training for SME entrepreneurs, in technology, 
and for promoting local economic development); 
care for the unique environment;. 
Internationalisation, co-operation and networking, reflecting Burgenland's 
geographical situation and co-operation with Hungary and other CEEC countries 
_..J 
The opportunities provided by the new situation in central Europe and by Austria's 
membership of the Union should be fully exploited to obtain a 'leap forward' in economic 
and social development between 1995 and 1999. In this respect, external growth 
potentials in surrounding countries and regions of Austria should have a strongly 
favourable effect on prospects for north and central Burgenland. However, south 
Burgenland does not benefit from the same degree of external stimulus, and must rely on a 
special effort to develop indigenous potential (mainly Spa tourism), while taking every 
possible advantage of cross-border co-operation. 
As a result of the measures funded under this programme, 7 300 new jobs will be created 
of which 6 000 in industry, 1000 in technology related SMEs and another 300 in 
technological centres. 
The programme will be implemented in a partnership involving the Commission, the 
Federal Government, and the Lander and local authorities comprising all local interests, 
including the social partners. A Monitoring Committee has been set up. It held its first 
meeting in January 1996. 
2. Objective 2 
2.1 List of Objective 2 areas in Austria, Finland and Sweden 
The Commission, in accordance with the regulations governing the Structural Funds and 
with the provisions laid down in the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, 
Wl 
adopted on 22 February 1995* and on 10 May 1995^, after receiving the unanimous 
approval of the Advisory Committee for the Development and Conversion of Regions, the 
list of areas eligible under Objective 2 in the three new Member States. Summary statistics 
for the Objective 2 areas in the three new Member States are given below: 
Table 3: Key statistics for the Objective 2 regions in the new Member States 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden Number of 
Objective 2 
regions 
4 
6 
5 Total population 
in Objective 2 
regions 
640 000 (8%) 
790 000 (15%) 
970 000 (11%) Total surface 
of Objective 2 
regions 
8 692 km2 (10 %) 
17 000 km2 (5%) 
35 325 km2 (8%) 
Figures in brackets represent the percentage share in the national total (national 
population and total surface of the country concerned) 
2.2 Austria 
The Austrian authorities submitted proposals for the four Austrian Objective 2 regions on 
26 April 1995. The SPDs for Steiermark, Niederôsterreich, Oberôsterreich and 
Vorarlberg (total population 640 000) were approved by the Commission on 15 
November 1995. The programmes cover the period 1995-1999. The total cost of these 
programmes is some ECU 816 million, of which the Structural Funds will contribute 
ECU 101 million. 
The SPDs are based on the strategy to modernise and diversify the economy of the four 
regions concerned which were hit by the rapid decline in the metal and steel sector and in 
the textile industry. Emphasis is placed on the creation of new enterprises and on the 
strengthening of existing enterprises (and of SMEs in particular) by developing new 
technological competence in the regions. About 60% of the resources available will be 
used for the strengthening of crafts and industry and related technological competence; 
30% is allocated to measures to upgrade human resources with a further 7% for the 
development and promotion of tourism. 
As a result of the actions financed under the four SPDs, it is estimated that some 11 000 
jobs can be created or maintained in the regions concerned. 
The protection of environment is an integral part of the SPDs. Positive effects on the 
environment are expected from the support to encourage the introduction of clean 
technologies and the use of alternative energy sources. Special measures to facilitate the 
re-integration of women in the labour market are foreseen in particular in Nieder- and 
Oberôsterreich. Assistance will also be provided to strengthen and set up regional 
management structures. These could support the development and launching of innovative 
project ideas and the co-ordination of regional development efforts. 
1 OJ No L 51, 08.03.1995 
2 OJ No L 123,03.06.1995 
H 
The programme will be implemented in a partnership involving the Commission, the 
Federal Government, and the Lander and local authorities comprising all local interests, 
including the social partners. Four Monitoring Committees have been set up, one for each 
SPD. They have held their first meeting in February 1996. 
Table 4: Objective 2 Austria: EU contribution by Fund 
1995 prices 
Steiermark 
Niederôsterreich 
Oberôsterreich 
Vorarlberg 
Total Total cost 
Ecu million 
463.399 
199.162 
66.987 
86.562 
816.110 ERDF 
Ecu million 
38.770 
17.931 
7.143 
6.402 
70.246 ESF 
Ecu million 
19.200 
4.481 
3.614 
3.459 
30.754 
Table 5: Objective 2 Austria: EU, national, public and private contributions 
1995 prices 
Steiermark 
Niederôsterreich 
Oberôsterreich 
Vorarlberg 
Total Total cost 
Ecu million 
463.399 
199.162 
66.987 
86.562 
816.110 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
57.970 
22.412 
10.757 
9.861 
101.000 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
123.739 
33.730 
18.708 
11.993 
188.170 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
281.690 
143.020 
37.522 
64.708 
526.940 
2.3 Finland 
Six industrial areas were selected for assistance under Objective 2 in Finland for the years 
1995 and 1996. Three are located on the coast (parts of the regions of Satakunta and 
Varsinais Suomi on the west coast, of Ità-Uusimaa and Kymenlaakso on the eastern Gulf 
of Finland coast and Kokkola on the north-west coast) and three inland in the regions of 
Pâijât-Hàme (Lahti), Central Finland (Jyvâskylâ) and South Karelia (Lappeenranta). 
Altogether around 790 000 people live in these areas, about 15.5% of the country's 
population. The main problem of the areas is high unemployment, due to structural change 
and steady job losses in the main industries, which are dominated by large, export-oriented 
companies in the forestry products, metals and chemicals sectors. The structural decline in 
employment in these industries was accelerated by the collapse of the Russian trade after 
1990. In 1994 the average unemployment rate in the areas stood ar. 23%, compared with a 
national average of 20%. 
Dependence on a few large employers is identified as a key weakness of the areas. Hence 
the accent of the programme is on diversification and development of small and medium-
sized enterprises. In addition to helping the start-up of new businesses, the programme 
encourages the development of existing small and medium-sized f.rms through investment, 
r<< 
research and product development, and improvement of skills in technology and 
marketing. Training and networking with other SMEs or larger firms (cluster 
development) is therefore prominent. Finally, the programme aims to help develop the role 
of Finland as a "gateway" to Russia and the Baltic States, especially through selected 
investments in ports used in the transit trade. 
The programme was presented to the Commission on 8 March 1995 and approved on 
11 July 1995. It is divided into three parts, business development, skills and technology, 
and environment, infrastructure and tourism. The EU is contributing ECU 69.2 million to 
the programme, which will involve total expenditure of ECU 283 million. 
The breakdown by EU Fund is as follows: 
ERDF. 
ESF: 55.2 
14.0 79.8% 
20.2% 
The breakdown by sector and fund is shown below. 
Table 6: Objective 2 Finland: EU, national public and private contribution 
1995 prices 
Business development 
Skills and technology 
Environment, infrastructure 
and tourism 
Technical assistance 
Total Total cost 
Ecu million 
172.8 
45.6 
61.8 
2.8 
283.0 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
36.6 
16.3 
14.9 
1.4 
69.2 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
49.4 
20.1 
37.0 
1.4 
107.9 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
86.8 
9.2 
9.9 
105.9 
The Finnish authorities have set the following objectives for the programme : 
a net increase of around 10 000 in the number of jobs in manufacturing and services 
in the areas; 
a reduction in the local unemployment rate in line with the national average; 
a 3% increase in the number of SMEs; 
a 3% increase in the number of SMEs engaged in exporting. 
Management of the programme is divided between the regions and the central 
administration. Each area has adopted its own programme, which it implements in 
accordance with a common framework of procedures and selection criteria through a 
regional management committee composed of representatives of the region, the district 
offices of the ministries and both sides of industry. For this reason the programme is 
contained in one Single Programming Document with a single national Monitoring 
Committee. Two meetings of the Monitoring Committee were held in September and 
November 1995. 
For 1997-99 a new Objective 2 programme will be submitted. 
/) 
2.4 Sweden 
Proposals for the five Swedish Objective 2 regions were submitted to the Commission on 
16 June 1995. The SPDs for Angermanlandskusten, Bergslagen, Blekinge, Fyrstad and 
Norra Norrlandskusten (total population 970 000) were approved by the Commission on 
the 22 November 1995. The programmes will cover a five-year period 1995-1999. Total 
expenditure under these five SPDs is forecast at around ECU 800 million. The Structural 
Funds will contribute ECU 160 million, the national and regional authorities a further 
ECU 350 million. The private sector contribution is estimated at some ECU 290 million. 
The five Swedish Objective 2 regions are characterised by a high dependency on 
traditional industries (forestry, mining, engineering), dominance of local labour markets by 
one or two major employers, a weak entrepreneurial spirit, outward migration and an 
ageing population. 
The main challenge facing these areas is to create new jobs to replace recent job losses in 
the traditional industrial sectors and expected job losses in the public sector. 
The principal aim of the SPDs is to modernise and diversify the economy as a sound basis 
for job-creation in the private sector. The five programmes focus on improving the 
entrepreneurial climate in the regions concerned and on the strengthening of small and 
medium sized firms in manufacturing and in business services. In addition, the 
programmes aim to develop tourism activities based on the rich cultural heritage and 
beautiful nature of the areas concerned. It is estimated that the implementation of these 
programmes will result in the creation of some 21 000 new jobs. 
To implement the strategic aims of the programmes, priorities focus on entrepreneurship 
and business development, tourism development and human resource development. 
Support will be given to advisory services, networking, research and training activities to 
encourage diversification and help businesses increase their competitiveness and export 
potential. To encourage innovation in SMEs, aid will be made available for networking 
activities between companies, for collaborative actions between companies and knowledge 
centres and for the training of SME staff. Furthermore, efforts will be made to attract 
inward investment (restructuring and clearing up of industrial sites and promotional 
activities). Finally, the programmes will bring support for actions to support the 
development of tourism activities (for example small tourist infrastructures, organisation 
of cultural events which bring to life the rich heritage of the areas, development of new 
attractions.) 
Underlying these priorities are horizontal themes especially the development of 
Information Technology, promotion of equality between men and women, preservation of 
the environment and increasing skills and competences. The main beneficiaries of the 
programs are small and medium sized enterprises, potential entrepreneurs, municipalities, 
various local organisations and educational and R&D establishments. 
The programmes will be implemented in a partnership involving the Commission, central 
government, regional and local authorities comprising all local interests, including the 
social partners. Each programme has a Management Committee reporting to an SPD 
\b 
Monitoring Committee. The five SPD Monitoring Committees held their first meeting in 
December 1995, a second in March 1996 and a third in June 1996. 
Table 7: Objective 2 Sweden: EU contribution by Fund 
1995 prices 
Angermanlandskusten 
Bergslagen 
Blekinge 
Fyrstad 
Norra Norrlandskusten 
Total Total cost 
Ecu million 
89.45 
321.40 
85.81 
145.50 
161.02 
803.18 ERDF 
Ecu million 
14.20 
47.50 
12.30 
19.00 
28.66 
121.66 ESF 
Ecu million 
3.80 
19.50 
2.70 
5.00 
7.34 
38.34 
Table 8: Objective 2 Sweden: EU, national public and private contributions 
1995 prices 
Angermanlandskusten 
Bergslagen 
Blekinge 
Fyrstad 
Norra Norrlandskusten 
Total Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
89.45 
321.40 
85.81 
145.50 
161.02 
803.18 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
18.00 
67.00 
15.00 
24.00 
36.00 
160.00 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
29.45 
150.90 
33.11 
56.00 
83.02 
352.48 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
42.00 
103.50 
37.70 
65.50 
42.00 
290.70 
3. Objective 6 
3.1 Objective 6 areas in Finland and Sweden 
The Accession Treaty introduced a new Objective for the Structural Funds, namely 
Objective 6, the development of the sparsely populated areas. Regions with a population 
density of eight or less inhabitants per square km could qualify for assistance under this 
Objective. The areas eligible for Objective 6 in Finland and in Sweden were laid down in 
Protocol 6 to the Act of Accession. 
Table 9: Key statistics for the Objective 6 regions in Finland and Sweden 
Total population 
in Objective 6 regions Total surface area 
of Objective 6 regions 
Finland 
Sweden 840 000(17%) 
449 000 (5%) 206 000km2 (60%) 
241 640 km2 (49%) 
Figures in brackets represent the percentage share in the national total (national 
population and total surface area of the country concerned) 
it 
3.2 Finland 
The Finnish areas eligible for Objective 6 cover a continuous area consisting of the regions 
of Lapland, Kainuu, North Karelia and South Savo and parts of the regions of Northern 
and Central Ostrobothnia, Northern Savo and Central Finland. Altogether some 840 000 
people, 16.6% of the Finnish population, live in the area which accounts for 60% of the 
surface area of Finland. The population density averages four persons per km2. 
In the Objective 6 area of Finland the increased level of unemployment following the early 
1990s depression has exacerbated the area's traditional problems of a gradual overall 
decline in population and a drift from the countryside to the towns. The area is over 
dependent on the agricultural and forestry sectors and public services. These sectors 
alone are not sufficient to support the population in rural areas. The industrial base is 
unbalanced, with manufacturing concentrated on a few large firms in the forestry 
products, metals and chemicals industries. There are relatively few small and medium-
sized firms. The loss of jobs in public services is affecting women more than men and 
leading to a gender skew. 
The strategy of the Objective 6 programme is to develop the strengths of the areas, 
especially in forestry and wood products, specialised branches of agriculture, metals 
electronics and tourism. A stronger SME base is to be built up through incentives for 
starting up new small businesses both in local manufacturing and private services and for 
training and research and development. Maximum use is also to be made of the 
possibilities offered by new technology, especially in telecommunications, to overcome 
long distances. Because of the importance of agriculture especially for the more southerly 
parts of the area, around a quarter of the programme is to be spent on subsidies to farmers 
under the system of support for agriculture in "less-favoured areas". The programme also 
includes Social Fund measures to help the unemployed and assist in training. The Social 
Fund also finances Information Society projects. 
The programme was submitted to the Commission on 8 March 1995 and approved on 
11 July 1995. In negotiations with the Finnish authorities before the programme was 
adopted, a number of changes to the originally submitted plans were agreed. The EU 
cofinancing rate for "less-favoured-area" payments was reduced to leave more money for 
development. Basic infrastructure projects were dropped and human resources actions, 
including Information Society projects, stepped up. Finally, a number of smaller measures 
were combined into a flexible rural development package which will fund mainly local 
projects in a wide variety of areas, including projects concerning the Sami minority in 
northern Lapland. 
The final programme is made up of three parts: business development, funding business 
start-ups and investment in existing firms, human resources including training and 
counselling for the unemployed, research and Information Society, and agricultures 
forestry, fisheries, rural development and the environment. The EU is contributing 
ECU 459.9 million to the programme, which will involve total expenditure of 
ECU 1326.1 million. The breakdown by sector and fund is shown in the table below. 
r» 
Table 10: Objective 6 Finland: EU, national public and private contributions 
Business development 
Human resources 
Agriculture, forestry, 
fisheries, rural development 
and the environment 
Technical assistance 
Total Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
513.4 
189.8 
604.5 
18.4 
1326.1 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
153.7 
87.9 
209.1 
9.2 
459.9 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
153.7 
87.9 
280.5 
9.2 
513.3 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
106.0 
14.0 
114.9 
234.9 
The breakdown of EU funding is as follows: 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 172.5 
105.8 
177.6 
4.0 37.5% 
23.0% 
38.6% 
0.9% 
The Finnish authorities have set the following objectives for the programme : 
to reduce unemployment in the area by 2.1% and 8 000 unemployed per year (1994 
level 23.8% and 90 600); 
to increase the number of jobs in private services and manufacturing to 135 000 
(1994 level 117 500); 
to reduce the gap between local GDP and the national average by 5 percentage 
points from 20% to 15%. 
Management of the programme is divided between the regions and the central 
administration. Each area has adopted its own programme, which it implements in 
accordance with a common framework of procedures and selection criteria through a 
regional management committee composed of representatives of the region, the district 
offices of the ministries and both sides of industry. For this reason the programme is 
contained in one Single Programming Document with a single Monitoring Committee. 
Four meetings of the Monitoring Committee have been held: in September and November 
1995, in early March and mid-Junel996. 
3.3 Sweden 
The Objective 6 region in Sweden encompasses most of the northern half of the country 
but includes only 5% of the total Swedish population. The Swedish opted for Single 
Programming Document (SPD) approach in drawing-up their plan for the allocation of the 
252 MECUs Structural Funds aid assigned to the region (a further 28 MECUs is available 
to the Objective 6 region from the Community Initiatives budget and Article 10 (ERDF). 
ii 
The plan was presented to the Commission in April 1996 after an extensive consultation 
process within the area. The SPD was eventually approved on 6 November 1995. The 
programme is designed to help overcome the difficulties posed by the regions peripheral 
location, job-losses in traditional industries (e.g. mining) and population imbalances due to 
the migration of women and young people. On the other hand, the region has inherent 
strengths which the programme will build on, a pristine environment, a wealth of natural 
resources and a relatively well-developed infrastructure. 
The aim of the SPD is to promote job creation in the private sector to reduce 
unemployment and replace forecast job-losses in the public sector. The latter will impact 
mainly on women thereby exacerbating the trend for women to leave the area. The 
viability of the small widely-scattered communities which make-up Objective 6 will 
depend on their ability to create new jobs and maintain the region's attractiveness as a 
place to live and work. The jobs target in the SPD is to create and/or preserve 9.500 jobs 
during the relevant period 1995-99. 
A number of horizontal themes underpin the programme strategy viz. 
making the best use of information technology in all areas of socio-economic 
activity 
ensuring equality of opportunity for men and women 
preserving the exceptional natural environment and the cultural heritage 
exploiting the competitive advantages of the region 
increasing the skills and competences of people 
Five priorities have been selected. They are given in table 11 below. 
A range of measures have been included to encourage businesses, to increase 
competitiveness, to increase R&D and information technology capacity, to develop the 
agricultural and natural resources in an environmentally sensitive way, to develop tourism, 
to encourage initiatives at the local level and to increase educational and skills levels. The 
special priority for the Sami people will assist in the preservation of their nature and the 
traditional livelihood of reindeer herding. 
Table 11: Objective 6 Sweden: EU, national public and private contributions 
1. Development of Jobs, 
Trade and Industry 
2. Promoting know-how 
3. Agriculture, Fisheries and 
natural Resources 
4. Rural and Community 
Development 
5. Sami Development 
Technical assistance 
Total Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
289.4 
102.7 
151.5 
85.5 
15.6 
10.3 
635.0 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
82.6 
48.8 
66.1 
41.7 
7.6 N 
5.2 
252.0 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
80.16 
40.42 
61.01 
41.70 
7.56 
5.16 
236.05 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
106.61 
13.50 
24.36 
2.00 
0.50 
146.97 
10 
Zo 
The SPD Monitoring Committee held its first meeting in December 1995, a second in 
March 1996 and a third in June 1996. 
The bulk of the programme resources (80%) will be implemented by County and Regional 
Management Committees drawn from existing local and regional structures. Certain 
measures e.g. Objective 5(a) measures will be managed by central agencies while the Sami 
will receive a global grant. Implementation and project approvals have begun. 
Targets have been set through out the programme at the overall level these include: 
the creation and / or maintenance of approximately 9 500 jobs; 
a reduction in the gap between GDP per capita (excluding energy production) 
within Objective 6 and the national average; 
a reduction in unemployment; 
the creation of 900 new firms; 
the increased use of Information Technology applications and the acquisition of 
Information Technology skills and expertise. 
11 
It 
ANNEX 2 
SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF SPDS AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 
SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF SPDS 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objective 2 
Objective 6 
Objective 2 
Objective 6 Date of submission 
20.3.1995 
26.4.1995 
8.3.1995 
8.3.1995 
16.6.1995 
27.4.1995 Date of approval 
15.11.1995 
15.11.1995 
11.7.1995 
11.7.1995 
22.11.1995 
6.11.1995 
SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 
AUSTRIA 
Date of submission Date of approval 
INTERREG: Czech Republic 17.7.95 21.12.95 
Slovak Republic 17.7.95 21.12.95 
Hungary 17.7.95 21.12.95 
Slovenia ~ 17.7.95 21.12.95 
Italy 21.8.95 
Bodensee/Hochrhein 17.7.95 24.4.96 
Bavaria 17.7.95 17.4.96 
SME 21.9.95 3.4.96 
RECHAR 28.12.95 (July 1996} 
RESIDER 28.12.95 (July 1996} 
RETEX 7.11.95 20.5.96 
ADAPT 21.9.95 22.12.95 
EMPLOYMENT 4.7.95 6.12.95 
URBAN Vienna ~| Ï7.7.95 | ITl^^T""" 
I'l 
FINLAND 
Date of submission Date of approval 
INTERREG: Barents 22.11.95 (June 1996} 
Karelia 22.11.95 {June 1996} 
South East Finland/ 
St Petersburg 22.11.95 (June 1996} 
North Calotte 25.9.95 {June 1996} 
Kvarken/Mi ttskand i a 25.9.95 {June 1996} 
Islands 25.9.95 {June 1996} 
South Finland Coastal 
Zone 22.11.95 {July 1996} 
SME' 15.9.95 {Autumn 1996} 
ADAPT 21.6.95 22.12.95 
EMPLOYMENT 21.6.95 16.12.95 
URBAN 22.11.95 {June 1996} 
* The proposal by the Finnish authorities for the SME initiative is being revised to 
take better account of the need for complementarity with proposals for the second 
phase (1997-99) of Objective 2. This too has led to some delay in adopting the 
initiative in question. 
SWEDEN 
Date of submission Date of approval 
INTERREG: North Calotte 25.9.95 {June 1996} 
Kvarken/Mittskandia 18.9.95 {June 1996} 
Sweden/Norway 
(3 plans) 18.9.95 {June 1996} 
Islands 18.9.95 {June 1996} 
Barents 22.11.95 {June 1996} 
Ôresund* 31.10.1994/ 30.04.1996 
18.9.1995 
KONVER 29.4.96 {July 1996} 
SME 22.11.95 {July 1996} 
ADAPT -_ 19.9.95 22.12.95 
EMPLOYMENT 14.7.95 12.12.95 
URBAN Malmô** | 23.10.95 [ {September 1996} 
Programme originally submitted by Denmark on 31.10.94 and, following Swedish 
accession, the Swedish element of the programme was submitted on 18.09.95. 
** An initial proposal for Urban I was submitted in October 1995. After a preliminary 
discussion with the Commission, the Swedish authorities agreed to combine the 
resources available under Urban I and Urban II and to resubmit the modified 
programme in July 1996. 
Is 
ANNEX 3 
COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 
1. Financial allocations for the three new Member States 
At its meeting on 4 April 1995, the Commission adopted a Communication on the 
application of Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. On 8 May 1996, the 
Commission approved the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives. 
Table 1: Financial allocations for regional Community Initiatives in the new Member 
States (without the reserve, see also table 13) 
1995 prices 
Interreg 
Leader 
Employment 
Adapt 
Industrial Change 
- of which Rechar 
- of which Résider 
- of which Retex 
- of which Konver 
- of which SME 
Urban 
Pesca 
Total Austria 
Ecu million 
42.68 
23.27 
23.01 
11.57 
18.24 
1.80 
5.13 
2.57 
8.74 
9.77 
128.54 Finland 
Ecu million 
43.73 
24.70 
29.15 
19.70 
10.80 
10.80 
3.89 
3.00 
134.96 Sweden 
Ecu million 
39.47 
14.17 
20.69 
11.25 
20.02 
3.26 
16.76 
3.37 
3.49 
112.46 
Table 2: Allocation from reserve for regional Community Initiatives 
in the new Member States 
1995 prices 
Interreg 
Leader 
Employment+Adapt 
Urban 
Pesca 
Total Austria 
Ecu million 
6.14 
3.17 
4.72 
3.50 
17.53 Finland 
Ecu million 
4.20 
3.37 
6.66 
3.77 
0.41 
18.41 Sweden 
Ecu million 
7.08 
1.93 
4.36 
1.50 
0.48 
15.35 
11, 
2. Austria 
2.1 Interreg 
Around one third of the total Structural Funds resources available in the period 1995-
1999 for the fimding Community Initiatives in Austria is allocated to Interreg H (Ecu 
48.82 million out of a total of Ecu 146 million). 
Austria lias a long frontier including borders with Germany and Italy but also with 4 
Central European countries. Both Austria and the Community attach great importance to 
tifc-se new external EU frontiers. This is why it was decided to concentrate the bulk of the 
îrttsrsreg K A resources (Ecu 30 million) on. the four Interreg programmes for the external 
borders. -
Interreg HA (external borders) 
Proposals for these programmes were submitted on 17 July 1995 and were approved by 
the Commission on 21 December 1995. Allocations by operational programme are given 
in the table below: 
Table 3: Interreg (external) EUt national public and private contribution 
1995 prices 
Austria - Czech Republic 
Austria - Slovak Republic 
Austria - Slovenia 
Austria - Hungary 
Total Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
12.1 
16.0 
22.6 
28.2 
78,8 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
4.5 
5.5 
9.0 
11.0 
30,0 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
4,5 
5,5 
9,0 
11,8 
30,8 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
3,1 
5,0 
4,6 
5,4 
18,0 
The principle aim of the development strategy is to support - in hanriony with the PHARE 
Cross-Border Co-operation programmes - the common border areas in their adaptation to 
the new European framework and to promote bilateral local and regional co-operation via 
the creation of co-operation networks. 
Almost 60% of the total expenditure under these four programmes is allocated to the 
improvement of the economic co-operation and development. Further priorities are 
technical infrastructure, human resources, environmental protection and cross-border 
studies. 
These Interreg TI programmes can be seen as an element in the pre-accession strategy vis-à-vis 
coontries which are candidates for future enlargement. Although the available resources are 
relatively modest, the actions which will be funded are an expression of the commitment 
of all partners involved to achieve better cross-border contacts and co-operation. 
Interreg IIA (internal borders) 
The proposals for the Interreg programmes at the internal borders with Germany and Italy 
were submitted on the 17 July 1995. The programme Bayern-Austria was approved on 17 
April 1996, the programme Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein on 24 April 1996. 
Cross-border co-operation along the external borders is sometimes hampered by 
differences in the procedures for PHARE and INTERREG. This problem does not arise 
along the internal borders. The programmes for the internal borders were submitted as 
joint proposals by Germany, Italy and Austria and will also be implemented and monitored 
by the Commission as joint programmes. Important partners in the implementation are 
EUREGIOS as cross-border co-operation structures. 
The programmes are focusing on tourism, economic development, environmental 
protection and development of endogenous potential. They also emphasise the 
development of human resources and the diversification of agriculture. 
Table 4: Interreg (internal borders) EU, national public and private contribution 
1996 prices 
Austria - Bavaria (*) 
Austria-Italy (**) 
Alpenrhein-Bodensee-
Hochrhein (*) Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
56.26 
13.8 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
24.6 
6.9 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
26.6 
6.9 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
5.1 
0 
(*) Amounts given are for both sides of the border. 
(**) Not yet approved 
2.2 Urban Vienna: Gurtel Plus 
A proposal for an Operational Programme for Vienna in the framework of the Urban 
Initiative was submitted by the Austrian Authorities on 17 July 1995. The programme was 
approved on 21 December 1995. 
The programme (total cost: Ecu 31.926 million; EU contribution: Ecu 9.77 million) 
targets an inner city zone in Vienna with a population of 130 000 inhabitants. The 
resources available will be used to finance an integrated package of economic, social and 
infrastructural measures aimed at the regeneration of the area concerned. Quantified 
targets have been set throughout the programme and include the creation of some 400 
new jobs, the renovation and redevelopment of 7000-10000 m2 of new business premises 
and the (re-)training of up to 3000 people. 
U 
2.3 Industrial Change initiatives 
Austria is eligible for four of the industrial change initiatives: SME, RETEX, RECHAR 
and RESIDER. 
Table 5: Industrial change initiative: EU, national public and private contribution 
1996 prices 
SME 
RETEX 
RECHAR 
RESIDER 
Total Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
34.8 
16.2 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
8.9 
2.6 
1.8 
5.2 
18.5 National and 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
8.9 
2.6 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
16.8 
11.1 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
SME Initiative 
A proposal for this programme was submitted on 21 September 1995. The programme 
was approved by the Commission on 3 March 1996. Summary financial data is given in 
table 8 above. 
The main objective of this programme is to improve the competitiveness of SMEs in 
Objective 1, 2 and 5b regions. Resources will be concentrated on three priority themes, 
namely: 
promotion of the use of information technology and telematics in SMEs; 
promotion of the use of clean and energy-saving technologies 
promotion of strategic planning in SMEs. 
The RETEX Initiative 
A proposal for this programme was submitted on 7 November 1995. The programme was 
approved by the Commission on 20 May 1996. Summary financial data is given in table 8 
above. 
The main objective of the programme is to modernise textile industry and to diversify the 
economic structure to break the dependency of the regional economy on textile industry in 
objective 2 and 5b regions in Steiermark, Niederôsterreich and Vorarlberg. Resources will 
be concentrated on 
know-how improvement 
co-operation between companies 
qualification and training 
o 
The RESIDER and RECHAR initiatives 
Proposals for these programmes were submitted on 28.12.1995. They are likely to be 
approved by the Commission in June-July 1996. Allocations by operational programme 
are given in table 8 above. 
The programmes are tailored to complement the objective 2 SPDs and to tackle the 
specific problems of declining mining and steel regions in Steiermark, Niederôsterreich 
and Oberôsterreich. 
The programmes concentrate on: 
environmental improvement of derelict mining sites and on their preparation for 
business or tourism purposes 
promotion of new technologies and products, in particular environmental 
technologies and new materials 
technical infrastructure 
human resources 
3. Finland 
3.1 Interreg 
About 31% of the total Structural Fund resources available in the period 1995-1999 for 
funding Community initiatives in Finland is allocated to INTERREG II (ECU 47.93 
million out of a total of ECU 153.37 million). 
Finland has an exceptionally long land border ( some 1300 km) with Russia, and also land 
borders with Norway and Sweden and maritime borders with the Baltic States. The bulk 
of INTERREG II A resources ( ECU 30.5 million is for the external borders with Russia. 
Interreg IIA (external borders) 
Proposals for these programmes were submitted on the 22 November 1995 and are on 
course to be approved before the summer break this year. Although figures are not yet 
finalised, allocations by operational programme are expected to be as follows: 
Table 6: Interreg (external) EU, national public and private contribution 
1996 prices 
Barents 
Karelia 
South East Finland 
Southern Finland 
Total Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
36.2 
32.0 
41.0 
22.2 
131.4 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
10.5 
13.9 
9.7 
6.0 
40.1 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
23.2 
14.0 
15.5 
10.0 
62.7 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
2.5 
4.1 
15.8 
6.2 
28.6 
\1 
The programmes focus on developing economic co-operation with neighbouring border 
areas in Russia and in the Baltic States. The priorities are the improvement of border 
crossing installations, and co-operation in the fields of environmental protection, SMEs 
networking and development and human resources. For 1996, the Budgetary Authority of 
the Union established a new budget line for TACIS cross border co-operation. This 
should facilitate the financing of related cross border projects on Russian territory. The 
basis for multiannual development planning compatible with the INTERREG programmes 
remains to be established. 
These INTERREG programmes are a special challenge for the Union. Sustained effort 
will be needed in the coming years to build good partnership arrangements and ensure 
effective implementation on the ground on both sides of the border. 
Interreg IIA (internal borders) 
The proposals for INTERREG II programmes for the internal borders were submitted on 
the 25 September 1995. One of the programmes concerns Norway as well as Sweden 
(North Calotte), the other two are bilateral with Sweden. Their approval is also expected 
before the Summer break this year. They will be ambitious in the degree of cross-border 
joint management which is envisaged:- there will be a pooling of resources to be managed 
by a single implementing body at the regional level covering action on both sides of the 
borders. 
Table 7: Interreg (internal borders) EU*, national public and private 
contribution 
1996 prices 
North Calotte (with Norway) 
Kvarken 
Islands 
Total Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
41.3 
16.8 
9.4 
67.5 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
12.2 
6.6 
4.0 
22.8 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
24.3 
8.8 
4.0 
37.1 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
4.8 
1.4 
1.4 
7.6 
All figures including Sweden and Norwegian contributions as relevant. 
3.2 Urban 
The Finnish authorities submitted a proposal for an URBAN programme on the 22 
November 1995, and the expectation is that it too can be approved before the summer 
break or shortly afterwards. It concerns Joensuu, the second settlement in terms of 
population (50 000 inhabitants) in the Objective 6 area. The total cost of the programme 
is expected to be approximately ECU 5.5 million with an EU contribution of ECU 3.9 
million. The resources will be used to finance an integrated package of urban renewal 
linked to industrial heritage, and special actions to reintegrate the socially excluded 
especially the long term employed, by means of a series of projects to be set up and 
managed by the target groups themselves. 
3.3 Industrial Change initiatives 
i 
SME Initiative 
Finland is eligible for only one of the industrial change initiatives, the SME initiative. An 
initial proposal was submitted on the 15 September 1995, but the Commission's services 
have asked for substantial amendments to bring out more clearly the innovatory character 
of the actions envisaged and the coherence with proposals for Objective 2 in particular in 
the period 1997-99. As a result , the likelihood is that this initiative will not be finally 
approved until the Autumn of 1996. The total cost is ECU 26.8 million with an EU 
contribution of ECU 10.8 million. 
4. Sweden 
About 36% of the total Structural Funds resources available in the period 1995-1999 for 
the funding of Community initiatives in Sweden is allocated to INTERREG II ( ECU 
46.55 million out of a total of ECU 127.81 million). 
INTERREG 
Sweden has a long border with Norway, and also a border with Finland. Both the Swedish 
and Norwegian authorities attach great importance to INTERREG programmes in present 
circumstances. The Norwegian authorities have made available from national resources 
full matching funding which is managed at the county level. 
Interreg IIA (external borders) 
Sweden participates in the North Calotte and Barents programmes described above in the 
section concerning Finland. In addition to these programmes there are three programmes 
for bilateral cross border relationships with Norway Inner Scandinavia, The Nordic Green 
Belt and A Borderless Co-operation. The programmes were submitted on the 18 
September 1995 and their approval is also expected before the summer break this year, 
subject to agreement on the details of the decentralised implementation arrangements 
proposed. 
Table 8: Interreg (external) EU, national public and private contributions* 
1996 prices 
Inner Scandinavia 
The Nordic Green Belt 
A Borderless Co-operation 
Total Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
21.56 
26.08 
26.00 
73.64 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
4.5 
5.5 
4.5 
14.5 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
13.5 
16.5 
16.5 
46.5 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
3.56 
4.08 
4.00 
11.64 
including Finnish and Norwegian contributions as relevant. 
Interreg IIA (internal borders) 
Sweden participates in the Kvarken and Islands programmes with Finland which have 
already been described in the section on Finland, and a programme with Denmark. The 
programme with Denmark was approved on the 30 April 1996, and the others should be 
approved before the summer break. 
4.2 Urban 
The initial proposal was submitted on the 23 October 1995, but the Commission has asked 
for substantial revisions which have not yet been received. 
4.3 Industrial Change initiatives 
Sweden is eligible for two of the industrial change initiatives, the SME and the KONVER 
initiative. 
SME 
KONVER Total 
expenditure 
Ecu million 
47.60 
11.14 EU 
contribution 
Ecu million 
16.80 
3.26 National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
16.80 
3.26 Private 
contribution 
Ecu million 
14.00 
4.62 
SME Initiative 
The proposal was received on the 22 November 1995. Limited complementary 
information has been requested from the Swedish authorities and has been provided at the 
end of May 1996. It focuses on international market development, the use of IT 
technologies and clean technologies to strengthen competitiveness. 
KONVER 
The proposal for KONVER has been submitted very recently (29 April 1996) It concerns 
two cities, Karlsborg and Karlskoga, one of which (Karlsborg) is outside the assisted 
areas under Objectives 2 , 5(b) and 6. It envisages urban renewal and SME development 
measures. 
Ii 
ANNEX 4 
DIALOGUE AND REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP 
1. Austria 
The plans submitted to the Commission under Objectives 1 and 2 were prepared by 
a partnership involving national, regional and local authorities. An extended 
partnership, comprising also the European Commission and the social partners will 
be represented on the SPD Monitoring Committees. 
Project approval and implementation is co-ordinated in a network of informal 
relationships between the managers of aid schemes at a regional and at a Federal 
level. It is intended that new Regional Management structures being set up in the 
majority of Regions should further strengthen and to some extent systematise the 
co-ordination of project approvals. 
A simpler system of management is envisaged for most Community initiatives. In 
particular for Interreg and URBAN a clearing system for project approvals and 
other implementation issues is established. The decisions taken in this clearing 
system are implemented by a simplified structure at the Regional level - one 
organisation managing all funds in many cases but not all. However at Federal 
level, the organisation of implementation is along the same lines as those foreseen 
for the mainstream SPDs. 
2. Finland 
The Finnish Objective 2 and 6 programmes were prepared and are being 
implemented from the bottom up. The first stage was the preparation of individual 
programmes in each of the regions concerned. Then the central government 
authorities put the regional programmes together into a draft outline programme 
which the Commission approved as a Single Programming Document for the 
whole country, containing the planned allocation of the budget between activities 
and the various regions and rules for implementing the programme. In charge of 
management of the programme in each region is a regional management committee 
consisting of representatives of the region, the district offices of the central 
government ministries and the social partners. The regional management 
committee draws up its own plan for implementing the programme in the region 
based on the original plan it submitted to the central authorities. Though legally the 
decisions to fund individual projects are taken largely by the district branches of 
the central ministries or by the ministries themselves, the regional management 
committee discusses and in practice must approve all projects and so maintains 
control of implementation, being able in effect to decide very largely how the 
programme is implemented in its area. 
11 
The programme is monitored by a single programme Monitoring Committee 
composed of representatives of all the regions, the funding ministries, the 
Commission and the social partners. 
3. Sweden 
The regional partnership in Sweden was fully involved in the preparation of the 
plans submitted to the Commission. The partnership comprises representatives of 
local and regional government, county councils,, employers, trade-unions, 
agricultural and environmental interests, community groups and others. The 
partnership will be represented on the SPD Monitoring Committees along with the 
national government and the European Commission. In the case of the Objective 6 
SPD, seven County Management Committees have been set up to oversee the 
detailed implementation of the programme in each County concerned. In addition, 
a Regional Management Committee covering the entire Objective 6 region is to be 
responsible for the implementation of certain measures (i.e. tourism, IT and R&D) 
which are deemed to be of strategic importance for the region as a whole. Both the 
County Management Committees and the Regional Management Committee report 
directly to the SPD Monitoring Committee. Similarly, for Objective 2, each area 
has a decision-making group which reports to the relevant Monitoring Committee. 
-2 
V 
ANNEX 5 
EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE OF SPD'S 
ACCORDING STANDARD CLASSIFICATION 
The services of the Commission established a standard classification to 
analyse and compare the structure of the expenditure under all SPDs 
throughout the Union. The table overleaf provides estimates of the 
expenditure under the SPDs in the three Member States according to this 
standard classification. 
There are some discrepancies between the figures in the table overleaf and 
the tables in annex 2. These are due to the fact that the definitions and sub­
divisions used in the SPDs for the three new Member States differ from those 
used in the standard tables. 
^ 
Structural Fund expenditure by sector 
Austria, Finland and Sweden - objectives 1 and 6 
•wIDQC Mecu 
j 
Basic infrastructure 
Transport 
Telecom 
Energy 
Environment & water 
Heafih 
Human resources 
Education 
Training 
RTD 
Productive environment 
Industry and services 
Agric. & rura: oeve'opm. 
Fisheries 
Tourism 
Technical assistance 
TOTAL Austria 
SF Total 
8,5 
0,0 
3,7 
4,0 
0,8 
0,0 
43.0 
14.4 
18,6 
10,0 
110,0 
47,9 
23.4 
0,0 
38,7 
4,1 
165,6 ERDF 
7,7 
3,7 
4,0 
11,4 
4,4 
7,0 
86,6 
47,9 
38,7 
2,0 
107,6 ESF 
0,0 
31,6 
10,0 
18,6 
3,0 
o.o 
1,5 
33,1 EAGGF 
0,8 
0,8 
0,0 
23,4 
23.4 
0,6 
24,8 FIFG 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 Finland 
SF Total 
23,8 
0.0 
9,4 
8,0 
6,4 
0,0 
120,4 
42,6 
51,6 
26,2 
306,5 
116,4 
174,0 
3,9 
12,2 
9,2 
459,9 ERDF 
23,8 
9,4 
8,0 
6,4 
16,7 
16,7 
128,6 
116,4 
12,2 
3,4 
172,5 ESF 
0,0 
103,7 
42,6 
51,6 
9,5 
0,0 
2,1 
105,8 EAGGF 
0,0 
0,0 
174,0 
174.0 
3,6 
177,6 FIFG 
0,0 
0,0 
3,9 
3,9 
0,1 
40 Sweden 
SF Total 
14,0 
0,0 
10,0 
0.0 
4,0 
0,0 
78,3 
28,1 
24.9 
25,2 
154,6 
67.7 
60,1 
4.0 
22.7 
5.2 
252,0 ERDF 
10,0 
10,0 
25,7 
3,0 
22.7 
84,4 
52.7 
9,0 
22.7 
2,5 
122,6 ESF 
0,0 
52,6 
25,1 
24.9 
2,5 
10,0 
10,0 
1.3 
63,9 EAGGF 
4,0 
4,0 
0,0 
56,2 
5,0 
51,1 
1,2 
61,4 FIFG 
0,0 
0,0 
4,0 
4.0 
0,1 
4.1 
~\ 
Structurai Fund expenditure by sector 
Austria, Finland and Sweden - objective 2 
Mecu 
Productive environment 
Industry and services 
- AH types of industries & services 
-SME 
Tourism 
Support infrastructures 
Human resources 
Training, employment 
Training centres and equipment 
RTD 
Rehabilitation & restructuring 
Industrial sites 
Urban zones 
Environmental protection 
Technical assistance 
TOTAL Austria (95-99) 
total 
52,1 
36,7 
7,3 
29,4 
7,1 
8,3 
44,0 
20,4 
3,5 
20,1 
0,6 
0,6 
0,0 
0,5 
3,7 
101,0 ERDF 
52,1 
36,7 
7,3 
29.4 
7,1 
8,3 
14,5 
3,5 
11,0 
0,6 
0.6 
0,0 
0,5 
2,5 
70,2 ESF 
29,5 
20,4 
9,1 
1,2 
30,8 Finland (95-96) 
total 
38,5 
26,8 
9,9 
16.9 
4.8 
6.9 
22,4 
13,1 
0,0 
9,3 
6,9 
0,0 
6,9 
0,0 
1,4 
69,2 ERDF 
38,5 
26,8 
9,9 
16,9 
4,8 
6,9 
8,7 
0,0 
8,7 
6,9 
0.0 
6,9 
0,0 
1,1 
55,2 ESF 
13,7 
13,1 
0,6 
0.3 
14,0 Sweden (95-99) 
total 
89.7 
73,8 
32,5 
41,2 
13,1 
2,8 
62,1 
34,1 
0,0 
28,0 
3,0 
3,0 
0,0 
0.6 
4,6 
160,0 ERDF 
89.7 
73,8 
32,5 
41,2 
13,1 
2,8 
25,0 
0,0 
25,0 
3,0 
3,0 
0,0 
0,6 
3,4 
121,7 ESF 
37.1 
34,1 
3,0 
1,2 
38,3 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(96) 316 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 13 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-332-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-06029-1 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg