ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM ( 83) 501 
 
 
 
Vol. 19 83/0190 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the openi ng to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Community and the European Atomic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this f ile is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 198 3 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen 
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983, 
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003 
(ABI. L 243 vom 27 .9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit 
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(83)501 final  
Brussels, 28 July 1983
\
REPORT AND PROPOSALS  
ON WAYS OF INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS  
OF THE COMMUNITY'S STRUCTURAL FUNDS
(Communication from the Commission to the Council)
C0MC83)501 final

INTRODUCTION
The persistence of structural imbalances within the Community, the  
obsolescence of the industrial fabric, trends in agriculture and the  
development of Community policies make it more necessary than ever for the  
Community to take structural action through its Funds.
It was for this reason that the Commission, through its President,  
speaking before Parliament in February, proposed that expenditure under  
the strcutural Funds should be doubled in real terms, with this objective  
being linked to the achievement of the reforms proposed and thus to an  
increase in the effectiveness of the Funds in serving the purposes of  
the Community.
More recently, as part of the "broad action to ensure the relaunch of the  
European Community" which it decided to undertake, the European Council  
in Stuttgart, similarly anxious to improve the effectiveness of the Funds,  
asked the Commission to present a report with proposals.
Before describing the approach adopted by the Commission, a brief outline  
will be given of the Funds together with their financial and technical  
characteristics.
1- Presentation of the structural Funds
Two structural Funds were set up by the EEC Treaty:
- The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section),  
provided for in Article 40 in order to attain the objectives of the common  
agricultural policy, primarily increased productivity through rational  
development of agricultural production and the optimum utilization of
the factors of production, in particular labour.
- The European Social Fund set up under Article 123 "in order to improve
employment opportunities for workers in the common market and to  
contribute thereby to raising the standard of living __".
A third structural Fund was added to this armoury in 1975, i.e. seventeen  
years after the establishment of the Community. This was the Regional  
Development Fund, whose purpose was "to correct the principal regional  
imbalances within the Community resulting in particular from agricultural  
preponderance, industrial change and structural under-employment".^
1A more detailed description of each of the Community's structural Funds  
?is annexed to this report.
^Article 1  of Council Regulation (EEC) No 724/75 of 18 March 1975.

-  2 -
The Community has other financial instruments for structural  
purposes in addition to the structural Funds referred to in the  
Stuttgart declaration. These are:
- The European Investment Bank, which was established under  
Article 129 of the EEC Treaty and whose task under Article 130
is "to contribute __ to the balanced and steady development of
the common market ..." by granting loans which facilitate the  
financing of projects, primarily those "for developing less  
developed regions".1
- A set of instruments provided for by the ECSC Treaty: industrial
loans (Article 54), aid for the retraining of workers (Article 56)  
and subsidized loans for the conversion of undertakings  
(Article 56).
2- Financial resources and their growth
Considered as a whole, the growth of the financial resources made  
available by the Community's structural instruments is impressive.  
The amount of grants and loans has increased twelvefold in nominal  
terms and fourfold in real terms during the last ten years.
However, it must be remembered that Community structural action is  
relatively recent: it was only from 1975 onwards that the resources
made available took on significant proportions.
1This was Later supplemented by the implementation of the borrowing  
and lending provisions laid down in the Euratom Treaty and by the  
NCI and, as from 1979, by the interest subsidies granted to the  
^least prosperous countries under the EMS.
The annexed tables give a breakdown by recipient country of the  
commitments and payments made by each of the Community's financial  
instruments (EAGGF Guidance Section, Social Fund, Regional Fund  
and, since 1979, EMS interest subsidies) from 1974 to 1982.

- 3 -
Growth of financing for structural purposes
Year Grants* 
(million ECU)Year Loans** 
(aillion ECU)
1973 351.3 1968-72
(annual average)324.7
1975
1977
1980
1982827.5
1 197.5
2 765.3 
4 235.61973-77
(annual average)  
1980 
1982966.6
2 950.8 
4 244.2
*(EAGGF Guidance Section, Social Fund, ERDF), comraltaents.
** Loans from EIB own resources within the Community and NCI loans as from  
1979 (loans signed).
Parallel to the increase in resources, there has been a very distinct  
concentration on the least favoured countries and regions: the
proportion of grants received by the least prosperous countries  
(Italy, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Greece) rose from 40% to  
70% between 1974 and 1982, while these countries also received 75%  
of EIB loans between 1958 and 1982.
Thus, even though modest (the total amount of Community structural  
financing is equivalent to around 0.3% of Community GDP), the  
resources made available are significant where they are concentrated  
on precise targets. For example, Community assistance (grants and  
loans) to some of the least favoured regions have in recent years  
reached significant levels and intensity, whether in terms of income  
(from 2 to 4% of per capita GDP) or in.terms of investment (9 to  
14% of gross fixed capital formation).
- Characteristics of the Community's structural Funds
Before assessing the effectiveness of the Community's structural Funds,  
attention must be drawn to the following facts:
See annexed Table 10, which shows the impact of Community structural  
financing in a number of less favoured regions.

- 4
- Assistance from the Funds is closely linked to national measures and  
policies and in financial terms represents only a small proportion  
of these.^ It is therefore subsidiary.
- The degree of conditionality of Community measures (i.e. the
Community's scope for ensuring that the objectives which it has set  
are complied with and for thus making its assistance subject to its  
own considerations of effectiveness) is restricted or neutralized by  
a number of factors: the low degree of autonomy in decision-making
which the Commission is allowed; the difficulty of adapting a  
measure to the specific features of certain situations; and the  
relationship between Community and national expenditure (financial  
volume and rate of aid).
- There are appreciable differences between the Funds (legal bases,  
specific objectives, scope, links with Community policies, operating  
characteristics and rules).
- There is considerable diversity in the measures and types of aid  
(productive investment, infrastructure categories, wages, incomes,  
cost of vocational training, intangible investments) provided by  
the Funds.
1By way of indication, Community assistance is equivalent to the  
following proportions of national public expenditure in the relevant  
fields:
EAGGF Guidance Section 6.5% (in 1977)
ERDF quota section (productive investment) 4 to 6%
ESF (vocational training) 10 to 12%.

- 5 -
The effectiveness of Community structural action, which is the key  
element in the examination requested by the European Council, may  
be assessed at two different levels:
- The first level is the effectiveness of the structural Funds  
from a Community point of view, i.e. the value added by  
Community action to national measures in pursuing objectives  
set by the Community.
- The second level is effectiveness in the management of the  
Funds, including that which can be achieved through their  
close coordination.
These two approaches must be pursued simultaneously, and proposals  
for improvements will be presented in each case.
The Commission attaches the greatest importance to the first level of  
effectiveness. It is here that the shortcomings are greatest. They  
cannot be remedied without substantial changes in the existing  
framework.
With regard to the second level of effectiveness, the Commission is  
particularly anxious to achieve all the improvements that are  
possible. However, it notes that the very mechanisms governing the  
Funds (largely automatic decisions on the basis of projects which  
the Member States present and which they are responsible for drawing  
up, monitoring and justifying) limit the possible scope for any major  
improvement in effectiveness from a strict management angle.

-  6 -
I. ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS IN THE INTERESTS  
OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY
If the structural Funds are to be effective tools in the development of the  
Community it is not enough that they should be adequately financed.
There are a number of political and institutional conditions which must also  
be met. Most of these conditions are not met now. We cannot talk of  
effectiveness of Community action so long as the Community's discretion in  
the use of the structural Funds is so tightly restricted.
If the effectiveness of Community action is to be enhanced the following  
principles must be recognized:
- the structural Funds must first and foremost be tools of development  
and structural adaptation, rather than financial redistribution  
mechanisms;
- the structural Funds must act in support of objectives defined by
the Community itself: those laid down in the Treaty and the Funds'
basic regulations, those which are today imposed on the Community by  
the economic crisis, and those which derive from the development of  
its other policies;
- any automatic intervention by the structural Funds reduces the  
Community's role to merely checking that the requirements are in fact  
met, and must therefore be ruled out.
1.1 General conditions for effectiveness in the Community interest
The first condition of the effectiveness in the Community interest of the  
structural Funds is the conditionality of assistance from them. This  
conditionality is in the Commission's view one of the essential points in  
this report. ^
Simply checking that a project is in line with the aims of the basic  
regulations, and meets the criteria they lay down, is not sufficient.
As a general rule there must be a dialogue between the Commission and the  
Member State concerned in order to dovetail the Community priorities and  
the national priorities so that joint action can be taken.

- 7 -
The Commission, which has the responsibility of advancing the  
Community interest, must be able to take part in decision-making  
in order to establish that a measure is in line with the  
Community's specific objectives and does promise the necessary  
degree of effectiveness.
If this twofold evaluation is to be possible the Community assistance must be  
provided in the form of programme financing whenever the measures in question  
so permit. It is at this level, rather than in individual projects,  
that a convergence between Community priorities and national priorities can  
best be achieved, and joint action can best be organized, either in the form  
of programme contracts concluded between the Community and the relevant  
Member State or in the form of common strategies; the essential point is that  
the Member States must accept the Community as a partner in structural  
initiatives.
This first condition for effective Community action implies a second one, which  
relates to the specifically Community character of the objectives the  
structural Funds are required to pursue.
If the structural Funds were assigned no other function than that of participating in  
the financing of national policies, their own impact would be reduced to that  
of a redistribution mechanism, and it would be impossible to distinguish any  
special contribution made by Community action.
But the purpose of Fund assistance is to serve aims spelt out by the Community  
itself.
The third condition of the effectiveness of Community structural Fund action  
is that it must be concentrated on well-defined targets, in order to avoid  
resources being scattered too thinly over too wide an area of action.
This concentration can be divided into three kinds, which may be combined:
- geographical concentration on certain regions whose difficulties (in
employment, under-development, restructuring, etc.) are the most acute in  
terms of the specific objectives of each Fund;

-  8 -
- concentration of targets, on the basis of priorities adopted by the  
Community; these priorities must be defined so as to strengthen the  
Links between the pursuit of the basic objectives of the structural  
Funds, as Laid down by the Treaties, and those of other Community  
policies which overlap with the Funds' fields of operation;
- concentration of financial resources, in particular by raising the  
Community Funds' rates of participation in co-financing projects  
with the Member States where these rates are currently too low for  
Community action to have a significant impact.
The right combination of these various forms of concentration will  
permit of an appreciable improvement in effectiveness.

- 9 -
1.2 Application to the three structural Funds
The Community's three structural Funds have their own specific objectives,  
rules of operation and links with Community and national policies. These  
specific features must be preserved. None the less, the proposals below  
represent the application to each of the Funds of the general principles  
set out above.
If adopted by the Council, they would enable the three Funds, applying  
the same kind of conditionality, to work together and to undertake  
in tandem integrated development or conversion operations more easily and  
more effectively than is the case at present.
1.2.1 EAGGF Guidance
There are many positive features in the way the EAGGF Guidance Section  
operates: obvious link with a common policy, conditionality well
established by the regulations and directives applicable to it.
The Commission notes however that, within the limit of the funds  
available, the conditions for ensuring efficiency, which are met in  
the EAGGF Guidance Section, cannot yield their full effect. The Section's  
tasks have in fact grown in number as time has gone on. In addition to  
the conventional "horizontal" schemes, a wide range of regionalized  
operations of differing nature were started up from the end of the  
seventies onwards. The funds available have not kept pace with the  
diversification of tasks, and this has forced the authorities to insert  
into the regulations a considerable number of technical limits which are  
not necessarily compatible with the objectives pursued;"! the result has  
been that the money has had to be spread out too thinly over too wide  
an area.2
1A typical example is that of the limitation of the areas to which the  
^vineyard conversion programme or reafforestation measures can apply.  
As the implementation of the hill-farming directives accounted for  
47% of the commitment appropriations authorized for 1983 for measures  
to assist the less-favoured areas (Chapter 32), the rest (25% of all  
EAG6F Guidance appropriations) has to be spread over 24 regional  
programmes ranging from forestry or irrigation work to the integrated  
development programme for particular rural regions, and including the  
programmes to encourage farmers to convert out of surplus products.

-  10  -
The Commission proposes, therefore, that the action of the EAGGF be  
more closely focused on a number of priority tasks, so as to avoid  
spreading resources too thinly:
- the promotion of modernization and conversion projects in farming;
- the processing and marketing of agricultural products, these being  
two measures to which greater importance must be attached;
- the preservation and improved use of non-productive rural areas  
(e.g. expansion of forestry);
- an improvement in agricultural income in the less-favoured regions.
This concentration is particularly important as the EAGGF now stands  
at a crossroads. The adjustments to the CAP will engender a need 
for intensified but more selective efforts under the "horizontal"
EAGGF operations.
At the same time, with some regions lagging even further behind the  
rest because of general economic trends, and given the need to  
rationalize policy concerning prices and markets, schemes are now  
needed even more .than before for these regions, for many of which  
farming is a major source of income.
To be fully effective, such specific EAGGF Guidance intervention must  
be dovetailed into a more comprehensive regional development framework  
alongside, but coordinated with, the other Funds. This basic approach  
has guided the Commission in its preparation of the integrated  
Mediterranean programmes.
Under the circumstances, it is clear that the concentration of the  
tasks assigned to the EAGGF Guidance Section must be accompanied by  
an increase in the funds available to it, whether this be for the  
purposes of the Mediterranean programmes already proposed or for  
some other purpose.

-  11 -
This increase must take place as part of a transfer of financing for  
purely national policies to the Community policies that will flow ^  
from, among other things, the decisions on the adjustments to the CAP.
For it is essential that the Community policies which determine the  
pattern of production through price fixing, guarantee thresholds and  
market organizations are matched by Community solidarity in the  
provision of the resources needed to make a success of agricultural  
adjustment.
1The necessary room for manoeuvre exists since the Community spends  
on schemes for improving agricultural structures an amount equal to  
only some 6% of that disbursed by Member States for the same purpose.

-  1 2  -
1.2.2 Social Fund
The Council came to a common position on the review of the Fund at its meeting  
on 2 June 1983. Upon completion of the conciliation procedure requested by  
Parliament it will finalize a new basic Decision under the implementing  
Regulation, with a view to its entry into force for the 1984 budget year.
In its common position, the Council has indicated that it will introduce  
provisions under which:
- 40% of the allocation for general measures will go to schemes to promote  
employment in Greenland, Greece, the French overseas departments, Ireland,  
the Mezzogiorno and Northern Ireland, with the remainder being concentrated  
in the other areas having to contend with high and long-term unemployment  
and/or involved in industrial and sectoral restructuring. Responsibility  
for drawing the precise borders of those areas will remain part of the  
Commission's management tasks;
- at least 75% of the allocation available will be used to foster employment  
for young people under 25, thereby continuing an existing trend within the  
Social Fund and reflecting the evolution of vocational training and  
employment policy at national and Community level.
Other changes have been planned that will simplify the Fund's structure and 
improve procedures for the submission and approval of applications and for  
payments. They will enable the Commission to play a more active role than  
hitherto in monitoring and evaluating operations, in promoting innovations in  
projects related to Community action programmes, and in the dissemination of  
information and experience.
These guidelines are in line with the Commission's proposals for tightening up  
conditionality and strengthening the qualitative concentration of the  
Fund's objectives.
The Commission will use the framework offered by the review of the Social Fund  
to strengthen the links between Fund intervention and the Community policies  
on employment and vocational training.

- 13 -
By and large, the projects and programmes submitted for Fund financing will  
continue to be appraised primarily in the light of their relevance to the  
general objectives of those policies, notably the guarantee of a job or  
proper training for young people.
More specifically, however, the Commission will, when drawing up the annual  
guidelines for Fund management, attach priority, in the context of  
conditionality, to the programmes that dovetail with common policies, such  
as those helping to rectify the shortcomings, identified at Community level,  
in training for the new information technologies.
Lastly, the Commission will work with Member States in devising ways of  
bringing about a qualitative and quantitative improvement in their training  
and job promotion schemes. This will take place not only as part of the  
procedure for drawing up the Fund's annual guidelines but also within the  
context of the longer-term objective of national and regional programme  
planning and appraisal.

-14-
1.2.3 ERDF
The Impact of the present crisis on Community regions affected by particularly  
serious structural problems points up more than ever the ERDF's traditional  
role as an Instrument of harmonious Community development. Certain drastic  
consequences of the adaptations associated with the decline of some industries  
mean that the ERDF must take on new tasks.
The proposals which the Commission put forward 1n October 1981 were designed  
to equip the ERDF to carry out these new tasks and at the same time to give  
it greater Impact.
The Commission proposed, 1n line with the principles set out 1n this report,  
a series of qualitative Improvements to the Fund's administration: first,
a smooth changeover from the current support for individual projects to the joint  
financing of infrastructure programmes and regional aid schemes on the basis  
of contract programmes agreed between the Member State concerned and the  
Commission; second, a greater concentration of objectives, and emphasis on  
direct support for the Indigenous development potential of the regions  
together with a legal framework and preferential rates for Integrated  
operations; third, a more clearly defined legal form for the coordination of 
national regional policies.
In order to adapt the Fund to Its changing priority tasks, to derive the  
maximum benefit from the qualitative Improvements and to prevent Fund aid  
from being spread too thinly, the Commission also proposed a radical  
reorganization for the use of Fund resources. A more concentrated use of  
the quota section, reduced to 80X of the Fund, was Intended to enable the  
least favoured regions 1n the less prosperous countries to retain the  
level of guarantee that they enjoy under the current distribution arrangements;  
however, a non-quota section with Increased resources totalling 20% of the  
Fund would allow a more flexible response to regional problems throughout  
the Community, and 1n particular to the new tasks connected with Industrial  
conversion. The Increase - modest 1n Itself - 1n financial solidarity  
which stemmed from the proposal therefore represented only one of the alms  
in view, the other being to adapt the Fund to the tasks confronting 1t.

- 15 -
Some progress has been made in discussions within the Council on a number  
of important issues, in particular the coordination of national regional  
policies, programme financing, support for the indigenous potential of  
regions and the promotion of integrated operations. But more progress is  
needed to maximize the impact of the planned innovations.
No satisfactory outcome has been reached in discussions on other  
fundamental matters, in particular the need for a greater qualitative  
concentration of aid together with a higher rate of participation for  
priority measures.
Furthermore, the negotiations have so far failed as regards the  
concentration of the quota section and the volume of the non-quota  
section. As the months have gone by, the overall view has become blurred  
and discussions have got bogged down in a search for marginal adjustments to  
existing quotas. The Commission, which has helped to work towards reasonable  
compromises in a constructive spirit, is not prepared to accept that the  
negotiations deal solely with the financial redistribution function of the  
ERDF. While a greater concentration of Fund resources in the most  
disadvantaged regions, especially in the less prosperous countries, is still  
important, it cannot be the sole objective and may well be reduced simply  
to a transfer of funds if it is not made part of a coherent programme of  
reform.
Meanwhile, the Commission is administering the Fund as usual pending a  
decision from the Council. It is pressing for discussions to be resumed  
on a new basis and proposes an approach which, if accepted by the Council,  
would enable real progress to be made towards increasing the effectiveness  
of Community action. This presupposes that the Council will agree to take  
full account of the twin requirements, inextricably bound together, of  
Community solidarity and effectiveness as a means of attaining the  
objectives set by the Community itself.
It is also hoping that the Council will take an early decision on the  
second series of non-quota measures.

- 16 -
The essential, inseparable features of the plan proposed are as follows:
1. The Community will set two main priority tasks for the ERDF geared  
to the fundamental objectives of the Community's structural action:
- the development and structural adjustment of the less-developed  
regions;
- the conversion of declining industrial areas.
2. ERDF assistance in the context of these priority tasks will take the  
form of programme contracts jointly financed with the Member States  
concerned.
These programme contracts will concern regional development or  
conversion programmes and sets of measures adopted in the light  
of the Community's ineluctable priorities stemming from the  
economic crisis (for example, conversion of the steel industry)  
and the trend of agriculture or deriving from Community policies,  
notably in the fields of energy, innovation, the environment,  
transport, etc.
3. These programmes will be closely coordinated with the other  
structural financial instruments, in particular Community loans;  
the Commission is maintaining its 1981 proposal aimed at promoting  
greater recourse to the technique of subsidized loans for  
productive investments and would like to see an increase in their  
share of Fund assistance."* In the same vein, the Commission is  
examining whether a revolving fund mechanism could prove  
feasible.
4. In the light of experience acquired and with enlargement ahead,  
this new plan will have to be introduced gradually. During an  
initial stage lasting several years, it will have to be stipulated  
that programmes financed by the ERDF will be:
- either Community programmes governed by appropriate legal  
provisions broadly outlined in the general regulation;
- or national programmes of value to the Community satisfying  
the criteria laid down in the general regulation.
In any event a minimum participation will be required from the  
investor.i

- 17 -
In a Later stage all ERDF operations should be in the form of programmes  
satisfying specifically Community objectives governed,within a framework  
regulation/by provisions adapted to the different types of programme.
The Commission attaches utmost importance to the fact that this legal-  
framework should include decision-making procedures compatible with  
effective management of structural policy.
5. In both cases, ERDF assistance should be the result of a dialogue between  
national and Community authorities, involving prior assessment of the
benefits of each programme to the Community and of its economic effectiveness, and  
leading to a programme contract.
6. The Community will have to have the financial and operational resources to conduct  
technical assistance and information schemes designed to help those national
and regional authorities which so desire to draw up their development or  
conversion programmes and to give them a clearer idea of the opportunities  
for recourse to the various structural Funds and other Community financial  
instruments.
7. The distinction between non-quota and quota sections will be abolished.
8. As for the quotas themselves, they will eventually lose their raison d'etre.
During the transitional phase, therefore, the geographical distribution  
of total Fund operations could be governed by quantitative guidelines  
involving a certain degree of concentration compared with the present  
distribution. These guidelines might, for instance, be indicative ranges  
for the approximate share for each Member State from the entire Fund during  
a given period. At all events, the Commission cannot accept that a quota  
be considered a virtually unconditional drawing right.
In the final stage the guidelines for the geographical distribution of  
assistance from the Fund would be largely predetermined owing to:
the stress placed by the ERDF framework regulation on the priority to be  
given to the least favoured regions in the exercise of its two fundamental  
tasks;
- the indications contained in the Community programmes as to the nature  
and location of the planned operations.
(2)

- 18 -
II. IMPROVED COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE FUNDS  
The Community must take steps to make the coordination and
management of the Funds more effective, particularly if the approach proposed  
by the Commission is adopted by the Council, because it would automatically  
involve increased responsibilities for Community bodies.
2.1 Problems of coordination: complementarity, overlapping and combination
of assistance
The Commission is convinced that the most important task in coordinating  
the Funds lies in strengthening the complementarity of assistance.
This is the approach which it has adopted with the first integrated programmes  
and operations^ and the approach which it proposes the Council adopt with  
the integrated Mediterranean programmes. It is also adopting this approach  
in deploying in a cohesive fashion various instruments (ECSC, ERDF, social  
field) to overcome the serious social and conversion problems in the regions  
affected by the crisis in the steel industry. This is also one of the  
reasons why the Commission has proposed in Part I a better link-up between  
the basic objectives of the structural Funds and the priorities which arise  
from other Community policies, whose field of application overlaps that  
of the Funds.
The cohesiveness of Community action further demands that major structural  
imbalances in the Community also be taken into account when these policies  
are formulated. With this approach, the coordination of the Funds and  
the strengthening and enlargement of their scope for assistance serve  
a development objective which takes equal account of the sectoral, regional  
and social dimensions of the problems.
Naples, Belfast, Western Isles, Lozère, south-east Belgium.

- 19 -
That being said, discussion of complementarity raises the question  
of overlapping between the Funds. Such overlapping arises where a category  
of measure is in theory eligible for assistance from more than one Fund.
To reduce these possibilities, would the ideal solution not be strict  
separation of the Funds?
The Commission does not think so. The facts of the situation are far
too complex to allow of such simplifications; a problem is seldom
exclusively agricultural or exclusively social or exclusively regional.
Consequently, while making due allowance for the specific features of the
three Funds, every opportunity must be taken to achieve synergy between
the structural Funds and with other national and Community financial instruments.
It is therefore necessary to strengthen the complementarity of instruments
where this is necessary and desirable, while at the same time eliminating
lack of cohesion and duplication, which would lead to the wastage of public
funds.
Overlapping raises the possibility of combinations of aid, in that a  
project may receive financial aid from several sources.^
Such combined assistance is occasionally desirable so as to make possible or  
to speed up an operation which is economically justified. But it must  
be governed by strict rules. Apart from such cases, however, any  
combination leading to duplication must be strictly prohibited.
An examination of Community legislation shows that the combination of  
assistance is generally prohibited. For example, the various  
Regulations prohibit the combining of assistance for rural infrastructure  
projects (electricity, drinking water, roads) which may be financed in  
some regions either by the ERDF or the EAGGF Guidance Section.
Failing explicit legal provisions, the combination of assistance is  
excluded^ or controlled by internal management rules. These rules are  
based on two main principles:
For example, grants and loans.
The combination of assistance is in practice excluded by a division of  
work between the Funds. For example, while, in the Mezzogiorno, the  
ERDF helps to finance the large irrigation infrastructure projects,  
the EAGGF is concerned with projects directly connected with agriculture,  
downstream from the main infrastructure work.

-  20  -
- in the case of public sector investment projects (infrastructure), the  
total of Community financing (grants and loans) and national aid may  
never exceed 100% of the eligible investment cost; in general, total  
Community financing stays well below this limit;
- in the case of investment in productive activities, the total of Community  
and national aid must be such that financial responsibility continues to  
lie with the operator, account also being taken of Community rules on  
State aids.
To this end, there are administrative guidelines for combining the structural  
Funds with the lending instruments and for combining the latter with one  
another. Like the internal rules applicable to the Funds, these guidelines  
maintain the instruments' flexibility of action, while at the same time  
limiting the dangers of an uncontrolled combination of aid.
However, there are a number of cases, particularly in the fields of vocational  
training and assistance to small and medium-sized businesses, where the  
combination of aid is neither prohibited nor controlled. Abuse is theoretically  
possible. It is prevented under existing rules and regulations  
through the close operational coordination which the Commission enforces in  
the administration of the three Funds through the Task Force responsible  
for coordinating the structural instruments.
The Commission thus ensures that the legal provisions and internal rules  
relating to the combination of aid are observed. In order to do this, it  
has carried out a systematic analysis, Regulation by Regulation, of the  
possible overlapping between the various categories of measure in which the  
Funds may be involved. This documentation is available to the Council and  
its groups of experts.
It has also decided to establish a central register of projects or programmes  
submitted for financial assistance from the structural Funds and other  
Community instruments in order to keep the possibilities of combining aid  
under control. This should greatly facilitate the assessment and monitoring  
work referred to below.

2.2 Problems of management: assessment - monitoring - advances
The application of conditionality normally requires an ex ante technical/  
economic and financial assessment and ex post monitoring of the results  
of operations/ the latter not being limited to a mere check as to  
whether aid granted has been correctly used but Including also an economic  
assessment of the results (for example/ as to whether Investment projects  
are prof1table/ whether they are effective 1n the light of the objectives  
pursued/ etc.).
It 1s true that/ 1n the case of very limited measures with specific  
objectives and simple and well-defined eligibility criteria/ the conformity  
of projects with these criteria/ backed up by a subsequent check on whether  
funds have been properly used/ generally offers an adequate guarantee  
that the desired outcome will be achieved. The assessment and monitoring  
procedure can then be limited to an examination of such conformity and to a  
financial check.
In the case of more complex operations/ however/ an ex ante economic
assessment (cost-benefit analysis) and detailed ex nost financial and economic  monitoring are essential Ingredients of sound management. This applies  
particularly to co-financed operations under regional/ national or  
Community structural development programmes.
In practice, assessment and monitoring· capability varies from one Fund to anothe  
It 1s most developed 1n the case of the EAG6F Guidance Section/ which  
has the advantage of long experience 1n certain fields, the necessary  
expertise (particularly 1n the "technical" divisions responsible for the  
management of agricultural markets and structures), an Information network  
1n the Member States, direct contacts with aid recipients and just enough  
staff and resources to carry out such work. Nevertheless, ex post monitoring  
is still too infrequent to have any real impact on the checking of the  
effectiveness of indirect measures.
The situation 1s different 1n the case of the ERDF and the Social Fund.
These Funds have developed rapidly 1n recent years, but this 
development has not been matched by a corresponding Increase 1n their  
administrative resources. Management difficulties are particularly severe as  
projects are Individually processed. The assessment of these numerous  
projects must therefore be based almost exclusively on Information from  
the national authorities that 1s generally not sufficiently detailed;

-  22 -
it is frequently limited to a mere examination of conformity, subsequently  
followed by a financial check.^ This is a further reason for recommending  
the extension of the approach based on programmes, and particularly  
integrated programmes, whenever the nature of the operations so permits.
The Commission has therefore decided:
- to reinforce the resources allocated by the departments responsible for  
administering the Funds to ex ante economic assessment in order to limit  
the danger of failure as much as possible, particularly in the case of  
co-financed programmes and direct measures; this requires in return  
better and more detailed information for the Commission from the  
Member States;
- to set up a unit to monitor economic effectiveness, overseeing all three  
Funds and supplementing financial checks of documents, in order to ensure  
that the conditions set for the financing of the programmes and main  
projects are met·^ To this end, it proposes, where necessary, to call  
on outside experts to strengthen its own departments.
However, these measures are really only worthwhile if the Community  
approach proposed in Part I is adopted.
A further management problem is that of the use of advances. The Commission  
introduced a system of advances for the structural Funds in order to improve  
the administrative effectiveness of its work.3
But the results have not always been satisfactory. In many cases, advances  
have not even been used and it has not proved possible to speed up spending  
as hoped. Furthermore, the Commission has been compelled in several cases  
to require advances to be repaid because of undue delays in projects being *  
carried out.
The Commission therefore proposes that not only interest be paid on  
advances paid out and used late or not used at all but also penalties  
imposed. To this end, it will provide itself with the necessary means  
of carrying out systematic checks on the actual use made of advances.
In the period 1975-82, 80% of the projects submitted to the ERDF (i.e.
17 771 projects out of a total of 22 500 applications submitted) and more  
,than 82% of the assistance requested were approved.
'This must go hand in hand with the extension, recommended elsewhere, of  
the approach based on programmes; the ex post monitoring of thousands  
,of individual projects, even on a sampling basis, clearly cannot be envisaged.  
In this connection, the Commission requests that at budgetary level the Member  
States agree to incorporation of the corresponding administrative costs in the  
total allocation for the programmes.

- 23 -
Hi. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
Given the need for budgetary discipline, the growth of structural spending  
must be predictable and controllable. To this end, the Commission is  
proposing that the growing resources allocated to the structural Funds  
should be entered in the budget under a multiannual indicative plan.
Hitherto the resources allocated to the Social Fund and the ERDF, being  
non-compulsory expenditure, have been decided each year by the budgetary  
authority without any commitments being made for the following year.
The growth in the resources allocated to this section of the Community  
budget has in fact been remarkable. Nevertheless, the unpredictability  
of resources considerably undermines the effectiveness of the Funds and 
prevents any clear definition of the scale and direction of the effort  
on the part of the Community. It is therefore earnestly to be hoped that  
both arms of the budgetary authority can be associated in the definition  
of a medium-term plan which would take account of the structure of the  
budget, the rate of increase in own resources and the objectives of the  
structural policies.
For its part, the European Parliament has already indicated its desire  
that good budgetary management should move in this direction.
Two factors must be borne in mind when determining the volume of resources  
to be allocated to the Funds in the course of the next few years: first,
the original objectives assigned to the Funds with a view to reducing the  
structural imbalances in the Community are as important as ever; secondly,  
the obsolescence of the industrial fabric, the restructuring of the  
agricultural policy and the development of Community policies add a new  
dimension to the Funds' task.
In these circumstances, the Commission has proposed that the budgetary plan  
be such that the proportion of the Community budget allocated to structural  
spending gradually increases. It believes that, in view of the magnitude of  
the task and the context in which it conceives it, the target should be a  
doubling of expenditure in real terms over a five-year period.

- 24 -
The Commission acknowledges that an increase in transfers of public  
resources is not in itself a guarantee of success. Steps must also be  
taken to ensure the participation of private enterprise, the support of  
the various groups of people concerned and the effective cooperation of  
national and regional authorities.
This being so, the needs generated in the Community by the requirements  
of development and structural adjustment are such that they amply justify  
acceptance by the Council of the Commission's proposals aimed at improving,  
both qualitatively and quantitatively, the effectiveness of the Community  
Funds, having regard in particular to:
- the need for a strong Community impetus to give consistency to fragmented  
national measures
- the opportunities for rationalizing the total structural expenditure
of the Member States from the time their financial solidarity is placed  
at the service of jointly defined objectives.

IV. CONCLUSIONS
The Commission's proposals to improve the effectiveness of the  
structural Funds introduce an innovation in the history of the Funds,  
short as it is.
Instead of allocating most of the financial resources employed by the  
Community Funds to the financing of national policies without any  
guarantee that such policies actually contribute to convergence  
within the Community,
instead of confining within narrow limits the resources allocated to serving  
specifically" Community objectives,
the Commission proposes the introduction of a Community development  
and structural adjustment policy in the service of priority activities  
defined by the Community and implemented by the entire armoury of  
the Community's structural Funds and other financial instruments.
It rejects, on the other hand, approaches which distort the  
vocation of the Community Funds because they would give priority  
to their redistributive function over their structural functions.
It wishes to see the three Funds, in conjunction with the borrowing  
and lending instruments, together making a more effective contribution  
to economic convergence within the Community. This is possible,  
provided that:
- the links between the fundamental objectives of the Funds and  
those of the other Community policies are strengthened
- the joint action of the three Funds forms part of development  
or conversion plans such as that proposed by the Commission for  
the Mediterranean regions
- the Member States grant the Community both the right and the resources  
to give practical expression to the Community interest as they  
themselves have defined it
- the conditionality attaching to Community action is matched by  
genuine solidarity among the Member States in the allocation of  
budget resources for structural policy.

A N N E X E S

CONTENTS
Page
DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS
1. EAGGF Guidance Section 1-3
2. Social Fund 4-5
3. ERDF 6-8
II. ANNUAL COMMITMENTS AND PAYMENTS TO MEMBER STATES  
EAGGF GUIDANCE SECTION, SOCIAL FUND, REGIONAL  
FUND, EMS INTEREST SUBSIDIES (1974-82)
Tables 1  to 9 9-17
III. REGIONAL IMPACT OF STRUCTURAL FINANCING
Table 10 18

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS
1. EAGGF Guidance Section  
General objectives
The EAGGF Guidance Section has three main objectives:
- the improvement of farming conditions;
- the improvement of marketing and processing of agricultural products;
- the adaptation and guidance of agricultural production in terms of the  
common policy for markets.
These objectives are linked to the CAP and are a response to the desiderata  
of the policy as defined in Article 39(1) of the EEC Treaty; they are  
generally given more specific and practical expression in the definition of  
the tasks assigned to the EAGGF Guidance Section.
Specific features
Being closely linked to the CAP, the approach of the EAGGF Guidance Section  
is thus essentially geared to the agricultural sector. The specific tasks  
are set out in specific regulations or directives, governed by a framework  
regulation. A number of major regulations and directives run out at the  
end of 1983. The EAGGF Guidance Section is the only structural Fund the  
resources of which have since 1 January 1980 been allocated under a  
multiannual financial ceiling arrangement, expiring at the end of 1984.
Financial resources
The EAGGF Guidance Section is, with 759 million ECU (appropriations for  
commitment) in 1982, the smallest of the structural Funds. Its expenditure  
accounts for about 5% of total EAGGF expenditure and, on the basis of an  
estimate for 1977 (the only year for which figures are now available), about  
6.5% of national agricultural expenditure in the socio-structural field,  
leaving out of account national expenditure on social security for farmers  
and farm workers.

-  2 -
Geographical distribution
The end-1982 cumulative total of EAGGF Guidance expenditure shows no marked  
geographical concentration (save for mild concentration in northern regions).  
However, since the second half of the seventies, there has been a growing  
tendency towards the regionalization of intervention, either through the  
introduction of specific schemes, or through the regional modulation of certain  
requirements and intervention rates. Thus, in recent years, a new shift of  
emphasis to the southern regions and to Ireland has got under way.
Types of intervention
About half of EAGGF Guidance expenditure goes to fund "horizontal schemes",  
the other half to "common measures" of a regional character. The former may  
be broken down according to the three main objectives mentioned above:  
improvement of production conditions (including modernization of farms -  
about 25%), improvement of marketing and processing structures (about 15%),  
adaptation and guidance of production (about 10%).
The main regional scheme is governed by the directive on mountain and hill  
farming and farming in certain less favoured areas. It concerns about  
1 million holdings and 25% of the agricultural area of the Community; it  
accounts for 30% of the budget approved for 1983. In addition to this central  
measure, there is a growing number (24 for 1983) of specific regional schemes  
ranging from forestry or irrigation measures to integrated development  
programmes for given rural areas, and including programmes for the conversion  
of certain regional agricultural products (20% of the payments authorized  
for 1983).
The rates of EAGGF Guidance participation in "common measures" range from  
25% to 65% depending on the type of scheme and the region concerned. In  
general, the EAGGF contribution is therefore definitely more than a marginal  
one, at least in the spheres covered by those measures.
*
* *
In conclusion, a review of the EAGGF Guidance Section shows a number of positive  
features: close links with a common policy, precise objectives,
"predictability" of available funds, relative flexibility to allow adaptation  
of the range of schemes, marked conditionality.

- 3 -
There are also a number of difficulties and problems. Thus, some schemes have  
not had the success that was hoped for, partly because of the change in the  
economic situation during the seventies, which substantially inhibited  
structural change in agriculture, but partly also because of more specific  
problems, including:
- difficulties in connection with coordination between Community and  
national schemes,
- delays and difficulties encountered by certain Member States in adopting  
and executing implementing procedures,
- difficulties encountered by certain Member States in finding the fdnds  
to cover their share of costs,
- inadequacies in connection with the regional policies which should underpin  
policy on agricultural structures in the less developed rural areas,
- conditionality needs proper assessment and verification, and facilities  
for this purpose have not always been adequate,
- the inadequate adaptation of the regulations, particularly those concerning  
"horizontal" schemes, to certain specific situations, so that implementation  
of these regulations has not been satisfactory in the areas which needed  
them most.
In addition, increases in funds have lagged steadily further behind the expansion  
of the work, and the disequilibrium between the appropriations for the 
Guarantee Section and the Guidance Section of the Fund is still very wide.
It will be recalled, in this context, that originally (Regulation 62/25),  
it had been hoped to achieve a proportion of 25% of total EAGGF expenditure  
to be accounted for by the EAGGF Guidance Section.

- 4 -
2. Social Fund
General objectives and specific features
Pursuant to Article 123 of the EEC Treaty, the Social Fund has the task of  
rendering the employment of workers easier and of increasing their  
geographical and occupational mobility within the Community. As an instrument  
of employment policy, the Fund is concerned mainly with helping to finance  
the whole range of measures taken by the Member States in the field of  
vocational training aimed at integrating workers into working Life, the  
re-integration of unemployed persons and the fight against unemployment. It  
likewise provides assistance for a series of additional actions concerned with  
the integration of disabled persons into the labour market and with the social  
integration and mobility of migrant workers and their families. In line with  
the development of labour market policies in the Member States, the Fund has,  
in addition, for several years been playing a part in the field of aid for  
job creation, in particular recruitment premiums and wage aids for jobs which  
benefit the community.
Financial resources
There has been a rapid increase in the Social Fund budget over the last five  
years, a fact which reflects the increase in unemployment and the increased  
endeavours of the Member States in the field covered by the Fund. However,  
although the budget rose from some 570 million EUA in 1978 to just under  
1 600 million ECU in 1982, the gap between applications for assistance and the  
available appropriations has continued to widen.
In line with the guidelines for the management of the Fund, which are adopted  
annually by the Commission, this increase in the budget went hand in hand with  
a gradual focussing on the regions which have the most serious problems as  
regards employment imbalances and are the least prosperous.
Thus the proportion of appropriations authorized for the ERDF regions within
the total of Fund interventions is increasing every year. In 1982, it accounted
for nearly 90% of the aid provided by the Fund (1 365 million ECU). Among
the ERDF regions, the absolute priority regions"' have, in real terms, likewise
received a steadily growing amount of aid from the Fund, rising from
299 million ECU in 1979 (38% of the Fund's total budget) to 616 million ECU
in 1982 (40% of the total budget).
The French Overseas Departments, Greenland, Greece, the Mezzogiorno, Ireland  
and Northern Ireland.

- 5 -
Forms of intervention
The rules currently in force provide for two main categories of Fund  
intervention: the aim of the first, which is based on specific
decisions made by the Council, is to back up Community policies  
(relating to sectors, to groups, etc.) by influencing the labour market;  
the second aims at doing away with unemployment or under-employment of  
a structural nature. At present these two categories cover nine fields  
of intervention.
Fund aid is granted on the basis of grouped applications submitted by  
public or private bodies and channelled through the Member States. The  
intervention rate is usually 50% of the eligible expenditures where  
an equivalent contribution is guaranteed by the public authorities.
It is up to the Commission, after consulting the tripartite committee  
of the Social Fund, to choose those projects which will receive aid  
among those applications which are both admissible and eligible under  
the rules in force and which are in line with the priorities set out by  
the Commission in its annual guidelines.
A system of financing by weighted reduction is applied when the  
available appropriations are inadequate. The sum calculated for each  
Member State by applying the reduction coefficient is subsequently  
divided among the operations which the Commission judges to be  
particularly deserving, after consulting the Member States in question.
*
* *
The obstacles to a greater effectiveness on the part of the Fund are  
to be found mainly in two factors: the complexity of the Fund, which
is characterized by a multiplicity of fields of intervention, each with  
a separate budget and set of guidelines, and the decision-making  
procedures, which are still lengthy despite endeavours to speed them  
up and mean that most projects cannot be authorized before they are due  
to begin. The Commission has submitted its opinion on the review of  
the Fund, taking account of the need to solve these two problems.

-  6 -
3. ERDF
General objectives
The ERDF was set up in 1975 and fits into the general context  
of achieving balanced development of the Community since it  
"is intended to correct the principal regional imbalances within  
the Community resulting in particular from agricultural preponderence,  
industrial change and structural under-employment" (Article 1 of the  
basic Regulation).!
The EIB and the ERDF are thus the Community's two financing  
bodies entrusted with the general task of assisting regional  
development. However, the operation of these two bodies differs  
substantially, since the former is a bank and the latter a Fund  
administered by the Commission which makes grants at the request of  
the Member States.
Main features of the ERDF
The endowment for the Fund has been determined annually since  
1978 in the general budget of the European Communities. It is  
used to finance:
(a) support for regional policy measures adopted by the Member  
States (95% of the budget endowment, shared out in national  
quotas);
(b) specifically Community-oriented measures with appropriations  
not subject to national quotas (5% of the endowment).
In the areas and regions covered by the non-quota section, the ERDF  
participates in financing investments - mainly in infrastructure, but  
also in the industrial, craft and services sectors. It operates by  
paying the Member States grants (or* equivalent interest subsidies);  
the amount is a percentage of the investment cost and varies according  
to whether the investment is in infrastructure or productive activities.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 724/75 of 18 March 1975.
From 10 to 40% for infrastructure; 20% for productive activities  
but no more than 50% of State aid.

- 7 -
The recent introduction of a non-quota section has made it possible to  
implement Community measures and thus to establish a link between ERDF  
action and specific Community priorities. However, there can be no  
talk of real change in the way the ERDF operates, given the budgetary  
limitations (5% of the Fund).
Financial resources
Three features have characterized the development and use of the  
appropriations set aside for the ERDF since its inception: firstly,
their rapid, steady growth (payments increased from some 75 million ECU  
the first year to around 1 000 million ECU in 1982); secondly, heavy  
concentration on the least prosperous countries and regions of the  
Community (Italy, United Kingdom, Ireland and Greece): between 1975
and 1982 over three quarters of total payments went to these countries,  
while the assistance per head of population in the least favoured  
regions of the Community reached an average of 55 ECU in 1982 as  
against 26.5 ECU in the period 1976-82; lastly, the considerable  
significance of infrastructure projects (86% of ERDF assistance in  
1982), in particular large-scale projects as apparent from the breakdown  
of commitment appropriations for 1982.^
Forms of intervention
Under the procedures governing the grant of ERDF assistance, the  
Commission - with the help of the Fund Committee and the Regional  
Policy Committee - assesses the contribution made by the investment  
to regional development and its consistency with Community programmes  
or objectives. It also ensures that the various Community measures  
of assistance are coordinated as much as possible and certain cases  
of combination of aids avoided. In addition, each project must form  
part of a regional development programme established in accordance  
with a common outline drawn up by the Regional Policy Committee.
Out of a total of 3 269 projects, 118 concerned investments in  
infrastructure costing more than 10 million ECU each (water engineering,  
transport, energy, telecommunications) and accounted for 55% of total  
appropriations.

-  8 -
Many projects fail to qualify under these provisions; but the discretion  
which the Commission has is limited on account of the rigid system of  
national quotas. The Member States tend to restrict their applications  
for assistance to their national quota under the Regulation.
In the vast majority of cases ERDF assistance backs up regional policy  
measures decided upon at national level without there being any guarantee that  
these contribute to economic convergence within the Community. As things now  
stand, the Commission's power to coordinate and guide these measures is  
very limited on account of the set-up. This consideration, together with  
the widening of disparities, inspired the proposal to reform the ERDF  
presented by the Commission to the Council in 1981.
Since ERDF assistance is subsidiary to national measures, it is hard to  
measure its economic impact. As a guide, the table below compares ERDF  
assistance with certain key aggregates such as gross domestic product  
and gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) in certain regions.
Priority regions* ERDF assistance per  
inhabitant
(ECU, average 1979-82)GDP per head  
(ECU, 1980)
Ireland
Northern Ireland  
Mezzogiorno16.6
18.1
14.53 768 (0.4%)
4 928 (0.36%)  
3 531 (0.4%)
ERDF assistance  
(million ECU, 1979)GFCF
(mi llion ECU, 1979)
Ireland
Northern Ireland  
Mezzogiorno62.2
42.5
394.73 442 (1.8%)  
not available  
13 400** (2.9%)
★Excluding Greenland and the overseas departments.  
★★Excluding Marche and Lazio.

ANNUAL COMMITMENTS AND PAYMENTS TO MEMBER STATES  
EAGGF GUIDANCE SECTION, SOCIAL FUND,  
REGIONAL FUND, EMS INTEREST SUBSIDIES
(1974-82)

BREAKDOWN OF STRUCTURAL GRANTS BY RECIPIENT COUNTRY
- 1974 -
million ECU
Italyi---------------------
Un
 i t ed 
KingdomIreland Germany FranceNetherlands Belgium Luxembourg Denmark EC-9
EAGGF Guidance  
Commi tments  
Payments53.3
15.922.6 9.8 68.6
56.955.6
34.118.3
15.615.3
12.41.1
0.210.2254.8
135.1
Social Fund  
Commi tments  
Payments58.3
76.550.9
37.213.8
9.433.1
42.351.6
26.67.6
8.67.0
5.50.0 12.4
4.1234.7
210.2
Regional Fund  
Commi tments  
Paymentsi{
J
!
i
i
!I
________ i________ 1  
.

BREAKDOWN OF STRUCTURAL GRANTS BY RECIPIENT COUNTRY
- 1975 -
mi L  lion ECU
ItalyUnited 
Ki ngdomIreland Germany FranceNetherlands Belgium Luxembourg Denmark EC-9
EAGGF Guidance
Commi tments 52.4 27.4 8.667.851.5 15.7 13.4 0.2 10.2 247.2
Payments 28.8 12.9 1.064.446.0 17.1 10.3 0.6 6.0187.1
Social Fund
Commi tments 73.7 82.0 16.8 50.077.1 12.6 8.8 0.0 9.4330.4
Payments 19.4 29.5 7.212.217.1 0.8 0.7 - 0.7 87.5
Regional Fund
Commi tments 95.7 64.1 14.8 11.448.0 6.5 4.4 0.9 4.1249.9
Payments 34.2 13.9 5.2 —16.8 3.3 0.2 1.6 75.2

BREAKDOWN OF STRUCTURAL GRANTS BY RECIPIENT COUNTRY
- 1976-
million ECU
ItalyUnited
KingdomIreland Germany FranceNetherlands Belgium Luxembourg Denmark EC-9
EAGGF Guidance
Commi tments 62.5 36.7 18.1 81.962.9 17.3 17.6 0.1 13.3 310.4
)  Payments 25.4 29.2 6.264.946.5 18.3 12.9 0.4 7.2211.1
Social Fund
I
t'  Commitments 98.5 71.3 21.2 57.779.6 15.4 9.2 0.1 11.5 364.4
Payments
I
II25.2 44.3 7.577.330.9 15.8 10.8 0.0 23.3 235.1
I
Regional Fund
Commitments 137.2 95.1 23.1 25.979.5 12.2 7.8 - 7.1387.9
Payments 75.8 59.2 12.1 17.430.0 6.7 7.1 0.5 4.4213.2

BREAKDOWN OF STRUCTURAL GRANTS BY RECIPIENT COUNTRY
- 197? -
million ECU
IItalyUnited
KingdomIreland Germany FranceNetherlands Belgium Luxembourg Denmark EC-9
I
I
,  EAGGF Guidance
Commitments 50.5 44.8 17.5 85.364.8 18.6 17.0 0.6 13.6 312.7
Payments 21.3 41.7 9.496.458.8 25.7 20.3 2.7 15.9 292.2
Social Fund
Commitments 74.5 145.5 30.0 82.0124.6 15.9 11.4 0.0 15.1 499.0
Payments 55.6 65.2 16.8 52.535.2 10.5 8.0 0.1 10.6 254.5
1
Regional Fund
Commitments 119.3 91.5 19.3 59.170.2 8.1 10.5 0.6 7.2385.8
Payments 92.8 79.5 14.1 34.445.4 7.0 3.5 0.1 6.3283.1

BREAKDOWN OF STRUCTURAL GRANTS BY RECIPIENT COUNTRY
- 1978 -
million ECU
ItalyUnited
KingdomIreland Germany FranceNetherlands Belgium Luxembourg Denmark EC-9
EAGGF Guidance
Commitments 39.1 38.8 18.9 86.154.8 12.6 5.7 0.5 12.6 269.2
Payments 31.3 40.5 16.8125.1 60.5 16.3 15.7 1.4 16.0 323.6
Social Fund
Commitments 233.2 111.9 44.4 57.386.2 9.8 11.1 0.2 14.3 568.3
Payments 30.4 89.5 30.9 51.652.0 14.4 12.2 0.1 3.7284.8
Regional Fund
Commitments 223.2 151.5 35.0 48.782.6 8.2 6.2 0.5 5.5561.4
Payments 78.5 59.0 20.5 42.240.6 6.5 6.0 0.2 1.4254.9

BREAKDOWN OF STRUCTURAL GRANTS BY RECIPIENT COUNTRY
- 1979 -
million ECU
—
Italy—
United
KingdomIreland Germany FranceNetherlands Belgium Luxembourg Denmark EC-9
EAGGF Guidance  
Commi tments  
Payments106.8
38.371.0
64.233.1
28.2113.3
118.5111.2
91.427.4
25.324.7
17.12.9
0.616.9
15.1507.3
398.7
Social Fund  
Commitments  
Payments281.3
166.8196.4
197.558.1
38.952.9
58.0134.9
93.419.3
10.915.9
5.81.0
0.114.7
24.3774.5
595.7
Regional Fund  
Commitments  
Payments394.5
143.7263.1
165.762.2
32.958.5
46.0159.4
103.611.3
8.69.1
3.10.8
0.311.5
9.1970.4
513.1
EMS interest  
subsidi es133.9 -66.1- - - - - -200.0

BREAKDOWN OF STRUCTURAL GRANTS BY RECIPIENT COUNTRY
- 1980 -
million ECU
ItalyUnited
Kingdom3Ireland Germany FranceNetherlands Belgium Luxembourg Denmark EC-9
EAGGF Guidance  
Commitments  
Payments167.3
102.098.2
105.949.1
45.199.2
143.0152.6
133.322.2
26.314.7
25.30.6
1.020.8
24.6624.7
607.1
Social Fund  
Commi tments  
Payments327.2
199.7236.5
162.879.7
71.5108.0
74.8195.0
193.018.3
4.429.3
8.90.9
0.219.4
14.51  014.2 
729.9
Regional Fund  
Commi tments  
Payments489.7
249.0242.6
233.277.8
69.571.1
50.4198.8
99.622.5
7.711.9
6.50.5
0.911.6
9.41 126.4 
726.7
EMS interest  
subsidies129.8-67.2--- - - -197.0
Excluding the supplementary measures in favour of the United Kingdom (1980: 193.5 million ECU).

BREAKDOWN OF STRUCTURAL GRANTS BY RECIPIENT COUNTRY  
- 1981 -
million ECU
—
ItalyUnited a KingdomIrelandGreeceGermanyFrance Nether lands BelgiumLuxembourg DenmarkEC-10
EAGGF Guidance
Commitments 210.8115.871.517.4107.1138.6 26.3 16.12.319.6725.4
Payments 84.6112.560.4 -134.5121.4 21.9 22.12.320.9580.6
Social Fund
Commitments 341.0249.1105.7 30.674.6141.8 12.7 23.20.624.51 003.8
Payments 211.9192.160.5 6.668.0150.8 14.2 13.80.518.6737.2
Regional Fund|
i
Commitments 721.9362.3108.9250.256.5172.7 12.4 2.81.619.31  708.9
Payments 211.7255.280.3122.036.266.8 5.7 9.21.010.7798.7
EMS interest  
subsidies126.6 -66.6 --- - - --193.2
Excluding'the supplementary measures in favour of the United Kingdom (1981 :  1 244 million ECU).

BREAKDOWN OF STRUCTURAL GRANTS BY RECIPIENT COUNTRY
- 1982 -
million ECU
Italy“nit*d a I  Ireland Kingdom |GreeceGermany FranceNetherlandsBelgium Luxembourg Denmark j  EC-10
i  1
EAGGF Guidance 
Commitments 
Payments234.8
131.671. 7 
69. 690 .5 
87 .830.6
14.596.-6
108.3200.7
168-027. 8 
32.413.9
17.91. 6
■  1.619. 6 
22.0737. 8
653-7 |1
Social Fund 
Commi tments 
Payments461.7
259*5467.7 
271.3145.3
114.960.4
23.690.0 
80. 5262.9
121.916. 4 
8. 324.0
16.00. 5
1. 127.3
17.8!
ii1 556.2 !  
914.9
Regional Fund  
Commi tments 
Payments620.5 ·  
281.8463-1
225-1114..3
93.5224.6
152.355.3
61.6357.0
130.017. 5 
3.219.3
10.91
2+2 j  17.8 
011 |  14.61 891 .6 
973.1
}
EMS interest  
subsidies137-2 -72.7 •  - -I  j  i  j  :  !  
- j  - |  - - !  - j  209.. 9 !
_______I_______i_______!_______ i_______I______i
Excluding the supplementary measures in favour of the United Kingdom (1982: 1 804 million ECU)

Regional impact of structural financing----- -----y--- '  -  -
a ;Grants per inhabitantb f?) c (3)Loans per inhabitant GDP per head(4) =(1) +  (2)
=  %
(1973-1980) (1978-1980) (1978-1980) (3)
ECU ECU ECU -
Mezzogiorno3 33.4 >  57 .4 3  012 2.35
Ireland 53.0 84 .9 3 337 4.13
Northern Ireland 45*2 34,-4 4 014 1 -98
r (1) d Grants
(1979 miliion ECU)(2)cLoans
(1979 million ECU)(3)
GFCF
(1979 million ECU)(4)(1) + (2)
%
(3)
Mezzogiorno3 540. 6 662.8 13 400 8.9
Ireland 137.2 353.5 3 442 •  14..2
Northern Ireland 46- 5 ■  77.7 n.  a.
dExcluding Marche and Lazio.
°(EAGGF Guidance Section direct and specific measures, ESF, ERDF, EMS interest subsidies,  
specific energy measures).
C(EIB, NCI, ECSC, Euratom).
(EAGGF Guidance Section direct and specific measures, ERDF, EMS interest subsidies, specific  
energy measures, but excluding ESF).