fi|> COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(90) 516 final 
Brussels, 15 November 1990 
it ANNUAL REPORT ON THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REFORM OF THE 
STRUCTURAL FUNDS 
1989 
- 1 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
In February 1987, in Its communication entitled "The Single Act: a new 
frontier for Europe", the Commission mapped out new guidelines for the 
Community's structural policy. 
These were taken up in practice for the first time in February 1988, 
with a commitment by the European Council to double the overall budget 
for the structural Funds by 1993, for the attainment of a limited 
number of priority objectives. 
In June and December 1988, the Council approved the legal Instruments 
providing the basis for future assistance from the Funds and the 
combination of such assistance with the Community's other financial 
instruments. 
This report relates to 1989, the first year of the reform, which was 
based on three fundamental principles: 
to transform structural policy Into an instrument with real 
economic impact; 
to use a multiannual approach for expenditure planning to assure 
Member States of the stability and predictability of Community 
support ; 
to implement a partnership with all the parties actively involved 
in structural policy, especially the regional authorities. 
It also mentions important decisions taken in 1990. Its purpose is not 
to evaluate the full impact of the reform, particularly in relation to 
the objectives of economic and social cohesion spelt out in 
Article 130A of the Treaty. Before the end of 1991 the Commission will 
carry out a first evaluation of the structural policies to which the 
Funds contribute significantly. 
In 1989 the task facing the Member States and the Commission was to 
begin implementing the basic principles of the new regulations. 
This required a major commitment from all those Involved in order to 
reach the stage of approval of the Community Support Frameworks which 
are to ensure the coherence of structural action over the next three to 
five years. 
The first eighteen months' experience of the implementation of the 
reform of the Funds has given all the parties concerned valuable 
experience of the new operating methods and a basis for the 
rationalisation and simplification of procedures. 
Implementation of the new principles of the reform 
in the first place, implementation of the new rules required a forward 
planning effort on the part of the Member States, which were required 
to submit multiannual plans reflecting their Intended strategies for 
the years covered by the reform and indicating the national resources 
to be mobilized and the Community assistance desired as back-up for the 
- 2 -
national policies. Broadly speaking, the plans were submitted within 
the dead 11 ne. 
In the next stage, the Commission drew up, in partnership with each 
Member State and the regional authorities designated by it, the 
Community Support Frameworks (CSFs) which represent the Community 
response as regards the priorities for assistance and the Community 
funds to be assigned to each objective in the Member State concerned. 
The CSFs are the tools allowing true multiannual programming in 
structural policy. They were approved within the deadlines laid down 
in the regulations except In one or two special cases. For 
Objective 5(b) the CSFs were approved In 1990 as planned. 
Although the CSFs constitute an essential preliminary to planned 
assistance, they cannot guarantee Its success. It is only by 
monitoring the progress of commitments each year that it will be 
possible to assess the appropriateness of such planning. 
The whole operation brought together the various parties involved in 
structural action at regional, national and community levels. When the 
CSFs were negotiated the Commission took care to involve all the 
partners, including the regional authorities, in the decisions 
regarding the priority areas of assistance in their regions. Some 
decisions, particularly as regards the allocation of funds, were taken 
In direct consultation with the Member State. The partnership will be 
continued and strengthened throughout the period of implementation of 
the CSFs within the framework of the monitoring committees. 
To be effective, the doubling of assistance from the Funds depends, 
among other things, on Member States' observance of the principle of 
additfonality. In practical terms, this means that the Member States 
must meet the increased Community effort by at least maintaining the 
level of public spending in real terms, so that the volume of 
structural assistance is correspondingly increased. The plans submitted 
by the Member States did not afford sufficient guarantees as to 
observance of this principle. It was therefore decided to follow up 
this point beyond the completion of the CSF negotiations. In 1990, 
formal requests to this effect were made to each Member State. 
The doubling of assistance from the funds is to be accompanied by a 
measure of greater concentration. The regions whose development is 
lagging behind (Objective 1 regions) are to receive ECU 38.3 billion 
out of a total multiannual budget of ECU 60.3 billion at 1989 prices. 
This should ensure that assistance for those regions has been doubled 
by 1992 in line with the undertakings of the European Council. Within 
the context of Objective 1, the Commission has striven to ensure that 
the least prosperous regions covered by the Objective benefit from 
concentrât Ion. 
Although progress towards the goal of concentration may be Judged 
positively, certain points need stressing. Member States made little 
use of the new possibilities offered by the rules providing that 
Community assistance, particularly for non-revenue-bearing Investments, 
may meet up to 75% of the total cost of measures In Objective 1 
countries so as to achieve concentration of Community assistance within 
these regions. The result Is that the degree of concentration 
- 3 -
might have been, and national budgets thus have a heavier burden to 
bear. As regards Objective 2, the specification of the eligible areas 
represents a first step in achieving concentration. The Commission 
significantly narrowed down the list of areas proposed by the Member 
States, and this enabled the geographical coverage to be reduced from 
what It prevlousy was (except In the case of the UK). The coverage of 
the Community population ultimately adopted lies between 16 X and 17 %. 
Assistance from the Community budget Is to be matched by better use of 
the Community's other financial instruments, and more particularly EIB 
loans. In 1989, to take account of the new Imperatives of the reform, 
the Commission and the EIB amended their rules on cooperation as 
regards the maximum rates of grants from the Community for financing 
investments generating substantial income. Although Member States' 
plans gave preference to assistance in the form of grants, the 
Commission and the EIB analysed the CSFs to Identify the projects which 
could be funded by a grant/loan mix. This cooperation enabled the Bank 
to put together, for the Objective 1 regions, an offer of loans to 
supplement their financing plans. However, in the first year of 
implementation, the successful mixing of grants and loans depended very 
heavily on the concrete circumstances in which the financing plans for 
the various operational programmes and major projects could be put 
together. 
In 1989, budgetary implementation was satisfactory. ECU 6 137 million 
was committed for the Objective 1 regions, a sum exceeding that 
specified in the indicative breakdown of appropriations by objective in 
the budget. The proportion of ERDF funds committed In 1989 for the 
Objective 1 regions represents 77.8% of the total. However, the degree 
of concentration has to be assessed over the five-year period as a 
who Ie. 
Specific characteristics of the individual objectives 
Although, with the exception of Objective 5(a), the implementation of 
the objectives of the reform is founded on a common overall philosophy, 
certain specific characteristics were taken into account during the 
negot iat ions. 
For Ob iect ive 1. the cardinal aim of the reform is not only to double 
the rate of assistance but to use the structural Funds as an instrument 
serving the economic growth of the regions lagging behind (7 countries 
are covered wholly or partly by Objective 1). The Commission therefore 
sought to focus its assistance on a limited number of priorities, to 
develop genuine synergy between the three Funds wherever possible, and 
to step up the proportion of assistance In support of productive 
investment. Although support for basic infrastructure remains a major 
item in these regions, the CSFs as a whole reflect the common 
determination of the Member States and the Commission to target 
assistance from the Funds on efforts to increase the competitiveness of 
the economies concerned. 
For Ob Iect Ive 2. the Commission had first to adopt a list of eligible 
areas. The Member States submitted lists of areas which, according to 
their assessment, satisfied the criteria laid down by the Council. 
Sixty regions or parts of regions were finally selected. In the CSFs 
the greatest emphasis is placed on measures to enhance the potential 
- 4 -
environment and the Image of these old Industrial areas and to enable 
them to attract new firms, rather than on the provision of basic 
infrastructure. The CSFs were, with a small number of exceptions, 
drawn up region by region. 
For ObIectIves 3 and 4. the first point to be noted is that multiannual 
programming of Community assistance Is a totally new departure. These 
horizontal Objectives concern the entire Community. Given the 
difficulties involved in forecasting matters as changeable as 
vocational training and employment policy, the Commission decided to 
draw up one CSF for the two objectives In each Member State covering 
only three years. Negotiation of the CSFs enabled the Commission to 
evaluate the employment policy applied in the Member States in a way it 
had been unable to do when Community assistance had been granted on a 
project basis: moreover, it afforded an opportunity to concentrate 
funding more closely on those measures which seem most appropriate to 
solve the main problems of the labour market. 
Oblective 5 comprises two sub-objectives. One, Objective 5(a). seeks 
to accelerate the structural adaptation of agriculture to the reform of 
the CAP and the adaptation of fish processing and marketing structures. 
To this end, the Council, acting on proposals from the Commission in 
late 1989 and 1990, approved a significant overhaul of agricultural 
structure policy so that it would more actively complement market 
policy and incorporate the aspects of environmental protection and 
diversification of enterprises. By the same token, certain changes 
were made in the rules governing the horizontal measures already In 
force so as to integrate them into the reform and achieve better 
linkages to the regional measures under Objectives 1 and 5(b). 
Objective 5(a) measures are of particular importance for the Objective 
1 regions, and the CSFs for those regions accordingly take up a 
subsantial part of the budgetary resources for the measures in 
question. In 1989, more than half the commitments under Objective (5a) 
were for Objective 1 regions. Objective 5(a), which applies throughout 
the Community (including the regions covered by Objectives 1 and 5(b)), 
will have to be implemented in coordination with the regional measures 
which can increase its impact. In the areas not covered by Objective 
1, it may require financial planning in future since its funding is 
non-compulsory and covered by a predetermined budgetary allocation. 
Objective 5(b) seeks to resolve the development problems facing many 
rural areas of the Community as a result of CAP reform. The Objective 
is implemented area by area. Community assistance will endeavour to 
support efforts to develop, diversify and revitalize the economic base 
of these, generally fairly small, rural areas, and will be very 
specifically targeted. The CSFs were approved in June 1990. 
During the negotiation and adoption of the CSFs the Commission 
identified a number of problems calling for an additional effort on the 
part of the Structural Funds. It accordingly approved a first series 
of initiatives under which the Member States are invited to submit 
programmes In the following fields : the conversion of the coalmining 
Industry; Improving the environment, especially for coastal areas-, 
research and development in disadvantaged areas; the development of 
cross-border regions; the development of the ultra-peripheral regions 
of the Community. 
- 5 -
Preliminary assessment of the Implementation of the reform In 1989 
The Implementation of the reform in 1989 was generally satisfactory : 
deadlines were met, viz. the end of 1989 for the negotiation of the 
CSFs for Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4 and a little later - as had been 
planned - for Objective 5(b) and the Community Initiatives. 
This major operation brought together authorities which did not 
necessarily share the same views at the outset. It assembled, around 
the table of partnership, three different administrative levels 
(regional, national and Community). Such meetings rarely proved 
unfruitful for the participants, although the initial negotiating 
positions were sometimes quite far apart. 
Negotiation of the CSFs also provided the first real opportunity for 
exchanges between the Commission departments and regional 
administrations. The discussions were enriching for all and led to 
greater mutual understanding. An assessment of the partnership has to 
take account of the particular institutional structure of each Member 
State, which meant that in some cases it was more limited than one 
would have wished. 
Discussion of the Community support frameworks and operational 
programmes gave some small countries, relatively under-endowed in terms 
of regional administrative resources, the opportunity to tackle global 
planning and the application of programming techniques hitherto 
unfamiIlar to them. 
However, this whole sequence of meetings and the subsequent 
implementation of operations proved more cumbersome than initially 
foreseen. This raises the question of the appropriateness of identical 
procedures for all CSFs. 
It also proved difficult to reconcile the generally very tight 
deadlines with the other requirements of the regulations, particularly 
as regard ex-ante evaluation of Community assistance. 
Although one of the main principles of the reform is to decentralize 
decisions on the allocation of funds, a large number of funding 
agreements (sometimes for fairly small sums) had to be reached at the 
highest level. 
The negotiation of the CSFs led to significant changes of emphasis in 
content as compared with the plans originally submitted. These changes 
mainly concerned the balance between basic infrastructure and 
productive investment, greater integration between vocational training 
and the economic development priorities, and a greater emphasis on 
telecommunications, research and development and the protection of the 
environment. 
With regard to the implementation of the CSFs now that they have been 
approved, it is still too early to come to any objective conclusions 
having the necessary perspective. 
To ascertain the effectiveness of the implementation of the plans in 
practice, monitoring systems, includina meetinas of monitorina 
- 6 -
This aspect represents one of the challenges of the new approach to 
assistance, under which the Commission Is not provided - as In the past 
- with detailed Information about each measure. Decentralization of 
the management of Community assistance Is thus a new departure for 
Community structural policy. 
Lastly, the effective dovetailing of assistance from all three Funds is 
one of the most difficult tasks. It requires adjustments In terms of 
cooperation with national administrative bodies and In terms of policy 
definition. The CSFs have identified potential synergies between the 
Funds. These must now take tangible shape so that the Funds develop 
Into practical tools for the attainment of the Community's main 
structural poI Icy object Ives. 
Developments In 199Q 
Finally, In addition to part-financing operations proposed by the 
Member States, the Commission has the possibility, since the reform, of 
launching Community Initiatives. 
Under this heading the Member States were invited to submit 
applications for assistance for operations of special interest to the 
Community. The available funding is ECU 3.8 billion for the period 
1989-93. 
This option enables the Commission to promote initiatives in areas 
which it deems of priority or crucial importance to the completion of 
the single market or the strengthening of economic and social cohesion. 
To complement the initiatives approved in 1989, the Commission in 1990 
finalised other Community initiatives which it proposes to approve when 
it has received the opinion of the European Parliament, the Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committees. 
The new set of initiatives are devoted to three underlying priorities : 
-extending basic infrastructures 
-enhancing human resources 
-integrating rural areas 
Recent political events, especially German unification, will give the 
Community a role in the structural adaptation process which has now 
begun in the new regions of Germany. 
In accordance with the mandate received from the European Council, the 
Commission has proposed amendments to the Regulations so that the East 
German regions can benefit from assistance from the Funds from 1991. 
For 1991-93, financial assistance totalling ECU 3 billion is envisaged, 
this amount being additional to the existing resources of the Funds. 
With the experience acquired in drawing-up the CSFs it will be easier 
to extend this planning system to the regions newly Integrated Into the 
Community and to draw up an effective programme of measures to assist 
them without delay. 
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION 
OF THE REFORM OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS IN 1989 
Contents 
Introduction 
CHAPTER I : THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORM AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION 
1. Rationalization of Methods 
1.1. Planning 
1.2. Implementation of partnership 
1.3. Additionality of Community measures 
1.4. Compatibility of Structural Policy with other 
Community policies 
2. Additional Resources and Greater Concentration 
2.1. Establishing the new financial resources available 
for the five-year period 
2.2. Breakdown of appropriations by Objective 
2.3. Indicative allocation of 85 % of the ERDF 
appropriations 
2.4. Determination of overall financing for the relevant 
Period for each Objective 
2.5. Fulfilling the commitments laid down in the 
Régulât ions 
2.6. Breakdown of appropriations between Member States 
3. Combination of the Community Grant and Loan 
Instruments 
3.1. Principles 
3.2. Agreement between the Commission and the EIB 
3.3. Grants and Loans in the CSFs 
CHAPTER 11 : OPERATIONAL PHASE 
1. Promoting the development and structural adjustment 
of the regions whose development is lagging behind 
(objective 1) 
1.1. Definition of general regional policy guidelines 
1.2. Assessment of regional development plans in the 
light of the Community guidelines 
1.3. Preparation and approval of the forms of assistance 
1.4. Integration of measures relating to agriculture and 
rural development 
2. Converting the regions, frontier regions or parts of 
regions seriously affected by Industrial decline 
(objective 2) 
2.1. Identification of the areas and of priorities 
2.2. Appraisal of the plans in the light of the Community 
guide Iines 
2.3. Negotiations 
2.4. Preparation and approval of the forms of assistance 
3. Combating long-term unemployment (objective 3) and 
occupational integration of young people (objective 
4) 
3.1. Multiannual guidelines for the management of the ESF 
3.2. Content of the plans submitted by the Member States 
3.3. Partnership negotiations and changes of emphasis 
3.4. Specific problems 
4. Adjustment of production, processing and marketing 
structures in agriculture, forestry and fisheries 
(objective 5(a)) 
4.1. Main changes In 1989 
4.2. Trend In expenditure under Objective 5 (a) In 1989 
and breakdown by measure 
4.3. Implementing provisions 
5. Promotion of Rural Development (objective 5(b)) 
5.1. Selection of rural areas 
5.2. Duration of plans and geographical scope 
5.3. Details of priorities for assistance 
6. Pilot schemes for regional development at Community 
level 
7. Community Initiatives 
CHAPTER III : THEMATIC PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE 
1. Upgrading of Basic Infrastructures 
1.1. Transport infrastructures 
1.2. Telecommunications infrastructures 
1.3. Energy 
1.4. Improving and protecting the environment 
2. Strengthening the productive sectors 
2.1. Improving competitiveness 
2.2. Promotion of tourist potential 
2.3. Promotion of technological potential 
3. Changes of emphasis In Community policy In favour of 
human resources 
3.1. A new approach to skill training 
3.2. Support for training facilities 
3.3. Upgrading of vocational training at secondary school 
level 
3.4. Priority for the drive to combat long-term 
unemployment 
4. The Improvement of agricultural structure and rural 
development 
4.1. Improvement of conditions of production and 
upgrading of agricultural resources 
4.2. Protection of the environment and forestry measures 
4.3. Conversion, diversification and adjustment of 
agricultural production capacity 
4.4. Early retirement and the establishment of young 
farmers 
CHAPTER IV : IMPLEMENTATION 
1. Practical Implementing Arrangements 
1.1. Financial provisions 
1.2. Establishment of the monitoring committees 
1.3. Implementation of the forms of assistance 
2. Technical assistance 
3. Methodology for assessing the CSFs and programmes 
CHAPTER V : BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION IN 1989 
1. Budgetary Implementation In 1989 by objectives 
2. Allocation of budgetary appropriations and 
Implementation In 1989 by Fund 

- 1 -
INTRODUCTION 
This report is presented pursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the reform of the structural Funds, 
hereinafter referred to as the framework Regulation,1 and Article 31 of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down 
implementing provisions for the above, hereinafter referred to as the 
coordinating Regulation.2 
It is not intended to replace the specific reports on the monitoring of the 
activities of the individual Funds as provided for in Article 25 of the 
coordinating Regulation. Its aim is to report on the implementation of the 
reform during 1989. 
In order to give a better picture, some decisions taken in 1990 are also 
ment ioned. 
There were two objectives during 1989, to ensure the continuity of 
Community assistance to those implementing the structural policy and to 
prepare, in a short space of time, the first phase of the reform, i.e. the 
drawing-up of plans by the Member States and the approval of the relevant 
Community support frameworks (CSFs) by the Commission. The reform is 
ambitious, not only in that it will mobilize a large share of the 
Community's resources, but also, and perhaps above all, because it requires 
a very considerable change of attitude by everyone involved, at every level 
in the Member States and by the Commission itself. 
For its part, the Commission has taken a series of initiatives, within the 
partnership framework, to conform to the spirit of the rules both with 
regard to the concentration of financial resources and to the search for 
i ncreased ef fecti veness. 
The purpose of this document is to report on the application in practice of 
the basic principles laid down in the Regulations, and to evaluate the 
working of the partnership and the way the Community support frameworks 
have been drawn up. This evaluation can be only limited, by definition, 
since the implementation of the reform is a gradual process. The 
monitoring of Community measures, possible changes of emphasis in the CSFs 
and the approval of the various forms of assistance which are the only 
tangible commitments will allow a more accurate assessment of the 
effectiveness of the new approach and the impact of the Funds on the 
process of cohesion. 
Before analysing the actual implementation in 1989 of the main features of 
the reform, it is relevant to describe the political and economic 
background to it. The reform is not only crucial to deeper economic and 
social cohesion in the Community, but its full effectiveness depends on a 
strategy of sustained economic growth. 
OJ NO L 185. 15.7.1Qftfl n 
- 2 -
1. Economic and social cohesion and the reform of the structural Funds 
Greater economic and social cohesion In the Community is an objective 
introduced into the Treaty by Article 130A following the approval of the 
Single European Act. The Article stipulates that such cohesion is the task 
of the Community as a whole: the Member States are to conduct their 
economic policies so as to achieve this objective and the Community is to 
provide support, principally through the structural Funds, the European 
Investment Bank and the other financial instruments. The particular goal 
of cohesion is to reduce the disparities between the various regions and 
assist the progress of the least-favoured ones, but it also has a role to 
play in support of all Community regions. 
The economic and social cohesion of the Community has become even more 
important since the adoption of the programme to complete the internal 
market by 1992 and the accession of Spain and Portugal. Completion of the 
internal market will have a structural impact on the economies of the 
Member States, particularly the most vulnerable, and the accession of Spain 
and Portugal has increased the disparities in development within the 
Community. If the economic benefits of the internai market are to be fully 
realized, the weakest economies will need assistance to improve their 
competitiveness and help them move towards more modern and efficient 
structures. 
The Community therefore needed resources to respond adequately to the 
requirements of Article 130A. On the institutional level, reform of the 
structural Funds was needed to make them more effective and better able to 
perform their new role. Adequate financial resources were required to 
ensure that the Community's structural policies, and assistance from the 
structural Funds in particular, could have a genuine economic impact. 
These two concerns were satisfied: the reform of the Funds was set in 
train and completed by the end of 19881. In February 1988 the European 
Council decided that by 1993 the amount available to the Funds in real 
terms should be double that available in 1987. 
The reform of the Funds laid down five precise objectives to assist the 
I east-favoured regions to catch up and to reduce disparities in development 
between regions. These were: 
Objective 1 : 
promoting the development and structural adjustment of the regions 
whose development is lagging behind; this objective concerns seven 
countries in whole or in part and covers some 21.5 % of the 
population of the Community. 
Objective 2: 
converting the regions seriously affected by industrial decline; this 
Reform of the structural Funds was achieved through the following 
Régulât ions: 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 of 19 December 1988 
Council Reaulation (EEC) No 4255/88 of 19 December 1988 
- 3 -
objective concerns 60 regions in whole or in part and covers some 16 
% of the population of the Community. 
Objective 3: 
combating long-term unemployment ; 
Objective 4: 
facilitating the occupational integration of young people; 
Objective 5: 
with a view to reform of the common agricultural policy, 
(a) speeding up the adjustment of agricultural structures and 
improvement of conditions for fish processing and marketing; and 
. (b) promoting the development of rural areas-, 
objective 5(b) concerns 56 regions in whole or in part and some 5 % 
of the populat ion. 
In addition to the priority objectives, the Commission must honour 
commitments which it entered into before the reform in favour of regions 
which are no longer eligible. To meet these commitments, without in any 
sense constituting a sixth objective, there are appropriations allocated to 
"transitional measures". 
These objectives will guide assistance from the Funds over the period 1989-
93. Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) are regionally-targeted, which has required 
decisions about the eligibility of regions or areas, while the other 
objectives are more horizontal in character. In accordance with Article 
130a of the Treaty, assistance from the Funds will be concentrated in the 
least-favoured areas. Under the criteria laid down, three countries 
(Greece, Ireland and Portugal) are regarded entirely as Objective 1 
regions, as is the Italian Mezzogiorno, about 70% of Spain, the French 
overseas departments and Corsica and Northern Ireland. In those areas, 
transfers from the Funds under the Community support frameworks (CSFs) will 
have a significant macroeconomic impact at around 1.6% of their GDP, a 
percentage which rises to 2.5% to 3.5% in the case of countries totally 
covered by this Objective. 
Although assistance from the structural Funds under Objectives 2 and 5 (b) 
clearly does not have the same macroeconomic importance in relation to 
national aggregates, locally and in comparison with equivalent aggregates 
its impact may be far from insignificant. It is of considerable importance 
in the quest for socio-economic convergence and cohesion. At microeconomic 
level, it contributes thus towards the implementation of general economic 
policies. 
The horizontal objectives (Objectives 3 and 4 and in a substantially 
different way Objective 5(a)) have a similar aim to Objectives 1, 2 and 
5(b), but their macroeconomic impact is more diffused since they may act as 
a catalyst for national policies not subject to geographical limitations. 
The adjustment of agricultural structures (Objective 5(a)) is being 
undertaken in the context of the reform of the CAP and is intended to 
facilitate the implementation of the new policy approach in rural areas. 
The fishery aspects of objective 5(a) also form part of the structural 
component of the Common Fisheries Policy. 
Community support is not in itself sufficient to create an economic 
development dynamic. Apart from the essential role which not just firms 
hut a I I thA nlavAre mnct n«rfnrm in thA <e i nn I A mar IT A* Anw î rnnmant : • le 
- A -
clear that the real economic impact which the reform seeks to achieve will 
not materialise without an effort to improve the macroeconomic context in 
which the funds are deployed. Economic growth in the Community and the 
associated growth of the least-favoured regions have been promoted by the 
momentum of the internal market process. 
2. The Community economy and implementation of the reform of the 
structural Funds 
Reform of the structural Funds began in 1989 at a time when the Community 
economy was still enjoying a period of growth which had lasted throughout 
the second half of the decade. During that period, economic performance in 
the Community improved substantially and fundamentally. GDP grew steadily, 
reacting a rate of 3.8% in 1988, stimulated principally by investment. 
Jobs were created and unemployment fell, although it still remained too 
high. Inflation fell significantly, from 12% in 1981 to 4.8% in 1989. 
The fact that virtually all Community countries made stability the goal of 
their monetary policy and sought to restore balance to their public 
finances, and that progress was made towards greater market flexibility, 
contributed significantly to the satisfactory results. The reductions in 
government deficits left headroom for a resumption of private investment, 
even though considerable progress still needs to be made in some countries. 
Lower growth in wage increases helped to achieve lower inflation and a 
significant upturn in profitability. The dynamism of the Community economy 
was given a further boost by progress in the building of Europe, the 
prospects offered to firms by the completion of the internal market and the 
decision to pursue committed policies to help the least-favoured countries 
and regions to catch up. 
This is the favourable background, offering encouragement for the economic 
and social cohesion of the Community, against which should be seen the good 
performances of the new Member States, whose economic structures are 
nevertheless less developed than the Community average. Spain and Portugal 
appear to have made quite good use of the opportunities offered by the 
integration of their economies into the European Community. Between 1986 
and 1989 both countries recorded vigorous growth rates, spurred by 
investment, averaging 4.7%, a figure higher than the Community average and 
in particular higher than the average of the eight most developed 
countries. In both countries, investment, increasingly from abroad, was 
very strong, running at 24% in Spain (19.2% in 1985) and 27.1% in Portugal 
(21.8% in 1985). 
The other two least-developed economies in the Community, which are also 
among the main beneficiaries of the reformed structural Funds, have 
progressed in rather different ways. The economy of Ireland grew by 3.3% a 
year between 1986 and 1989 under the stimulus of external 
demand, while investment did not begin to turn up until 1989 (when the rate 
reached 17.7%, as compared with 19.6% in 1985). By contrast, growth in the 
Greek economy over the same period was below the Community average (with 
the exception of 1988) and the real gap vis-à-vis the Community average 
actually widened. The upturn in investments, which began in 1988, was 
insufficient to raise the rate above what it had been in 1985. 
Now that the Community in general has found a more solid economic base, it 
must maintain and even improve on its good recent performance if economic 
and social cohesion is to be strengthened: that will also require the 
reversal of certain negative tendencies. These tasks must be undertaken by 
- 5 -
developed over recent years: the completion of the internal market, 
policies which favour growth and employment and the structural policies. 
There should be no deviation from this approach as a result of the most 
recent economic events outside the Community. In particular, the reaction 
of the economic policies of the Community to the rise in oil prices caused 
by the Gulf crisis must ensure that an economic environment favourable to 
strengthening economic and social cohesion within the Community is 
maintained. 
In those countries whose efforts to catch up are being largely supported by 
the structural Funds, macroeconomic management should enable their 
beneficial effects to be fully realized. Community support is not enough 
in itself to provide the dynamic for economic development. But this 
objective can be achieved through implementation of an economic strategy 
geared towards rapid, balanced and sustained growth into which assistance 
from the Funds can be suitably integrated. Furthermore, the pursuit of 
appropriate microeconomic reforms will, by increasing economic efficiency, 
ensure that full advantage can be taken of the advantages offered by 
completion of the large internal market in 1992. 
- 6 -
CHAPTER I: THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORM AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION 
1 : RATIONAL12AT ION OF METHODS 
One of the changes introduced by the Regulations is the major effort of 
rationalization required of the Commission and of the Member States. 
Although it is still too early for a detailed evaluation of this 
rationalization in terms of improved management of the Funds and their 
effectiveness, 1989 gave an opportunity to assess the new concepts of 
planning, partnership and additionality in practice and the coherence of 
the structural policy with the other Community policies. 
1.1 Planning 
1.1.1 The submission of pians 
Pursuant to Article 5 of the coordinating Regulation, during 1989 the 
twelve Member States submitted plans under the five priority Objectives. 
For many Member States this was a totally new approach, apart from the 
particular instance of the regional development programmes submitted to the 
ERDF under the old rules and the I MPs1 and IDOs2 which gave them 
experience in dealing with multiannual programming. 
In addition to the newness of the method, the Member States had to cope 
with short deadlines for the preparation of the plans: 31 March 1989 for 
Objective 1, 24 June 1989 for Objectives 3 and 4, June 1989 for Objective 2 
and 28 October 1989 for Objective 5(b). 
Member States adopted different approaches to the preparation of plans. 
Each of the countries concerned by Objective 1, with the exception of 
France which presented five plans (one per eligible region), decided to 
present a single plan (although the sections dealing with Objectives 3 and 
4 were still presented separately in line with the rules). Unfortunately, 
this made It difficult for the regions to participate sufficiently in the 
definition of priorities and led to the adoption of single CSFs for the 
countries covered by Objective 1, with large regional sections. 
Admittedly, the aim of the operation, i.e. the economic development of a 
country or most of a country, is such that certain strategic choices could 
not be decentralized. The Commission consequently approved ten CSFs for 
the seven countries covered by this Objective on 31 October 1989, the plans 
presented for Objectives 3 and 4 being integrated into the single CSFs. 
The Greek CSF was approved on 30 March 1990. 
For Objectives 2 and 5(b), all the Member States, except Spain, opted for 
regional plans. As the list of zones eligible under Objective 2 was not 
approved by the Commission until 21 March 1989, some Member States 
submitted their plans after 31 March. The same applies for Objective 5(b), 
28 October 1989 being fixed as the submission date for plans. 
Finally, overall plans were submitted for Objectives 3 and 4, one plan per 
country with regional sections covering both Objectives. 
Integrated Mediterranean Programmes 
- 7 -
The planning process resulted in 140 plans for the twelve Member States 
broken down as follows: 
18 for Objective 1, 
57 for Objective 2, 
9 for Objectives 3 and 4, (for countries not covered by 
Objective 1), 
56 for Objective 5(b). 
The submission dates were generally respected, which enabled the Commission 
to approve the CSFs during the six months following submission, except for 
some cases where the Member State was unable to agree to the CSF and final 
adoption was therefore delayed. 
1.1.2 Analysis of stated needs 
In line with the rules, the plans indicated "the particulars relating to 
each Fund, including the volumes of assistance requested". The planning 
operation thus gave the Commission, for the first time and for all the 
Member States, an accurate, quantified and substantiated overview of the 
Objectives and the corresponding financial needs of the Member States and 
an estimate of the size of the Member States' own financial commitments, 
even if only at the forecasting stage. 
The planning operation was not influenced, as in the past, by the existence 
of quotas or ranges although many Member States tried to base their 
financial planning on the indicative allocation of ERDF appropriations. 
Two general comments may be made on the needs expressed: first of all, the 
volume of funds requested was very large and far exceeded the amount 
available; secondly, the ERDF remains the Fund most in demand. In the 
plans for Objective 1, and to a lesser extent Objective 2, Member States 
stated needs which, all too often, reflected a conception of regional 
policy based on the importance of infrastructures. This approach is not in 
itself sufficient to solve the new problems of economic development and 
conversion posed under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b). 
For Objective 2, the size of existing commitments partly explains the 
volume of requests to the ERDF. 
For the ESF, the widening of eligibility criteria and the removal of 
certain constraints on, in particular, the duration of the measures, gave 
great encouragement to the submission of requests, particularly under 
Objectives 3 and 4, although also for Objective 1. 
Finally, for the EAGGF, the volume of assistance requested under 
Objective 1 is partly the result of the obligation on Member States to 
submit plans including horizontal structural measures under Objective 5(a). 
1.2 Implementation of partnership 
The framework Regulation defines partnership as "close consultations 
between the Commission, the Member State concerned and the competent 
authorities designated by the latter at national, regional, local or other 
level" and covering "the preparation, financing, monitoring and assessment 
of operat ions". 
- 8 -
The concept of partnership derives from the principle of complementarity 
contained in Article 4 of the Regulation according to which "Community 
operations shall be such as to complement national operations". 
Any assessment of partnership in practice must take the Objectives into 
account and never lose sight of the fact that the Commission has acted and 
will continue to act within the limits laid down by the Member States 
concerned. 
1.2.1 Partnership in the preparation of plans 
This phase was largely the concern of the Member States-, the Commission 
played no part. This makes it difficult to assess implementation of 
partnership between national and local authorities. Nevertheless, it s 
possible to glean some slight indication of how partnership was implemented 
during this phase of preparation from the form of presentation selected for 
the plans: 
firstly, Article 8 of the framework Regulation lays down that 
Member States may submit an overall regional development plan for all their 
regions covered by Objective 1. It is scarcely surprising that this 
facility was used by all the Member States with the exception of France and 
the United Kingdom; 
- secondly, the constraints laid down in the rules for Objectives 2 and 
5(b) encouraged the submission of regional plans. This was generally the 
case, with only Spain submitting overall plans. 
1.2.2 Partnership during the negotiations on the Community support 
frameworks 
During this stage, the Commission was able to take a series of initiatives 
to involve the regional partners more closely in the negotiation procedure. 
It did so because responsibility for structural policy in all the 
Member States is now shared between the national and regional 
administrations. Consequently, Community structural measures depend both 
on the central authorities and on the regional administrations. 
The Commission therefore tried to promote its own conception of partnership 
in agreement with the Member States while respecting the institutional 
framework peculiar to each of them. The main changes fall into two 
categor ies: 
Firstly, the regional emphasis had to be reflected in the CSFs. Most 
of the CSFs for Objective 1 therefore have two parts: one covering 
multiregional measures and the other detailing measures for specific 
regions. This splitting of the measures into two broad categories is 
of particular importance. It confirms the Commission's wish to 
support policies financed either from central funds or from other 
pub Iic budgets. 
Secondly, it was vital to associate the regions directly in the 
negotiations, particularly in the definition of priorities and the 
fixing of the balance between Funds. The Commission therefore held a 
large number of partnership meetings in agreement with the 
Member State concerned so as to establish, right from the start, a 
direct dialogue with the regional authorities responsible for 
- 9 -
Thjs dialogue must continue throughout the period of Implementation, 
particularly In the CSF monitoring committees and the Implementation of the 
operational programmes and other measures. 
Partnership with the regions existed before the reform of the Funds, but It 
now has a legal basis which has been broadened by the Commission with the 
agreement of all concerned. 
1.2.3 The role of management and labour 
Under Article 17 of the framework Regulation, the Commission is assisted in 
implementing the reform by three Committees. As far as partnership is 
concerned, the European Social Fund Committee, known as the Committee under 
Article 124 of the Treaty, is of particular importance since Its tripartite 
composition gives representation to the Member States, trade unions and 
employers. 
During 1989, the Committee was called upon to issue opinions on the 
guidelines adopted for managing the ESF and on the draft Community support 
frameworks before their adoption by the Commission. 
Consultation of this Committee is not new. But it is the first time that 
management and labour have been informed, directly or indirectly, about the 
activities of all three Funds, not simply on measures part-financed by the 
ESF. 
Although there is an Institutional framework at national level enabling 
management and labour to express their opinions, this is not the case at 
regional level. 
Aware of this problem, the Commission decided to organize a series of 
meetings with management and labour at regional level from the end of 1989 
on the Implementation of the reform of the structural Funds and 
particularly of the Community support frameworks for the regions and areas 
covered by Objectives 1 and 2. 
Finally, in certain instances the Commission, with the agreement of the 
Member State concerned, intends to involve management and labour in the 
monitoring of programmes themselves. 
1.3 Additional Itv of Community measures 
The increase in financial resources granted to the structural Funds and 
their concentration to the benefit of certain Community countries or 
regions will achieve real impact only if the Member States maintain their 
contribution to structural measures. Article 9 of the coordinating 
Regulation provides the legal basis to ensure this. It lays down that the 
Commission and the Member States must ensure that the Increase in Community 
appropriations has a genuine additional impact in the regions concerned and 
results In at least an equivalent Increase in the total volume of official 
This means that national public expenditure must remain at least constant 
in real terms. 
10 -
According to Article 9, add itionality must be verified when the Community 
support frameworks are being established and implemented. The plans 
submitted by the Member States were considered insufficiently precise on 
this point. During the CSF negotiations the Commission sought additional 
information from each Member State on the amount of structural expenditure 
in the year or years preceding the first year of the reform, and in 
particular on the amount of national public expenditure for structural 
purposes which it was planned to undertake in addition to that contained in 
the CSFs. 
It was therefore agreed in the partnership to verify additionality at the 
implementation stage. This was explicitly included in a standard clause 
contained in each Community support framework for ail countries and 
Objectives. Under this clause the Member State, by approving the CSF, 
confirms its commitment to respect this legal obligation. For its part, 
the Commission will regularly check that it is being respected throughout 
the implementation of the CSF by comparing, in real terms, national 
structural aid in the reference year with that during the period covered by 
the CSFs. With a view to this, the Commission asked the Member States in 
1990 to provide it with the necessary details. 
1-4 Compatibility of structural policy with other Community policies 
In accordance with Article 7 of the framework Regulation, in drawing up the 
CSFs structural measures were integrated with existing Community policies. 
To ensure compliance by Member States, standard provisions were included in 
each Community support framework. By agreeing to the CSFs, each 
Member State confirms its commitment to respect certain rules laid down in 
the Treaties and in Community policies. 
1.4.1. Rules of competition 
Within the context of the structural Funds, the Commission may part-finance 
aid schemes implemented by the Member States. When the CSFs were drawn up, 
therefore, it was decided that Member States' attention should be drawn to 
the fact that only aid notified and approved in accordance with Articles 92 
and 93 of the Treaty of Rome could be considered for part-financing. 
To achieve this a standard clause was inserted in all CSFs requiring the 
Member States, when they send applications for assistance to the 
Commission, to identify the measures constituting aid and to notify new aid 
measures or changes to existing measures. It also states that the 
Commission will take a position on the aids notified at the same time as it 
decides on the applications. 
Such schemes are of particular importance in the Objective 1 regions; it is 
planned to devote ECU 4 640 million to them over 5 years. 
The list of areas eligible under Objectives 2 and 5(b) does not always 
coincide with those approved for aid pursuant to the Treaty Articles. 
Consequently, it was decided, particularly as far as aid to regions which 
are not eligible for regional aid is concerned, that the Commission will 
carry out a twofold examination in each case to ensure consistency between 
regional policy and competition policy. 
Finally, for Objectives 3 and 4 the Commission has asked for employment 
- 11 -
1.4.2. Pub Iic contracts 
Particular attention will be paid to compatibility in the appraisal of 
part-financed measures involving the award of public contracts. Compliance 
with the public contracts directives will be checked at three levels. 
In the first place, the Commission has included in each decision approving 
a project or a programme a specific clause concerning respect of these 
rules. 
Secondly, the Commission sent the Member States a notice (C(88) 2510 of 
4 May 1988) setting out the operational provisions to be included in 
operational projects and programmes to be financed by the structural Funds. 
A questionnaire, annexed to the above-mentioned notice, must be completed 
by the authorities responsible for the operations and submitted to the 
Commission along with the request for aid. 
Finally, the Commission reserves the right to examine certain specific 
cases in more detail to ensure that projects part-financed by the 
structural Funds comply with the rules. 
An information and training programme will be launched in the Member States 
in 1990 to help public authorities adjust their programmes to the new rules 
on public contracts. 
1.4.3. Investment in sensitive sectors or sectors in crisis 
Any requests for aid for these sectors will be carefully appraised to 
ensure that they are not counterproductive. Particular attention will be 
paid to making sure that training and employment measures do not direct 
job-seekers towards such sectors, though this does not exclude Community 
support for conversion. 
Similarly, aid requests will be examined in the light of the industrial 
situation prevailing for certain products and sectors and the prospective 
abolition of intra-Community border controls pursuant to Article 115 of the 
EEC Treaty. 
1.4.4 Protection of the environment 
Under Article 130R of the Single European Act, action by the Community 
relating to the environment is intended not only to preserve, protect and 
improve the quality of the environment and contribute towards protecting 
human health but also to ensure a prudent and rational utilization of 
natural resources. In order to achieve those objectives, the same Article 
states that environmental protection requirements are a component of the 
Community's other policies. 
The rules on the reform of the structural Funds also state that measures 
supported by the Funds must comply with environmental policy, among others. 
They also require applications for finance for measures likely to have a 
significant environmental impact to be accompanied by information to permit 
their environmental impact to be assessed. 
The practical consequence of the integration of the environmental dimension 
into regional policy is that environmental protection objectives must be 
incorporated at the design stage of measures proposed for Community 
- 12 -
finance, that is, in the case of implementation of the reform of the 
structural Funds, at the time the CSFs are established and operational 
programmes prepared. 
In order to meet this requirement, the environmental clauses of the 
Community support frameworks for Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) on the 
coordination and respect for Community policies stipulate that the 
objectives of the relevant legislation must be safeguarded and information 
must be supplied to allow the environmental effects of the proposed 
measures to be assessed. 
It is quite clear that this approach alone is not enough to ensure 
compliance with Community legislation and that special scrutiny is required 
to ensure the compatibility of the measures to be financed. Furthermore, 
the CSFs state that priority must be given to achieving the objectives of 
that legislation if gaps are found in the areas assisted by Community 
Funds. 
1.4.5 Consequences of the internal market 
The Commission has notified the Member States that it cannot provide 
financial support for infrastructure projects concerning air and sea ports 
which are not consistent with Article 8 A of The Treaty. 
2. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND GREATER CONCENTRATION 
The resources available for the period 1989 to 1993 were established after 
a complex process involving several phases: 
the starting-point that the Funds are to be doubled by comparison 
with 1987; 
the indicative breakdown of the appropriations to be assigned to each 
Objective of the reform; 
the indicative allocation between Member States of 85% of the ERDF 
appropr iat ions; 
the allocation of the available resources of the three Funds among 
the twelve Member States. 
2.1 Establishing the new financial resources availabie for the five-year 
per iod 
In accordance with the conclusions of the Brussels European Council meeting 
in February 1988, Article 12 of the framework Regulation lays down, in 1988 
prices, the annual appropriations needed for the period 1988-1993 in order 
to double the structural Fund appropriations in comparison with 1987. 
Translating the provisions of Article 12 into annual appropriations in the 
General Budget of the European Communities took the following three factors 
into account: 
1) Structural Fund appropriations in the 1987 budget amounted to 
ECU 6 962 million (EAGGF Guidance Section: ECU 1 017 million; ERDF: 
- 13 -
ECU 3 342 mi I I ion; ESF: ECU 2 603 mi 11 ion) . In 1988 prices,1 this 
is equivalent to ECU 7 233 million. This is the basis for the 
doubling and gives a total of ECU 14 466 million for 1993 at 1988 
pr ices. 
2) Structural Fund appropriations in the 1988 budget amounted to 
ECU 7 684 million (EAGGF Guidance Section: ECU 1 131 million; ERDF: 
ECU 3 684 million, ESF: ECU 2 865 million). A summary of budgetary 
implementation is at Annexes II 1 and II 2. 
3) The 1988/89 rate of price increase used for all budget adjustments in 
constant prices, including structural Fund appropriations, was 3.5%. 
The appropriations available for the structural Funds under Article 12 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 are therefore (in ECU million): 
1988 pr ices Current prices 
1987 7 233 6 962 
1988 7 684 7 684 
1989 8 980 9 295 
1990 10 280 
1991 11 580 
1992 12 900 
1993 14 466 
The appropriations allocated to the structural Funds in the 1988 budget 
correspond to the first year of the period leading to their doubling. But 
the three Funds continued to function in accordance with the rules in force 
before the reform. 
In calculating the resources available at 1989 prices for the period 1989-
93 as a whole, the Commission used as a basis the increase in prices 
between 1988 and 1989, which was 4.6%. This gives a total estimate of 
ECU 60 315 million for the period 1989-1993. 
2.2 Breakdown of appropriations by Objective 
Bearing in mind the priorities laid down by the reform, in October 1989 the 
Commission fixed the following allocation between Objectives for 1989 to 
1993. : 
Object ive 1: 38 300 
Objective 2: 7 205 
Objectives 3 & 4: 7 450 
Objective 5(a): 3 415 
Objective 5(b): 2 795 
transitional and innovatory 
measures2: 1 150 
Total ECU 60 315 million (1989 prices) 
1 Rate of increase 1987/88: 3.9%. 
2 This heading covers existing commitments entered into before thA r*f/\rm 
- 14 -
At that stage no decision had been taken on the contribution of each Fund 
to Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b). It was left to Member States and the 
Commission meeting within the partnership to determine, after fixing 
priorities, which Funds would be mobilized to achieve these Objectives. 
The allocation between Objectives is in line with the estimates published 
in the 1989 and 1990 preliminary draft budgets increased by 3.5%, except 
for the appropriations for Objective 2, which were increased by a transfer 
of ECU 600 million from the heading Transitional and Innovatory Measures. 
This was because, during the negotiations, existing commitments in the 
areas covered by this Objective were found to be greater than expected. 
2.3 The indicative allocation of 85% of the ERDF appropriations 
The Commission also had to establish, for a period of 5 years, the 
indicative allocation between Member States of 85% of the ERDF 
appropriations for Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b). 
In view of the deadline of 31 March 1989 for the submission of regional 
development plans (RDPs) under Objective 1, a decision had to be taken 
quickly to enable Member States to draw up their plans. 
By its Decision of 25 January 19891, the Commission adopted the indicative 
allocation for the regions covered by this Objective, based on the 
percentage of the total population eligible under the Objective living in 
each region or Member State concerned, adjusted in line with the per capita 
GDP of the region and GNP of the Member State. 
For Objective 2, the initial list of eligible areas had first to be drawn 
up. The Commission was then able to fix the indicative allocation by its 
Decision of 8 March 19892 based on the size of the eligible population and 
the unemployment rate in the relevant regions of the Member State 
concerned. This Objective concerns more than 16% of the Community's 
population. 
Finally, for Objective 5(b), at the same time as drawing up a list of 
eligible areas, the Commission adopted the indicative allocation on 
10 May 19893 on the basis of the proportion of the total population 
eligible under the Objective living in each Member State adjusted to take 
account of the share of total employment in the areas concerned represented 
by agricultural employment. This Objective concerns 5% of the Community's 
population and 17% of its area. 
it should be noted that this indicative allocation is not a quota 
guaranteeing each Member State a predetermined level of aid. On an annual 
basis, allocation of ERDF aid can vary significantly from the 5-year 
indicative allocation. 
Neither does it cover the 15% of appropriations held back for Community 
initiatives, studies and pilot projects. 
1 OJ No L 101, 13.4.1989. 
2 OJ No L 113, 26.4.1989. 
- 15 -
2.4 Determination of overall financing for the relevant period for each 
Object ive 
The allocation of total appropriations in 1989 prices was followed by the 
definition of allocations for the periods for which CSFs had been 
established: 
decisions adopted with regard to CSFs for the regions covered by 
Objective 1 for the period 1989-93 involve a total of 
ECU 36 200 million with a reserve of ECU 2 100 million for new 
Community initiatives, i.e. projects of Community Interest that the 
Commission intends to undertake on its own direct initiative under 
.the new powers granted to it by the Regulations. They will 
complement to the measures laid down in the Community support 
frameworks; 
for Objective 5(b), it was decided to allocate ECU 2 607 million over 
the five years and to establish a reserve of ECU 188 million for new 
Community initiatives. 
Whilst, for Objectives 1 and 5(b), the period covered by the multiannual 
budget plan and that covered by the CSFs are the same (5 years), this is 
not the case for Objectives 2, 3 and 4. 
for Objective 2, Article 9 of the framework Regulation stipulates 
that the criteria for determining the eligible areas may be altered 
by the Council three years after the entry into force of that 
Regulation on a proposal from the Commission which shall periodically 
review the list of areas. It was decided to approve all the CSFs for 
the period 1989-91. 
The Commission therefore allocated ECU 4 400 million for this first 
phase, including ECU 500 million for Community initiatives; 
for Objectives 3 and 4, the 1989 commitment had already been approved 
on 23 March 1989 in accordance with Article 9 of the ESF Regulation. 
The Commission decided to approve all the CSFs for the period 
1990-92, while reserving the financing possibilities for the final 
year, 1993, since it was difficult to programme national policies on 
employment and training for periods of more than three years. The 
CSFs approved for Objectives 3 and 4 outside the Objective 1 regions 
involve a total of ECU 4 128 million, including ECU 134 million for 
measures under Article 1(2) of the ESF Regulation. In addition, for 
the Community initiatives provided for by Article 11 of the 
coordinating Regulation, ECU 310 million of the total of ECU 600 
million which the Commission decided to allocate to new Community 
initiatives on human resources will be devoted entirely to Objectives 
3 and 4. The figure of 310 million includes 217 million for the 
period covered by the CSFs which have been approved; 
the procedure for Objective 5(a) is different from that for the other 
objectives and no multiannual allocation among the Member States has 
been made, except in the case of measures under Council Regulations 
4042/89 (fish processing and marketing), 866/90 (processing and 
marketing of agricultural products) and 867/90 (forestry). 
- 16 -
2.5 Fulfilling the commitments laid down in the Regulations 
Article 12 of the framework Regulation lays down two other requirements for 
the concentration of appropriations for the regions covered by Objective 1: 
aid from the structural Funds must be doubled in real terms by 1992. 
In 1987, Community commitments for these regions amounted to 
ECU 4 084 mill ion, rounded up to 4 100 mi 11 ion. 
In 1988 the Commission proposed the following indicative figures to 
achieve the doubling of appropriations for Objective 1: 
Billion ecu (1989-93 at 1988 prices) 
1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 TOTAL 89-93 
4.1 5.6 6.6 7.4 8.2 9.2 37.0 
This growth will achieve the doubling by 1992, but the figures will 
be adjusted to take account of inflation so that they are expressed 
in current prices. In 1989 the amount allocated to the Objective 1 
regions should have been ECU 5 918 million (in 1989 prices). The 
actual allocation to that objective was higher at ECU 6 137 million-, 
the ERDF may allocate about 80% of its resources to Objective 1. 
Annex IX shows the allocation of ERDF commitments by Member State and 
by Objective fixed in 1989. Objective 1 accounts for 77.8% of the 
total. However, this total includes transitional measures, i.e. 
measures approved under the old regulations for regions which are no 
longer eligible. By reference to assistance for the regions which 
are now eligible, the Objective 1 regions account for 80.6 %. 
This represents a large increase in the resources devoted by the ERDF 
to the regions covered by Objective 1, since in 1988 only 68.6% of 
the Fund's resources were committed to them. This is partly because, 
the CSFs for Objective 1 having been approved in October 1989, a 
large number of new programmes were approved for these regions during 
that year. In following years, assistance for Objective 2 and 5(b) 
regions will take up a larger share of funding than in 1989. 
The Commission takes the view that this concentration should be 
assessed over the 5-year period, not for each individual year. The 
doubling of Fund assistance under Objective 1 by 1992 as compared 
with 1987 is not in doubt. The distribution of this assistance 
between Funds was agreed through the partnership in the light of the 
particular needs of each region. 
2.6 The breakdown of appropriations between Member States 
2.6.1 The special case of areas eligible under Objective 1 
Before the final phase of negotiations with the Member States, the 
Commission adopted overall financial allocations for each of the seven 
countries concerned which take account of the fact that, under Article 
12(4) of the framework Regulation a special effort must be made to help the 
- 17 -
Commission had stated that it would take account of regional GDP and per 
capita GNP of the Member State concerned1. It would also take account of 
the scale of the development problems involved so that Community programmes 
could enable the regions to overcome their backwardness. 
2.6.2 The problems encountered with Objectives 2 and 5(b) 
The Commission's main concern with these two Objectives was to ensure that 
the allocation of funds was as close as possible to that resulting from the 
application of the criteria for calculating the indicative allocation while 
honouring commitments which predate the reform. At the same time, existing 
commitments in the regions covered by these two Objectives had to be 
respected. 
In a very small number of cases, particularly under Objective 5(b), the 
indicative allocation could not be strictly applied as this would have 
ruled out any new measures for certain regions. 
2.6.3 Allocation of financial resources for Objectives 3 and 4 outside the 
regions covered by Objective 1 
The allocation of the total amount available between Objectives 3 and 4 
approximately reflects the ratio of adult unemployed (around 45%) to 
unemployed under 25 years old (around 55%) in the Community. The 
allocation also corresponds to the ratio of measures for the long-term 
unemployed and measures for unemployed under 25 years old in the overall 
funding request made by the Member States in their plans. 
Within each Objective, the allocation by Member State was made on the basis 
of objective criteria, essentially using statistics harmonized at Community 
level which show the gravity of employment-related problems to which the 
Community wishes to give priority (long-term unemployment and youth 
unemployment). 
The allocation between Member States for Objective 3 was fixed on the basis 
of the ratio of long-term unemployed in each Member State to the number in 
the Community as a whole. 
The same approach was used for the allocation for Objective 4: the number 
of unemployed under 25 years old in each Member State as a percentage of 
total youth unemployment in the Community. 
2.6.4 The allocation of financial resources between the Funds 
The new approach adopted under the reform assigns priority objectives to 
the Funds. This means that the multiannual budgetary forecast only covers 
these object ives. 
Consequently, the Commission did not adopt a pr ior i an allocation between 
the three Funds. The priorities for Community intervention and the 
relevant financial resources for each Fund were fixed by the partnership. 
The present allocation between the different instruments is the result of 
negotiations on each of the Community support frameworks. As the duration 
of these varies from objective to objective, it is not possible to draw up 
a statement of the situation for the five years 1989-93. 
- 18 -
Annexes I show the allocation on the basis of the CSFs approved. 
3: COMBINATION OF THE COMMUNITY GRANT AND LOAN INSTRUMENTS 
3.1 Principles 
One of the essential features of the reform is the tailoring of the form of 
assistance to the nature of the operations and, more particularly, finding 
an appropriate combination of Community grants and loans. 
Under Article 5 of the framework Regulation, assistance from the structural 
Funds* the EIB and the other Community lending Instruments (essentially the 
ECSC) must be combined by appropriate financial engineering techniques to 
maximize the stimulus provided by the budgetary resources deployed. 
As regards ECSC loans, they should be better integrated during the 
implementation of Objective 2, as a result, in particular, of the adoption 
of new criteria for granting these loansC) and the use of interest 
subsidies financed from the ECSC budget, which could be supplemented by 
ERDF financing. 
In its communication on the role of the EIB and the other financial 
instruments in the strengthening of economic and social cohesion 
(C0M(88)244 final of 23 December 1988), the Commission stated that efforts 
to achieve this grant/loans combination should be based on consideration of 
the financial profitability and the overall financing plan of projects 
eligible for Community aid. Therefore, in general terms: 
for investment projects generating considerable income, the use of 
budgetary resources should be minimized and the projects financed 
through loans-, any Community grants which might be given for these 
projects should help to keep the financial contribution of the 
beneficiary Member State to a minimum; 
_ on the other hand, for investment projects with limited income or 
with no specific income, an increased budgetary contribution would be 
justified in place of loans; in such cases, Community grants should 
underpin an increased level of funding from the beneficiary 
Member State. 
3.2 The agreement between the Commission and the EIB 
This approach, which applies more particularly to investments in 
infrastructures, was confirmed during the preparation of the Community 
support frameworks by guidelines agreed in principle in May 1989 between 
the Commission and the EIB to fix the practical arrangements for the 
coordination of Community financing combining grants and loans. 
Under these arrangements, investments in infrastructures were categorized 
according to their capacity to generate income: 
investments generating substantial income are subject to an upper 
limit on the rate of Community grants (variable according to region) 
to enable appropriate weight to be given to loans, 
- 19 -
investments generating limited income or no specific income are 
subject only to the limits applying to all Community measures 
financed by the structural Funds (see Annex III 1). 
3.3 Grants and loans in the CSFs 
The texts of the reform of the structural Funds explicitly state that: 
the combination of loans and grants is determined with the 
participation of the EIB when the CSFs are drawn up; 
all CSFs include an indicative financing plan laying down the overall 
. financing planned for the various types of measure, including those 
of the Funds and the Community lending instruments when they 
contribute directly to the financing plan concerned. 
A pragmatic approach was adopted regarding the concrete procedures for 
deciding on a judicious combination of Commission and EIB measures when the 
Community support frameworks are implemented. Commission and Bank staff 
have agreed joint guidelines for the coordinated implementation of the 
CSFs: direct contact between those responsible for appraising operational 
programmes or large projects; early exchange of information on planning and 
ex ante evaluation of the different projects; consistency in the appraisal 
of applications, etc. 
When the CSFs were prepared it was difficult, however, to follow these 
criteria rigidly and to ensure the planning of Community loans in the same 
way as grants. 
In the financing plans included in the CSFs, national contributions 
represent a financial requirement (net of Community grants) the covering of 
which (government grants, private sector resources, Community or other 
loans) could not be planned. This national financing requirement could be 
partly covered by the Community loans being offered. The sum offered was 
given in the CSFs for Objective 1 but was generally only given pro memoria 
for Objective 2. 
The financial contributions of the EIB and the other Community lending 
instruments, where they are given, are therefore only estimates. The 
actual volume of loans will depend on projects submitted by the developers 
with the agreement of the competent national authorities and approved by 
EIB bodies and the Commission when the CSFs are implemented. 
Several reasons can be given to explain this difficulty in planning the 
contribution of Community loans to the financing of the total cost of the 
priorities adopted. 
It should first of all be noted that examination of the regional 
development plans submitted by the Member States by Commission staff 
revealed that in general requests for financing from the structural Funds 
were higher than could reasonably be granted. On the other hand, the 
proportion of loans in the financing plans proposed was generally too low, 
particularly in view of the amount of income-generating investment in 
infrastructures they contained. 
- 20 -
Consequently, both the volume of funds requested and the mix of financing 
methods had to be adjusted in the light of the budgetary constraints on the 
structural Funds and the economic nature of the proposed investments. 
During the negotiations on the preparation of the CSFs, the Community 
authorities tried to make the necessary adjustments in the allocation of 
structural Fund financing through appropriate proposals for loans. The 
extremely tight schedule for the negotiations, however, and the newness of 
the procedure meant that complete financing plans were not drawn up within 
the time-limits. The Community, therefore, particularly as regards 
Objective 1, limited itself to offering Community loans based on the total 
cost of the priorities adopted. During the implementation phase, the 
Commission and the Bank will ensure that the national authorities clearly 
act on this offer of loans so that the final financing plans for the 
various measures include a suitable mix of grants and loans. 
Nevertheless, the grant/loan mix for this first year of implementation of 
the reform may not be totally satisfactory if the Member States, the 
Commission and the EIB do not make the necessary effort : 
the CSFs show levels of Community grants which appear quite high, 
even in the case of investments generating substantial income, 
without the corresponding financial contribution from the beneficiary 
Member State necessarily being minimized; 
the combination of loans and grants depends in practice on the demand 
for loans expressed by Member States in the programmes or projects 
which they submit in implementing the CSFs-, 
the decision-making processes and operating procedure of the 
Commission and the EIB are not identical. 
The offers of loans included in the CSFs appear so far to be meeting with a 
satisfactory response, since about a quarter of the individual loans 
approved in 1989 also involved a Community grant for all or part of the 
project concerned. 
It should be noted that, whether incorporated in CSFs or not, EIB lending 
for regional development in 1989 is predominantly directed towards regions 
eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b), and related to projects consistent 
with the strategies and priorities of the CSFs. Hence, in 1989, more than 
85% of regional development loans, amounting to ECU 6 billion, were for 
projects located in those regions.1 
- 21 -
CHAPTER II; OPERATIONAL PHASE 
1: PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT AND STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT OF THE REGIONS 
WHOSE DEVELOPMENT IS LAGGING BEHIND (OBJECTIVE 1) 
1.1 Definition of general regional policy guide!ines 
In line with Article 8 of the ERDF Regulation, the Commission drew up a 
memorandum on regional policy guidelines before the Member States submitted 
their plans. In keeping with the notion of partnership, these guidelines 
were not conceived with the aim of dictating to the various regions in the 
Member States what should be included in their plans. Rather they were 
intended to provide the Commission's partners with a clear idea of the 
principles and priorities that had guided the Commission through the 
various stages of preparing its own action. 
It was in this spirit that the Commission approved on 15 February 1989 a 
note setting out guidelines for operations in Objective 1 and 2 areas. 
It should be pointed out, in this context, that one of the aims when the 
Community support frameworks were being drawn up was to strike a balance 
between infrastructure measures (which in the past formed the bulk of ERDF 
operations in less-favoured areas) and the development of productive 
investments. 
As regards more particularly Objective 1, when examining the applications 
received from the Member States, the Commission looked, in particular, at 
the contribution that the infrastructures proposed for part-financing could 
make to boosting the economic potential of the regions. Application of 
this criterion means that priority was given to infrastructure projects 
relating to transport, telecommunications, vocational training facilities 
and energy. 
In addition, the Commission sought to give particular priority to rural 
areas within those countries whose own overall development possibilities 
cannot be dissociated from the specific development of such areas. 
1.2. Assessment of regional development plans in the light of the 
Commun i ty gu i de Ii nes 
1.2.1 Characteristics of the plans submitted 
The regional development plans are substantial documents, in terms of both 
the volume of aid requested and their analysis of regional problems. 
Analysis of the grant applications showed that stated needs were greatly in 
excess of available funds. 
Leaving aside the special case of Objective 5(a), a breakdown of the 
applications revealed that most were for funding from the ERDF. While that 
was true for the Community in general, countries adopted one of two 
different approaches: 
those countries or regions that gave a dominant role to ERDF funding: 
namely Spain, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom; 
- 22 -
those countries that adopted a different approach: namely France and 
Greece. 
With regard to an indication of the use to be made of loans from the EIB 
and the other financial Instruments, it may be seen that certain countries 
(Spain Greece and Ireland) made no requests whatsoever for this type of 
funding in the context of their RDPs. Other countries (Italy, Portugal) 
made requests for loans as soon as they had submitted their plans, although 
this type of funding was still marginal by comparison with grants. 
But the fact that they did not ask for any loans under the plan does not 
mean that the Member States concerned do not avail themselves of EIB loans. 
Generally speaking, the development strategies were clearly set out. The 
difficulty of forward planning was, however, revealed when the time came to 
move from a general development strategy to specify what this meant in 
terms of operational priorities. It was frequently necessary to take a 
much closer look at the substance of these priorities with the Member State 
concerned. 
Secondly, the plans necessarily reflected development priorities that 
varied from country to country, causing problems of comparability between 
Member States and making it difficult to monitor future developments. 
While attempting to respect the particular characteristics of each region, 
the Commission accordingly set about harmonizing to a certain extent the 
main thrusts of its action. 
1.2.2. Commission guidelines and subsequent changes of emphasis 
After assessing the regional development plans, the Commission opened 
negotiations with the Member States before deciding on the allocation of 
the available financial resources. These negotiations looked at the plans 
in qualitative terms and constituted one of the most decisive innovations 
as regards implementation of the reform. The aim was to determine what 
sort of partnership role the Commission would have when it came to making 
joint choices for the purpose of defining a development strategy on which 
both parties could agree, as required by the framework Regulation. 
Having had previous experience of such contractual relationships when 
preparing the IMPs, where programme contracts were drawn up, the Commission 
was able to extend this type of negotiation to all the countries concerned. 
For this purpose, it attempted to define, on the basis of the spirit 
underlying the Regulations, the main thrusts of its approach to structural 
policy problems in conjunction with its desire to bring greater efficiency 
to Community intervention, which now takes the form of part-financing of 
national policy initiatives. The main goal may be summarized as: greater 
synergy between the Funds, a more even distribution of ERDF appropriations 
between basic infrastructures and productive investments, concentrating on 
a limited number of priorities, obtaining a better distribution of 
financial resources between the central and regional authorities and 
defining the forms of assistance. 
This phase of preparation of the CSFs took account of the importance of the 
macroeconomic context as a condition for the success of the doubling of the 
structural Funds in these regions. 
23 -
(a) Greater synergy between the Funds 
One of the main priorities when drawing up the CSFs was to maximize the 
complementary effects of the various Funds. 
Even before the programmes were prepared, the Commission had taken the step 
of identifying those priority areas where there was genuine scope for 
synergy, so as to exploit such possibilities fully. 
The way in which the CSFs are structured reflects this approach, as is 
shown by the fact that many of the specific subheadings within a given 
priority area draw financing from two or all three Funds. 
Synergy was sought in three main areas: 
boosting productive sectors through investments on the one hand and 
measures to raise the skill levels of human resources on the other; 
the development of farming and the rural sector which, more than any 
other, requires a multi-pronged approach. For example, ERDF 
operations relating to tourism will be complemented by EAGGF measures 
relating to farm tourism and measures under the Social Fund-, 
the development of human resources, which will entail a combined 
approach involving training facilities part-financed by the ERDF and 
training measures funded by the ESF. 
(b) A more even distribution of ERDF appropriations between basic 
infrastructures and productive investments 
The main contribution that regional policy can make to reducing the 
regional disparities in the Community lies in stimulating productive 
investments that can generate employment opportunities and infrastructure 
investments directly related to the development of economic activities. 
Regional disparities in productivity, employment and earnings can be 
reduced only if production and the number of jobs created in the Member 
States concerned and in the less-favoured areas increase at a rate well 
above the Community average 
Taking as a basis the regional policy guidelines, the Commission saw to it 
that the share of appropriations allocated to productive investments was 
increased during the negotiations. Taking account of this general 
principle and the pattern of demand for ERDF funding in respect of basic 
infrastructures, a particular effort was made to reach a balance more 
favourable to productive investment. 
Although, at the end of the negotiations, basic infrastructures remained 
the main priority for the Objective 1 areas, support for productive sectors 
is likely to take up a large part of the assistance provided for in the 
CSFs. Basic infrastructures account for more than half of total ERDF 
funding (ECU 10 381 million out of a total of ECU 20 960 million) in the 
CSFs and for 29% of the amounts allocated from the three Funds to 
Objective 1, while aid for productive investment is set to consume some 18% 
of ERDF funding and 17% of ESF funding. This category of expenditure 
includes direct investments in undertakings, the provision of services to 
companies, R&D and technical training. In addition, investments in 
infrastructures and activities directly related to production account for 
9% of ERDF aid. Overall, for the seven Member States conr.amart thA •«•»! 
- 24 -
allocated to these two categories of assistance represents 27 % of ERDF 
funding and 21% of total funding from the three Funds for Objective 1. 
The situation varies quite considerably from Member State to Member State. 
In Ireland and Italy, the proportion of funds allocated to these two 
categories is well above the Community average. In Portugal, on the other 
hand, considerable efforts were made to restrict the share of ERDF funding 
earmarked for basic Infrastructure projects, for which requirements are 
still substantial. In Spain the proportion of funding devoted to bringing 
basic Infrastructures up to scratch remains very considerable (67% of total 
ERDF funding, or ECU 4 173 million). However, the proportion of funding 
devoted to productive investments and directly related activities is not 
below 10% in any Member State (see Annexes IV 2 to IV 9). 
c) Concentrating on a limited number of priorities 
With a view to enabling Community operations to be better targeted, the 
priority areas defined In the negotiations are of limited scope and reflect 
a number of guidelines common to all the Member States concerned. They 
also reflect the major priorities of the structural policy which the 
Commission Intends to encourage in these countries: 
improvement of communications, Involving primarily upgrading of basic 
infrastructures; 
assistance to industry, crafts sector and business services-, 
tour i sm; 
development of agricultural resources and rural development; 
support Infrastructures for economic activities-, 
development of human resources. 
Before describing the breakdown of appropriations, it should be pointed out 
that existing commitments have been Included in the CSFs (IMPs, IDOs). 
These make up a large part of the CSFs, accounting as they do for 
ECU 3 632 million in the seven countries concerned, out of a total amount 
available of ECU 36 200 million. Most of the outstanding commitments still 
to be met over the period covered by the CSFs will be borne by the ERDF 
(ECU 2 930 million), the two other Funds having only limited liabilities 
from the past (ESF: ECU 426 million; EAGGF: ECU 276 million). 
The available appropriations from the three Funds, namely 
ECU 36 200 million for ail the CSFs, have been allocated as follows: 
ECU 10 657 million, or 29% of the funds allocated to Objective 1, was 
earmarked for improved communications. The ERDF will finance the 
bulk of these measures for an amount provisionally set at 
ECU 10 381 million. This priority area Includes measures aimed at 
upgrading basic infrastructures: 
access and internal communications (roads, motorways, railways, 
waterways and port Improvements, airports, urban transport), 
telecommunications, 
power and water supplies, 
training facilities, 
health and community care services-, 
- 25 -
15% of the total multiannual amount was earmarked for industry, the 
crafts sector and tourism. The ERDF will contribute 
ECU 3 755 mi I I ion and the ESF ECU 1 712 million. The aim of this 
priority area is to make firms more competitive through measures to 
support productive investments in industry, the crafts sector, 
services and tourist infrastructures. In addition, measures relating 
to business services are planned, in particular as regards business 
advice and technology transfers. Measures to promote research, 
development and innovation are also planned, as well as technical and 
vocational training; 
ECU 6 364 million, or 18% of available appropriations, has been 
earmarked for the development of agricultural and fishery resources. 
The bulk (ECU 4 978 million) of this funding will be provided by the 
EAGGF, with the ERDF contributing ECU 1 204 million and the ESF 
ECU 182 mi I I ion. 
Many of the Objective 1 regions are confronted with problems as 
regards the development of isolated rural areas that need improved 
access and whose productive structures are deficient and lack 
diversity. This priority is concerned primarily with measures to put 
agricultural resources to better use, encourage rural development and 
with horizontal measures under Objective 5(a) (improving the 
efficiency of production, processing and marketing structures in 
agriculture and forestry). These are supplemented by measures to 
promote rural tourism to stimulate economic diversification and by 
measures relating to the vocational training of farmers; 
ECU 2 184 million, or 6% of total funding available, has been 
earmarked for infrastructure supporting economic activities. Most of 
this amount will be provided by the ERDF (ECU 1 976 million). This 
priority area includes the following main measures: 
* setting-up of business zones for industrial and craft companies, 
* telecommunications services and information technologies, 
* environmental protection measures; 
ECU 7 748 million, or 21% of the total amount available, has been 
earmarked for human resource development. This priority will be 
financed by the ESF (ECU 7 159 million). The ERDF will cover the 
costs of the necessary improvements in training facilities. Included 
in this priority are measures relating to technical and secondary 
education, apprenticeship, measures to bring training facilities up 
to scratch and measures relating to one or more sectors of economic 
activity not included under the other development priorities. 
Measures under Objectives 3 and 4 are also covered by this priority. 
Particular importance was attached during the negotiations to : 
training/recruitment measures directed at boosting productive 
sectors, as well as measures that comply with the guidelines set for 
the European Social Fund; 
the Commission also sought to promote programmes aimed at improving 
training structures, training courses designed to provide the 
qualifications required for research programmes and the organization 
of measures directed at specific categories, such as the women's 
- 26 -
action programmes, the emergence of which the Commission has promoted 
in certain Member States, in particular Ireland. 
In all the Member States concerned by Objective 1, the CSF negotiations 
emphasized a regional approach to training and employment problems, while 
taking account of the specific structures of each country. 
Wherever possible the Commission encouraged recourse to multifund 
assistance. All the CSFs covering Objective 1 regions avail themselves to 
some extent of this system, depending on the institutional structure of the 
Member State concerned. 
d) . Obtaining a better distribution of financial resources between the 
central and regional authorities 
Firstly, the Commission made sure that all the CSFs, apart from those for 
Ireland, France and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) whose plans were 
constructed on a regional basis from the outset, included two sections: 
one setting out the mult i regional measures-, 
another setting out regional Community support sub-frameworks. 
The mult(regional measures are centrally directed measures whose impact 
generally extends beyond the individual regions. The second category 
consists of measures that are planned and carried out at a regional or 
local level. 
This dual approach was negotiated and adopted for Spain, Greece, Italy and 
Portugal. 
At the same time the Commission wished to shift the balance of ERDF and ESF 
resource allocation towards operations conducted by the regions. 
Significant changes were obtained in Spain, where the share of funding 
allocated to measures that are not the competence of the central 
authorities will be much larger than envisaged in the plan (42% instead of 
35%). In Italy, the RDP provided for an even distribution of multiregional 
and regional appropriations for new measures. The negotiations did not 
result in any great change in this balance (49% for multiregional 
operations and 51% for the regions, or 45/55% in the case of new measures). 
By shifting the emphasis slightly away from basic infrastructures, the 
Commission opened things up somewhat for those with a regional role to play 
In economic development who provide support in their regions to investment-
oriented operations and assistance to SME-SMIs and to local development 
measures. 
Thus the CSFs devote an average of around 5% of resources to this type of 
assistance as a result of the negotiations, whereas such measures were not 
included at all in the plans submitted by some Member States. 
e) Defining the forms of assistance 
Pursuant to Article 8 of the framework Regulation the CSFs should specify 
the forms of assistance chosen by the Member States for the actual 
implementation of the CSF as defined in Article 5 of the same Regulation 
(part-financing of operational programmes, national aid schemes, or 
suitable projects, provision of global grants and support for technical 
- 27 -
assistance). The approval of the forms of assistance constitutes the 
decision to commit funds-, the CSF is, according to the Regulation, only a 
déclarât ion of intent. 
During the negotiations, the Commission sought to obtain detailed 
information from each Member State on this aspect, as the RDPs were, 
generally speaking, insufficiently explicit. 
As the Member States availed themselves little of the possibility open to 
them of submitting aid applications together with the plans, the Commission 
was able to advance its own view of the appropriate forms of assistance 
under the right of initiative it enjoys pursuant to Article 5. 
The Commission strongly urged that multifund programmes should be drawn up 
by the Member States where genuine economic interrelationships existed. 
Multifund programmes are a more efficient means of managing assistance, 
because they bring together measures that will develop certain synergies 
and which may be eligible for assistance from different Funds and enable 
the problems to be tackled as a whole. A single Commission decision to 
grant assistance is then required in respect of that programme pursuant to 
Article 14(3) of the coordinating Regulation. 
This approach was accepted by some Member States, notably Greece, Spain, 
Ireland and Portugal, from the outset of negotiations on the CSFs. 
The applications submitted by the Member States show that the majority of 
the CSFs will be implemented in the form of operational programmes, in 
accordance with the rules laid down. 
Secondly, applications for very large-scale basic infrastructures are being 
treated as major projects, a system which seems particularly appropriate 
for this type of investment. 
Recourse to global grants is still quite limited. This may be due to the 
fact that this is a new type of assistance whose advantages are not yet 
fully appreciated and also to the fact that a decentralization of 
management in favour of an intermediate body is meeting with some 
administrative resistance due to the internal organization of some Member 
States. 
1.3. Preparation and approval of the forms of assistance 
If one looks at the activity of the Funds in terms of commitments, the main 
feature of 1989 was the concomitant application of different sets of rules. 
In the case of the ESF, Article 9 of the ESF Regulation lays down that 
applications for assistance for 1989 will continue to be covered by 
Council Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of the Fund. 
Pursuant to this Article, the commitments under the 1989 budget by Decision 
of 23 March were made according to the previous rules. These commitments 
are indicated for the record in the CSFs. 
As regards the ERDF, Regulation (EEC) No 1787/84 was repealed subject to 
the application of the transitional measures provided for in Article 15 of 
the coordinating Regulation and of Article 33 of that Regulation, which is 
designed to guarantee continuity of the activities of the Funds during the 
period between 1 January and 1 October 1989. Likewise, as regards the 
EAGGF, the old Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 was repealed subject to the 
implementation of the same two provisions. 
- 28 -
A detailed report on the activities of the Funds will be made to supplement 
this report in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 25(1) of 
the coordinating Regulation which specifies that the Commission is to 
report each year to the relevant Committees on the progress made in 
implementing assistance operations under the Funds. The conclusions of 
this report will be forwarded to the European Parliament for information. 
Although the activities of the Funds result largely from the application of 
the old rules, it was right and proper that the Member States should 
prepare operational programmes straight away, as from 1989, so as to ensure 
that the new measures got off the ground quickly. The Commission had to be 
in a position, in the light of budgetary availabilities, to approve certain 
of these programmes. With this in mind, and throughout the negotiations on 
the CSFs, the Commission urged the Member States to submit applications for 
assistance as early as possible. 
Apart from the ESF Regulation, which specified that applications for 
assistance for operations to be implemented in 1990 had to be submitted 
before 31 August 1989, the two other Funds did not lay down any specific 
restrictions as regards the submission of dossiers. As has been pointed 
out above, the Member States were often reluctant to submit programmes 
before the negotiations on the CSFs had been completed. They preferred to 
wait until negotiations were sufficiently far advanced or had even been 
concluded before moving on to the actual operational stage. 
Despite these difficulties, before the end of the year the Commission was 
able to approve a number of programmes relating to new measures in the 
CSFs. 
An examination of the programmes received shows first that it was easier 
for Member States to submit national programmes, which involve fewer 
partners than regional programmes. Secondly, it is becoming clear, with 
regard to all the Funds, that the Objective 1 countries, and sometimes even 
certain regions within the same country, are progressing at different 
rates. Although all the CSFs were approved on 31 October 1989, with the 
exception of the Greek CSF, the rate at which the Community commitments 
will be translated into hard facts will depend on the ability of the 
regions or countries concerned to submit operational programmes as soon as 
poss i bIe. 
Particular attention should be paid when monitoring the implementation of 
the CSF to ensure that commitments are made at a harmonious rate. 
1.4 Integration of measures relating to agriculture and rural development 
1.4.1. General context 
Given the problems of the rural areas of the Community, the Commission has 
decided to establish a rural development policy to improve the economic 
development of these areas. This means that measures to improve 
agricultural structure will continue while support is also provided for 
measures to encourage the diversification of rural production (e.g. 
forestry, rural tourism) as well as measures to assist rural economies and 
to develop local infrastructures. For the period 1989-93 the EAGGF will 
have an overall budget allocation of ECU 5 427 million for these measures. 
In keeping with the spirit of partnership, the allocation of the Funds 
between horizontal measures (Objective 5(a)) on the one hand and other 
- 29 -
measures was decided in agreement with the Member States and the regions on 
the basis of requirements. 
Most Objective 1 regions benefit from specific regional measures for the 
development of agriculture and rural areas. Member States were given the 
option of continuing with existing measures until they came to an end, with 
the assistance provided being included in the CSFs, or of beginning to 
implement new measures for which they would have to submit operational 
programmes. 
In addition, the reform of the structural Funds meant that certain tasks 
were transferred from the EAGGF to the two other Funds. This was the case 
for vocational training in agriculture which comes under the ESF, and for 
the financing of rural infrastructures which went to the ERDF. 
However, under Article 21 of Council Régulâtion(EEC) No 797/85 of 
12 March 1985 as amended, the EAGGF may provide assistance for agricultural 
training but only to the extent that schemes cannot be part-financed by the 
ESF and for vocational training schemes linked to specific measures 
(premium for the installation of young farmers; premiums for the 
introduction of new accounting methods). 
1.4.2 The integration into the CSFs of specific measures already decided 
or in hand under the EAGGF 
All Objective 1 CSFs are made up in part of previously decided specific and 
regional measures, the continuation of which entails budgetary commitments 
between 1989 and 1993. EAGGF operations in the period 1989-93 include 
horizontal measures (Objective 5(a)) which account for 48.5% of Community 
financing, existing regional measures that are being continued (25.2%) and 
new regional measures (26.3%). For this reason, a distinction is drawn 
between those measures already in force in 1989, which include the IMPs, 
and the planned measures which make up the major part of the CSFs. Three 
groups of measures can, therefore, be distinguished by type and purpose: 
Specific measures related to certain production sectors 
These measures include: 
measures for improving the production and marketing of citrus fruit: 
this relates to Greece1, Italy and Corsica. Aid is also being paid 
following applications from growers affected by natural disasters in 
1987 in Greece2 and three Italian regions3. 
These measures expire at the end of 1990 for Greece and in June 1991 
for Italy. The basic Regulation has expired in respect of Corsica, 
but there will be a small, residual financial impact in the period 
1989-93; 
1 Regulation (EEC) No 2511/69 - OJ L 318, 18.12.1969 - As amended by 
Regulation (EEC) No 1204/82 - OJ L 140, 20.5.1982) 
2 Regulation (EEC) No 3223/88 - OJ L 288, 21.10.1988 
3 Regulation (EEC) No 1130/89 - 0J L 119, 29.4.1989 
- 30 -
measures to improve the structure of the wine sector: two Member 
States are affected by measures to restructure vineyards: Greece1 
and Portugal2. These measures will, of course, have financial 
repercussions over the period covered by the CSFs (1989-93), as their 
initial duration extends beyond 1993; 
measures in respect of olive groves: of all the Objective 1 regions, 
only Greece is the subject of a specific measure3. 
On the other hand, in Portugal, a measure concerning the restructuring of 
olive groves forms part of the specific programme for the development of 
Portuguese agriculture (PEDAP)4. The same applies as regards 
diversification within the context of the development of agriculture in the 
French overseas departments (FOD). 
With the reform of the structural Funds, these measures have been 
integrated into the CSFs and will continue to be implemented in accordance 
with the provisions that applied, prior to the reform, with certain 
except ions. 
Regional measures concerning the agricultural and rural development of 
certain areas in difficulty 
What marks these measures out is the geographic rather than sectoral 
approach and the global perception of the structural problems of the 
regions concerned. In this category one finds a wide range of operations 
relating to agricultural development in less-favoured areas of Greece5, 
Ireland^ and Spain7, the development of agricultural advisory services in 
Italy8 and the development of agriculture in the French overseas 
departments (FOD)9, Northern Ireland1" and the whole of Portugal (PEDAP). 
The fields covered include in particular: 
rural infrastructures (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, 
Northern Ireland, FOD); 
irrigation (Greece, Portugal, Spain, FOD); 
land tenure (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Northern Ireland, 
FOD); 
support for certain types of production such as livestock production 
and/or certain crops (fruit, vegetables, olives, etc.) that are the 
subject of restructuring or conversion measures (Greece, Portugal, 
Northern Ireland, FOD); 
forestry (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, FOD); 
the rural environment (Spain); 
agricultural training infrastructures (Greece, Ireland, Portugal); 
1 Regulation (EEC) No 895/85 - OJ L 97, 4.4.1985 
2 Regulation (EEC) No 2239/86 - OJ L 196, 18.7.1986 
3 Regulation (EEC) No 3222/88 - OJ L 288, 21.10.1988 
4 Regulation (EEC) No 3828/85 - OJ L 372, 31.12.1985 
5 Regulation (EEC) No 1975/82 - OJ L 214, 22.7.1982 
6 Regulation (EEC) No 1820/80 - OJ L 180, 14.7.1980 
7 Regulation (EEC) No 1118/88 - OJ L 107, 28.4.1988 
Regulation (EEC) No 3224/88 - OJ L 288, 21.10.1988 
Emergency operation following the 1987 floods 
8 Regulation (EEC) No 270/79 - 0J L 38, 14.2.1979 
9 Directive 81/527/EEC - 0J L 197, 20.7.1981 
10 Regulation (EEC) No 1942/81 - 0J L 197, 20.7.1981 
31 -
additional employment opportunities (Ireland); 
technical assistance, publicity (FOD, Ireland). 
These measures, which cover varying periods within the CSFs, share two 
common features: 
an operational aspect: they have all been conceived and applied as 
part of an overall approach to the problems of the areas concerned; 
a financial aspect: they all entail expenditure, of varying amounts 
and for different periods, in the form of commitment appropriations 
from the EAGGF for at least some part of the duration of the 
. respect ive CSFs. 
As in the case of the specific measures relating to production sectors, the 
measures in question are, save exception, incorporated in the CSFs. 
" The agricultural section of the IMPs 
To these two types of scheme should be added, in the case of Greece, the 
Objective 1 regions of Italy and Corsica (France), the agricultural 
sections of the IMPs, which have been included in the relevant CSFs. 
2: CONVERTING THE REGIONS, FRONTIER REGIONS OR PARTS OF REGIONS 
SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY INDUSTRIAL DECLINE (OBJECTIVE 2) 
2.1 Identification of the areas and of priorities 
Community support for regions affected by industrial decline forms an 
integral part of the drive for economic and social cohesion. 
Of the some 900 areas proposed by the Member States, the Commission, after 
consulting the Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions, 
selected 60 eligible areas and identified those that were most seriously 
affected by industrial decline on the basis of the criteria decided by the 
Counc il1. 
The areas concerned are primarily regions at NUTS level III or smaller 
areas which satisfy the three basic criteria set out in Article 9 of the 
framework Regulation and other areas affected by the decline of vital 
industrial sectors, as well as areas adjacent to those of the basic list 
and a small number of urban communities where the level of unemployment is 
part icularly high. 
These regions, distributed between nine Member States, have a total 
population of 53.2 million or some 16.36% of the total population of the 
Community. Berlin was included in the list by the Council. 
This percentage, given the extent of the proposals made by the Member 
States, is slightly above that referred to in the recital to the framework 
Regulation which said that Community action could cover up to 15% of the 
populat ion. 
The list of eligible areas is set out in Annex I 8. 
1 Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24.4.1988 
- 42 -
As with Objective 1, the Commission adopted, by the same decision of 
15 February 1989, guidelines for Community assistance in respect of 
Objective 2. 
The main guidelines are common to both objectives. However, a number of 
adjustments were made as regards Objective 2, where the Commission wished 
to stress the development of productive investment with a view to creating 
alternative employment to replace jobs lost in declining industries. 
Infrastructure investments should be directed towards regenerating run-down 
industrial areas and modernizing such infrastructures as are necessary for 
the creation or development of economic activities, given that the problem 
in these regions is not generally a matter of providing basic 
infrastructures as these are already to a large extent in place. 
2.2. Appraisal of the plans in the light of the Community guidelines 
The regions - via the governments of the Member States - presented their 
plans for economic and social conversion between March and September 1989. 
For each of the sixty regions concerned, the Commission engaged in 
partnership negotiations with the central and regional authorities. 
All the CSFs were approved on 21 December 1989, apart from the one for 
Spain, which was approved on 14 March 1990. 
In view of the diversity of the sixty plans submitted it is impossible to 
give a detailed assessment of each one, but the approaches adopted by the 
Member States have some points in common. 
Many Member States seem to have had difficulty, when preparing their plans, 
in shifting the emphasis of their applications for assistance to the Funds 
in line with the Commission's suggestions, especially in the case of the 
ERDF. 
Nevertheless, most of the Member States, apart from Spain and the United 
Kingdom, managed to minimize the proportion of aid sought for support for 
basic infrastructures. 
As regards duration, seven Member States chose to programme their 
assistance over three years. Spain and France, on the other hand, 
presented five-year plans, in line with their national planning systems. 
Although the framework Regulation merely specifies a minimum duration of 
three years, the fact that the list of eligible regions has a validity of 
only three years made it difficult to envisage implementation of the CSFs 
over a five-year period. And the difference in duration would have raised a 
problem as regards the allocation of resources between Member States. The 
Commission therefore decided, as mentioned, to approve all the CSFs on a 
three-year basis. 
Since some of the areas are contiguous to rural areas or contain 
predominantly agricultural areas, certain Member States submitted schemes 
which were borderline cases between EAGGF and ERDF assistance. Particular 
attention had to be paid to this problem in order to avoid the risk of 
overlap between Objective 2 and Objective 5(b). 
Furthermore, some of the plans included schemes eligible under Objective 2 
and under Objectives 3 and 4 (Social Fund). This point had to be cleared 
up during the negotiations. 
- 33 -
Lastly, the proportion of commitments dating from before 1989 was very high 
in the case of Objective 2. The regions had to allow for this in their 
plans, which limited their scope for submitting applications for new 
schemes. 
2.3. Negotiations 
2.3.1. The CSFs were negotiated at regional level. 
As the plans were submitted at regional level, the Commission wished to 
draw up one CSF per area concerned. This approach enabled closer 
partnership to be established with the regions. It met with the approval 
of eight Member States, but Spain wanted a single CSF for the seven areas 
concerned. This flexibility was admitted, but the Commission managed to 
get the Spanish CSF partly regionalized. 
The 54 CSFs were drawn up in close cooperation with the regions. Indeed 
partnership went beyond the regional level and in many subregional areas 
the local authorities took part in the elaboration of conversion policies 
and definition of priorities. 
2.3.2. Determination of existing commitments 
Pre-reform conversion measures and active support under Community 
structural policy in regions affected by industrial decline continue to be 
effective in the period covered by the CSFs. 
Many regions are receiving aid under IDOs or IMPs, whose geographical 
coverage is wider than the areas eligible under Objective 2. However, the 
IDOs approved in 1988 had already been drawn up, in terms of content, in 
keeping with the policy embodied in the regulations then being elaborated. 
The ongoing ERDF and ESF schemes to be included in the CSFs were initially 
identified on the basis of the Commission's figures: after comparison with 
Member States' data, the share of assistance to be allocated to Objective 2 
was increased. ECU 600 million was transferred from the amount earmarked 
for "transitional measures" and assigned to Objective 2. 
Ongoing multiannual commitments included in the CSFs amount to 
ECU 938 million, ECU 101 million of which correspond to ESF commitments 
under the IDOs and ECU 837 million for prior multiannual commitments still 
to be honoured by the ERDF in respect of NPCIs and IDOs. 
This situation has implications for the planning of new measures to be 
implemented under Objective 2. 
2.3.3. Definition of CSF priorities 
The difference between the sum represented by the applications 
ECU 5 300 million - and the funds available for new schemes necessitated 
some sharp cuts in the proposed schemes. This was done within the 
partnership framework but was made difficult by the high quality of the 
plans. 
In line with Member States' wishes, the Commission proposed that the 
limited resources of the Funds be concentrated on a number of priorities 
- 34 -
directly connected with job creation and most likely to ensure an 
additional impact in the regions receiving Community assistance. 
Although conditions in the 60 regions vary, the nature of the problems to 
be tackled is often similar, so it was possible to define identical 
development priorities in all the Objective 2 regions. The emphasis of the 
priorities varies greatly, however, from one region to another. 
The Commission also apportioned the overall appropriations between the 
regions of each country in association with the central authorities of the 
Member State concerned. This apportionment was based on the same criteria 
as were used for the initial selection of eligible regions. Prior 
commitments were also a factor in this breakdown. 
2«3.4. Common priorities for the conversion of regions 
The development priorities fall in the following categories: 
- schemes to improve the scope for setting up and developing 
productive activities, e.g. providing land and premises for 
industrial and commercial use, by reclaiming industrial sites as far 
as possible. Emphasis on the rehabilitation of disused industrial 
sites will help to improve the environment and enhance the image of 
the areas concerned. Measures under this priority may also include 
appropriate training and employment projects; 
- schemes to promote the development of new businesses, particularly 
small and medium-sized ones, making use of local potential. These 
schemes will include, for instance, projects concerning training and 
employment, the creation of business consultancy centres, measures 
encouraging the use of new technologies and the provision of joint 
services. 
The aim of this priority is to resolve the problems connected with 
the narrowness of the industrial base in many Objective 2 areas due 
to the earlier predominance of heavy industry now in decline, e.g. 
iron and steel, coal and shipbuilding; 
- schemes to improve the environment and enhance the image of rundown 
industrial areas, enabling them to attract new businesses and 
develop new economic activities. Schemes under this priority will 
include the renovation of wasteland; 
- schemes to promote and develop tourism as a new sector of activity. 
Some industrial areas have sites of historical and cultural interest. 
Community assistance under this priority will promote the development 
of such sites and other tourist attractions; 
- schemes to encourage research and development, in particular by the 
provision of vocational training facilities. The purpose of this 
priority is to remedy the problems facing Objective 2 areas due to 
the technological skills shortage of the local workforce. Schemes 
may include measures to reinforce links between the universities and 
industry in the region, step up training in certain key sectors and 
provide vocational training facilities; 
- 35 -
- schemes to promote transfrontier cooperation, in particular for 
certain specific regional development and vocational training 
projects. The joint transfrontier development programmes already 
under way in some frontier areas will be taken into consideration. 
- schemes to improve the transport infrastructure, regarded as vital 
in certain areas for the future development of economic activity and 
tour ism. 
In these areas the Community will part-finance projects making a 
direct contribution to job creation and maintenance, and ensuring the 
free flow of industrial and commercial goods and tourist traffic; 
Some CSFs contain additional priorities. It has been endeavoured in all 
the areas to keep the number of priorities to the required minimum; in 
some areas - particularly those to which a relatively small share of the 
funds has been allocated - the CSFs contain only two or three priorities. 
2.3.5. Complementarity between ERDF and ESF 
As in the case of Objective 1, the Commission has endeavoured to achieve 
maximum complementarity between the two Funds. 
First of all, when the CSF priorities were defined, the vocational training 
and employment aid schemes were selected on the basis of the economic 
development priorities identified, the aim being to select 
training/employment schemes appropriate to the objectives of economic 
conversion and necessary to ensure that the workforce acquired the relevant 
skills and retraining. Coordination between the two instruments was such 
that, in the standardized presentation of priorities, a separate priority 
for human resources was not envisaged. Training/employment measures were 
included under the respective conversion priorities. 
This synergy does not imply that the ESF is involved in every development 
priority, only in those where the situation warrants it (SME support; aid 
for the creation and development of productive activities). 
2.3.6. Situations specific to individual Member States 
The details by Member State shown in Annexes V indicate major differences 
in the respective importance of the different priorities. 
For some Member States, the share of commitments pre-dating the reform 
constitutes a major part of the CSF. This is the case in Luxembourg (53%), 
the United Kingdom (45%), Belgium and the Netherlands (over 30%). 
If pre-reform schemes are excluded, the share allocated to productive 
investment generally represents over half of the overall budget for the 
CSFs in all the Member States, with the exception of the United Kingdom, 
for which this proportion is only one third. Support for investment in 
basic infrastructures appears in the CSFs for Spain and the United Kingdom 
only. 
There are also major differences in the balance between the Funds. Out of 
an overall appropriation of ECU 3 900 million for Objective 2 for the first 
phase, the ESF represents a total of ECU 983 million, including 1989 
commitments, i.e. 25.20% of the total available. 
- 36 -
Some Member States, on the other hand, have placed more emphasis on schemes 
supported by the ESF. For instance, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, 
Italy and the Netherlands will be devoting a percentage above the 
Community average to these schemes (between 25.6% and 40.3% of resources). 
For Spain and the United Kingdom, the ESF represents 21.6% and 23.3% 
respectively of the total available for Objective 2. 
2.4. Preparation and approval of the forms of assistance 
As in the case of Objective 1, the ESF continued in 1989 to grant 
assistance under the old rules. 
In the case of the ERDF, some countries were able to obtain approval for 
new measures before the end of the year. This was made possible by the 
fact that, as provided for in the coordinating Regulation, many regions 
submitted their draft aid applications before the end of the negotiations 
on the CSFs. 
Some of these aid applications, presented in the form of operational 
programmes, were processed and approved before 31 December 1989. Others 
were processed early in 1990. 
In Germany, two operational programmes were approved on 21 December 1989 
representing total ERDF commitment appropriations of ECU 108.3 million and 
ECU 39 million respectively. In France the 17 Objective 2 regions sent 
their aid applications to the Commission at the end of September 1989 for 
21 ERDF operational programmes and four infrastructure projects. One 
operational programme was approved on 21 December for Nord/Pas de Calais, 
providing for ERDF aid of ECU 41.9 million. In the United Kingdom, several 
operational programmes for new ERDF schemes were submitted in 1989. Seven 
programmes were approved in 1989. 
3. COMBATING LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT (OBJECTIVE 3) AND OCCUPATIONAL 
INTEGRATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE (OBJECTIVE 4) 
Under Article 3 of the framework Regulation, these two objectives 
constitute the main tasks of the European Social Fund. They apply to all 
twelve Member States. For the countries and regions covered by 
Objective 1, however, schemes relating to Objectives 3 and 4 were included 
in the Community support frameworks for Objective 1. 
3.1. Multiannual guidelines for the management of the ESF 
Given the large funding requirement of the policies operated by the Member 
States, it was necessary, to facilitate the planning stage, to lay down 
general guidelines as provided for in Article 10 of the framework 
Regulation. Under this Article, the Commission, on 24 February 1989, 
adopted general guidelines1 specifying the options and Community criteria 
for the two objectives. 
In accordance with the principle of the reform, based on decentralized 
management of aid from the Funds, these guidelines do not attempt to fix 
such detailed priority criteria as in the past, which were warranted in a 
project-based management system. The transition to a programme approach 
1 OJ No C 45, 24.2.1989 
- 37 -
involved drawing up broader guidelines defining the framework within which 
the Commission intends to act. 
The guidelines stress the qualitative nature of the criteria for selecting 
schemes to be funded, which must take account of employment market 
requirements and the priorities set by employment policies in the 
Community. They also give priority to transnational training schemes, 
training in advanced technologies, innovative schemes, training and 
recruitment incentives in the interest of modernization, operations for 
categories of persons encountering special difficulties on the labour 
market and schemes to improve the efficiency of training facilities. 
3.2. Content of the plans submitted by the Member States 
The Member States sent their plans to the Commission in June and July 1989. 
The plans generally contained information about the employment market and 
the training/employment policy implemented at national level, and grouped 
the measures for which Community aid was requested by form of assistance, 
giving details as to how ESF aid would be used. 
There was considerable disparity between the plans submitted, the level of 
analysis of employment problems varying greatly from one Member State to 
another, some of them being unable, within the short time available, to 
give all the details which the Commission would have wished to receive in 
line with Article 5 of the ESF Regulation. These details concerned the 
employment market, in particular as regards prospects, the disparity 
between job applications and vacancies, the nature of unfilled vacancies 
and the occupational opportunities appearing on the labour market. 
The demand expressed by the Member States far exceeded the resources 
available, representing 289% of the allocation for Objectives 3 and 4 
outside Objective 1 areas. 
The plans predominantly provided for schemes to assist young people. 
This reflects two factors: firstly, some of the countries concerned 
continue to have very high levels of unemployment among young people (e.g. 
Spain). Secondly, the rise in long-term unemployment is not being met 
immediately by tailor-made solutions. 
3.3. Partnership negotiations and changes of emphasis 
In the course of the negotiations, the Commission wanted more emphasis to 
be placed on training schemes covering new technologies, and in general 
those leading to high-level skills. 
The Member States agreed to give more prominence to certain schemes such 
as: 
regional schemes, which seem the most appropriate for local needs, 
especially in the Member States which submitted, by virtue of their 
administrative structure, both a national section and regional 
sections in their plans; 
new and more comprehensive arrangements to assist the long-term 
unemployed, ranging from counselling and guidance, through job 
training to placement in employment; 
- 38 -
schemes to improve collaboration and the effectiveness of relations 
between national and local authorities; 
and new schemes most likely to reflect the added benefits of 
Community assistance. 
The full implications of these shifts of emphasis will take effect during 
the implementation of the Community support frameworks and will have to be 
confirmed when it comes to control, monitoring and assessment. 
The negotiations enabled presentation of the priorities to be fairly 
standardized, with emphasis on following measures: 
as regards Objective 3 
schemes combining several types of measure so that training makes a 
real contribution to occupational and social integration; 
schemes harnessing local potential for developing employment, 
implemented in a context of synergy between the various partners 
concerned with employment problems; 
those encouraging the creation of self-employed activities; 
and also schemes to facilitate the integration of women into the 
labour market (particularly those who have had a long career break) 
and to improve the integration of handicapped and migrant workers. 
as regards Objective 4 
training schemes leading to skills equipping unskilled school-leavers 
for a first stable Job-, 
schemes combining theoretical training with work experience; 
training in the skills sought by employers in the new technologies. 
Generally speaking, in all cases preference is given to transnational 
schemes, those geared to the modernization of production and marketing, 
particularly at SME level, training in advanced technologies, especially 
those covered by Community R&D programmes, schemes targeted at vulnerable 
categories and those of an innovative nature. 
In quantitative terms, taking into consideration the CSFs for Objectives 3 
and 4 outside the Objective 1 regions, for the years 1990 to 1992 the top 
priorities are the following: 
initial and basic training. This priority mainly concerns people 
without training. It accounts for 45% of the indicative amounts of 
the CSFs; 
further training, i.e. training for people who already have some 
training or job experience (ECU 322 million, i.e. 8% of the total of 
the CSFs for Objectives 3 and 4); 
technological and specialized training, training in new technologies 
leading to high-level skills (ECU 388 million, i.e. 9.4%); 
- 39 -
recruitment aids (ECU 321 million or 7.7%); 
a total of ECU 134 million is also set aside for the schemes referred 
to in Article 1(2) of the ESF Regulation (3.3% of the amount of the 
CSFs). 
the schemes aimed specifically at categories experiencing particular 
difficulties on the labour market represent ECU 804 million or nearly 
20% f the amounts specified in the CSFs for Objectives 3 and 4 
outside Objective 1 regions. 
The priority for handicapped people alone accounts for half of this figure 
of ECU 804 million and about 10% of the amounts envisaged in the CSFs 
(ECU 411 million), specific schemes to assist women encountering particular 
difficulties on the labour market represent ECU 239 million (5.8%) and 
those relating to migrant workers are estimated at ECU 154 million (3.7%). 
Taking into account the amounts for Objectives 3 and 4 in all the CSFs 
(including aid for Objectives 3 and 4 included in the Objective 1 CSFs), 
the overall budget for the categories regarded as having particular 
difficulties on the labour market should come to 16% of the total allocated 
to these two objectives. 
For the handicapped alone, the figures in the CSFs for Objectives 3 and 4 
represent 8.8% of the total indicative amounts (ECU 714 million out of 
ECU 8 100 million) allocated to Objectives 3 and 4 (both within and 
outside Objective 1 regions). 
For women with particular difficulties the amounts earmarked under 
Objectives 3 and 4 (in the CSFs for Objectives 3 and 4 and in the CSFs for 
Objective 1 regions) total just under ECU 373 million, i.e. nearly 5% of 
the total funds for Objective 3 and 4 schemes. This percentage does vary 
considerably, however, between the least developed regions of the Community 
and the others. For instance, in Denmark, 17.1% of the total amount for 
Objective 3 and 4 schemes is reserved for the "women" priority and in the 
Netherlands the corresponding percentage is 15.9%. In some Member States, 
notably Greece, Ireland and Portugal, the amounts allocated to measures 
specifically reserved for women have greatly increased but are still modest 
in absolute terms. 
More could thus be done on this kind of scheme in some Objective 1 regions, 
which could benefit from experience gained in other Member States. 
Bearing in mind that women are also eligible for all the other training and 
employment schemes supported by the ESF (in 1989 41.35% of the 
beneficiaries of training/employment schemes part-financed by the Fund were 
women), it is clear that the Community is doing more and more to improve 
women's training and employment opportunities. 
3.4. Specific problems 
3.4.1. The overall significance of Objectives 3 and 4 
Analysis of the figures requires caution because, as noted in Chapter I, it 
is necessarily based on the sums actually allocated in the CSFs under the 
five object Ives. 
- 40 -
The total amount available from the ESF under the CSFs is 
ECU 15 365 mi 11 ion. 
In accordance with Article 3 of the framework Regulation, this amount will 
be devoted primarily to combating long-term unemployment and to the 
occupational integration of young people (ECU 8 100 million out of a total 
of 15.365 mi I I ion, i.e. 52.71%). 
These analyses seem to indicate a reorientation of ESF schemes, with a 
return to a philosophy of assistance closer to that of the Treaties. This 
is the effect of geographical concentration on the Objective 1 regions and 
increased ESF support for the conversion of industrial and rural areas. 
3.4.2. Inclusion of Objectives 3 and 4 in the Objective 1 CSFs 
The ESF element represents 27.10% of the total of the sums allotted to the 
Objective 1 CSFs (ECU 9 813 million out of a total of ECU 36 200 million). 
Although the plans dealing with Objectives 3 and 4 were submitted 
separately, the measures they covered had to be incorporated into the 
single CSFs approved for the regions covered by this Objective. On this 
basis a special priority was introduced into all the frameworks to identify 
the proportion of ESF appropriations to be devoted to measures under the 
priority "development of human resources" and that 
to be assigned to Objective 3 and 4 schemes. 
Within the overall ESF allocation to the CSFs approved, the average 
proportion for the CSFs is 40%. The figure varies from country to country, 
and the Member States can be divided into two categories: 
on the one hand, the Member States which preferred to concentrate ESF 
assistance on the training of the workforce and more generally on 
employment measures more closely connected with economic development. 
This is the case with Portugal, which will devote 76% of ESF 
resources to Objective 1 measures, Greece (64%) and Ireland (65%). 
on the other hand, those which wished to concentrate a major part of 
the appropriations on support for measures to assist the long-term 
unemployed and the integration of young people. This is the case 
with Spain, which will be devoting 54% of the appropriations to 
Objectives 3 and 4, France (50%), the United Kingdom (66%) and Italy 
(49%). 
This difference of approach can be explained by two factors. Firstly, the 
structure of unemployment in the Member States is reflected in the choice 
of requirements expressed in the plans and included in the CSFs. For 
Greece and Portugal, for instance, the main problem is to improve the 
skills of the workforce. 
Secondly, wide use has been made of the broader eligibility criteria laid 
down in Article 1(5) and (6) of the ESF Regulation by the Objective 1 
regions belonging to the first group. Under this Article, the ESF may, in 
these regions, contribute to the financing of "that part of national 
secondary, or corresponding education systems specifically devoted to 
vocational training following compulsory full-time schooling". 
In addition to this new possibility, the ESF is still able to grant 
assistance for recruitment and apprenticeship schemes. The total for these 
- 41 -
three types of measure represents 10.29% of the total financial allocation 
for the ESF (ECU 1 010 million out of a total of ECU 9 813 million). 
3.4.3. Avoiding the risks of combination and overlapping of assistance 
As the ESF grants assistance under several objectives in the Member States 
and regions covered by Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b), the greatest attention has 
been paid to the risks of combination, overlapping and duplication of 
financing. 
To make a clearer distinction between the categories of Fund assistance in 
a region covered by several objectives, the Commission has given priority 
under. Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) to training/employment schemes to assist the 
unemployed, those threatened with unemployment or employed in SMEs and 
schemes directly linked to a development priority under these objectives. 
In this way assistance for the long-term unemployed and young people under 
25 years of age seeking a first job after compulsory schooling could be 
concentrated under Objectives 3 and 4. 
In practice it has not always been completely possible to make this 
distinction, particularly in the case of measures to assist categories of 
persons covered more specifically by Objectives 3 and 4 but also concerned 
by Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) in that they are involved in a conversion or 
local development policy. 
In cases of this kind particular care will be paid to the problem of 
overlapping when it comes to monitoring, assessment and control. 
4: ADJUSTMENT OF PRODUCTION, PROCESSING AND MARKETING STRUCTURES IN 
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES (OBJECTIVE 5(a) 
4.1. Main changes in 1989 
Speeding up the adjustment of agricultural structures with a view to reform 
of the common agricultural policy is one of the priority objectives of the 
reform of the structural Funds. 
During 1989 and early 1990 major amendments were made by the Council to the 
main regulations governing structure policy, including in particular those 
made under Council Regulation N* 3808/89 of 19 December 19891. 
Unlike the other objectives, for which the Member States drew up 
multiannual plans which led to negotiations with the Commission and the 
establishment of Community support frameworks, the implementation of 
Objective 5(a) will continue largely as in the past, subject to the 
adjustments required by the reform. Once approved by the Council, 
5(a) measures are horizontal measures applicable to the whole of the 
Community. It is up to each Member state to implement the compulsory 
measures and to decide whether or not to take up the opportunities afforded 
by the regulations in the case of non-compulsory schemes. 
The adjustments made to measures coming under Objective 5(a) will be 
described in detail in the Report on the situation of Agriculture in the 
Community for 1990. Particularly noteworthy among the adjustments 
1 0J L 371 of 20 December 1989. 
- 42 -
occasioned by the reform was the increase in the rate of Commmunlty 
financing for schemes implemented in Objective 1 regions. 
In accordance with this rule, the Commission adopted In January 1990 a 
Regulation adjusting the rates of Community contributions towards common 
measures under Objective 5(a).1 The new rates may apply, at the Member 
State's request, to expenditure in respect of 1989. 
Tne rates at present vary according to the measure and region concerned. 
They range from 50 to 65% for Objective 1 regions and from 25 to 50% for 
others. 
In the case of measures to improve the marketing and processing of 
agricultural and fishery products, Fund aid may not exceed 50% of the 
eligible costs in regions covered by Objective 1 and 30% in other regions. 
The Member States are also allowed some margin for differentiating rates of 
aid according to area and type of investment. In the case of aids for 
agricultural holdings they may, for instance, grant the maximum to 
investments in farm tourism only in areas covered by Objectives 1 and 5(b). 
A further change was the introduction of the "plan" procedure for schemes 
to improve the marketing and processing of agricultural2, forestry3 and 
fishery4 products. Member States now have to submit sectoral plans, on 
the basis of which the Commission will negotiate, within the partnership 
framework, the corresponding CSF. Under this new procedure, the Member 
States are themselves responsible for selecting and analysing projects, 
which must meet the selection criteria adopted by the Commission. 
Lastly, and although the appropriations allocated to Objective 5(a) are not 
broken down a priori by Member State, it was nonetheless essential to 
include in the CSFs of the Objective 1 countries the estimated share of the 
resources allocated to Objective 5(a) measures. 
Article 8 of the framework Regulation specifies that the Objective 1 CSFs 
ensure overall coordination of Community structural aid for all these 
regions. Objective 5(a) is taken into account by a reference to any 5(a) 
schemes and by a separate explicit heading in the financing plan. However, 
5(a) measures are defined not in the CSF but on the basis of the relevant 
horizontal Regulations. 
Community assistance provided for within and outside the CSFs for 5(a) 
measures totals ECU 6 052 million, including ECU 157 million for processing 
and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products (1991-93). 
4.2. Trend in expenditure under Objective 5(a) in 1989 and breakdown by 
measure 
Total 5(a) expenditure rose overall by 2.4% from 1988 to 1989. At the same 
time expenditure relating to Objective 1 regions increased by about 30%. 
1 Regulation (EEC) No 223/90 of 26 January 1990 OJ L. 
2 Regulation (EEC) No.866/90 of 29 March 1990, OJ L91, 6.4.1990 
3 Regulation (EEC) No.867/90 of 29 March 1990, OJ L91, 6.4.1990 
4 Regulation (EEC) No.4042/88 of 19 December 1989, OJ L388, 30.12.1989 
- 43 -
This led to 52.2% of the total expenditure for 1989 on Objective 5(a) going 
to the Objective 1 regions. 
Two measures account for three quarters of Objective 5(a) spending in 1989: 
firstly the marketing and processing of agricultural and fishery products 
and, secondly, compensatory allowances. Apart from these the only notable 
measures are investment aids and installation aids for young farmers. 
Annexes VI and VII show the trend in expenditure for the period 1987 to 
1989 and the breakdown of that expenditure by Objective 5(a) measure. 
4.3. Implementing provisions 
Two points should be stressed with regard to Objective 5(a) schemes. 
In Objective 1 regions implementation of 5(a) schemes does not 
require the approval of operational programmes. Schemes take effect 
after the adoption by the Commission of the implementing arrangements 
submitted by the Member States in accordance with the STAR Committee 
procedure. 
Objective 5(a) structural schemes concerning the processing and 
marketing of agricultural products are the only ones requiring the 
adoption of Community support frameworks. The Member States submit 
sectoral plans setting out the framework in which the projects are to 
be placed. 
5 : PROMOTION OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (OBJECTIVE 5(b)) 
Community assistance for Objective 5(b) is being concentrated on those 
regions most affected by reform of the common agricultural policy, to 
sustain their efforts to develop, diversify and revitalize the rural 
economy. 
The Objective 5(b) regions include rural areas which require an 
individually tailored development effort, based not only on the specific 
characteristics of their agriculture but also exploiting all their 
potential. This is why all three Funds are involved in these areas. 
5.1. Selection of rural areas 
Under Article 11 of the framework Regulation the Commission had to lay down 
the eligibility criteria for rural areas and draw up the list of areas so 
that the Member States could submit plans. 
The Commission adopted the following criteria: 
(a) high proportion of total employment in agriculture; 
(b) low level of farm income; 
(c) low level of socio-economic development based on the per capita gross 
domestic product. 
In addition to these three basic criteria, the Commission also considered 
rural areas meeting one or more of the criteria laid down in Article 4(2) 
of the coordinating Regulation. 
After consulting the Member States, the Commission, on 10 May 1989, adopted 
- 44 -
the list of eligible areas under Objective 5(b), which is contained in 
Annex I 9. 
The areas selected are small in size (mainly NUTS III or in some cases NUTS 
II), to enable programmes geared to their specific needs to be drawn up. 
These areas represent 17% of the territory of the Community and 5% of its 
population. They are significant in size in some Member States (France: 
34.2% of the area and 10.7% of the population; Germany: 21.1% of the area 
and 7.6% of the population). The three Member States entirely covered by 
Objective 1 are not eligible for Objective 5(b). 
5.2. Duration of plans and geographical scope 
After approval, the list was communicated to the Member States so that they 
could draw up regional plans by 28 October 1989. All the Member States, 
with the exception of Belgium, which submitted its plans on 22 November, 
met the deadline. These plans cover a period of five years (1989-1993), 
except in some regions where the programming period is three or four years. 
This is the case with Belgium, some regions of the Federal Republic of 
German and the United Kingdom. In accordance with the spirit of 
Objective 5(b), these plans were drawn up at area level. The Commission 
received 56 plans, i.e. one per 5(b) area. 
Although the duration of the plans varies from one Member State to another, 
the Commission wished to adopt all the CSFs for five years, in line with 
the period adopted for the financial allocations. Unlike with Objective 2 
there was no problem as regards revision of the lists making a two-phase 
approach necessary. 
On the basis of the plans, the Commission drew up 44 CSFs, some covering 
several regions. They were finalized in 1990. Spain, as for the other 
objectives, wanted a single CSF. The Commission accepted this request but 
regionalized the whole CSF. 
Out of a total of ECU 2 795 million allocated to Objective 5(b), on 
20 December 1989 the Commission decided on a first share-out between Member 
States of ECU 2 493 million. As in the case of the other objectives, 
the balance between the Funds was established through the partnership. In 
addition to the ECU 2 493 million, ECU 114 million was shared out in a 
second phase with a view to finalizing the CSFs in 1990. 
5.3. Details of priorities for assistance 
To ensure that the resources available for this Objective could have a real 
impact on the regions, it was necessary to concentrate on a limited number 
of priorities likely to make a significant contribution to the development 
of the indigenous potential. 
The following priorities were set: 
development of the primary sector (agriculture, forestry and 
fisheries) in order to help agriculture to adapt to the reform of the 
Common Agricultural Policy and to ensure that it plays a positive 
role in the economic and social development of rural areas. 
development of other activities, including SMEs in particular; 
- 45 -
expansion or promotion of tourist and leisure activities and the 
creation of nature parks; 
respect for the environment; 
ESF assistance for training programmes in support of agricultural and 
non-agricultural activities. 
The CSFs were approved on 6 June 1990, apart from those for France, which 
were approved on 27 June. 
The CSFs for this Objective will be reviewed In depth in the 1990 annual 
report. 
6 : PILOT SCHEMES FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AT COMMUNITY LEVEL 
Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation lays down that studies and pilot schemes 
are to be carried out to promote regional development at Community level. 
In accordance with the Regulation, these measures should relate to: 
- the establishment of a prospective outline of the utilization of 
Community territory and the consequences therefor of major 
Infrastructures; 
- the problems of border regions, the pooling of experience, 
cooperation between regions and innovative measures. 
The measures provided for in Article 10 can be applied across the 
Community as a whole, permitting the necessary tie-ups between the areas 
covered by the priority objectives of the reform of the Funds and those not 
so covered. 
in 1989 most of the resources allocated under Article 10 and financed from 
heading 5490 of the Community budget were used to finance studies and pilot 
projects relating to cross-border cooperation. In regions which have 
already carried out preparatory studies, mainly those more centrally 
located, assistance was given to Innovative pilot projects aimed at 
encouraging cross-border cooperation. In other, mainly peripheral regions 
studies have been initiated to look at the problems of cooperation between 
transfrontier regions and ways of increasing such cooperation. 
In addition, as regards cooperation, information flows and links between 
different Community regions, three schemes for the pooling of experience at 
regional level were launched in December last year to encourage and 
facilitate contacts between regions and to promote the spread of innovative 
ideas. These schemes were launched In cooperation with the Assembly of 
European Regions, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions and 
the International Union of Local Authorities. 
7 : COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 
Article 11 of the coordinating Regulation stipulates that "the Commission 
may, on Its own initiative decide to propose to the Member States 
- 46 -
that they submit applications for assistance in respect of measures of 
significant interest to the Community...". 
More explicitly Article 3(2) of the ERDF Regulation defines three types of 
Community initiatives of a regional nature: those whose purpose is to help 
resolve serious problems directly associated with the implementation of 
other Community policies, those aimed at promoting the application of 
Community policies at regional level and those designed to help resolve 
problems common to certain categories of region. 
About ECU 1.7 billion of the funds intended for Community initiatives is 
already allocated to ongoing Community programmes, namely Star 
(telecommunications), Valoren (renewable energy), Résider (conversion of 
iron and steel areas) and Renaval (conversion of shipbuilding areas) and 
for some non-quota ERDF schemes nearing completion. The Commission decided 
to allocate ECU 3.8 billion to new Community initiatives. 
On 22 November 1989 the Commission decided to allocate an overall budget 
of ECU 2.1 billion to a first series of five new initiatives: Rechar 
ECU 300 million; Envireg ECU 500 million; Stride ECU 400 million; Interreg 
ECU 700 mill ion; Regis ECU 200 mill ion. 
The aim of the Rechar initiative decided by the Commission on 17 December 
1989 is to help diversify the economic base of the coal-mining areas 
hardest hit by the restructuring of the coal industry, by making additional 
funds available over and above those provided for in the Community support 
frameworks. Some ECU 300 million in ERDF and ESF assistance is earmarked, 
plus up to ECU 120 million in the form of ECSC interest subsidies and about 
ECU 40 million of additional aids for readaptation under Article 56 of the 
ECSC Treaty in 1990; additional funds may be granted for subsequent years 
depending on the resources available. 
Rechar provides for the implementation of three types of measure: 
improvement of the environment in areas damaged by coal-mining. This 
may consist, for instance, in landscaping, coal-tip reclamation, the 
conversion of disused mining buildings, the modernization of premises 
for use by SMEs, and the modernization of small-scale community 
facilities in mining villages. 
the promotion of new economic activities and the development of 
existing ones by support for measures to assist SMEs in the form of 
incentives for innovation, the establishment of common services, aid 
for productive investment, better access to risk capital and the 
provision of factories and short-stay workshops. 
more intensive vocational training for the unemployed, persons 
threatened with unemployment and persons employed in SMEs-, 
particular attention should be paid, thanks to the readaptation aids 
financed under Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty, to the training of 
miners and former miners to facilitate their integration into a 
changing economy. 
The Community initiative Envireg was decided in principle by the Commission 
on 29 November 1989. The aim of this initiative, with an indicative 
financial appropriation of around ECU 500 million, is to help those regions 
in the Community whose development is lagging behind to resolve some of 
their environmental problems in order to safeguard their development 
- 47 -
potential, particularly as regards tourism. Four specific objectives are 
envisaged: 
reduction of pollution in coastal areas, especially in the 
Mediterranean region, by helping medium-sized towns to establish 
sewage treatment systems and urban waste disposal together with, in 
some cases, recycling schemes. 
promotion of coastal development in a way that preserves the natural 
beauty of the coastline and protects its biotopes. 
improvement of the management of toxic and dangerous industrial waste 
• by encouraging businesses to cut their waste production and to 
establish production processes less wasteful of water and raw 
materials, and by encouraging the establishment of waste treatment, 
storage and recycling facilities. 
the development of know-how among local and regional authorities and 
experts on the subject of management of the environment, by technical 
back-up measures, pooling of experience and vocational training 
schemes. 
The Commission adopted the definitive version of this initiative on 
9 May 1990 after receiving the opinions of the European Parliament and the 
Economic and Social Committee. 
For Stride, Interreg and Regis the Commission adopted guidelines on 13 
March 1990: 
the aim of Stride is to increase regional capacities for research, 
technology and innovation in Objective 1 regions, encourage the 
participation of these regions in Community research programmes and 
networks and promote cooperation between research centres and 
industry in Objective 1 and 2 regions (indicative financial 
appropriation of ECU 400 million for the period 1990 to 1993). 
with the prospect of the single market, Interreg is to encourage 
cooperation between border regions within the Community and help 
areas on its external frontiers to overcome problems stemming from 
their remoteness (indicative financial appropriation ECU 800 million 
for the period 1990 to 1993). 
Regis concerns the regions on the extreme periphery of the Community: 
the French overseas departments, the Canary Islands, the Azores and 
Madeira. The objectives of this initiative are to promote economic 
diversification, consolidate links with the rest of the Community and 
stimulate cooperation with neighbouring non-Community countries 
(indicative financial appropriation ECU 200 million for the period 
1990 to 1993). 
On 2 May 1990 the Commission gave its consent in principle to the 
establishment of a second series of initiatives scheduled to be funded with 
ECU 1 700 million for the period 1990-93. The selected proposais should 
dovetail into a coherent overall strategy, linking up with the initiatives 
approved in 1989 and complementing the Community support frameworks. 
- 48 -
Three areas of action have been defined for this second phase: 
extension of certain basic Infrastructures; 
development of human resources; 
greater intégrât Ion of rural areas. 
The Commission has now approved the draft guidelines for the following 
in it I at Ives: 
Regen Natural gas supply network ECU 300 million 
Telematics Extension of the Star programme ECU 200 million 
Prisma Preparing firms for the 
Internal market ECU 100 million 
Increased allocation for Interreg ECU 100 million 
EUR0F0RM, NOW and HORIZON (Development 
of human resources) ECU 600 million 
Leader Greater integration of 
rural areas ECU 400 million 
- 49 -
CHAPTER III: THEMATIC PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE 
1: UPGRADING OF BASIC INFRASTRUCTURES 
As stated in Chapter II, upgrading basic infrastructures is the first 
priority in Objective 1 areas since 50% of the ERDF assistance for new 
measures will be assigned to that purpose. 
Within this priority, transport, telecommunications and energy 
infrastructures predominate. They represent about ECU 6 500 million of 
Community aid (see Annex VIII). 
1.1. Transport infrastructures 
1.1.1. Road and motorway networks 
Member States continue to focus their support on this type of 
infrastructure, for which Community assistance in the Objective 1 CSFs 
amounts to ECU 3 647 million. The expenditure authorized for this type of 
infrastructure is heavily concentrated in certain countries (Spain, 
Portugal and Ireland). In other countries and regions (Greece and Italy) 
relatively little emphasis is placed on such measures in the CSFs. 
There is thus a downward trend in Community assistance towards road and 
motorway projects, which could point to a fall-off in the activities of the 
Funds, particularly the ERDF, in coming years. The monitoring and 
execution of the CSFs will make it possible to evaluate these developments 
more fuily. 
1.1.2. RaiI networks 
Assistance for this type of infrastructure was requested by Spain, Greece, 
Portugal and Northern Ireland. The CSFs provide for a total of about 
ECU 949 million, with the largest sum going to Spain, which has requested 
Community assistance of ECU 600 million towards the high-speed train 
project. 
1.2. Telecommunications infrastructures 
Telecommunications continue to be a key area for the economic development 
of the regions, particularly the Objective 1 regions, which are undoubtedly 
lagging behind in this field. ECU 1 162 million is to be allocated for 
investments in this sector in the Objective 1 areas. 
All the Objective 1 countries are interested in developing 
telecommunications, which is a priority in the CSFs of all the regions 
concerned. Spain, Greece and Italy will dedicate a large part of their 
multi-annual allocation to this: ECU 311 million, ECU 345 million and 
ECU 308 million respectively. 
Community assistance will be provided partly through the STAR programme, 
whose objective is to provide support for investments in advanced 
communications infrastructures and to finance measures to stimulate the 
supply of and demand for advanced services, aimed at SMEs in particular. 
- 50 -
The programme was adopted for the period from 1987 to 1991 with a financial 
package of ECU 780 million and the appropriations remaining for the period 
1989-91 have been incorporated in the CSFs. 
The difference will be funded from appropriations available for new 
measures. 
In addition to the funds earmarked under the CSFs, the Commission decided, 
as mentioned earlier, to strengthen the process begun with the Star 
programme with the adoption of the Community initiative Telematics, with a 
budget of ECU 200 million. 
1.3. Energy 
Energy infrastructures are identified as being of particular importance in 
the CSFs for Greece and Italy, where Community funds will be used to 
support major projects for the supply and distribution of natural gas and 
electricity. 
For all the Objective 1 regions, some ECU 1 700 million is earmarked under 
the CSFs. Community assistance will be partly channelled through the 
Valoren programme. This programme was adopted for the period from 1987 to 
1991 with a financial package of ECU 393 million and the appropriations 
available for the period covered by the CSFs (ECU 278 million) have been 
incorporated in the CSFs. The purpose of the Valoren programme is to 
contribute to the development of certain less-favoured areas in the 
Community by enhancing the indigenous energy supply potential. The 
programme is thus concerned with exploiting local energy resources and, in 
particular, renewable energy sources and small deposits of peat and brown 
coal, rational energy use in SMEs and the regional promotion of ways of 
making better use of the energy supply potential. 
In addition, the Commission has decided to approve a Community initiative 
called Regen, for ECU 300 million, to assist natural gas and electricity 
distribution networks in Objective 1 regions. This measure will speed up 
the more widespread availability of natural gas in Member States where it 
is not available at present, thereby helping them to diversify their energy 
supplies whilst at the same time reducing their dependence on oil. 
Moreover, increased hook-ups between major European gas and electricity 
networks will bring about greater flexibility of energy supply systems in 
line with the main objectives of Community action in this field. 
1.4. Improving and protecting the environment 
When deciding on the priorities for the CSFs, the Commission maintained the 
measures relating to environmental protection and improvement proposed by 
the Member States. 
For six of the seven countries concerned by Objective 1, the CSF includes a 
specific priority on the environment. Although the Portuguese CSF does not 
make it a specific priority, it was agreed under the partnership 
arrangements that environmental considerations would be taken into account 
in implementing the measures. Community appropriations allocated to other 
environmental protection measures in the period from 1989 to 1993 may be 
estimated at ECU 1 799 million. 
There can be no doubt that this is a considerable improvement on the pre-
reform activities of the Funds, in Objective 1 areas, efforts are 
- 51 -
concentrated above all on water-related infrastructures (controlling, 
protecting and Improving available resources), but do not exclude other 
areas such as waste management and measures to encourage the introduction 
of "clean" technologies. In many Objective 2 regions, the emphasis is on 
the rehabilitation of derelict sites, but measures to improve the 
infrastructures required to develop and manage natural resources have not 
been ruled out. Supporting vocational training will also be provided. 
Despite this new awareness in all the regions, serious problems still 
persist. On the one hand there is a severe backlog of problems to be 
remedied, while on the other there is a risk that development measures 
financed by the Funds will aggravate the pressure on the environment 
(creating precisely the kind of problem that other funds are seeking to 
remedy). Lastly, the legislative framework for smooth implementation of 
measures financed by the Funds presents shortcomings in all the Member 
States. 
2. STRENGTHENING THE PRODUCTIVE SECTORS 
2.1. Improving competitiveness 
In accordance with its regional policy guidelines, the Commission has given 
priority to Community support to develop and improve the competitiveness of 
productive firms. 
This effort has been concentrated in the regions eligible under Objectives 
1 and 2. 
In the Objective 1 regions, ECU 5 143 million of Community funds are to be 
allocated to this priority, with an additional ECU 1 256 million under the 
CSFs for Objective 2, making a total of ECU 6 699 million not including 
Community initiatives and existing commitments. 
Four main measures have been adopted for the Objective 1 regions-. 
direct aid to businesses for productive investments in manufacturing, 
crafts, services and tourism. A large part of the appropriations 
(ECU 1 334 million) has been allocated to financing these measures, 
assistance for technical and vocational training-, 
development of capacity for research and technological innovation; 
business services. 
The situation in the Objective 2 areas is slightly different. 
Firstly, improving the competitiveness of firms is the main priority, and 
has been allocated ECU 1 256 million, or 35.38% of appropriations. 
Secondly, only a small amount of the aid will be used for direct investment 
support. In these regions, the most urgent task is to improve the 
conditions in which businesses are set up and develop. To this end, a 
range of measures have been adopted under the CSFs for 1989 to 1991 : 
- 52 -
measures to support modernization and restructuring, by training for 
staff or jobseekers in new production techniques and recruitment 
subsidies for entrepreneurs starting new businesses; 
varied measures to develop local potential, including: 
* the creation of incubator facilities and a range of support 
services for entrepreneurs starting new businesses; 
* support for investments in intangibles such as the recruitment of 
managerial staff, external advisory services; 
• * implementation of technical innovation measures (resource 
centres, industry/research collaboration, technological 
advisors); 
* support for collective measures (shared services, sectoral 
studies, venture capital studies, etc.). 
Although assistance for small businesses and industries is not a specific 
priority in the CSFs, a wide range of measures will benefit them. 
At this stage it is impossible to quantify the Community effort in their 
favour; this will be feasible in the course of monitoring of the 
implementation of the operational programmes. 
In qualitative terms, the Objective 1 CSFs provide for a variety of 
measures: financial services, better access to capital, promotion of 
technological innovation and research, skill training schemes. 
For Objective 2, similar measures are envisaged, with emphasis on the 
creation and development of small firms as major contributors to the 
regeneration of the local economy. 
2.2 Promotion of tourist potential 
The importance of tourism for the development of a region lies in its 
potential to create jobs and its contribution to economic diversification 
in the area. Tourism therefore plays an important role not only in the 
development of less-favoured regions, which often have natural assets which 
make them very attractive for recreational tourism, but also in certain 
industrial regions with a rich and varied cultural heritage. 
2.2.1. Inclusion in the CSFs approved in 1989 
When the Community support frameworks were being drawn up for the Objective 
1 and 2 regions, a section on tourism was included among the priorities for 
assistance. 
The total provision for direct Community assistance from the structural 
Funds for tourism is ECU 1 613 million in the Community support frameworks 
for Objective 1 regions. This represents 5.5% of all the approprations 
available for the period in question, 86% of which comes from the ERDF. 
- 53 -
The funds are allocated among the Member States as follows: 
million ECU % of total Community 
assistance under 
CSF 
Greece 166.7 3.1 
Spain 182 2.4 
France 34.3 4.8 
Ireland 188.6 6.6 
Italy 780 12.5 
Portugal 203 3.5 
United Kingdom 58.2 10.5 
Total for Objective 1 1 612.8 5.5 
In the case of Greece, it should be specified that the regional operational 
programmes will also contain tourism measures. They have not yet been 
specified in the relevant section of the CSF. 
These measures only concern direct assistance. It is difficult to assess 
exactly the Community's total contribution for tourism, since some 
assistance, particularly for transport, telecommunications and environment 
infrastructure indirectly benefits this sector. 
The CSFs for the Objective 2 areas provide for ECU 267 million of Community 
assistance for tourism activities, or 7.5% of all Community assistance 
under the CSFs. 
The geographical distribution is shown in the table below: 
1989-91 million ECU % of total Community 
assistance under 
CSF 
Be I g i um 12.85 7.2 
Denmark 0.5 1.6 
Germany 1.32 0.4 
Spain 
France 44.1 7.3 
Italy 24.67 9 
Luxembourg 
the Netherlands 10.09 13.1 
United Kingdom 173.89 12.8 
Total for Objective 2 267.42 7.5 
2.2.2. Tourism in the Community initiatives 
Among the Community initiatives proposed by the Commission, the programme 
of regional measures concerning the environment (Envireg) is of growing 
importance for tourism. One of the specific objectives of Envireg is to 
- 54 -
reduce pollution of coastal areas, particularly in the Mediterranean 
regions, whose economy depends significantly on tourism. 
Under the Commission guidelines for the Community initiative concerning the 
economic conversion of coal-mining areas (Rechar), Community assistance may 
be granted for measures to promote tourism. 
Lastly, measures to encourage cross-frontier cooperation in matters of 
tourism may receive Community assistance under the Community initiative 
concerning trans-frontier areas (Interreg). 
2.3. • Promotion of technological potential (RTD) 
2.3.1. The Technology gap in the less-favoured areas 
Recognition in the Single Act of research, innovation and technological 
development (RTD) as one of the common policies emphasized the vital role 
of RTD in promoting economic development and strengthening economic and 
social cohesion. 
The technology gap in the less-favoured regions, particularly the Objective 
1 regions, is still very large: it is three or four times greater than the 
socio-economic gap. Because of the lack of resources in RTD, the level of 
participation of those regions in Community scientific and technological 
programmes is still inadequate. The structural Funds provide an 
opportunity to improve the RTD capacity of those regions. 
The relationship between science and technology on the one hand and 
regional development on the other hand requires further analysis as a 
prerequisite for the simplification of institutional structures to 
facilitate the process of coordination and the definition of priorities 
which will call for appropriate management systems and resources. 
The Commission has emphasized the importance of RTD for economic 
development in the priorities it has laid down for the Community support 
frameworks. Measures in favour of RTD are now eligible for the first time. 
2.3.2. The strategies of the Member States 
As regards Objective 1, the responses of the Member States to the new 
opportunities for strengthening their RTD infrastructures varied. 
Ireland drew up a specific plan and should receive ECU 142 million in 
Community funding. 
In collaboration with the Commission Portugal presented the "Ciencià" 
programme for a total cost of ECU 304 million, 162 million of which will be 
financed from the Community budget. 
Greece said it would submit a plan for RTD infrastructures at a later date. 
Spain has suggested that the additional resources from the Funds should be 
used to strengthen its RTD plan launched in 1988. 
The regions have allocated a larger proportion of the funds to RTD-related 
measures under Objective 2, not only to improve infrastructure but also to 
promote stronger links between RTD and businesses, especially SMEs, and to 
encourage technology transfers. 
- 55 -
Under Objectives 3 and 4, research-related measures In the CSFs mainly 
concern the vocational training of young people in new and advanced 
technologies. The proportion of ESF funds allocated to these measures 
varies considerably. 
In the Objective 5(b) areas, the demand is negligible. Although certain 
areas show a keen interest, only 1.3% of all the requests for all the areas 
eligible under this Objective relate to RTD. They focus mainly on the 
agri-food sector (quality improvement and control), the environment and 
the new information technologies. 
3. CHANGES OF EMPHASIS IN COMMUNITY POLICY IN FAVOUR OF HUMAN RESOURCES 
There has been a change of emphasis in the role of the Funds, not only 
because the criteria for eligibility have been extended but also because of 
the influence of the partnership. 
3.1. A new approach to skill training 
The importance of occupational training and employment policy as factors of 
economic growth is explicitly recognized in all the CSFs for the 
regionally-targeted Objectives, especially Objective 1. 
Not only is the funding to be stepped up, but qualitative improvements are 
to be encouraged. There are three major forms of assistance: 
training measures and recruitment subsidies part-financed by the ESF 
within the framework of priority measures to promote economic growth 
(tourism, research, development in productive sectors); 
assistance from the ESF under the specific heading of "human 
resources" in the CSFs for Objective 1, reflecting the importance 
attached to training in the general context of development. This 
heading covers training of "multi-priority" relevance, training 
infrastructure and measures provided for in Article 1(5) and (6) of 
the ESF Regulation; 
ESF assistance under Objectives 3 and 4 in the Objective 1 regions 
(included as a distinct item in the Objective 1 CSFs), for a global 
sum of ECU 3 972 mi 11 ion. 
From now on the ESF priorities in these regions are predominantly 
determined in relation to the economic growth priorities which the 
Commission is seeking to emphasize through the CSFs. The scale of funding 
is a major determining factor for Community policy on human resources. 
The importance of vocational training and employment policy for economic 
development is also explicitly acknowledged in the case of Objectives 2 and 
5(b). Thus, only measures to assist the conversion of the active 
population (Objective 2) and to promote economic activity in rural areas 
(Objective 5(b)) were approved in the CSFs. 
- 56 -
3.2. Support for training facilities 
The Inadequacy of training structures has been and continues to be an 
obstacle to Implementing the employment policy needed for economic 
development. Improvements In training are a common priority throughout the 
Objective 1 regions. Community assistance under this heading in the CSFs 
amounts to ECU 514 ml I I Ion (ECU 341 million financed from ERDF 
appropriations-, ECU 173 million from ESF appropriations). 
Investments are needed to build and equip training centres and it is also 
necessary to ensure that these centres are staffed by qualified personnel. 
To this end, provision has been made for training schemes for Instructors 
and employment and vocational training experts. 
All the countries concerned by Objective 1 consider this to be a top 
priority measure. However, Community assistance will be concentrated on 
certain countries, particularly Greece, Spain and Portugal. 
3.3 Upgrading of vocational training at secondary school level 
Under Article 1 (5) of the ESF Regulation eligibility for assistance from 
the Social Fund is extended to measures to develop vocational training at 
secondary school level, after the period of compulsory education. 
This new opportunity has been taken up by Greece, Ireland and Portugal, 
where there is a real need to develop vocational training facilities to 
give young people the necessary skills for their first job or to prepare 
them better for further technical training. 
It is clear that the national school systems in such countries can play a 
major role in Improving skill levels, provided that certain structural 
adjustments are made. 
However, assistance of this type represents only a small part of the work 
of the Funds, particularly the Social Fund. 
3.4 Priority for the drive to combat long-term unemployment 
Although long-term unemployment has been increasing in all the Member 
States', there has hitherto been no legal basis for the Community to 
respond at a level matching national government efforts. 
Under the partnership arrangements and on the basis of the CSFs approved 
for the nine countries for Objectives 3 and 4, a large share of Community 
assistance is now being allocated to measures to combat long-term 
employment. 
The amount Involved Is ECU 1 704 million, out of the ECU 4 128 million 
allocated specifically to Objectives 3 and 4 for 1990-92, plus ECU 1 104 
million earmarked for combating unemployment under the CSFs for Objective . 
See Employment In Europe 1990 
- 57 -
IMPROVEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 
4.1 improvement of conditions of production and upgrading of agricultural 
resources 
Assessment of structural measures to improve the conditions of production 
and upgrade agricultural resources must take various factors into account, 
and the impact is only measurable in the long term. 
In the case of the "classic" structural measures (Objective 5(a)), figures 
are sent by the Member States after a certain time lapse (latest available 
year 1988) and published each year in the report on The agr I cultural 
situation in the Community. Since the entry into force of Regulation (EEC) 
No 797/85, the number of plans for the physical improvement of holdings 
approved by the Member States has increased considerably-, more than 70 000 
were approved in 1988 and 1989. 
A large number of structural measures of a specific or regional nature in 
the CSFs for Objective 1 regions have been adopted. They are concerned 
mainly with the improvement of rural infrastructures and land tenure and 
support for stockfarming in certain areas experiencing difficulties. The 
object is to increase incomes and living standards for the inhabitants of 
the rural areas concerned. Such measures absorb a large share of the 
resources available for the CSFs. 
4.2 Protection of the environment and forestry measures 
Under the heading of Objective 5(a) structural measures, encouragement is 
given to agricultural practices which are kind to the environment. 
By 31 December 1989, three Member States (Germany, the Netherlands and the 
United Kingdom) had defined areas in which farmers adopting appropriate 
agricultural methods could receive assistance. The relevant schemes, under 
which the amounts paid to farmers vary from one area to another, are 
designed mainly to protect biotopes or natural resources (water). 
Certain schemes concerning farm woodlands were also adopted under Objective 
5(a). They included afforestation, woodland improvement, forest paths, 
firebreaks and water reserves, but had been implemented only in part by 
Germany, Denmark, Greece, Ireland , Portugal and Spain when changes were 
brought in under the Forestry Action Programme in 1989.1 After that, all 
farmers undertaking forestry schemes on agricultural land could receive 
assistance related to the area concerned; the ceilings for investment have 
also been raised. 
On a specific regional level, some individual measures for the environment 
have been implemented2 within the framework of investment aid schemes for 
stockfarmers, alongside other regional agricultural development measures. 
These will be amplified, strengthened and extended to other regions under 
the operational programmes, principally in Ireland, Greece and Spain. In 
the same context, major measures are also being implemented under the IMPs, 
1 Regulation (EEC) No 1609/89, 0J L 165, 18.6.1989. 
2 Regulation (EEC) No 1820/80 (Ireland) 
Regulation (EEC) No 1942/81 (Northern Ireland) 
- 58 -
with particular emphasis on the conservation, improvement and enhancement 
of natural parks. 
Furthermore, almost all the Objective 1 regions may benefit from major 
forestry measures, either under the IMPs or under regional measures. The 
various CSFs assign considerable importance to forestry, in some cases in 
conjunction with protection of the environment. Implementation of the 
Forestry Action Programme will undoubtedly permit measures concerning 
forestry and the timber industry in Objective 1 regions to be completed. 
In certain regions affected by natural disasters, the CSFs provide for the 
continuation of certain ongoing schemes, such as support for olive and 
citrus plantations in Greece and for flood-damaged farms in Spain (Murela 
and Valencia). Ad hoc measures to resolve urgent problems created by 
natural disasters may be taken under several regional operational 
programmes in Greece and an overall operational programme in Portugal, and 
under preventive measures indirectly related to natural disasters in the 
French overseas departments. 
4.3 Conversion, diversification and adjustment of agricultural 
production capacity 
This objective is achieved through specific measures under the various CSFs 
(vines, citrus fruit growing, olive growing, stockfarming), under the IMPs 
(tobacco, fruit and vegetables, cotton, vines, berries, nuts, stockfarming, 
etc.) and under horizontal Objective 5(a) measures (set-aside and 
extensificiation). Other measures are provided for in the context of 
operational programmes in certain CSFs (Spain, Greece, France, Portugal and 
Italy). The heading also includes irrigation operations which help farmers 
to convert to other enterprises. Several irrigation measures are being 
implemented under regional measures and the IMPs (Greece, France, Italy, 
Spain and Portugal) and others will be implemented under the operational 
programmes in certain regions. 
To help diversify the income sources of farmers, the scheme of investment 
aid governed by Regulation No 797/85 now includes investment in tourist 
enterprises and crafts at farm level. However, beneficiaries must 
undertake to continue a minimum level of farming. 
Regional aid is already available under the IMPs, mainly for farm tourism. 
Such measures, which are crucial for balanced rural development, will be 
included in the new operational programmes, principally in Italy, the 
French overseas departments, Ireland and Northern Ireland. 
Horizontal structural measures (set-aside and extensification) are also 
being implemented with the aim of adjusting agricultural production. The 
basic aim of the set-aside scheme1 is to limit the supply of products in 
surplus by reducing the area sown. Assessment of the first year of 
operation (see Table IV) must take account of the fact that certain Member 
States were late in adopting national implementing measures. The impact in 
terms of decreased production is estimated at 1 million tonnes of cereals 
compared with an average Community production figure of 163 million tonnes. 
Regulation (EEC) No 1094/88, OJ L 106, 27.4.1988 
Regulation (EEC) No 1272/88, OJ L 121, 11.5.1988 
- 59 -
The extensification scheme1 was introduced late by all the Member States. 
In the course of 1989, six Member States notified draft national rules for 
its implementation, at least in experimental form. 
4.4 Early retirement and the establishment of young farmers 
Aid for early retirement is a horizontal measure, but when accompanied by 
farm restructuring must be integrated into the regional programmes for 
regions covered by Objectives 1 and 5(b). Two Member States covered by 
Objective 1 (Greece and Spain) intend to implement early retirement schemes 
with restructuring under the national operational programmes. 
Incentives to young farmers include installation aid in the form of a grant 
and extra investment assistance. This is classed as a horizontal 
structural measure and is applied to varying extents in the Member States. 
Establishing more young farmers in full-time farming 4s a major aim for the 
agricultural population which shows a marked trend towards ageing. 
1 Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, OJ L 361, 29.12.1988 
- 60 -
CHAPTER IV; IMPLEMENTATION 
1 : Practical implementing arrangements 
1.1 Financial provisions 
The financial provisions laid down in Articles 19 to 24 of the coordinating 
Regulation constitute an important factor for the success of the reform of 
the structural Funds. 
They are all the more essential because widespread use of the programme 
approach requires special vigilance as regards both continuity in the flow 
of finance and stricter monitoring arrangements which complement the 
decentralization of the management of Community assistance. The 
consequences of the reform were reflected in the financial implementing 
provisions approved by the Commission on 17 December 1989. 
These were intended to clarify the following points: 
the system of commitments and payments; 
financial control procedures; 
use of the ecu; 
the reduction, suspension and cancellation of Community assistance 
and the recovery of sums wrongly paid; 
amendment procedures; 
procedures for terminating forms of assistance. 
1.1.1 The system of commitments and payments 
In addition to the provisions in the Regulation, the Commission decided to 
spell out the system for the commitment of expenditure. In the first 
place, initial and subsequent budgetary commitments will be based on the 
indicative financing plan included in each decision approving an 
operational programme or other form of assistance. Except in the case of 
measures lasting for less than two years, funds are committed in annual 
instalments. 
The first annual instalment is committed when the Commission adopts the 
decision approving the type of assistance. Subsequent commitments will be 
based on the level of expenditure and will generally be made when a 
Member State can certify to the Commission that at least 60% of the 
estimated total eligible cost relating to the previous commitment has been 
spent and that the assistance is being implemented in accordance with the 
decision. 
1.1.2 Strengthening monitoring arrangements 
The Commission has taken all the necessary steps to ensure that financial 
control is as effective as possible. 
- 61 -
Initially, as soon as consideration of measures begins, the Member States 
must state the authority responsible for ensuring compliance with Article 
23 of the coordinating Regulation and describe the system for managing and 
monitoring the operational programmes. 
Secondly, efforts are being made to improve monitoring methods. The 
greater decentralization to the Member States or intermediary bodies of the 
management of the structural Funds necessitates a general assessment of 
national control arrangements. The extent to which the Community's 
authorizing officer and financial control can meet their responsibilities 
depends on the quality and management of national monitoring. Care must 
therefore be taken that the quality of the relevant structures and systems 
will ensure the success of structural measures In the Member State. In 
line with this systems audit approach, certain analyses are in hand on the 
basis of information concerning systems and structures. These analyses 
will be pursued and stepped up, along with on-the-spot checks, in 1990. 
Furthermore, In view of the importance which the Commission attaches to the 
problems of fraud and irregularities, it has been decided to introduce a 
code of conduct between the Commission and its partners. That code was 
approved and notified to the Member States in July 1990. 
Finally, closer collaboration is being achieved with the national 
supervisory bodies. This collaboration Is operational in eight Member 
States, gradually enabling joint monitoring to be effected. 
1.1.3 Use of the ecu 
Article 22 of the coordinating Regulation requires Commission decisions, 
commitments and payments to be denominated and carried out in ecus. 
This provision is an important step forward in the use of the ecu in 
management of the Community budget although it is not intended to force the 
Member State to use the ecu in its own national budget. 
In accordance with Article 22 a Regulation was approved by the Commission 
on 2 July 19901. It states that decisions concerning grants must be taken 
in ecus at constant prices and allows Member States to choose whether to 
submit plans and applications for assistance and balances in ecus or in 
national currency. 
Since the amounts of assistance must be expressed in ecus at constant 
prices there must be a mechanism for automatically adjusting them in line 
with annual changes in prices. Accordingly, each year the amounts laid 
down in the Community support frameworks and decisions on the granting of 
assistance will be adjusted for the remaining years of the financing plan 
in line with the Community GDP price index used each year to adjust the 
financial perspectives attached to the InterinstI tutional Agreement on 
budgetary d i se i pIi ne. 
1.2 Establishment of the monitoring committees 
Article 25 of the coordinating Regulation requires the Commission and the 
Member State to ensure effective monitoring of the Implementation of 
OJ L 170, 3 July 1990 
-62 -
assIstance from the Funds, at the level of the Community support framework 
as a whole and at that of specific operations (programmes, etc.). 
For this purpose, the Commission has introduced a system of monitoring 
committees to work at those two levels. 
The operating rules for the committees for all the CSF Objectives were laid 
down when the frameworks were drawn up and form one of the elements of 
each CSF. The Committees comprise representatives of the Commission, the 
European Investment Bank and the local, regional and national authorities 
of the Member State. 
1.3 • Implementation of the forms of assistance 
In order to ensure the coherent implementation of projects and operational 
programmes part-financed by the structural Funds, some matters must be 
treated in a uniform manner in all the Member States. 
Besides the financial aspects referred to above, these include: 
monitoring and assessment; 
information and publicity; 
compliance with Community policies. 
Accordingly, the Commission prepared a series of standard clauses on 
matters, such as the financial arrangements, which will form an integral 
part of each decision to approve assistance. 
2. Technical assistance 
Under the Regulations, the Commission, acting in the context of 
partnership, may provide the Member States with all the technical 
assistance required to facilitate implementation of the reform. Technical 
assistance may be provided for a wide variety of very different measures at 
various stages of the programming process. 
To facilitate the multiannual programming of structural assistance, during 
negotiation of the priorities to be included in the CSFs a budgetary 
allocation was set aside for financing any technical assistance which the 
authorities might need to ensure the implementation, monitoring and, where 
appropriate, assessment of the CSFs. 
Provision has been made for a contribution of ECU 140 million from the 
structural Funds to be shared among all the Objective 1 CSFs 
Given the very short time available for negotiation of the CSFs, it was 
agreed that a detailed working programme for the implementation of 
technical assistance would be negotiated between the Commission and the 
appropriate authorities in the Member State. 
At operational level, the technical assistance measures are programmed 
within the various types of assistance. 
A large number of the new programmes approved in 1989 include a "technical 
assistance" subprogramme of measures to accompany operations laid down in 
the programme (technical studies, organization of monitoring, collection of 
financial data, financial back-up, publicity measures, measures relating to 
compliance with Community policies). 
- 63 -
These measures will be financed under Article 16 of the coordinating 
Regulation as far as technical assistance relating to joint use of the 
Funds is concerned and under Article 1(2)(b) of the ESF Regulation as far 
as Objectives 3 and 4 are concerned. 
In addition to that Article the Regulations for each Fund also provide for 
a contribution to be made to technical assistance measures. 
For Objectives 3 and 4, Article 1(2) of the ESF Regulation permits the Fund 
to contribute up to 5% of its annual budget towards measures such as 
technical assistance. Here finance is intended primarily to cover labour 
market analyses, the collection of statistics for preparation of a 
vocational training policy to meet the market needs of the Social Fund's 
target groups, analyses and studies to help national authorities prepare 
their plans and programmes, etc. 
In the case of Objective 5 (b), Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation permits 
the Fund to spend up to 1% of its annual budget on various measures, 
including technical assistance. Examples of priorities where recourse to 
technical assistance could be considered include studies, analyses, pilot 
projects, new ventures in economic sectors of importance for 
diversification and the development of rural areas and information for 
national, regional and local operators. 
The Commission is convinced that partnership offers the best guarantee of 
the sound implementation of technical assistance. However, besides the 
measures taken in the partnership framework, it can undertake, on its own 
initiative, measures to meet needs other than these expressed in the CSFs 
or to respond more efficiently to the requirements of the reform. In 
addition to the various articles of Regulations already quoted, the 
Commission may finance such operations from Article 554 of the Community 
budget. 
3. Methodology for assessing the CSFs and programmes 
Article 6 of the framework Regulation states that, in order to gauge the 
effectiveness of Community structural operations, they are to be the 
subject of ex-ante and ex-post assessments to evaluate their impact with 
respect to the five priority objectives and analyse their effects on 
specific structural problems. Article 26 of the coordinating Regulation 
specifies the three levels at which effectiveness should be assessed: the 
overall impact on strengthening the economic and social cohesion of the 
Community, the impact of each Community support framework and the impact of 
individual operations. 
Since assessment of the impact on the economic and social cohesion of the 
Community will not have real significance until a much more advanced stage 
of the reform of the Funds, the bulk of the Commission's work in 1989 
concentrated on the CSFs, particularly those for the Objective 1 regions. 
During the year the preparation, negotiation and adoption of those CSFs 
accounted for the lion's share of the Commission's work. 
Assessment operated on three parallel tracks. First of all internally, 
i.e. assessment by the Commission's departments of the operations submitted 
by the Member State. Secondly, externally, i.e. by an independent body 
evaluating the overall impact of the CSF on the socio-economic problems 
which it was intended to tackle. Finally, the Commission attempted to 
- 64 -
establish a generalised methodology of assessment. The three levels of 
assessment are detailed below. 
In the first place, the Commission assessed the applications for action 
submitted by the Member States. This covered principally: 
conformity of the various structural measures proposed with the 
objectives and development strategies set out in the regional 
development plans and particularly with the priorities for action; 
compatibility of measures with the Community's objectives, 
particularly those of the other Community policies; 
cohesion and the synergetic effects of the various measures proposed. 
This exercise culminated In the adoption of the Objective 1 CSFs. 
Subsequently, at the end of 1989 the Commission employed external 
consultants In each country concerned to assess the impact of the CSFs in 
the light of the objectives. The brief for all the consultants required : 
overall assessment of the ability of the CSF to remedy the 
socio-economic problems which it was drawn up to deal with; 
assessment of each priority to measure Its Impact on the economic and 
social development of the country and Its contribution to the 
Community Interest; 
establishment of a theoretical framework for ex-post assessment of 
the CSF; 
analysis of the content of the various forms of assistance proposed, 
highlighting the strong and weak points of each and the technical, 
economic, cultural or political constraints liable to affect its 
implementatIon. 
More generally, the Commission departments are analysing methodologies in 
order to develop a procedure for the assessment of Community structural 
assistance. 
They are at present looking at the practicability, reliability and 
performance of the techniques for calculating and/or forecasting impact at 
each of the three levels referred to. Assessment as such will involve 
measuring the extent to which the various objectives have been achieved and 
ex-post comparison with the corresponding forecasts. Systematic analysis 
of the reasons for divergences will permit the results of the assessment to 
be fed into the design of future Community policies. 
- 65 -
CHAPTER V - BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION IN 1989 
In 1989, the first year of the reform, the budgetary nomenclature was 
simplified and the ERDF and Social Fund appropriations were each brought 
together in a single article. In the case of the EAGGF Guidance Section, 
the temporary retention of certain expenditure as compulsory led the 
Commission to propose in its preliminary draft budget for 1990 the 
maintenance of two Articles. However, the budgetary authority decided to 
split the Article classified as non-compulsory expenditure into one 
classified as "provisionally compulsory" and one as non-compulsory. 
(Under the Commission's classification, ECU 248 million, or 17.6% of the 
EAGGF Guidance Section appropriations, was classified as compulsory). 
1 Budgetary implementation In 1989 by objectives 
For the first year of the reform, the remarks section of the general budget 
of the European Communities gave the following indicative breakdown by 
objective of the appropriations for the structural Funds as a whole. 
The following table compares that breakdown with the outturn in 1989. 
mi 11 Ion ecus 
Indicative 
breakdown in 
1989 budget 1989 EAGGF ERDF 
outturn Guidance 
TOTAL Section ESF 
Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objectives 3 & 
Objective 5(a) 
Objective 5(b) 
Transit ional 
and innovative 
measures 
Not defined 5 800.0 
1 022.0 
1 250.0 
661.0 
264.0 
298.0 6 137 
1 060 
1 332 
516 
232 
326 
4 862 
516 
27 
57 3 630 1 645 
758 302 
— 1 332 
115 
164 90 
105 
4 
TOTAL 9 295.0 9 607 1 462 4 667 3 478 
Growth In the appropriations for Objective 1 
1990 and then at least equal to that of 
structural Funds as a whole.1 is to be linear from 1988 to 
the appropriations for the 
In 1987 the appropriations for Objective 1 were estimated at 
ECU 3 931 million, or ECU 4 084 million at 1988 prices, which means 
thatappropriations for the Objective 1 regions may be estimated as follows 
(ECU million at 1988 prices): 
1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 4 084 
4 900.8 
5 717.6 
6 534.4 
7 400 
8 168 
1 Statement No X to the Council minutes adopting Regulation No 2052/88. 
- 66 -
Accordingly, the amount which should have been allocated to the Objective 1 
regions In 1989 was ECU 5 918 million (at 1989 prices) and the Commission 
undertook to compensate In subsequent years for the ECU 118 million 
difference between that amount and the Indicative figure of 
ECU 5 800 million given In the remarks to the 1989 budget. 
In the event, the outturn In 1989 was distinctly higher both than that 
shown in the 1989 budget and than the progress required to achieve a 
doubling of the Objective 1 appropriations. 
The special stress laid on Objective 1, which has priority in the reform of 
the structural Funds, has prevented the other Objectives, particularly 
those concerned with agriculture, from achieving their indicative level. 
This shortfall should be made up in the years to come. 
2. Allocation of budgetary appropriations and Implementation In 1989 
by Fund 
The commitment appropriations available and their Implementation were as 
fol lows: 
(ECU mil I ion) 
EAGGF ERDF 
GuI dance 
Sect Ion ESF TOTAL 
1. Appropriations entered in 
the budget 
2. Existing appropriations 
and carryover 
3. Appropriations made 
aval I able again 
4. Transfers 
5. Total appropriations 
available 
6. Implementation 
7. Appropriations not used 1 413.0 4 494.0 3 387.0 
36.9 215.4 147.7 
+15.0 — -15.0 
1 464.9 4 710.4 3 519.7 
1 461.9 4 666.2 3 478.4 
3.0 44.2 41.3 9 295.0 
400.0 
9 695.0 
9 606.2 
88.8 
The appropriations made available again under Article 6(6) of the Financial 
Regulation are those released In 1988 from commitments made in 1987 and 
previous years. Strictly speaking, therefore, they do not form part of the 
doubling of the structural Funds between 1988 and 1993. 
The ECU 89 million not used do, on the other hand, form part of that 
doubling and should, like any amounts released from commitments subsequent 
to 1 January 1988, be made available once again to the Funds. Accordingly, 
- 67 -
on 15 February 1990, 
Régulât ion: the Commission decided, pursuant to the Financial 
(a) to carry over to 1989 a total of ECU 72.2 million for the structural 
Funds (ECU 2 million for the EAGGF Guidance Section, ECU 44.2 million 
for the ERDF and ECU 26 million for the Social Fund) (see COM(90) 317 
of 15 February 1990); 
(b) to include in the amount for which It requested a transfer to 1991 
and 1992 under Articles 10 and 11 of the Inter Inst I tutional Agreement 
ECU 15 million constituting the balance of the appropriations not 
used by the Social Fund In 1988 and not carried over to 1989. 
The situation as regards payment appropriations is as follows: 
(ECU ml II ion) 
EAGGF 
GuI dance 
Sect Ion ERDF ESF TOTAL 
1. Payment appropriations 
aval I able 
2. Implementation 
3. Appropriations not used 1 369.0 3 920.0 2 918.5 8 207.5 
1 349.0 3 920.0 2 676.1 7 945.1 
20.0 — 242.4 262.4 
Commitments remaining to be settled totalled: 
(ECU ml I lion) 
31.December 1988 31 December 1989 
EAGGF Guidance Section 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 1 214.2 
6 878.4 
2 059.8 
10 152.4 1 266.7 
7 529.7 
2 261.6 
11 057.3 
This table shows changes in the amounts to be settled at the end of the 
year, that Is the total of commitments from previous years and the current 
year which have still to be paid. The figures therefore show the totals 
for which each Fund is liable to the beneficiaries of aid and which will 
have to be settled In subsequent years. 

ANNUAL REPORT ON 
THE IMPLEMENTATION 
OF THE REFORM OF THE 
STRUCTURAL FUNDS 
ANNEXES 
LIST OF ANNEXES 
Chapter 
Glossary 
1-1 to I-9 Financial repartition of ressources by 
objectives and eligible regions 1 
11-1 to II-2 Execution of credits in 1988 1 
111-1 to III —3 Agreement between Commission and EIB - infra­
structure Investment : maximum rates of community 
support (in per cent of total cost) 1 
IV-1 to IV-9 Financial repartition by sectors of objective 1 2 
V-1 to V-12 Financial repartition by sectors of objective 2 ....2 
VI Evolution and repartition of expenditure of 
hor i zonta I measures 2 
VII Expenditure in 1989 by main 5(a) measures 2 
VIM Community support for major basic infrastructure 
CSFs for object i ve 1 reg ions 3 
IX-1 to IX-3 Budgetary implementation 1989 : ERDF, ESF, 
EAGGF-gu I dance 5 
GLOSSARY 
C.I. 
C.P. 
CSF 
EAGGF 
ECSC 
ECU, 
EIB 
ENVIREG 
ESF 
ERDF 
EUROFORM 
FOD 
GDP 
HOR1ZON 
IDO 
IMP 
INTERREG 
LEADER 
NOW 
NPCI 
NUTS 
N.Q. 
OP 
PDB 
PEDAP Community initiative 
Community Programme 
Community support framework 
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
European Coal and Steel Community 
European Currency Unit 
European Investment Bank 
Commission initiative in the field of the environment 
(C.I.) 
European Social Fund 
European Regional Development Fund 
New qualifications, new skills and new employment 
opportunit ies (C.I.) 
French overseas departments 
Gross domestic product 
Handicapped persons and certain other disadvantaged 
groups (C.I.) 
Integrated Development Operation 
Integrated Mediterranean Programme 
Community initiative for border areas (C.I.) 
Links between activities for the development of the 
rural economy (C.I.) 
Promotion of equal opportunities for women in the field 
of employment and vocational training (C.I.) 
National Programme of Community Interest 
Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units 
Non-Quota Community programmes (C.P.) 
Operational programme 
Preliminary draft budget 
Specific programme for the development of Portuguese 
agr(culture 
PEDIP 
POP 
PR ISMA 
RDP 
RECHAR 
REGEN 
REGIS 
RENAVAL 
RESIDER 
RTD 
SMEs 
STAR 
STRIDE 
TELEMATIQUE 
VALOREN Specific programme for the development of Portuguese 
industry 
PIurifonds operational Programme 
Preparation of firms for the Single Market (C.i.) 
Regional development plan 
Community initiative for the economic conversion of 
coalmining areas (C.I.) 
Community initiative concerning energy supply networks 
(C.I.) 
Community initiative for the remoter regions (C.I.) 
Conversion of shipbuilding areas (C.P.) 
Conversion of steel areas (C.P.) 
Research and technological development 
Small and medium-sized enterprises 
Community programme : Special Telecommunications Action 
for Regional Development (C.P./C.I.) 
Community initiative : Science and Technology for 
Regional Innovation and Development in Europe 
To promote the use of advanced telecommunications 
services in regions whose development is lagging 
behind, including improved access to advanced services 
located elsewhere in the E.C. (C.I.) 
Community programme for exploiting endogenous energy 
potential (C.P.) 
ANNEX . N° 1-1 
(Chapter 1) 
CSF annual appropriation by funds and by objective Mecu, 1989 prices 
Total Total 
45241 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 
6330 9 253 10148 10 021 9490 
Obj 1 (1989-93) 36 200: 
FEDER/ERDF 20 960 
FSE/ESF 9 813 
FEOGA/EAGGF 5 427 5853 
3392 
1662 
799 6560 
3685 
1776 
1099 7 217 
4196 
1916 
1 105 7868 
4623 
2071 
1 174 8702 
5064 
2388 
1250 
Obj 2 (1989-91) (1) 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 2306 
1691 
615 263 
262 
0 1017 
722 
295 1026 
706 
320 
Obj 3/4 (1990-92) 
FSE/ESF 4128 
4 128 1332 
1332 1364 
1364 1432 
1432 
Obj 5b (1989-93) 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 2 607 
1 103 
436 
1068 214 
108 
80 
25 343 
231 
39 
74 541 
237 
82 
222 254 
112 
355 788 
273 
124 
392 
Notes : 
(1)For Objective 2, the CSFs annual breakdown takes into account only the new actions. 
The difference between 2306.2 Mecu and the objective 2 financial envelope of 3,900 Mecu 
is due to: 
mentionned in the CSF, 
not mentionned in the CSF. 275.3 Mecu for Community Programmes 
968.6 Mecu for ongoing actions. 
(including the ESF '89 allocation for Spain) 
238.6 Mecu 1989 ESF ('89 ESF allocation for Spain not included) 
111.4 Mecu for non approved Community Programmes 
ANNEX N° 1-2 
(Chapter 1) 
Indicative breakdown of allocation by fund by objective (1989-93) Mecu, 1989 prices 
Total ERDF ESF EAGGF 
Total 
Objective 1 
CSF 89-93 
Community Initiatives (1) 
Objective 2 
CSF 89-91 
CSF 92-93 
Community Initiatives (1) 
Objectives 3 & 4 
Alloc 1989 
CSF 90-92 
CSF 93 
Community Initiatives (1) 
Objective 5a 
Community Initiatives (1) 
Objective 5b 
CSF 89-93 
Community Initiatives (1) 
Transitory & Innov. Activities 60 315 
38 300 
36 200 
2100 
^•;7:2Qéï 
3 900 
2 805 
500 
7 450 
1353 
4 128 
1 752 
217 
3415 
2 795 
2 607 
188 
1 150 20 960 
2 917 9 813 
983 5 427 
4128 
1 103 436 3 415 
1 068 
Approved Community Initiatives, Mecu : 
RECHAR 
ENVIREG 
STRIDE 
INTERREG 
REGIS 
Integrating Basic Infrastrutures: 
-REGEN 
- TELEMATIQUE : extension of STAR 
- PRISMA : internal market and SME 
- INTERREG : increase of financial envelope 
- EUROFORM, NOW, HORIZON : human res. reinforcemen 
- LEADER : integration of rural areas 
Total (1) 300 
500 
400 
700 
200 
300 
200 
100 
100 
600 
400 
3800 (1) The total of Community Initiatives is not 
yet distributed by objective. The Community 
Initiatives mentioned in the table correspond 
to the period covered by the approved CSFs. 
ANNEX N° 1-3 
(Chapter 1) 
interventions on Objective 1 (1989-93) 
CSF Fi 
Total 
EUR 12 36 200 
FEDER/ERDF 20 960 
FSE/ESF 9 813 
FEOGA/EAGGF 5 427 
Ellas 6 667 
FEDEFVERDF 3 662 
FSE/ESF 1 728 
FEOGA/EAGGF 1 277 
Espana 9 779 
FEDER/ERDF 6199 
FSE/ESF 2 348 
FEOGA/EAGGF 1 232 
France 888 
FEDER/ERDF 406 
FSE/ESF 322 
FEOGA/EAGGF 160 
Ireland 3 672 
FEDER/ERDF 1 646 
FSE/ESF 1 372 
FEOGA/EAGGF 654 
Italia 7 443 
FEDER/ERDF 4 942 
FSE/ESF 1 700 
FEOGA/EAGGF 801 
Portugal '••sm&MtixiM$5fa-:s-:-M 
FEDER/ERDF 3 757 
FSE/ESF 2 028 
FEOGA/EAGGF 1 173 
United Kingdom 793 
FEDER/ERDF 348 
FSE/ESF 315 
FEOGA/EAGGF 130 nanclal 
1989 
5 853 
3 392 
1662 
799 
1 163 
648 
290 
225 
1603 
1 102 
386 
115 
150 
62 
64 
24 
616 
273 
235 
108 
1 106 
697 
280 
129 
1 059 
545 
339 
175 
156 
65 
68 
23 Envelope 
1990 
6560 
3685 
1776 
1099 
1220 
600 
330 
290 
1719 
1090 
394 
235 
164 
78 
54 
32 
665 
280 
265 
120 
1390 
924 
316 
150 
1242 
641 
356 
245 
160 
72 
61 
27 (D 
1991 
7 217 
4 196 
1916 
1 105 
1327 
726 
339 
262 
1914 
1213 
431 . 
270 
177 
85 
59 
33 
723 
314 
283 
126 
1 541 
1036 
343 
162 
1378 
753 
400 
225 
157 
69 
61 
27 I 
1992 
7868 
4623 
2 071 
1 174 
1419 
782 
364 
263 
2147 
1361 
486 
300 
187 
85 
69 
33 
784 
354 
290 
140 
1632 
1 101 
360 
171 
1539 
859 
440 
240 
160 
71 
62 
27 Vfecu, 7989 
1993 
8 702 
5064 
2388 
1250 
1538 
896 
405 
237 
2396 
1433 
651 
312 
210 
96 
76 
38 
884 
425 
299 
160 
1 774 
1 184 
401 
189 
1 740 
959 
493 
288 
160 
71 
63 
26 prices 
Others (2) 
1084 
526 
0 
8 
0 
140 
410 
0 
(1) The 'financial envelope' includes new actions, ongoing actions, and the part of Community Programmes running from 1989. 
(2) 'Others' includes other instruments of grants such as additional lines of PIM, PEDIP, and technical assistance. Notes: 
ANNEX N° 1-4 
(Chapter 1) 
Interventions on Objective 2 (1989-91) 
(1) 
Allocation Total Mecu, 1989 prices 
CSF Financial Envelope 
Total New actions 
1989 1990 1991 Ongoing 
(2) ESF '89 
EUR 12 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
Belgique/Belgie 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
Danmark 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
BR Deutschland 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
Espana 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
France 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
Italia 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
Luxembourg 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
Nederland 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
United Kingdom 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 3 900,0 
2 916,7 
983,3 
195,0 
145,0 
50,0 
30,0 
22,4 
7,6 
355,0 
249,4 
105,6 
735,0 
576,0 
159,0 
700,0 
514,5 
185,5 
265,0 
179,0 
86,0 
15,0 
15,0 
95,0 
56,8 
38,2 
1 510,0 
1 158,6 
351,4 3 788,6 
3 043,4 
745,2 
195,0 
161,0 
34,0 
21,3 
13,9 
7,4 
356,0 
271,4 
84,6 
694,4 
535,4 
159,0 
677,8 
563,3 
114,5 
247,0 
187,0 
60,0 
15,0 
15,0 
0,0 
88,0 
60,7 
27,3 
1 198,1 
258,4 2 306,2 
1 691,1 
615,1 
78,8 
67,8 
11,0 
17,3 
10,1 
7,2 
263,1 
178,5 
84,6 
531,6 
401,6 
130,0 
439,6 
334,6 
105,0 
209,0 
149,0 
60,0 
4,1 
4,1 
0,0 
55,8 
28,5 
27,3 
àMffirW 
517,0 
190,0 262,8 
262.4 
0.4 
0,7 
0.7 
0,8 
0,5 
0.3 
41,8 
41.8 
20,6 
20,6 
64,7 
64,6 
0.1 
0,0 
0,0 
0.6 
0,0 
WMM 
Ï33.6 1 017,3 
722.4 
294,9 
38,8 
33,5 
5,3 
9,5 
5,5 
4.0 
110,5 
71.6 
38.9 
247,3 
188,8 
58,5 
181,5 
130,1 
51.4 
103,9 
74.0 
30,0 
2,0 
2,0 
26,9 
13,8 
13,1 
203,1 
93.7 1 026,0 
706.3 
319,7 
39.2 
33.5 
5.7 
7,0 
4.1 
2.9 
110,8 
65.1 
45.7 
263,7 
192.2 
71.5 
193,3 
139,9 
53,4 
105,1 
75,1 
30,0 
2,0 
2,0 
28,3 
14,0 
14,2 
180.4 
96,2 1243,8 
1 113,7 
130.1 
100,2 
77,2 
23,0 
12,5 
12,3 
0,2 
71,9 
71,9 
191,8 
162,8 
29,0 
166,7 
157,2 
9,5 
12,0 
12,0 
10,9 
10,9 
yMMm 
21,3 
588,1 
68,4 238,6 
0,0 
238,6 
16,0 
16,0 
0,2 
0.2 
21,0 
21,0 
(29,0) (1) 
(29,0) 
71,5 , 
71.5 
26,0 
26,0 
0,0 
o.o 
10,9 
llïIBl 
93,0 
Notes : 
V. The difference between the 'Allocation' and the Total' of 'CSF Financial Envelope' Is due to the 238.6 Mecu from FSE 
1989 (the 29 Mecu allocation for Spain is included in the ongoing actions), and 111.4 Mecu from Community Programmes not 
yet approved. (Résider and RENAVAL). 
2: The ongoing actions include the PIM-PNIC-OID, the part of the Community Programmes running from 1989 as well as the 
89 ESF allocation for Spain. 
ANNEX N° 1-5 
"(Chapter 1) 
Interventions on Objectives 3 & 4 (1990-92) 
All funding from ESF 
CSF Financial Envelope 
Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) 
Belglque/Belgle 
Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) 
BR Deutschland 
Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) 
Danmark 
Espana 
France 
Italia Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) 
Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) 
Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) 
Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) 
Luxembourg 
Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) 
Nederland 
Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) 
United Kingdom 
Obj. 3 
Obj. 4 
Art. 1(2) Total 
4128,0 
1705,0 
2288,3 
134,8 
174,0 
87,3 
79,3 
7.4 
271,8 
296,1 
5,1 
99,0 
46,0 
49,0 
4,0 
563,0 
169,4 
388,1 
5,6 
872,0 
399,3 
437,8 
34,9 
585,0 
92.0 
466,0 
27,0 
7,0 
1.8 
5,2 
0,0 
230,0 
123,5 
96,8 
9.7 
1 025,0 
514,0 
470,0 
41,0 1990 
;;1.;-:332;4;I 
532,2 
755,6 
44,6 
49,7 
24,9 
22,7 
2,1 
t^Éiftê 
77,9 
91,9 
1.5 
34,7 
16,0 
16,7 
2.0 
203;6 
61.1 
139,9 
2,0 
290,7 
133,1 
145,9 
11,6 
1G7Ï1 
26,3 
133,3 
7.6 
2,0 
0.5 
1.5 
65,9 
35.4 
27,7 
2,8 
348,0 
157,0 
176,0 
15,0 1991 
mséWM 
571,4 
748,6 
43,9 
58,0 
29,1 
26,4 
2.5 
WÊÊÈM 
98.2 
98,4 
1.7 
32,7 
15.0 
16.7 
1.0 
50,6 
115,9 
1J 
290,7 
133,1 
145,9 
11,6 
795,0 
30,6 
155,2 
9.2 
2,3 
0,6 
1.7 
76,7 
41.2 
32,3 
3,2 
342,0 
173,0 
156,0 
13,0 1992 | 
WrtM 
601,4 
784,1 
46,2 
66,3 
33,3 
30,2 
2,8 
203$ 
95,7 
105,8 
1.9 
31,6 
15,0 
15,6 
1.0 
191$ 
57,7 
132,2 
1.9 
2901 
133,1 
145,9 
11.6 
35.1 
177.5 
70.3 
2,7 
0.7 
2.0 
87,5 
47,0 
36,8 
3,7 
335,0 
184,0 
138,0 
13.0 Mecu, 1989 prices 
1989 alloc's (1) 
1353,0 
25,0 
137,0 
26,0 
173.0 
241,0 
22$0: 
Wm. 
69,0 
454,0 
• Figures in italics indicate that the annual breakdown of art. 1 (2) Is made according to estimations of DO V. 
# The financial envelope comprises new actions. 
1 : The 1989 allocation appears separately since Objectives 3 & 4 CSFs start in 1990. 
ANNEX N° 1-6 
(Chapter -li- _ 
Interventions on Objective 5b (1989-93) Mecu, 1989 prices 
CSF Financial Envelope 
Notes : 
#) The financial envelope comprises new actions, ongoing actions, and Community Programmes EUR 12 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 
Belgique/Belgle 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 
Danmark 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 
BR Deutschland 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 
Espana. '.:• 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 
France 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 
Italia 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 
Luxembourg 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 
Nederland 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF 
United Kingdom 
FEDER/ERDF 
FSE/ESF 
FEOGA/EAGGF Total 
2607,0 
1 103,0 
435,9 
1068,1 
32,5 
11.3 
9,7 
11.5 
23,0 
12,2 
6,3 
4,5 
525,0 
235,5 
95,1 
194,4 
285,0 
61,1 
39,0 
184,9 
960,0 
335.0 
176,0 
449,0 
385,0 
145,4 
54,7 
184,9 
2,5 
0,9 
0.2 
1,4 
44,0 
24,9 
6,6 
12,5 
350,0 
276,8 
48,3 
24,9 1989 
213,3 
108,4 
80,0 
25,4 
4,0 
3,0 
1.0 
1,6 
0,6 
1,0 
36,9 
20,9 
16,0 
16,5 
2,6 
9.0 
4,9 
73,2 
41.3 
23,0 
9,0 
21,5 
3.7 
8,0 
9.7 
4,4 
3.4 
1.0 
55,8 
36,0 
19,0 
0.8 1990 
343,3 
231,0 
38,7 
73,7 
1,6 
0,5 
0,3 
0.8 
3,6 
3.2 
0.4 
45,2 
38,4 
2,2 
4,6 
27,7 
6.7 
0,9 
20,1 
129,1 
76,9 
23,4 
28,8 
24,0 
8.7 
2,2 
13,2 
0,3 
0,1 
0.0 
0,2 
> 5,4 
4.7 
0,2 
0.5 
106,5 
91.7 
9,2 
5,6 1991 
5407 
237,2 
81,6 
221,9 
63 
2.3 
1,3 
2,9 
4,3 
2,3 
1.0 
1.0 
109,8 
53,9 
16,7 
39,3 
55,4 
11,0 
6,0 
38.4 
189,8 
61.2 
35,4 
93.2 
75,9 
28,0 
10,6 
37,2 
0,5 
0,1 
0.1 
0,3 
10,4 
5.9 
1.4 
3,1 
72.4 
9,2 
6,5 1992 
721,0 
253,9 
111,8 
355,3 
10,3 
3,9 
2,3 
4.0 
6,4 
3.0 
2,0 
1.4 
150,7 
55,1 
28,0 
67,6 
88,1 
18,5 
10,5 
59.1 
278,5 
78,3 
45,4 
154,7 
120,8 
47,0 
16,0 
57,8 
0* 
0.3 
0,1 
0.4 
13,8 
7.5 
2.0 
4.3 
si;l:$t£li 40,2 
5,5 
5.9 1993 
788,1 
272,5 
123,8 
391,9 
10,1 
4.6 
2.7 
2,8 
7,1 
3,1 
1.9 
2,1 
182,4 
67,2 
32,2 
83.0 
97,4 
22,3 
12,6 
62,5 
289,4 
77,3 
48,8 
163,3 
142,9 
58,0 
17,9 
67,0 
0,9 
0,3 
0,1 
0.5 
10,0 
3,4 
2,0 
4,6 
36,5 
5,5 
6.1 
ANNEX N' 1-7 
(Chapter 1) 
REGIONS ELIGIBLE UNDER OBJECTIVE 1 
Spain 
Andalusia 
Asturias 
Castile-Leon 
Casti ie-La Mancha 
Coûta y MeliI la 
Valencia 
Extremadura 
Gal ici a 
Canary Islands 
Mure i a France 
French Overseas Departments (FOD) 
Corsica 
Greece 
The whole country 
Ireland 
Italy 
Abruzzi 
BasiIicata 
Calabr ia 
Campan i a 
Mo Ii se 
Apu i i a 
Sardinia 
Sicily The whole country 
Portugal 
The whole country 
United Kingdom 
Northern Ireland 
ANNEX N- 1-8 
(Chapter 1) 
REGIONS ELIGIBLE UNDER OBJECTIVE 2 
Germany 
Peine-Saltzgitter 
Emden 
Bremen 
North Rhine Westphai ia 
Rhe i nhessen-Pfa Iz 
Saarland 
Ber I in Belg i urn 
Turnhout 
Hainaut 
Liège prov. 
Limburg 
Luxembourg 
France 
Picardie 
Champagne-Ardennes 
Haute-Normandie 
Basse-Normand i e 
Bourgogne 
Nor d-Pas-de-Calais 
Lorraine 
Franche-Comté 
Pays de la Loire 
Bretagne 
Po i tou-Charentes 
Aquitaine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Rhône-Alpes 
Auvergne 
Languedoc-Roussi I ion 
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 
Italy 
Piedmont 
Val le d'Aosta 
Ligur ia 
Lombardy 
Veneto 
Tuscany 
Umbr ia 
Marche 
Lazio 
Nether lands Luxembourg 
Luxembourg 
United Kingdom 
North East 
East 
Midlands 
North West 
West Cumbria 
North Wales 
South Wales 
West Scotland 
East Scotland 
Denmark 
Storstrom-Vest loi land 
NordJy I lands amt 
Spain 
Cantabr ia 
Basque Country 
Navarra 
Rioja 
Aragon 
Madrid 
Catalonia 
Gron i ngen/Drenthe 
Twente 
Limburg 
ANNEX N* 1-9 
(Chapter 1) 
REGIONS ELIGIBLE UNDER OBJECTIVE 5b <1> 
Germany 
Bavar ia 
Baden-Wurttemberg 
Hessen 
Lower Saxony 
North Rhine Westphalia 
Rhine land-Pa I at inate 
Saarland 
SchIesw i g-HoI s te i n 
Be I g i urn 
WalIonia 
Hageland 
Denmark 
Islands 
Spain 
Aragon 
Balear ics 
Cantabr ia Spain (cont.) 
CataIonia 
Madr id 
Navarra 
La Rioja 
Basque country 
France 
Alsace 
Aquita ine 
Auvergne 
Bourgogne 
Bretagne 
Centre 
Champagne-Ardennes 
Franche-Comté 
Languedoc-Roussi I Ion 
L i mous i n 
Lorraine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Basse-Normand i e 
Pays de Loire 
Po i tou-Charentes France (cont.) 
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 
Rhône-Alpes 
Italy 
Bo Izano 
Lazio 
Marche 
Piedmont 
Toscany-
Trento 
Umbr ia 
Veneto 
Luxemburg 
Luxemburg (7 districts) 
Nether lands 
Frles I and 
United Kingdom 
Highlands and Islands of 
Scot land 
Devon and Cornwall 
M i d-WaI es 
Dumfries and Galloway 
(1) A detailed list of rural areas within these regions was published 
in OJ n* L 198, 12.07.1989. 
ANNEX N- 11-1 
(Chapter 1) 
UTILIZATIONS IN 1988 
A. Commitment appropriations 
(in mi 11 ion Ecu) 
EAGGF- ERDF 
Guidance ESF TOTAL 
1..Appropriations in budget 
2. Remaining and carry-over 
appropr iat ions 
3. Commitments released/revalued 
in 1988 accounts 
4. Transfers 
5. Total available approps 
6. UtiIization 
7. Appropriations not used 1 130,7 3 684,0 2 865,6 
59,0 3,3 
2.8 
10,0 150,6 33,6 7 680,3 
62,3 
187,0 
10,0 
1 202,5 3 837,9 2 899,2 7 939,6 
1 179,7 3 827,1 2 870,6 7 877,4 
22,8 10,8 28,6 62,2 
Utilization of commitment appropriations was better than 99 % for ail Funds 
and for the ERDF and EDF taken separately. The 62 million ECU not used were 
not carried over and therefore lapsed. Since these were appropriations 
belonging to the multiannual programme to double the size of the structural 
Funds, they may be transferred to a later budget year under Article 11 of the 
Inter institutional Agreement. 
B. Payment appropr i a11ons 
(in mi I I Ion Ecu) 
EAGGF 
Guidance ERDF ESF TOTAL 
1. Payment appropriations 
aval table 
2. UtiIization 
3. Appropriations not used 1 154,8 3 096,2 2 632,4 6 882,4 
1 142,3 3 092,8 2 298,8 6 533,9 
12,5 2,4 333,6 348,5 
The under-utiIization of ESF payment appropriations is mainly due to high 
estimates of the amount of support needed in applications covering remaining 
balances and the lateness of some of these applications. This is the result of 
the old ESF management procedures; overestimates should be reduced 
considerably once the new operating rules for the structural Funds are applied 
to the ESF from 1990. 
ANNEX N' 11-2 
(Chapter 1) 
C. Commitment appropriations still to be utilized 
(in mill ion Ecu) 
31.12.87 31.12.88 
EAGGF Guidance 1 232,2 1 214,2 
ERDF 6 682,6 6 878,4 
ESF 2 137,7 2 059,8 
TOTAL 10 052,5 10 152,4 
It should be noted that all ERDF and ESF appropriations were classed as non-
compulsory expenditure, whereas 846,7 mi I I ion ECU of EAGGF (Guidance) 
appropriations (74,9 % of the EAGGF total) were classed as non compulsory 
expenditure. 
ANNEX N- I I 1-1 
(Chapter 1) 
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMMISSION AND EIB 
INFRASTUCTURE INVESTMENT 
MAXIMUM RATES OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT (IN PER CENT OF TOTAL COST) 
Type of investment 
With substantial 
return (1) 
With Iimited or no 
direct return (2) Objective 1 regions 
Pr iorities 
GR, IRL, P 
45 
75 I. E 
35 
75 Other 
35-45 
75 Other regions 
25 
50 
Investments with substantial return are : telecommunications 
infrastructure, energy infrastructure, infrastructure for additional 
capacity in transport between urban centres where this is of national or 
Community interest, including related investment in productivity. 
Investments with limited return are : water-supply infrastructure, 
infrastructure in transport within or between urban centres which are of 
regional interest, and industrial estates. 
Investments with no direct return are : infrastructure in education, 
social services, health care, cultural services, sport, and leisure 
amenities, infrastructure to protect the environment (non-toll roads, 
etc.). 
(1) In exceptional cases, the rates indicated may be increased by 10 
percentage points (5 percentage points in regions other than objective 1 
areas) to take account of the inability of certain projects to generate a 
normal rate of return. 
(2) In the case of investment with no direct return, provision is made for a 
minimum rate of support of 50% of public expenditure in objective 1 
regions (25 % in other regions). 
ANNEX M*M 1-2 
(Chapter 1) 
COMMUNITY LOANS ENVISAGED IN THE CSF» AND RELATED OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES 
(opproved by tit* CasxnUslon until 31.12.1989) 
(1989 prices in Mecus) 
PROJECTS 
BELGIUM 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
GERMANY 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
NETHERLANDS 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
LUXEMBURG 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
DENMARK 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
IRELAND 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
.Teleconaninlcot. 
.Tronsport Infra­
structure 
.Others (Indu­
stry, Tourism) 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
GREECE 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
National Plan 
.Te 1ecommun1cat. 
.Energy 
.Transport Infra­
structure 
.Others 
Regional Plan 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b CSF 
TOTAL 
ESTIMATED 
COST 
421,81 
96.93 
760.2 
1.625.747 
382.82 
69.9 
150 
11.152 
105 
134.2 
5.411.58 
45.70 
1.060.80 
4.305.08 
9.651.83 
750.05 
1.466.6 
675.3 
1.914.88 
4.845 LOANS 
FORESEEN 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
500 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
1.401.8 
65 
576 
206 
554.8 
p.m. LOANS AS 
X OF TEC 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
9 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
15 
11 
39 
30 
29 
p.m. GRANTS AS 
X OF TEC 
35 
37 
-
26 
10 
22 
35 
34 
51 
55 
65 
35 
45 
49 
35 
52 
34 
58 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES AND LARGE PROJECTS 
TOTAL COST 
SUBMITTED 
TCS 
-
521.5 
-
-
-
3.627.8 
3.627.8 
403.23 
403.25 LOANS 
FORESEEN 
-
p.m. 
-
-
-
-
-LOANS AS 
X OF TCS 
-
p.m. 
-
-
-
-
-GRANTS AS 
X OF TCS 
-
44 
-
_ 
-
31 
31 
38 
38 
(1) 
(2) The total estimated cost for Objective 1 relates to projects for which Community loans could be envisaged. 
The total estimated cost for Objective 2 4 5b relates to the entirety of projects under all priorities of the CSF. 
ANNEX 111-3 
(Chapter 1) 
COMMUNITY LOANS ENVISAGED IN THE CSF* AND RELATED OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES 
(approved by the Commission until 31.12.1989) 
(1989 prie** In Mecu*) 
PROJECTS 
PORTUGAL 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
.Te 1ecommunicat. 
.Energy 
.Support for 
productive Inv. 
.Ind. Reconv. 
and Restruct. 
.Others(Tourism) 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
ITALY 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
.Telecomnunlcot. 
.Energy 
.Transport Infra­
structure* 
.Water Supply 
Infrastructures 
.Other*(Tourism. 
Craft*. SME) 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
SPAIN 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
.Te 1ecomnunicat. 
.Energy 
.Transport Infra­
structures 
.Water Supply 
Infrastructures 
.Others 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
UNITED KINGDOM 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
.Telecomnunlcot. 
(Stor) 
.Transport Infra­
structures 
.Other* 
(Ind. Dev.) 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b 
FRANCE 
TOTAL OBJ. 1 (1) 
.Water Supply 
Infrastructure* 
.Transport Infra­
structure* 
TOTAL OBJ. 2 (2) 
TOTAL OBJ. 5b CSF 
TOTAL 
ESTIMATED 
COST 
11.967.2 
2.272 
757 
5.017 
508 
3.413.2 
10.520 
729 
2.165 
1.000 
1.487 
5.139 
1.105,85 
1.568.3 
14.238.2 
677.7 
264.7 
1.272 
1.186.4 
10.837.4 
1.845.97 
693.71 
507.4 
43 
211 
253.4 
3.744.64 
738.128 
433.18 
139.04 
294.09 
2.029.07 LOANS 
FORESEEN 
2.605 
918 
293 
1.000 
152 
442 
1.475 
140 
240 
130 
310 
655 
p.m. 
p.m. 
1.811 
165 
67 
381 
412 
786 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
120.9 
' 17 
103.9 
p.m. LOANS AS 
X OF TEC 
23 
40 
37 
20 
30 
13 
14 
19 
11 
13 
21 
13 
p.m. 
p.m. 
13 
24 
25 
SO 
35 
7 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
p.m. 
28 
12 
35 
p.m. GRANTS AS 
X OF TEC 
38 
32 
23 
24 
58 
55 
45 
43 
41 
48 
49 
42 
48 
45 
44 
50 
55 
49 
41 
55 
42 
65 
58 
35 
47 
45 
48 
43 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES AND LARGE PROJECTS 
TOTAL COST 
SUBMITTED 
TCS 
1.926.07 
1.292.36 
342.25 
291.206 
3.086 
231 
1.937 
662 
256 
580.82 
425.38 
211 
211 
1.302.65 
189.03 LOANS 
FORESEEN 
317.6 
317.6 
720 
140 
240 
260 
80 
-
168.4 
-LOANS AS 
X OF TCS 
16 
25 
23 
61 
12 
39 
31 
-
13 
-GRANTS AS 
X OF TCS 
55 
44 
60 
61 
44 
35 
40 
50 
50 
44 
33 
65 
65 
33 
42 
Source EIB 
(1) 
(2) The total estimated cost for Objective 1 relates to projects for which Community loons could be envisaged. 
The total estimated cost for Objective 2 * 5b relates to the entirety of projects under all priorities of the CSF. 
ANNEX N' IV-1 
(Chapter 2) 
OBJECTIVE 1 - 1989-93 
SECTORAL AGGREGATE : Annex N' IV-2 to IV-9 
The sectoral breakdown of assistance is not based upon a binding 
classification, but on an estimate of the most likely pattern of 
implementation. 
Ongoing operations and miscellaneous 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Product i ve i nvestment 
- in industry 
- in craft industry 
- in services 
- in tourism 
Business services (advice, technology transfer) 
Research & development, innovation 
Technical and professional training 
Support infrastructure for economic activities 
Sites, premises (industry, craft firms) 
Telecommunications, information technology services 
Protection of the environment (sanitation, waste disposal) 
Development of indigenous potential 
Tour ism 
Agriculture and rural development 
Promotion of agricultural resources 
Rural development 
Objective 5(a) 
Fisher ies 
Human resource development 
Multi-priority training 
Secondary-1 eve I technical training, apprenticeships 
Employment aids 
Innovative measures 
Object ives 3 and 4 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Improvement of communications 
Roads, motorways 
RaiIways 
Waterways and ports 
Urban transport 
Te Iecommuni cat i ons 
Energy supply 
Water engineering 
Physical and social environment 
Training faciI it les 
Welfare, health infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovâtive measures 
Objective 1 Global assistance Breakdown by sector. 1989-1993 
Ongoing operations and miscellaneous 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Human resource development 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 2930.10 
3754.63 
1975.BB 
1203.90 
58920 
10360.60 
125.39 
20959.90 ERDF 
14% 
16% 
9% 
6% 
3% 
50% 
1% 426.45 
171154 
12428 
181.62 
7159.32 
194.89 
15.00 
9813.30 ESF 
4% 
17% 
1% 
2% 
73% 
2% 
0% 275.80 
0.00 
9320 
4977.80 
0D0 
8150 
0.00 
5427.90 i 
EAGGF 
5% 
0% 
2% 
92% 
0% 
2% 
0% nillion ecu 19C 
363215 
5466.77 
2193.36 
636312 
774B52 
10856.79 
140.39 
36201.10 9 price 
Total 
10% 
15% 
6% 
1B% 
21% 
29% 
0% 
Source : Commission departments 
Objective 1 Ellas Breakdown by sector. 1989-1993 
Ongoing operations and miscellaneous 
increasing business competitiveness 
tnfrastnicture to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Human resource development 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 1688.00 
34021 
45.80 
50.00 
050 
151250 
2550 
3661.91 ERDF 
46% 
9% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
41% 
1% 358.45 
37758 
728 
050 
918.60 
50.69 
1550 
1728.00 ESF 
21% 
22% 
0% 
0% 
53% 
3% 
1% 27050 
050 
050 
1008.40 
050 
050 
050 
1277.00 millio 
EAGGF 
21% 
0% 
0% 
79% 
0% 
0% 
0% a. ecu 191: 
231755 
71819 
5358 
1056.40 
918.60 
156359 
4050 
6666.91 9 price 
Total 
35% 
11% 
1% 
18% 
14% 
23% 
1% 
Source : Commission departments 
Objective 1 Espana 
ttwiwmg business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Human resource development 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total Breakdown by se 
767, 60 
698,10 
321, 60 
194, 20 
4173, 50 
44,00 
6199. 00 ctor. 1989-
ERDF 
12% 
11% 
5% 
3% 
87% 
1% -1993 
300, 00 
0,00 
0,00 
2048, 00 
0,00 
0,00 
2348. 00 ESF 
13% 
0% 
0% 
87% 
0% 
0% 0,00 
0,00 
1232. 90 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
1232. 90 E 
EAGGF 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% oillion ecu 1989 price 
Total 
1067,60 11% 
69B, 10 7% 
1554.50 16% 
2242,20 23% 
4173,50 43% 
44.00 0% 
9779. 90 
Source : Commission departments 
Objective 1 France Breakdown by sector. 1989-1993 
Ongoing operations and miscrflanfons 
Increasing business competitiveness 
infrastructure to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Human resource development 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 3.80 
62.62 
4528 
20.40 
ODD 
270.40 
3.69 
405.99 ERDF 
1% 
15% 
11% 
5% 
0% 
67% 
1% 0.00 
0.00 
0D0 
0.00 
322.00 
0D0 
OD0 
322.00 ESF 
o% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% million ecu 1989 price 
0J00 
0D0 
0D0 
160D0 
0D0 
0D0 
0D0 
160.00 EAGGF 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 3.60 
62.62 
4528 
180.40 
322D0 
270.40 
3.69 
887.99 Total 
0% 
7% 
5% 
20% 
36% 
30% 
0% C~> Z 31 Oi 
•o 
r+ 
0» 
1 
rvj i z m x 
z 
o 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
Breakdown by Fund 
fnti ^^^^ EACCF(JB-CW)-
B?(S6JJ, Bmr(45.rg 
Source : Commission departments 
Objective 1 Ireland Breakdown by sector. 1989-1993 
Source : Commission departments million ecu 1989 price 
Ongoing operations and miscellaneous 
Increasing business compeUUveness 
Development of indegenous potential 
Human resource development 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 850 
53450 
18250 
050 
91650 
550 
1646.00 ERDF 
1% 
32% 
11% 
0% 
56% 
0% 050 
4B550 
87.40 
81510 
450 
050 
1372.00 ESF 
0% 
35% 
5% 
59% 
0% 
0% 050 
050 
65450 
050 
050 
050 
654.00 EAGGF 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 650 
101950 
90350 
81510 
92050 
550 
3672.00 Total 
0% 
28% 
25% 
22% 
25% 
0% 
Objective 1 Italia Breakdown by sector. 1989-1993 
Increasing business competitiveness 
infrastructure to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Human resource development 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 1207.40 
863.70 
466.40 
050 
237950 
24.70 
4942.00 ERDF 
24% 
17% 
9% 
0% 
46% 
0% 29950 
3450 
11250 
1254JO 
150 
050 
1700.30 ESF 
18% 
2% 
7% 
74% 
0% 
0% 050 
9320 
626 JO 
050 
8150 
050 
801.00 million ecu 1989 price 
EAGGF Total 
0% 1506.40 20% 
12% 99050 13% 
78% 1204.70 16% 
0% 1254 JO 17% 
10% 2462.30 33% 
0% 24.70 0% 
7443.30 
Source : Commission departments 
Objective 1 Portugal Breakdown by sector. 1989-1993 
> 
Ongoing operations and miscellaneous 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Human resource development 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical «««M»nw, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 123050 
74650 
32350 
10750 
39550 
93450 
2250 
3757.00 ERDF 
33% 
20% 
9% 
3% 
11% 
25% 
1% 6850 
20550 
8350 
050 
153350 
13950 
050 
2028.00 ESF 
3% 
10% 
4% 
0% 
76% 
7% 
0% 550 
050 
050 
116850 
050 
050 
050 
1173.00 million ecu 1989 price 
EAGGF Total 
0% 130350 19% 
0% 95150 14% 
0% 40650 6% 
100% 127550 18% 
0% 192850 28% 
0% 107350 15% 
0% 2250 0% 
6958.00 
Source : Commission departments 
Objective 1 United Kingdom Breakdown by sector. 1989-1993 
million ecu 1989 price o 
•IT 
•o 
y Increasing business competitiveness 
Development of indegenous potential 
Human resource development 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 97D0 
56D0 
0D0 
194D0 
1D0 
348.00 ERDF 
28% 
16% 
0% 
56% 
0% 44.46 
222 
268.32 
0D0 
0D0 
315.00 ESF 
14% 
1% 
85% 
0% 
0% EAGGF 
OD0 ' 0% 
130D0 100% 
0D0 0% 
0D0 0% 
0D0 0% 
130.00 141.46 
18822 
26BJ2 
194D0 
1D0 
793.00 Total 
18% 
24% 
34% 
24% 
0% 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
Breakdown by Fund 
E*OT(114X)-
•«*** E8DF(41ft, 
Source : Commission departments 
ANNEX N* V-1 
(Chapter 2) 
OBJECTIVE 2 - 1989-91 
SECTORAL AGGREGATE : 
The sectoral breakdown of assistance is not based upon a binding 
classification, but on an estimate of the most likely pattern of 
implementation. 
. Annex V-2 : structural funds - total interventions 
. Annex V-3 to V-12 : Breakdown by sector of objective 2 (CSF financia 
envelope - ESF 1989 not included) 
Ongoing operations and miscellaneous 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Productive investment 
Business environment 
Research and development, innovation 
Technical and professional training 
Support infrastructure for economic activities 
Rehabilitation of sites 
Commercial infrastructure (business services centre, fairs,..) 
Protection of the environment (sanitation, waste disposal..) 
Development of indigenous amenities 
Tour ism 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Improvement of communications 
Roads, motorways 
Technical assistance, publicity 
ANNEX N' V-2 
(Chapter 2) 
STRUCTURAL FUNDS TOTAL ASS I TANCE (1> 
IN OBJECTIVE 2 REGIONS 
(1989-1991) 
(mi I I ion Ecu) 
FEDER FSE 
TOTAL % TOTAL % 
BELGIQUE/BELGIE 145 5 % 50 . 5,1 % 
DANMARK 22,4 0,8 % 7,6 0,8 % 
DEUTSCHLAND 249,7 8,6 % 105,6 10,7 % 
ESPANA 576 19,7 % 159 16,2 % 
FRANCE 514 17,6 % 186 18,8 % 
ITALIA 179 6,1 % 86 8,7 % 
LUXEMBOURG 15 0,5 % 0 0 % 
NEDERLAND 56,8 1,9% 38,2 3,9% 
UNITED KINGDOM 1.158,6 39,7% 351,4 35,7% 
EUR-12 2.916,5 100 % 983,8 100 % 
Source : Commission departments 
(1) Total interventions : 
. ERDF figures include new measures, ongoing measures and 
community Programmes. 
. ESF figures include : new measures, ongoing measures and ESF 1989 
assistance. 
Objective 2 Global assistance Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
million ecu 1989 price 
Ongoing operations (IMP, NCPLIDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 952. 00 
770. 23 
627. 64 
157. 77 
293. 14 
4. 11 
2804, 89 ERDF 
347. 
27% 
227. 
6% 
10% 
0% 137,30 
485. 44 
57.51 
46.27 
5.41 
13,30 
745, 23 ESF 
18% 
65% 
8% 
6% 
1% 
2% 1089. 30 
1255, 67 
685. 15 
204. 04 
298. 55 
17.41 
3550, 12 Total 
(l) 
31% 
35% 
19% 
6% 
8% 
0% o 
ZT 
OJ 
"O 
rt 
(9 
-J 
< 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
Technical «sfetance. publicity, innovative measures f0.5*Vy 
Upgrading of hide infrastructures (6. 4Z) 
Development of lndegenoui potential (5. 7%) 
Infrastructure to support économie activities (19.3%) 
Increasing bustoeas competitiveness (35. *Xj 
Ongoing operations (MP. NCPl IDO) and Community Programmes (30.7%) Breakdown by Fund 
ESF (21.0%) 
-ERDF (79.0%) 
Source : Commission departments (1) The total of 3550 million ecu contains the total CSF (ERDF, FSE = 3275 + CP 275.3). 
The Community Programmes have been added to the ERDFs allocation. 
Objective 2 BelgiqUe/Belgïe Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
Ongoing operations (IMP, NCPl IDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 41,44 
84.75 
11.72 
3.86 
3.17 
0,06 
145,00 ERDF 
29% 
58% 
8% 
3% 
2% 
0% 23,00 
9,76 
0. 19 
0,84 
0,00 
0.21 
34.00 million 
ESF 
68% 
29% 
1% 
2% 
0% 
1% ecu 1989 price 
Total 
64.44 36% 
94.51 53% 
11.91 7% 
4,70 3% 
3. 17 2% 
0,27 0% 
179.00 
Source : Commission departments (1) Hie community Programmes have been added to the ERDPs allocation 
Objective 2 Danmark Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
million ecu 1989 price 
Source : Commission departments (1) The community Programmes have been added to the ERDPs allocation Ongoing operations (IMP, NCPL IDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 2,70 
14.30 
5.30 
0.10 
22,40 ERDF 
12% 
64% 
24% 
0% 0,00 
7.30 
0.00 
0. 10 
7,40 ESF 
0% 
99% 
0% 
1% 2.70 
21,60 
5.30 
0.20 
29.80 Total 
- (1) 
9% 
72% 
18% 
1% 
Objective 2 Deutschland Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
million ecu 1989 price 
Ongoing operations (IMP, NCPI IDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 22.50 
132. 10 
94.82 
1.10 
250, 52 ERDF 
9% 
53% 
38% 
0% 7.40 
40.66 
34.30 
2.24 
84,60 ESF 
48% 
41% 
3% 29,90 
172,76 
129,12 
3,34 
335, 12 Total 
• (0 
9% 
52% 
39% 
1% 01 
"O 
r\> > z z m x 
z 
o 
< I 
o 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
SÏ 
Infrastructure to support economic activities (36.9%) 
t*********************4 t*********************4 **********************4 t*********************4 t********************** t*********************4 t*********************4 
**********************4 
Increasing balnea competitiveness (52.1%) 
Ongoing operations (IMP. NCPI IDO) and Community Programmes (9.0%) Breakdown by Fund 
ESF (25.2*K r***** ********, ********* ********** ;**********, ***********, ************ ************ , '************ ************* ************* ************* 
-ERDF (74.8%) 
Source : Commission departments (1 ) The community Programmes have been added to the ERDPs allocation 
Objective 2 Espana Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
million ecu 1989 price 
Ongoing operations (IMP, NCPl IDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 163, 06 
142.78 
88,66 
168.71 
1.41 
564, 62 ERDF 
29% 
25% 
16% 
30% 
0% 29.00 
118,01 
5,45 
5,41 
1,15 
159,02 ESF 
18% 
74% 
3% 
3% 
1% 192. 06 
260. 79 
94,11 
174.12 
2.56 
723, 64 Total 
" (l) 
27% 
36% 
13% 
24% 
0% o z 
z m x 
(9 
r\4 z o 
< I 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
Sï_ 
Upgrading of basic Infrastructures (24.1%) 
Infrastructure to support economic activities (13.1%) 
Bxressmg bustnesi compeUUveaess (36.2%) *********************** 
**********************4 *********************** *********************** **********************4 *********************** *********************** **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 *********************** t*********************4 *********************** **********************4 t*********************4 T*********************4 t*********************4 t*********************4 Breakdown by Fund 
ESF (22.0%) '***** ******* ******** ********** ********** *********** >*********** ,************ ************ ************* *********** ••**** 
-ERDF (78.0%) 
Source : Commission departments (1) The community Programmes have been added to the ERDFs allocation 
Objective 2 France Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
million ecu 1989 price 
Ongoing operations (IMP, NCPl, IDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support économie activities 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 135, 32 
165. 43 
155.20 
35.00 
0,39 
491, 34 ERDF 
28% 
34% 
32% 
7% 
0% 9,50 
95.43 
2.45 
1,65 
5.44 
114,47 ESF 
8% 
83% 
2% 
1% 
5% 144. 82 
260. 86 
157. 65 
36,65 
5.83 
605, 81 Total 
• (1) 
24% 
43% 
26% 
6% 
1% « > 
z 
r\Ji< i loo 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
M 
Upgrading of basic Infrastructures (6.1%) 
Infrastructure to support economic activities (28.3%) 
**********************4 
**********************4 
*********************** 
Increasing business competitiveness (43.5%) 
Ongoing operatiooi (DIP. NCPl IDO) and Community Pngirjmcs (24.1%) Breakdown by Fund 
ESF (16. 9%) ***** r*******, ********, ********* ********** *********** *********** *********** ********** ******** ,-• *,v • •**** 
• •»* 
-ERDF (61.1%) 
Source : Commission departments (1) The community Programmes have been added to the ERDPs allocation 
Objective 2 Italia Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
million ecu 1989 price 
Ongoing operations (IMP, NCPL IDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 12,01 
90.75 
37,55 
19.95 
0,75 
161,01 ERDF 
7% 
56% 
23% 
12% 
0% 0,00 
46,69 
5.59 
4.72 
3.00 
60,00 ESF 
o% 
78% 
9% 
8% 
5% 12,01 
137, 44 
43,14 
24.67 
3.75 
221,01 Total 
(i) 
5% 
62% 
20% 
11% 
2% zrt 
OJ 
"O 
c+ 
r\j 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
Technical assistance, publicity. Innovative measures (1.73 
Upgrading of baste Infrastructure (11.2%) 
Infrastructure to support economic activities (19.5%) 
**********************4 
**********************4 
**********************4 
**********************4 
**********************4 
**********************4 
**********************4 
Increasing business competiUvenesB (62.2%) **********************4 
*********************** *********************** *********************** **********************4 
**********************4 
**********************4 \ 
**********************4 ! 
**********************4 \ 
**********************41 
**********************41 
**********************4 
**********************4 
*********************** ******************* ***A ' 
Ongoing opcratiops (PIP. NCPl IDO) and Community rrogrammes (5, J*L Breakdown by Fund 
ESF (27.1%) ***** *******, ********* , ********* ********** *********** *********** ************ , ************ ************* ************* ************* ***********" 
-ERDF (72.9%) 
J 
Source : Commission departments (1) The community Programmes have been added to the ERDPs allocation 
Objective 2 Luxembourg Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
million ecu 1989 price 
Ongoing operations (IMP, NCPL IDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
infrastructure to support economic activities 
Total 8.00 
7,00 
0.00 
15,00 ERDF 
53% 
47% 
0% ESF 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0,00 8,00 
7,00 
0,00 
15,00 Total 
* (i) 
53% 
47% 
0% O 
zr 
n 
r+ n> 
-i 3> 
Z 
Z 
Z o 
< I 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
Increasing business competitiveness (46.7%) 
Ongoing operations (BIP. NCPl HP) and Community (53.3%) P Breakdown by Fund 
ESF (0.0%) 
ERDF (100.0%) 
Source : Commission departments (1) The community Programmes have been added to the ERDPs allocation 
Objective 2 Nederland Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
million ecu 1989 price 
Ongoing operations (MP, NCPL IDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 24.17 
13.72 
2.83 
8.74 
0,30 
49,76 ERDF 
49% 
28% 
6% 
18% 
1% 0.00 
25,12 
0.00 
1.06 
1,16 
27,34 ESF 
0% 
92% 
0% 
4% 
4% 24.17 
38,84 
2,83 
9,80 
1.46 
77, 10 Total 
• (1) 
31% 
50% 
4% 
13% 
2% 01 
•o 
r+ 
-I Z o 
< 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures (1.93 X? 
Development of Indegenous potential (12.7%) 
Infrastructure to support economic activities (3. 7%) *m**S*mSSm 
Increasing business competlti' (50.4%) \**********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 **********************4 *********************** 
Ongoing opérations (MP. NCPl IDO) and Community Programmes (31.3%) Breakdown by Fund 
ESF (35.5%) ***** V *******, ********. 1********** ********** *********** *********** ************ , ************ *************,. ************* *************. ************* ***********/, ********** ['******** 
******' \***** '***.•: -ERDF (64.5%) 
J 
Source : Commission departments (1) The community Programmes have been added to the ERDFs allocation 
Objective 2 United Kingdom Breakdown by sector. 1989-1991 
million ecu 1989 price 
Ongoing operations (IMP, NCPL IDO) and Community Programmes 
Increasing business competitiveness 
Infrastructure to support economic activities 
Development of indegenous potential 
Upgrading of basic infrastructures 
Technical assistance, publicity, innovative measures 
Total 542, 80 
119,40 
231.56 
90.22 
121.26 
0,00 
1105,24 ERDF 
49% 
11% 
21% 
8% 
11% 
0% 68,40 
142.47 
9,53 
38.00 
0,00 
0.00 
258, 40 ESF 
26% 
55% 
4% 
15% 
0% 
0% 611,20 
261,87 
241,09 
128,22 
121,26 
0,00 
1363,64 Total 
• (i) 
45% 
19% 
18% 
9% 
9% 
0% o 
ZT 
O) 
X) 
< I 
r\> 
Breakdown by sector 
All funds 
Upgrading of basic Infrastructures (6.9%) 
Development of indegenous potential (9. 4%) 
Infrastructure to support economic activities (17, 7%) 
Increasing business competitiveness (19.2%) Breakdown by Fund 
Ongoing operations (DO*. NCPl IDO) and Community Programmes (44. 6%) ESF (16.9%K ******, ******** , ********* ,********** *********** *********** j*********** ************ 
-ERDF (81. 1%) 
J 
Source : Commission departments (1) TTie community Programmes have been added to the ERDFs allocation 
ANNEX N' VI 
(Chapter 2) 
EXPENDITURE ON HORIZONTAL MEASURES 
(mi I I ion Ecu) 
5(a) EXPENDITURE IN OBJECTIVE 1 AREAS 
1987 
1988 
1989 5(a) expenditure 
Objective 1 
areas 
280,3 
341,2 
443,1 5(a) expenditure 
Community 
total 
713,1 
843,9 
849,5 Objective 1 areas 
as % of total 
expenditure 
39,3 
40,4 
52,2 
ANNEX N* VI I 
(Chapter 2) 
EXPENDITURE IN 1989 BY MAIN 5(a) MEASURES 
Commitments Percentage of 
in mill ion ECU total 
Investment aid 90,8 10,7 
Establishment of young farmers 42,6 5,0 
Accountancy assistance 1,9 0,2 
Compensatory allowances 282,7 33,3 
Environmental protection 3,3 0,4 
Forestry schemes 2,0 0,2 
Training 7,3 0,9 
Set-aside 6,0 0,7 
Processing and marketing 367,6 43,3 
Other schemes 45,3 5,3 
TOTAL 5a 849,5 100,0 
N.B. : Schemes linked to markets and regionalised schemes not included 
Source : Commission departments. 
ANNEX N' VIM 
(Chapter 3) 
COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR MAJOR 
BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE 
CSFs FOR OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS (1989-1993) 
(in mill ion Ecu) 
Roads and 
motorways Railways Telecommunications Energy 
ELLAS 271 163 345 
(STAR : 90) 513 
ESPANA 2 051 636 309 
(STAR : 112) 117 
FRANCE 39 20 
(STAR) 12,5 
(VALOREN) 
IRELAND 512 25 
(STAR) 13 
(VALOREN) 
ITALIA 300 311 
(STAR : 230) 879 
PORTUGAL 460 123 121 
(STAR : 77) 172 
UNITED KINGDOM 14 27 12 
(STAR) (VALOREN) 
TOTAL 3 688 949 1 143 1 711 
Source : Commission 
ANNEX N* IX-1 
(Chapter 5) 
BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION 1989 
ERDF 
COMMITMENTS BY OBJECTIVE 
(million ECU) 
MEMBER STATE Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 5b Transitory 
measures Innovative actions 
Art. 10 TOTAL 
85X 15% 85% 15% 85% 15% 85% 15% 15% 
BELGIQUE/BELGIE 
DANMARK 
DEUTSCHLAND 
ELLAS 
ESPANA 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALIA 
LUXEMBOURG 
NEDERLAND 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM 
COM 596,78 
994,31 
23.85 
281,18 
781,67 51,03 
93.58 
4,43 
27.19 
91.89 18.15 
2.63 
103.51 
118.87 
63.82 12.40 
0.46 
7.82 
13.75 
27,21 
4.42 
549.66 42.91 
73.30 18,11 363.77 21.02 0.60 
19.32 0.83 
55,89 
3.46 
34,40 2,93 
3.16 
39,41 7.19 
2.10 
11,58 
25.92 18.68 
3.05 29.82 
0.41 19.75 40.67 
8.95 
182.47 
647,81 
1.220,51 
219.80 
308.37 
910.85 
3.46 
592.57 
510.60 
20.16 
TOTAL 3.300.75 329,14 670,77 87,08 113,07 1,43 74,47 69.78 19.75 4.666.22 
3.629,89 757,83 114,50 144.25 19,75 4.666.22 
Source : Commission departments. 
26/10/90 
ANNEX N' IX-2 
(Chapter 5) 
BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION 
ESF 
COMMITMENTS BY OBJECTIVE (1) 
(mi I I ion ECU) 
MEMBER STATE Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5b Innovative 
measures TOTAL 
BELGIQUE/BELGIE 
DANMARK 
DEUTSCHLAND 
ELLAS 
ESPANA 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALIA 
LUXEMBOURG 
NEDERLAND 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM 300,865 
386,019 
64,111 
233,082 
286,604 
338,806 
68,338 15,876 
3,417 
20,676 
29,379 
71,458 
56,837 
10,920 
92,560 4,292 
0,341 
17,757 
82,080 
104,432 
14,059 
17,348 
66,642 18,022 
23,202 
120,700 
91,275 
136,882 
202,747 
1,907 
48,048 
387,213 7,066 
3,104 
15,984 
9,080 
23,054 
7,606 
5,516 
18,695 2,466 
3,331 
13,114 
9,152 
4,497 
37,273 
1,895 
25,269 
0,587 
6,830 
7,668 
5,843 47,722 
33,395 
188,233 
310,017 
602,323 
437,210 
234,978 
593,122 
2,494 
88,663 
346,475 
639,292 
1,677,825 301,123 306,951 1,029,996 90,105 117,925 3,523,924 
Source : Commission departments 
(1) The exchange rate used for the conversion of commitments in ecus is that In force on the date of the 
relevant Commission decision. The figure in the table in paragraph 2, page 66 is based on the exchange 
rate for end 1989. 
7/1 1/90 
ANNEXE N' IX-3 
(Chapter 5) 
BUDGETARY MPLEMENTATION 
EAGGF GUIDANCE 
COMMITMENTS BY OBJECTIVE 19 8 9 
(mi I I ion ECU) 
MEMBER STATE Objective 1 Objective 5a Objective 5b Transi tory 
measures TOTAL 
BELGIQUE/BELGIE 
DANMARK 
DEUTSCHLAND 
ELLAS 
ESPANA 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALIA 
LUXEMBOURG 
NEDERLAND 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM 235,297 
149,390 
44,342 
121,737 
118,714 
179,395 
13,254 27,791 
17,294 
126,405 
33,961 
123,985 
99,686 
3,577 
20,663 
62,842 1,000 
4,915 
10, 134 
9,995 
0,812 2,788 
0,750 
15,624 
1,305 
35,215 
1, 120 31,579 
17,294 
127, 155 
235,297 
203,890 
179,766 
121,737 
263,610 
3,577 
20,663 
179,395 
78,028 
TOTAL 862,129 516,204 26,856 56,802 1,461,991 
Source : Commission departments 
26/10/90 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(90) 516 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 01 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-90-543-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-65467-8 
PRICE 1 - 30 pages: 3.50 ECU per additional 10 pages: 1.25 ECU 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg