COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 30.10.1996 
COM(96) 502 final 
7tk ANNUAL REPORT 
m tte STRUCTURAL FVNBS 
Î99S 
(Presented by the Commission) 

L 
This Report has been prepared by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy and Cohesion (DG XVI) 
in collaboration with the Directorates-General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs 
(DG V), Agriculture (DG VI), Fisheries (DG XIV) and Budgets (DG XIX) and with contributions from 
the Directorates-General for Competition (DG IV), Transport (DG VII), Environment, Nuclear Safety 
and Civil Protection (DG XI), Science, Research and Development (DG XII), the Internal Market and 
Financial Services (DG XV), Energy (DG XVII), Financial Control (DG XX) and Enterprise Policy, 
Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives (DG XXIII). 
7 th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
INTRODUCTION 15 
A. 1995 17 
1. The new Commission and the group of Members responsible for 
economic and social cohesion 17 
2. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies 18 
3. Launch of the Community Initiative programmes 18 
4. The first full year of implementation of assistance 18 
B. A REPORT WITH A STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL BIAS 19 
1. Background 19 
2. Complementarity between cohesion policy and environmental policy 19 
C. EMPLOYMENT, A MAJOR CHALLENGE FOR THE UNION 20 
D. THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT 21 
1. Implementation of appropriations in 1995 21 
2. Concentration 21 
3. Programming 22 
4. Additional ity 22 
5. Partnership 23 
6. Monitoring and evaluation 23 
CHAPTER I IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING 25 
A. ASSISTANCE BY OBJECTIVE 27 
1. Introduction 27 
1.1. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 27 
1.2. Greater integration of the "environment" factor 29 
1.3. Monitoring and interim assessment 32 
1.4. Verification of additionality 34 
2. Objective 1 37 
2.1. Implementation of Objective 1 in 1995 37 
2.2. Country-by-country survey 39 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
3. Objective 2 62 
3.1. Implementation of Objective 2 in 1995 63 
3.2. Country-by-country survey 64 
4. Objectives 3 and 4 80 
4.1. Implementation of Objectives 3 and 4 in 1995 80 
4.2. Country-by-country survey 81 
5. Objective 5(a) ...93 
5.1. Objective 5(a) for agriculture 93 
5.2. Objective 5(a) for fisheries 98 
6. Objective 5(b) , 103 
6.1. Programming for 1994-99 103 
6.2. Implementation of Objective 5(b) in 1995 106 
6.3. Country-by-country survey 108 
7. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies 116 
7.1. Objectives 1 and 6 117 
7.2. Objective 2 121 
7.3. Objectives 3 and 4 125 
7.4. Objective 5(a) 129 
7.5. Objective 5(b) 131 
B. OTHER ASSISTANCE 134 
1. Community Initiatives 134 
1.1. Introduction 134 
1.2. The individual Initiatives in the Twelve Member States 141 
ADAPT (1994-99) 141 
EMPLOYMENT and HUMAN RESOURCES (1994-99) 142 
LEADER II (1994-99) 146 
PESCA( 1994-99) 148 
SME (1994-99) 149 
REGIS (1994-99) 150 
RECHARII (1994-97) 151 
KON VER (1994-97) 153 
RESIDER II (1994-97) 154 
RETEX (1994-97) 156 
URBAN (1994-99) 158 
INTERREG II (1994-99) 161 
PEACE (1994-97) 165 
1.3. Community Initiatives in the three new Member States 166 
1.4. Summary by Member State - EUR 12 170 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 5 
2. Innovative measures and technical assistance 174 
2.1. Innovative measures and technical assistance under 
Articles 7 and 10 of the ERDF Regulation 174 
2.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance under 
Article 6 of the ESF Regulation 176 
2.3. Innovative measures and technical assistance under 
Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation 178 
2.4. Innovative measures and technical assistance under 
Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation 179 
CHAPTER II BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION, CHECKS AND FINANCIAL 
MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION OF THE VARIOUS 
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, COMPLEMENTARITY WITH 
THE OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES 181 
A. BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS 183 
1. Budget implementation in 1995 183 
1.1. General implementation in 1995 183 
1.2. Implementation of each Fund in 1995 in the context of 
1994-99 189 
2. Implementation of programming for 1994-99 197 
2.1. Implementation 1994-95 197 
2.2. Implementation of each Fund in 1994-95 in the context of 
1994-99 198 
B. CHECKS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 202 
1. Checks 202 
1.1. Checks carried out by the Commission's Structural Funds 
departments 202 
1.2. Inspections carried out by Financial Control 204 
2. Improving financial management 205 
C. COORDINATION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS 207 
1. Cohesion Fund 207 
2. EIB 208 
3. ECSC 209 
4. European Investment Fund 209 
5. The financial mechanism of the European Economic Area 210 
6 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
D. COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES 211 
1. The Structural Funds, equal opportunities and combatting social 
exclusion 212 
2. The Structural funds, the common agricultural policy and rural 
development 213 
3. The Structural Funds and the common fisheries policy 214 
4. The Structural Funds and SMEs 214 
5. The Structural Funds, research and technological development 215 
6. The Structural Funds and trans-European networks 216 
7. The Structural Funds and the transparency of public contracts 218 
8. The Structural Funds and competition policy 218 
9. Structural policy and education and training 219 
CHAPTER III INTER-INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE, REGIONAL 
PARTNERSHIP, DIALOGUE WITH THE SOCIAL PARTNERS 
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION 221 
A. INTER-INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE 223 
1. Dialogue with the European Parliament and the Economic and Social 
Committee 223 
1.1. The European Parliament 223 
- 1.2. The Economic and Social Committee 225 
2. Relations with the Committee of the Regions 225 
3. Informal meetings of the ministers responsible for regional policies and 
spatial planning 226 
4. Committee opinions 227 
B. REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP 229 
1. Overview 229 
2. Implementation of the regional partnership in the Member States 230 
C. DIALOGUE WITH THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PARTNERS 235 
1. The socio-economic partnership in monitoring structural assistance 235 
1.1. Overview 235 
1.2. Implementation of the socio-economic partnership in the 
Member States 235 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 7 _ O 
D. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION, DISSEMINATION OF 
BEST PRACTICE 241 
1. Information and communication 241 
2. Measures to disseminate good practice 242 
CHAPTER IV FURTHER REVIEW OF THE 1989-93 PERIOD 245 
A. EX POST EVALUATION OF ADDITIONALITY 247 
1. Objectives 1 and 2 247 
2. Objectives 3 and 4 247 
B. EX POST EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES 248 
1. Objectives 3 and 4 248 
2. Objective 5(a) 248 
3. Objective 5(b) 249 
C. EX POST EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 250 
1. Regional development Initiatives 250 
2. Human resources Initiatives: NOW, HORIZON and EUROFORM 257 
3. The rural development Initiative: LEADER I 259 
ANNEXES 261 
ANNEX I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 263 
ANNEX II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 273 
ANNEX III: Financial implementation of the Community Initiatives, 1994-95 283 
ANNEX IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures 295 
ANNEX V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 301 
ANNEX VI: Major projects adopted in 1995 315 
ANNEX VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries 319 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 337 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 1 
Table 2 
Table 3 
Table 4 
Table 5 
Table 6 
Table 7: 
Table 8: 
Table 9: 
Table 10 
Table 11 
Table 12 
Table 13 
Table 14 
Table 15 
Table 16 
Table 17 
Table 18 
Table 19 
Table 20 
Table 21 
Table 22 
Table 23 
Table 24 
Table 25 
Table 26 
Table 27 
Table 28 
Table 29 
Table 30 
Table 31 
Table 32 
Table 33 INDEX QF TABLES 
Financial allocations 1994-96/99 27 
Number of programming documents adopted in 1994-95 27 
Assistance adopted in 1994-95 as a percentage of appropriations 
programmed for 1994-96/99 28 
Commitments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance committed 28 
Payments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance paid ; 29 
Regional Objectives of the Structural Funds - measures under 
programming for 1994-96/99 directly related to the environment 30 
Average annual investment required between 1993 and 2003 to provide the 
least-favoured regions with environmental infrastructure in conformity 
with European Directives 30 
Objective 
Objective 
directly to 
Objective 
Objective 
Objective 
Objective 
Objective 
Objective 
Objective 
Objective 
Objective 
Objective - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 37 
and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated 
he environment in 1994-99 38 
- Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPD 39 
- Germany - Financial implementation of the programmes 42 
- Greece - Financial implementation of the programmes 45 
- Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes 48 
- France - Financial implementation of the SPDs 50 
- Ireland - Financial implementation of the programmes 52 
- Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes 54 
- the Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPD 55 
- Portugal - Financial implementation of the programmes 58 
- United Kingdom - Financial implementation of the SPDs 61 
Summary of Objective 2 OPs/SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 62 
Objective 2 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 63 
Objective 2 and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated 
directly to the environment in 1994-96 64 
Object 
Object 
Object 
Object 
Object 
Object 
Object 
Object 
Object 
Object ve 2 - Belgium - Financial implementationof the SPDs 65 
ve 2 - Denmark - Financial implementation of theSPDs 66 
ve 2 - Germany - Financial implementation of the SPDs 68 
ve 2 - Spain - Programme priorities adopted in 1995 70 
ve 2 - Spain - Financial implementation of programmes 70 
ve 2 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs 72 
ve 2 - Italy - Financial implementation of the SPDs 74 
ve 2 - Luxemburg - Financial implementation of the SPD 75 
ve 2 - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs 77 
ve 2 - United Kingdom - Financial implementationof the SPDs .79 
ves 3 and 4 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-95 and Objecti 
1996-99 80 
10 
Table 34: 
Table 35: 
Table 36: 
Table 37: 
Table 38: 
Table 39: 
Table 40: 
Table 41: 
Table 42: 
Table 43: 
Table 44: 
Table 45: 
Table 46: 
Table 47: 
Table 48: 
Table 49: 
Table 50: 
Table 51: 
Table 52: 
Table 53: 
Table 54: 
Table 55: 
Table 56: 
Table 57: 
Table 58: 
Table 59: 
Table 60: 
Table 61: 
Table 62: 
Table 63: 
Table 64: 
Table 65: 
Table 66: 
Table 67: 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Objectives 3 and 4 - Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPDs 82 
Objectives 3 and 4 - Denmark - Financial implementation of the SPDs 83 
Objectives 3 and 4 - Germany - Financial implementation of the 
programmes 85 
Objectives 3 and 4 - Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes 87 
Objectives 3 and 4 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs 88 
Objectives 3 and 4 - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes 89 
Objectives 3 and 4 - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the 
programmes 90 
Objectives 3 and 4 - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs 91 
Objectives 3 and 4 - United Kingdom - Financial implementation of the 
SPD 92 
Extent of less-favoured areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC 95 
Objective 5(a) agriculture - Implementation forecasts for 1994-99 96 
Objective 5(a) agriculture - Financial implementation in 1995 97 
Objective 5(a) agriculture - Physical implementation in 1994 97 
Objective 5(a) agriculture - State of financial implementation of the 
programmes 97 
Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Operational priorities of single programming 
documents for 1994-99 99 
Objective 5(a) for fisheries - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-
99 100 
Objective 5(a) fisheries - Financial implementation of SPDs 100 
Objective 5(b) - area and population of eligible areas and funding allocated 
to each Member State, 1994-99 103 
Objective 5(b) and the environment - breakdown of appropriations 
allocated directly to the environment, 1994-99 104 
Objective 5(b) - Summary of SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 106 
Objective 5(b) - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 107 
Objective 5(b) - Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPDs 108 
Objective 5(b) - Denmark - Financial implementation of the SPD 109 
Objective 5(b) - Germany - Financial implementation of the SPDs 110 
Objective 5(b) - Spain - Financial implementation of the SPDs 111 
Objective 5(b) - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs 112 
Objective 5(b) - Italy - Financial implementation of the SPDs 113 
Objective 5(b) - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the SPD 113 
Objective 5(b) - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs 114 
Objective 5(b) - United Kingdom - Financial implementation of the SPDs 115 
Objective 1 - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPD 118 
Objective 6 in Finland and Sweden - basic statistics 118 
Objective 6 - Financial implementation of the SPDs 121 
Objective 2 in the new Member States - basic statistics 121 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 11 
Table 68: Objective 2 - Austria - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund 121 
Table 69: Objective 2 - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPDs 122 
Table 70: Objective 2 - Finland - Financial implementation of the SPD 123 
Table 71: Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund 124 
Table 72: Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial implementation of the SPDs 125 
Table 73: Objectives 3 and 4 - Indicative breakdown of appropriations for the new 
Member States 125 
Table 74: Objectives 3 and 4 - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPDs 126 
Table 75: Objectives 3 and 4 - Finland - Financial implementation of the SPDs 128 
Table 76: Objective 3 - Sweden - Financial implementation of the SPD 129 
Table 77: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Forecast implementation in the new Member 
States 1995-99 129 
Table 78: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Priorities for assistance in the new Member 
States 130 
Table 79: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Financial implementation of the SPDs 130 
Table 80: Objective 5(b) - SPDs adopted in 1995 in the new Member States 131 
Table 81: Objective 5(b) - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPDs 132 
Table 82: Objective 5(b) - Finland - Financial implementation of the SPDs 132 
Table 83: Number of Community Initiative programmes presented and adopted in 
1995 134 
Table 84: Summary of Commission decisions on Community Initiatives in 1994-95 
(ECU million) 136 
Table 85: Allocation of the reserve between Initiatives proposed by Commission 
in 1995 138 
Table 86: Community Initiatives - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-
97/99 138 
Table 87: Summary of Community Initiative programmes adopted in 1994 and 
1995-EUR 15 : 139 
Table 88: ADAPT Programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 141 
Table 89: Implementation of EMPLOYMENT programmes - EUR 12 143 
Table 90: LEADER II programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 146 
Table 91: PESCA programmes adopted in 1995 and 1994-EUR 12 148 
Table 92: SME programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 149 
Table 93: REGIS programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 151 
Table 94: RECHARII programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 152 
Table 95: KONVER programmes adopted in 1995-EUR 12 153 
Table 96: RESIDER II programmes adopted in 1994 and 1995-EUR 12 155 
Table 97: Situation of RETEX programmes in 1995 - EUR 12 156 
Table 98: URBAN programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 159 
Table 99: URBAN - Detailed financing of the programme in Spain 160 
Table 100: INTERREG/REGEN programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 161 
12 
Table 101: 
Table 101 bis: 
Table 102: 
Table 103: 
Table 104: 
Table 105: 
Table 106: 
Table 107: 
Table 108: 
Table 109: 
Table 110: 
Table 111: 
Table 112: 
Table 113: 
Table 114: 
Table 115: 
Table 116: 
Table 117: 
Table 118: 
Table 119: 
Table 120: 
Table 121: 
Table 122: 
Table 123: 
Table 124: 
Table 125: 
Table 126: 
Table 127: 
Table 128: 
Table 129: 
Table 130: 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
INTERREG II cross-border cooperation programmes adopted in 1995 -
EUR 12 162 
PEACE programme 166 
Community Initiatives in the new Member States - Indicative allocation of 
appropriations 1995-99 166 
Community Initiatives in the new Member States - Programmes adopted in 
1995 167 
Community Initiatives - Summary of financial allocations by Member 
State 1994-99 170 
Innovative measures (Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation) - priorities for 
assistance, 1995-99 174 
Measures financed under Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation in 1995 -
commitments 176 
Measures financed under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation in 1995 177 
Measures financed under Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation, 1989-95 178 
Measures financed under Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation in 1995 179 
Origin and implementation of commitment appropriations in 1995 183 
Implementationof appropriations in 1995 183 
Implementation of appropriations in 1995 by budget heading 184 
Commitments in 1995\f 186 
Payments in 1995 187 
Payments in 1995 in respect of assistance prior to the second programming 
period 188 
Appropriations outstanding at 31 December 1995 189 
Implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 190 
ERDF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 191 
ESF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 192 
EAGGF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 194 
FIFG implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 196 
Implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 197 
ERDF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 198 
ESF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 199 
EAGGF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 200 
FIFG implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 201 
E1B - Financing for regional development 208 
ÊIB - Breakdown by sector of financing for regional development 209 
Community Initiatives 1989-93 - Assistance by Initiative and Member 
State 251 
Interreg I: Breakdown of projects by sector 257 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 13-^U 
NOTE TO THE READER 
A number of points should be borne in mind when reading the tables in this Report because it looks at 
Structural Fund assistance from a variety of viewpoints. As far as possible, these are indicated in the 
text. 
What are these various viewpoints? 
• The programming period: Usually this is 1994-99. Only in Chapter II.A Budgetary implementation 
has a desire to be comprehensive resulted in the inclusion of earlier programming periods in order to 
show all budgetary activity relating to the Structural Funds in 1995 (this relates only to the settling of 
payments). Naturally, Chapter IV refers to the period 1989-93. 
• The programming phase: At Community level, the first phase is that of the CSF. In the summary 
tables in Chapter I, these are "programmed" appropriations. The second phase is that of operational 
programmes, global grants or major projects. This phase is referred to as "adopted" in the summary 
tables. In the case of single programming documents, these two phases of programming coincide and 
the amounts are therefore the same. 
• The number of Member States (EUR 15, EUR 12 or EUR 3) depending on the year (1994 or 1995) 
and the form of assistance (Objective, Community Initiative, technical assistance, innovative 
measure). These data are presented in integrated form in the Annexes and in Chapter II.A on 
budgetary implementation. In Chapter I a distinction is made between assistance at the initiative of 
the Member State and studies and technical assistance carried out at the initiative of the Commission 
and relating to this assistance because the regulatory basis is different. These studies and technical 
assistance are, however, included in commitments and payments in the Annexes if the budget 
heading is the same. 
• Assistance (operational programme, SPD, technical assistance) without regard to the budget heading 
from which the appropriations were committed or paid or the budget heading from which the 
commitment or payment was made, without regard to the form of assistance. Commitments and 
payments are presented in accordance with the first criterion in Chapter I and according to the second 
in Chapter II.A and Annexes I to IV. 
• The type of appropriation, that is appropriations for the financial year or appropriations carried 
over or made available again. This distinction is made only when considering appropriations 
implemented for each budget heading, i.e. in Chapter II.A and the Annexes. Unless otherwise 
indicated in the title or a note, appropriations carried over and made available again are always 
included. 
• The year of reference in which prices are expressed. The amounts of assistance granted are 
expressed in prices in the year of adoption, whether this was the point of programming (CSF) or 
adoption (operational programme, SPD, etc.). Appropriations implemented are, however, expressed 
in prices of the year of implementation (current prices). 
/5", At 
TNTJ^DJTO» 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) j 7 
This report is compiled pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as amended and the 
detailed provisions in Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended. It presents the 
application in 1995 of the Structural Fund regulations, particularly the implementation of their 
Objectives (Objectives 1 to 6). The report is structured in accordance with the requirements of the 
Regulations, but is also shaped by the main activities or trends of the year in question. It also includes 
certain innovations. From the point of view of content, it deals with new matters such as the practical 
implementation of partnership with the regions and presents, in a single section, all the measures 
implemented by the Commission to disseminate good practice. In terms of form, the financial aspects 
have been dealt with exhaustively and 1995 has been placed in the context of the 1994-99 programming 
process. A major innovation is the environmental thread which runs through the report, reflecting 
various aspects of the way in which environmental considerations are taken into account in the 
programming of all measures. 
Chapter I presents the implementation of the various structural operations in 1995 in the context of 
multiannual programming. Attention is given to measures under the different Objectives, but also to the 
integration of the three new Member States into the structural policies and the adoption of the new 
Community Initiative programmes. In accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as 
amended, a list of the major projects is given in the Annex, but a more detailed assessment has begun, 
the results of which will be presented in a future annual report. 
Chapter II concerns budgetary implementation in 1995, also presented in its multiannual context, and 
other financial matters such as financial management and monitoring of utilization. As in last year's 
report, it pays particular attention to the complementarity between the Structural Funds and the various 
Community policies, which is highlighted by a horizontal treatment running throughout the report. 
Chapter HI is devoted to various institutional matters concerning the Structural Funds, ranging from 
relations between the Community's different institutions and dialogue with the social and regional 
partners to information on the work of the Funds. As mentioned above, there is a special focus on 
partnership with the regions and measures at Community level to disseminate good practice. 
Chapter IV carries on where the same chapter in last year's report left off, describing the achievements of 
the 1989-93 programming period. It deals only with those aspects not yet touched on in previous annual 
reports (1993 and 1994). A more general assessment of the period is given in the first three-yearly report 
on economic and social cohesion. 
This introduction will deal in turn with the main features of 1995 for the Structural Funds, an 
explanation of the importance of environmental concerns and the main elements of the report. 
A. 1995 
1. The new Commission and the group of Members responsible for economic and social 
cohesion 
In 1995 a new Commission took office under the presidency of Mr Santer. Right at the beginning of its 
term, in order to stimulate its debate on certain broad areas of Community policy, the Commission set up 
six working groups, on External Relations; Growth, Competitiveness and Employment; Trans-European 
Networks; Cohesion; the Information Society and Equal opportunities for Men and Women. The 
working group on Cohesion is chaired by Mrs Wulf-Mathies, the member of the Commission with 
special responsibility for the regional policies and cohesion, and includes Mr Flynn (employment and 
social affairs), Mr Fischler (agriculture and rural development), Mrs Bonino (fisheries), Mrs Bjerregaard 
(environment), Mr Kinnock (transport) and Mr de Silguy (economic and financial affairs). 
The group held its first meeting in March 1995 and gave itself the task of debating the broad lines of the 
following issues: improving the perception of the cohesion policy as a way in which the Community 
18 7{h Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
adds value; improving the implementation of action by the Structural Funds (and the Cohesion Fund), 
first thoughts on what a future policy for economic and social cohesion might look like. 
The working group met a further three times in 1995, to discuss the following subjects: utilization of the 
budget reserve for the Community Initiatives; employment and the Structural Funds; cohesion policy 
and the environment; guidelines for the Community's rural development policy; information and 
communication on the cohesion policy. These discussions provided a basis for orienting the work of the 
Commission's departments in the areas concerned and for preparing the Commission's decisions on the 
allocation of the Community Initiatives reserve, its communications to the other institutions on 
"Cohesion policy and the environment" and "Employment and the Structural Funds". The meetings also 
gave Mrs Wulf-Mathies an opportunity to brief her colleagues on the results of the informal meetings of 
the ministers responsible for regional policy and regional planning held in Strasbourg and Madrid. 
2. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies 
In 1995 three new Member States: Austria, Finland and Sweden acceded to the Community. A study of 
the impact of this enlargement on the structural policies began starting in 1994* and preparations for 
adopting operational programmes under the different Objectives were commenced at the beginning of 
1995. Discussions with the three new Member States were concluded rapidly and effectively: with a few 
exceptions, all the measures under the different Objectives were adopted and underway before the year 
was out. As in the case of the other Member States, the programmes which had not yet been approved by 
the end of 1995 mostly concerned the Community Initiatives. 
3. Launch of the Community Initiative programmes 
After adopting guidelines for the 13 Community Initiatives according to a timetable staggered over 
1994^, the Commission gradually adopted the Community Initiative programmes during 1995. The 
profusion of programmes presented by the Member State (400 in all) required intensive preparation and 
discussions with the various national authorities. Two thirds of the envisaged programmes could be 
adopted in 1995, representing more than 80% of the funding allocated to the twelve Member States and 
almost 45% of the allocation for the three newcomers. 
4. The first full year of implementation of assistance 
Following the adoption of most programmes and other forms of assistance in 1994, actual 
implementation for most assistance, i.e. programmes (CSFs and SPDs) under the different Objectives, 
took place in 1995. Further new programmes, mainly under Objectives 1 and 5(b), were adopted in 
1995, bringing the rate of adoption of programmed appropriations up to almost 100% for the twelve 
Member States for the period 1994-99. 
During this first full year of implementation of operations, the Commission had two main concerns. 
Firstly, much effort went into seeking the greatest possible degree of effectiveness. To ensure effective 
monitoring of operations, Monitoring Committees were set up and criteria for the selection of projects 
adopted. The Commission drew the attention of the different partners to the need for rigorous monitoring 
and the importance of selecting projects most likely to attain the objectives of the programmes. The 
drive for effectiveness could also be seen in the intensive work on evaluation: the preparation of mid­
term reviews, prior appraisal of projects and continuing ex post evaluation of assistance implemented 
during the period 1989-93. Furthermore, the effectiveness of management and of the socio-economic 
1 See the 1994 Annual Report. 
2 See the 1994 Annual Report. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 9 
impact of programmed measures is aided by thorough cooperation between a wide variety of partners. 
Since 1994 the Commission has invested much effort in convincing the various authorities responsible 
for structural measures of the importance of extending partnership to a wide range of actors, including 
local and regional authorities and the economic and social partners. Lastly, in 1995 the Commission 
continued to encourage rigorous financial management of operations, stepping up its checks on 
utilization of the Funds as well as discussing with the Member States ways of improving the joint 
management of Community appropriations by the Member States and the Commission and making it 
more effective. 
Another major concern in the implementation of programmes in 1995 was consistency with all the 
Community's other policies and financial assistance. Since the Structural Funds involve very large 
amounts of Community finance, the Commission takes great care to ensure that operations are consistent 
with the Community's other instruments, be they legislative, financial or political. Discussions on this 
matter therefore resulted in communications describing the links between the Structural Funds and other 
policies (employment, environment, equal opportunities, integrated development of certain areas). In 
addition, the drive begun in 1994 to improve coordination between the different financial instruments 
was continued in 1995, particularly in the case of Cohesion Fund assistance. 
B. A REPORT WITH A STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL BIAS 
In the effort to ensure that assistance by the Structural Funds is consistent with the Community's other 
policies, special attention has been given to environmental concerns. Both the principle of economic and 
social cohesion and that of environmental protection are mentioned in the preamble to the Treaty on 
European Union. In practical terms, as far as the environment is concerned this means that 
environmental protection measures must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other 
Community policies (Article 130r of the Treaty). This requirement is particularly relevant to the 
Structural Funds because of the context in which they operate as well as the links between structural 
policy (particularly its regional aspect) and environmental policy. 
1. Background 
The 1993 review of the regulations governing the Structural Funds introduced new environmental 
requirements. As a result, there has been a clear improvement in the way in which account has been 
taken of the environment in the programming for 1994-99. The new rules also require greater vigilance 
in preventing and penalizing infringements of Community law in the environmental field. The 
Commission is keen to increase the awareness of its various partners to this matter and makes sure the 
rules are observed. 1995 witnessed a still greater commitment to the environment, which received 
special attention in the form of the mid-term progress report on the Fifth Programme of policy and 
action in relation to the environment-' and a communication on cohesion policy and the environment \ 
Both of these documents stress that, since the environment is a horizontal issue, implementation of the 
major objectives of the Fifth Programme is essential. 
2. Complementarity between cohesion policy and environmental policy 
The Commission's communication on cohesion -policy and the environment demonstrates the 
complementarity which exists between cohesion policy and environmental policy, whereby sustainable 
socio-economic development is sought taking care to preserve natural resources. This complementarity 
should also be illustrated with specific examples. Firstly, the environment is a factor in regional 
3 COM(95) 624 final, 10 January 1996. 
4 COM(95) 509 final, 22 November 1995. 
20 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
development. A high-quality environment can play an important role in attracting potential investors to a 
region. Furthermore, activities related to the environment can be a substantial source of employment and 
create major opportunities for SMEs to provide goods and services. Lastly, the environment is an 
excellent justification for diversification as regards both activities (in rural areas, for example) and new 
skills and qualifications for the work force. 
Secondly, structural policy itself contributes to the environment in two ways. Not only does it generate 
large injections of funds with direct or indirect spin-offs for the environment, which also enable less-
favoured regions to finance the investments needed to comply with Community environmental 
standards, but it is also a vector for other instruments which can promote sustainable development. It can 
encourage a more rigorous analysis of the environmental effects of projects by requiring an 
environmental impact assessment, reliable statistical data on environmental aspects or the development 
of physical indicators for the evaluation of programmes. Involvement of the Structural Funds in 
environmental measures also helps increase public awareness of environmental issues, for example by 
providing training in new skills related to the environment and encouraging public authorities to give 
greater care to their town and country planning and the preservation of natural resources. 
This complementarity and its context called for a clear description of the ways in which the need for 
environmental protection is taken into account in the programming of the Structural Funds. Rather than 
dedicating a section of the Annual Report on the Structural Funds to the complementarity between these 
two policies, therefore, it has been deemed appropriate to weave a thread throughout the Report to 
demonstrate that each aspect of the implementation of the Structural Funds has an environmental 
dimension and to show how that dimension is taken into account to the greatest possible extent in 
programmes which, it should not be forgotten, aim primarily at economic and social development. 
C. EMPLOYMENT, A MAJOR CHALLENGE FOR THE UNION 
The serious employment situation is a central concern of the European Union, where there are now some 
18 million people without work. In December 1994 the Essen European Council reaffirmed the prime 
importance of combatting unemployment and of equal opportunities. The Council took the view that the 
essential return to steady growth also required the structural reform of the employment market and 
identified five areas for priority measures to overcome the structural problems of employment. It asked 
the Member States to turn each of its recommendations into a multi-annual programme. 
In its 1995 communication "Community Structural Policies and Employment"^, the Commission 
proposed a number of guidelines to ensure coherence between the policy decided on in Essen and the use 
of the Structural Funds and to increase their impact by incorporating them into the European strategy for 
employment. These were ensuring the conditions for long-term growth, raising the employment content 
of this growth, developing an economy of solidarity in addition to this performing competitive economy 
and making the most of partnership arrangements, and encouraging those involved at local level. 
In practice, this means using the flexibility offered by the implementation of the CSFs/SPDs and 
directing the monitoring and assessment systems towards the gradual implementation of the priorities 
selected without undermining the programming of the Structural Funds as adopted, for the most part, in 
1994. 
The Madrid European Council in December 1995 confirmed the need for coordination between national 
job-creation policies and the Community structural policies. The Structural Funds are essential 
instruments for the promotion of growth and employment, particularly in the Member States and regions 
which benefit most from them. Structural assistance helps support demand by increasing regional 
5 A communication originally presented to the informal ministerial meeting in Madrid on 30 November and 
1 December 1995). 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 21 
income through finance for investment in infrastructure, productive capacity, human resources and 
technological potential, all of which will make the region more competitive. 
This approach also implies stressing proactive and preventive measures. This is particularly true of 
Objective 4, the implementation of which occupied the whole of 1995. It is an approach which requires a 
concerted effort from all those involved in the implementation of structural assistance and one in which 
the Commission has undertaken to support its partners. 
D. THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT 
1. Implementation of appropriations in 1995 
In total, of the ECU 24 069 million available in 1995 for all assistance, ECU 21 938 million was 
committed, as compared with ECU 21 323 million and ECU 19 246 million respectively in 1994. At 
91%, the rate of implementation is high (90% in 1994), with 82% of committed appropriations paid as 
against 76% in 1994. There was a clear improvement in the implementation of Community Initiatives, 
with an implementation rate of 91% of available appropriations (i.e. ECU 2 358 million) compared with 
12% in 1994. This improvement is due to the fact that most of the new programmes were adopted in 
1995. 
Looking at the different Objectives, commitments for Objective 1 amounted to ECU 14 518 million; for 
Objective 2, to ECU 1 735 million; for Objective 3 and 4, to ECU 1 607 million and 94.5 million 
respectively; for Objective 5(a), to ECU 655.9 million for agriculture and 179 million for fisheries; for 
Objective 5(b), to ECU 571.9 million and lastly, for Objective 6, to ECU 125.9 million. 
In absolute terms, there is a great difference in the value of the appropriations committed for each of the 
Funds, ranging from ECU 485.5 million for the FIFG (2% of total commitments) to ECU 12 211 million 
for the ERDF (56% of total commitments). Nevertheless, the rate of implementation of the available 
appropriations is similar for all of the Funds, at 99% (for all types of assistance), except for the ESF, 
with 76%. 
2. Concentration 
The principle of concentration is one of the key concepts behind the 1988 reform of the Structural 
Funds. It involves the concentration of assistance on a limited number of objectives, geographical 
concentration on certain eligible areas, concentration of funding on the severest problems and areas in 
greatest difficulty and concentration of assistance on certain thematic areas. There has been little 
progress in geographical, financial and thematic concentration in 1995 because the decisions and 
guidelines relating to these aspects for the entire programming period (1994-99; 1994-96 for 
Objective 2) were taken in 1993 and 1994.6 However, while the principle of financial concentration has 
mainly meant the fixing of financial allocations for 1994-99, activity in 1995 has clearly confirmed the 
principle in practice: the greater part of the Commission's work has been concentrated on Objective 1. 
64% of all the appropriations committed in 1995 under the newly-adopted Community Initiative 
programmes (taken together) were allocated to Objective 1 regions. The same trend is reflected in 
budgetary activity, with Objective 1 accounting for 66% of all commitments and 70% of all payments 
implemented in 1995. These figures also reveal a remarkable dynamism in the implementation of 
Objective 1 in comparison with other structural assistance. 
6 See the 1994 Annual Report. 
22 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
3. Programming 
Another characteristic of Structural Fund operations is multiannual programming over a six-year period. 
It was introduced in 1994, when most of the programming documents for assistance under the different 
Objectives were adopted (CSFs, followed by operational programmes; single programming documents 
(SPDs)). The programming documents for the new Member States were adopted in 1995 (36 in all, with 
a further six Swedish SPDs still to come) as were a large number of Community Initiative programmes 
(265 in all). 
Looking back on the first two years of the programming period (1994 and 1995), implementation has 
been relatively satisfactory. With regard to assistance under the Objectives, 97% of the funds 
programmed in CSFs or SPDs have been committed in the form of SPDs, operational programmes, 
global grants or major projects. As stated in last year's Annual Report, the possibility of submitting 
single programming documents has.enabled the arrangements for programming to be simplified. 
Furthermore, a glance at the situation regarding overall financial implementation shows that in two years 
almost one third (31%) of available assistance has been committed and one fifth (19%) has been paid. 
Although generally speaking there is room for improvement in the rate of payment, which reflects 
progress in the actual implementation of measures, the situation varies depending on the Objective. The 
rate of implementation of Objectives 1, 3 and 5(a) is in line with the overall figures. Objectives 4 and 
5(b), however, are progressing at a much slower rate (Objective 4: 24% of assistance has been 
committed and 12% paid; Objective 5(b): 18% committed and 10% paid). Lastly, while the rate of 
implementation of Objective 2 appears at first sight to be higher because it is programmed in three-year 
phases (52% of assistance committed and 26% paid), it is actually lower than average when related to 
the full period 1994-99. The implementation of programming is also progressing at different rates in the 
different Member States. Taking the Objectives as a whole, the percentage of total aid committed ranges 
from 21% for Belgium and Finland to 41% for the United Kingdom, while the percentage of total aid 
paid ranges from 10% for Finland and 11% for Italy to 25% for the United Kingdom. 
Programming has turned out to be more problematic where the Community Initiatives are concerned. 
The process has been hindered by the number of programmes presented by the Member States (400 for 
all 15, i.e. about the same number of operations as for the OPs/SPDs), which has resulted in an 
administrative overload. However, three quarters of the programmes have been adopted, accounting for 
81% of the appropriations allocated to the Twelve and 42% of those allocated to the three new Member 
States. At the informal Council meeting in Venice in May 1996 the Commission and the Member States 
acknowledged the problem caused by the excessive number of programmes and the resulting 
complexity, especially for the Community Initiatives, and recognized the need to remedy the situation. 
4. Additionality 
Compliance with the principle of additionality requires continuous financial monitoring. For the new 
programmes for 1994-99, the detailed procedures for this monitoring are laid down in the programming 
documents. It was thus possible for the prior appraisal of additionality to be largely carried out in 1994 
and more or less completed in 1995. Most of the work on additionality in 1995 concerned expost 
evaluation of the period 1989-93 and ongoing monitoring of the second period. 
The results of the expost evaluation of the first programming period vary according to the Objective and 
the Member State concerned. The procedure has been successfully completed for Objectives 1 and 2 and 
additionality was verified in 1995 for five Member States, although it was still impossible to verify for 
others, either because of incomplete data (three Member States) or total absence of data (four Member 
States). Similarly, for Objectives 3 and 4 additionality was verified for four Member States, is still 
uncertain for two and is impossible to verify for five others. Objective 5(b) was the only Objective for 
which it was possible to confirm in 1995 that additionality had been observed in all Member States. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 23 - â.^ 
Ongoing assessment concerned only Objective 1 in 1995, but results were limited because only one 
Member State observed the principle and the verification procedures. 
5. Partnership 
Implementation of partnership entered an active phase in 1995 with the setting up of Monitoring 
Committees for the programmes. Partnership with the regional authorities is now a widespread and 
accepted practice and functions satisfactorily on the whole. However, partnership with other 
geographically-based authorities, particularly at local level, is less well-developed. This report reveals 
very different situations depending on institutional arrangements and types of assistance. It also reveals a 
degree of complexity which requires thought to be given to ways of simplifying monitoring methods at 
regional level. The trend is towards greater involvement of the social and economic partners in the 
Monitoring Committees, although here also the situation varies greatly, from no involvement in some 
Member States, through indirect representation or mere information procedures in others, to real 
involvement in decision-making in others. In order to avoid the danger of increasingly unwieldy 
procedures in increasingly complex partnership structures, the Commission is aware of the need to 
develop the most appropriate possible procedures for involving the different partners more closely, to 
the degree called for by their respective roles and responsibilities. 
6. Monitoring and evaluation 
Intensive monitoring and evaluation continued in 1995, in two directions. Monitoring Committees were 
set up for the current programming period and, at the same time, the Commission issued a Common 
guide for Monitoring and Interim evaluation intended to ensure that all the partners use the same 
procedures for qualitative and quantitative monitoring of the financial situation and the progress made in 
implementing programmes. The partners also launched the mid-term review process, scheduled for 
completion in 1996, whereby measures are subject to systematic critical analysis. However, the process 
has been slow to start, although there is a clear improvement compared to the past. The other aspect of 
evaluation work has been the continuing ex post evaluation of the first programming period. The 
preliminary results received by the Commission at the end of 1994 for Objectives 3 and 4 and 
Objective 5(b) were confirmed during 1995 and results were received for Objective 5(a) and for some of 
the 1991-93 Community Initiatives. Although these results arrived after the programmes for the second 
period had been adopted, their lessons will still be used to improve current operations, particularly in the 
context of the mid-term reviews. 
c?5\S6 
CHAPTER I 
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 27 
A. ASSISTANCE BY OBJECTIVE • 
1. Introduction 
1.1. 1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
Table 1: Financial allocations 1994-96/99 (ECU million) 
Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objective 3 
Objective 4 
Objective 5(a) 
agriculture 
fishaies 
Objective 5(b) 
Objective 6 
TOTAL B 
730,0 
160,0 
396,2 
25,4 
194,9 
roj 
24.5 
78,1 
1.584,6 DK 
56,0 
263,0 
13,0 
266,9 
12'0 
139.9 
54,0 
652,9 D 
13.640,0 
733,0 
1682,1 
104,5 
1.144,4 
1.069.9 
74.5 
1.229,0 
18.533,0 EL 
13.980,0 
0,0 
13.980,0 E 
26.300,0 
1.130,0 
1.474,4 
368,6 
445,6 
3260 
119.6 
664,0 
30382,6 F 
2.189,2 
1.763,2 
2 562,4 
299,6 
1.935,4 
1.745.5 
1S9.9 
2.239,4 
10.989,2 IRL 
5.620,0 
0,0 
5.620,0 I 
14860,0 
684,0 
1.316,3 
398,8 
814,4 
680.0 
134.4 
903,7 
18.977,2 L 
7,0 
20,7 
0,9 
40,1 
39.0 
U 
6,0 
74,7 N 
150 0 
300,0 
922,8 
156,2 
164,6 
118,0 
46,6 
150,0 
1.843,6 AT 
165,6 
101,0 
334,0 
61,0 
387,8 
385.8 
2.0 
411,0 
1.460,4 P 
13 980,0 
0,0 
13.980,0 Fl 
69,2 
258,4 
84,6 
354,0 
331,0 
23,0 
194,0 
459,9 
1.420,1 SE 
160,0 
347,0 
173,0 
130,1 
90,1 
40,0 
138,0 
252,0 
1.200,1 UK 
2.359,8 
2.142,0 
1.501,0 
329,7 
449,7 
361,0 
88.7 
820,5 
7.602,7 TOTAL 
93.974,6 
7.305,4 
11.0783 
2.0153 
6327,9 
5.443,7 
884,2 
6.887,7 
711,9 
128301,1 
Where Structural Funds assistance programmed by Objective was concerned, 1995 had two key 
elements: adoption of the programmes for the new Member States and the actual implementation of the 
programmes adopted and begun in 1994 in the other twelve. Most of the last remaining programmes 
were adopted in 1995 and implementation (establishment of the Monitoring Committees, project 
selection) was on the whole satisfactory. The result after two years of launching new programmes is 
quite significant. A total of 407 programming documents other than CSFs (OPs, SPDs, global grants, 
major projects) were adopted in 1994 and 1995 in the twelve Member States. This was an average of 34 
per Member State, but the number varied from 8 programmes for Denmark and Luxembourg to 83 in 
Spain. For the 15 Member States a total of 442 programmes had been adopted by the end of 1995, in 
other words, 35 in the new Member States. If we add the Community Initiative programmes, mainly 
approved in 1995, we obtain a total of 733 programmes for the 15 Member States (an average of 49 per 
Member State: 29 OPs/SPDs and 17 CIPs). 
Table 2: Number of programming documents adopted in 1994-95 
Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objective 3 
Objective 4 
Objective 5(a) agric. 
Objective 5(a) fisheries 
Objective 5(b) 
Objective 6 
Total - objectives 
Community initiatives 
Inlcrrt'g/l'eace 
Other (1) 
TOTAL B 
1 
4 
5 
5 
6 
1 
3 
25 
16 
41 DK 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
8 
5 
13 D 
18 
9 
12 
1 
11 
1 
8 
60 
rt7 
127 EL 
31 
31 
10 
41 E 
53 
8 
11 
1 
2 
1 
7 
83 
23 
106 F 
6 
19 
1 
1 
2 
1 
20 
50 
4' 
97 IRL 
10 
10 
6 
16 I 
24 
11 
16 
1 
2 
1 
13 
68 
19 
87 L 
1 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
8 
4 
12 N 
1 
5 
1 
1 
2 
1 
5 
16 
12 
28 P 
17 
17 
11 
28 UK 
3 
13 
1 
0 
2 
1 
11 
31 
28 
59 EUR12 
164 
72 
50 
12 
31 
9 
69 
40' 
248 
655 AT 
1 
4 
1 
1 
1 
7 
1' 
4 
21 FI 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
1 
9 
2 
11 SE 
5 
I 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
9 
2 
11 EUR3 
1 
10 
3 
2 
5 
3 
9 
2 
35 
8 
43 EUR15 
165 
82 
53 
14 
36 
12 
78 
2 
442 
291 
35 
256 
733 
(1) Including Retex for 1993 
If we compare the actual adoption of programmes with what was programmed for 1994-99, the situation 
at the end of the first two years seems satisfactory. 97% of the programmed appropriations were adopted 
in the form of SPDs, OPs, global grants or major projects. All the assistance in four Objectives (2, 3, 5(a) 
1 Readers should note the following: Measures in the new Member States have been grouped into one section, A.7; 
throughout the Report, unless otherwise indicated, amounts relate to prices in the year the measures were adopted 
(1994 or 1995) where programming is concerned and to current prices where budget execution in terms of 
commitments or payments is concerned. 
28 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
fisheries and 6) was adopted in 1995. Three other Objectives (1, 5(a) agriculture and 5(b)) also had very 
high adoption rates (between 96% and almost 100%). All the SPDs for Objective 1 had been adopted in 
1994 (1995 for Austria), and of the measures in the various CSFs only technical assistance in Germany 
and Ireland and some OPs in Greece, Spain and Italy remained to be adopted. All the Objective 5(a) 
agriculture SPDs have been adopted except those under Regulations (EEC) Nos 866/90 and 867/90, 
where a number of OPs in a single CSF in Italy have yet to be adopted. In the case of Objective 5(b), 
only the SPDs for Sweden and the technical assistance programme for France still remained to be 
adopted. Only Objective 4 had a lower rate of adoption, 75%, the reason being that the United Kingdom 
did not present any programmes for 1994-96 and the SPD for Sweden had not yet been adopted. 
If we look at the situation in each of the Member States, the vast majority of the Twelve, taking all 
Objectives together, had programme adoption rates of 100% (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, 
Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal). Three Member States had rates between 90% and 
100%) (Italy, Spain and Greece); this was because a few Objective 1 OPs had still to be adopted in each. 
The United Kingdom had a rate of 96% if Objective 4 is taken into account (the other programmes were 
adopted in their entirety). The situation in the three new Member States was also well advanced by the 
end of 1995, with all measures having been adopted in Austria and Finland and the SPDs for Objectives 
4 and 5(b) remaining to be adopted in Sweden. 
Table 3: Assistance adopted in 1994-95 (SPDs, OPs global grants, major projects) as a percentage of 
appropriations programmed for 1994-96/99 
Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objective 3 
Objective 4 
Objective 5(a) agriculture 
Objective 5(a) fisheries 
Objective 5(b) 
Objective 6 
TOTAL B 
100% 
100% 
101% 
101% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% DK 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% D 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% EL 
98% 
98% E 
94% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
95% F 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% IRL 
100% 
100% I 
91% 
100% 
99% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
93% L 
100% 
100% 
99% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% N 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% AT 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% p 
99% 
99% FI 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% SE 
100% 
100% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
100% 
74% UK 
100% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100%. 
96% TOTAL 
96% 
100% 
100% 
75% 
100% 
100% 
98% 
100% 
97% 
The financial progress of programme implementation appears normal. Overall, the rate of commitment 
of the funds at the end of the first two years was nearly one third (31%), which reflects mainly 
commitments made in 1995 given that most of the programmes were adopted in the second half of or at 
the end of, 1994. 
Table 4: Commitments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance committed (ECU million) 
Objective 1 
%of assistance 
Objective 2 
%of assistance 
Objective 3 
%of assistance 
Objective 4 
%of assistance 
Objective 5(a) (agriculture) 
%of assistance 
Objective 5(a) (fisheries) 
%of assistance 
Objective 5(b) 
%of assistance 
Objective 6 
%of assistance 
TOTAL 
"/oofaxsislcaxx B 
107,0 
15% 
62,2 
39% 
97,8 
24% 
4,6 
18% 
53,0 
31% 
4,1 
17% 
9,2 
12% 
337,8 
21% DK 
-
30,3 
54% 
85,0 
32% 
6,0 
46% 
38,7 
30% 
46,6 
33% 
9,8 
18% 
216,3 
33% D 
3.892,1 
29% 
286,9 
39% 
307,8 
18% 
29,6 
28% 
322,7 
30% 
24,9 
33% 
261,7 
21% 
5.125,6 
28% EL 
4.544,9 
33% 
; 
-
-
• 
• 
-
4544,9 
33%, E 
8.372,4 
34% 
659,2 
58% 
426,6 
29°/< 
118,1 
32°/< 
101,9 
31°/ 
39,8 
33% 
162,1 
24% 
9.880,1 
34% F 
497,6 
23% 
904,4 
51% 
778,4 
30% 
95,4 
32% 
678.6 
39% 
63,3 
33% 
373,2 
17% 
3.390,9 
31% IRL 
1.680,1 
30% 
; 
-
-
• 
; 
• 
1.680,1 
3(f% I 
3.024,7 
22% 
299,9 
44% 
200,5 
15% 
60,6 
15% 
117,5 
17% 
44,8 
33% 
107,0 
12% 
3.855,0 
22% L 
-
8,0 
114% 
6,5 
31% 
0,5 
59% 
12,2 
31% 
1,1 
100% 
0,8 
14% 
29,1 
3<M N 
37,2 
25% 
105,0 
35% 
282,3 
31% 
22,2 
14% 
25,3 
21% 
9,2 
20%: 
25,6 
17% 
506,8 
27% AT 
28,8 
17% 
54,1 
54% 
64,1 
19% 
11,7 
19% 
61,5 
16% 
2,0 
100% 
78,3 
19% 
300,5 
21%, P 
4548,8 
33% 
; 
• 
. 
• 
-
4.548,8 
33% Fl 
-
31,1 
45% 
60,3 
23% 
14,8 
18% 
61,4 
19% 
23,0 
100% 
32,8 
17% 
81,0 
18% 
304,5 
21%, SE 
-
105,8 
66% 
73,0 
21% 
0,0 
13,7 
15% 
40,0 
100% 
0,0 
44,9 
18% 
277,4 
31%, UK 
532,3 
23% 
1.250,0 
58% 
975,0 
65% 
0,0 
85,2 
24% 
14,8 
17% 
120,7 
15% 
. 
2.978,0 
41% Total 
27.265,9 
30% 
3.796,9 
52% 
3.357,1 
30% 
363,6 
24% 
1.571,6 
29% 
313,4 
35% 
1.181,2 
18% 
125,9 
18% 
37.975,8 
31% 
Payments, which represent the actual progress of the measures since they are a function of applications 
from the final beneficiaries, stand at 19%, which is evidence of the delay in 1994 but is logical given that 
most payments were made in 1995. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 29 
Table 5: Payments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance paid (ECU million) 
TT TRTT 
"793 
11% TJK 
2.470,1 
18% 2.76U.7 
20% 537071 
23% 3867 
13% 1.369,6 
24% 1.555,4] 
12% TTT "FT "SE" TJIT l'otal 
Ubjective 1 
% of assistance I9£j 
13% 743 
9% 3.263,4 
23% "33T7T 
14% 17.721,1 
20% 
Objective 2 
% of assistance 793 
18% 307/ 
36% T553T 
21% 40% 3233 
24% 75070" 
22% T01 
57% 323 
18% 7T3 
21% "75751 
22% 
"743 
19% "747? 
28% 3343 
14% "2443 
17% 7007 
8% 27%| "7533 
27%| 10%i 387T 
24% 3T879| 
24% 26% 
307 
12% Objective i 
% of assistance 30377 
20%| 
370] 
23% 7478! 
14% 18% "477 
16% 303 
8% TTJ 
7%| 363 
11% "8TB751 
55% 2.4U7.6 
22% 
"774" 
9%| TJTJ Objective 4 
%of assistance lT3 
38% 10% 
T97I 
15% 3093 
20% 25% 23% 383 
9% 10%| 3077 
8%| 73701 7887 
12% 
303 
9% Objective i(a) (agriculture) 
%of assistance 763 
10% 14% 
"3J 
13% 303 
22% 363 
22%| 70701 TTJ 
22% "37 
15% 10%| "679" 
8%| TTJ 
12% 3T479" 
17%, 
30% 7T7S| 
13% 7493 
17% Objective 5(a) (nshenes) 
% of assistance &7 
13% 
33 
6% "37 
10% 7347 
11% 7T874 
18% 307 3J 30%,| 
7J7J 3974" 
8%| 3677 
10% Objective 5(b)— 
% of assistance 397 
10% T579] 
8% 
303 
9% 723 
9% 337OI 
9% Ubjective b 
% of assistance 
3T03 
13% 7527* 
23% 3.236,2 
17% 77607 
20% 6.5J7,0| 
23% T9733 
17% 1.307,0 
24% 11% 35731 
20% 143,9 
10% 3.263,4 
23% 7477 
10% 7T57 1.791,8 
25% 23.984,2 
79% TOTALI 
% oj'assistance 357 
21% 
1.2. Greater integration of the "environment" factor 
Implementation of the second Structural Funds programming period coincided with the desire to 
integrate the environment more fully into Community policies with the aim of promoting sustainable 
development. Thus, the 5th Environmental Action Programme was aimed more at a preventive approach 
and extended the range of measures, targeting live activity sectors (industry, transport, energy, 
agriculture and tourism) to which the Structural Funds give major financial support under the 
development and conversion objectives. In addition, the regional development analyses conducted by the 
Commission identified persisting environmental infrastructure requirements in the least-favoured 
regions2, and, more broadly, territorial development requirements linked to the distribution of activities 
or infrastructures, in particular in the 5th Action Programme's target sectors3. 
The revised Structural Funds regulations introduced the principle of sustainable development into the 
programming process and defined the obligations to be respected by the regional development plans to 
be submitted by the Member States (assessment of the environmental situation, environmental impact 
assessment for the proposed measures, quantified environmental objectives for the development 
priorities and involvement of the environmental authorities). The obligations helped to markedly 
improve the appraisal of the environmental impact of the programmes4. But alongside that appraisal and 
the obligation to comply with environmental legislation during programme implementation, the 
Structural Funds grant very substantial and varied financial support to environmental protection where, 
in accordance with the tasks of the Funds, such support is linked to the economic development of the 
regions. This is all the more important since the operators involved in implementing the Structural Funds 
at all levels are agreed that the environment should no longer be seen as an isolated sector but as an 
essential dimension of sustainable development and a source of economic initiative and innovation, and 
so of job creation, particularly at local and regional levels. 
The Structural Funds, instruments for promoting sustainable development 
Between 1989 and 1993 ECU 2 751 million (about 7% of the total) was allocated to measures directly 
relating to the environment in Objective 1, 2 and 5(b) regions. The protection and improvement of the 
environment is therefore a dimension that has been taken into account since the 1988 Structural Funds 
reform. For the new period 1994-99 (1996 in the case of Objective 2), a total of ECU 9 445 million is 
currently earmarked for those regions (9% of the total programmed). 
2 See the 5th periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions in the 
Community. 
3 See Europe 2000+ - cooperation for European territorial development. 
4 See 1994 Annual Report. 
30 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 6: Regional Objectives of the Structural Funds - measures under programming for 1994-96/99 directly 
related to the environment (EUR 12 - ECU million- 1994 prices) 
Cbj. 1 (1994-99) Total 
environment 
Obj.2 (1994-96) Total 
environment 
Obj.5(b (1994-99) Total 
environment 
Total Objectives 
TOTAL environment B 
730 
92 
160 
8 
78 
7 
968 
107 DK 
-
-
56 
pm(l) 
54 
pm(i) 
110 
0 D 
13.640 
1.106 
733 
52 
1229 
• 207 
15.602 
1.365 EL 
13.980 
624 
-
-
-
-
13.980 
624 C 
26300 
3.034 
1.130 
40 
664 
67 
28.094 
3.141 F 
2.189 
323 
1.763 
103 
2239 
245 
6.191 
671 IRL 
5.620 
74 
-
-
-
-
5.620 
74 I 
14.860 
1.867 
684 
48 
904 
94 
16.448 
1009 L 
-
-
7 
2 
6 
1 
13 
3 N 
150 
5 
300 
5 
150 
36 
600 
46 P 
13.980 
1.056 
-
-
-
-
13.980 
1.056 UK 
2.360 
146 
2.142 
138 
820 
64 
5.322 
348 Total 
93.809 
8J27 
6.975 
397 
6.144 
721 
106.928 
9.445 100% 
8,9% 
100% 
5,7% 
100% 
11,7% 
100% 
9°/, 
(1) Impossible to give an exact figure since aivironmental measures are largely incorporated into other categories of expenditure 
The work of the Structural Funds in favour of sustainable development is multi-facetted. It can be seen 
as acting at two different times, when the assistance is planned and when it is actually implemented, and 
as taking on four different aspects. 
At the time the assistance is planned, it is Structural Funds assistance which provides for investment 
directly relating to the environment. Such investment is aimed at two types of measure: 
• Direct investment in environmental projects. This is most often investment in the modernisation and 
development of infrastructure for some of the target areas in the 5th Environmental Action 
Programme (water, waste, coastal areas and river basins, industrialised urban environments, natural 
areas and biodiversity). In these areas infrastructure requirements are long-term, particularly in the 
least-favoured regions (see Table below), or they are taking on a new urgency as a result of the need 
for industrial or agricultural conversion. However, they vary greatly according to region, and this is 
clear from the respective proportion of the different investments. For example, it is water - the 
purification, collection, distribution and management of coastal or inland water resources - which 
dominates (83%) environmental investments in Objective 1 regions. In contrast, cleaning up 
pollution and waste treatment dominates in the industrial Objective 2 areas (53%), although it is also 
important (30%) in the rural Objective 5(b) areas. Lastly, among the directly environmental measures 
under Objective 5(b), nearly 60% relates to the management of the natural environment, preservation 
of the countryside and biodiversity. 
Table 7: Average annual investment required between 1993 and 2003 to provide the least-favoured regions 
with environmental infrastructure in conformity with European Directives (ECU million - 1994 
prices) 
Member State 
Spain 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Portugal 
Total Urban waste 
water 
458 
240 
95 
208 
113 
656 Urban waste 
19 
35 
20 
15 
35 
105 Industrial or 
dangerous waste 
10 
2 
7 
14 
14 
37 Water 
distribution 
372 
95 
30 
288 
149 
562 TOTAL 
859 
372 
152 
525 
311 
1.360 
Source1. Fifth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development in the regions 
of the Community 
Investments of a preventive nature. These are measures which are applying the basic principles and 
recommendations of the 5th Environmental Action Programme, in other words, action at the source, 
encouraging the development of production processes by combining direct and indirect incentives 
and diversifying the action instruments. More specifically, the measures financed relate to certain 
sectors: industry, particularly SMEs (productive investments in "green products", "clean 
technologies" and energy-saving processes); energy (promotion of renewable energy sources, more 
rational use linked to trans-European networks); transport (promotion of urban public transport and 
multimodal transport at European level, coordination within the framework of trans-European 
networks); agriculture (promotion of agricultural diversification towards "cleaner" methods, 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 3 \ 
combination with the agri-environmental measures under the CAP reform); and tourism, where the 
aim is to develop it more rationally with less pressure on the environment (in particular "green 
tourism"). Preventive measures also comprise indirect long-term action, such as environmental 
research linked to technological applications and the training of workers in new environmental 
technologies. These two fields, research and training, also benefit from appropriations specifically 
earmarked for them under Objectives 1 and 2; they represent 1% of the environmental resources for 
Objective 1 and 6% for Objective 2. 
When the programmes are implemented, measures in favour of the environment are directed more at 
compliance with legislation and rules. Major efforts have been made in two directions, and these need to 
be pursued and intensified: 
• Intensification of assessment and monitoring. This was particularly evident in the prior appraisal of 
regional development plans and programmes in compliance with the new rules which stress 
assessment of the environmental impact of programming. So environmental objectives were 
systematically included and quantified in the programming documents (CSFs or SPDs) and special 
care was taken to specify environmental impact indicators, a process which has been improved. 
However, there is no doubt that the environmental assessment and monitoring of the programmes can 
be improved (see below): 
Quantified environmental objectives: 
The 1994-99 programming documents include a series of quantified 
environmental objectives. In Objective 1 regions water and waste management 
predominates. To take a few examples: in Spain, waste water treatment capacity 
should increase from 59% to 75% of the population and for dangerous and 
toxic waste treatment it should rise from 0.5 to 1.2 million tonnes; in Greece, 
surface water quality should improve by 10% and the urban waste treatment 
rate should increase from 25% to 45%; in Ireland, urban waste recycling 
should increase from 8% to 15%; in Italy (Mezzogiorno), population coverage 
by waste treatment facilities should increase from 50% to 70%; lastly, in 
Portugal, the percentage of the population having access to mains public 
drinking water should increase from 77% to 95%. 
• The selection and implementation of projects. The integration of environmental concerns at this 
stage is vital to guarantee the impact of the investments and to ensure that the prior appraisals are 
correctly applied. The new rules allow environmental authorities to be associated with the 
implementation and monitoring of environmentally sensitive measures. In addition, the 
environment Directives have to be complied with, the main ones for the Structural Funds being the 
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive5 and the "Birds" and "Habitats" Directives. 
The rules and the standard clauses in the programming documents expressly stipulate compliance 
with those provisions. However, experience has shown that progress is needed in the quality and 
transparency of these studies. In addition, when it comes to project eligibility, the selection criteria 
must take account of a project's environmental sustainability. The Monitoring Committees are the 
forum for considering what progress remains to be accomplished on these two points. 
The Communication on cohesion policy and the environment 
In order to report on the progress already accomplished in integrating the environment into economic 
and social cohesion policy and to discuss the options for future action towards sustainable 
development, the Commission adopted in 1995 a communication entitled "Cohesion policy and the 
environment"6. It recognised the progress already made, but identified various aspects which would 
promote still further the environmental dimension of Structural Fund assistance: 
5 Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, OJNoL 175,5.7.1985. 
6 COM(95) 509 final of 22 November 1995. 
32 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
The Commission will intensify its work towards a better understanding of preventive measures, 
which are the key to sustainable development. It plans to undertake a critical review of 
programming documents to identify preventive measures which could be emphasised in the future. 
To encourage environmentally sustainable investment, the Commission will give priority to 
environmental measures when new programmes are adopted or existing ones revised. To that end, 
it plans to make more use of the opportunity to differentiate the Community's rate of assistance for 
environmental measures, as provided for in Article 13 of the Framework Regulation. 
The Commission intends to intensify discussions with the Member States and regions with a view 
to improving environmental objectives and impact indicators in programmes. This will include a 
strategic assessment as well as an appraisal of projects. The Monitoring Committees will play a 
key role here, given that the Member States are responsible for implementing the programmes. 
With regard to project selection and implementation, the Commission wishes to see better 
application of environmental legislation such as the EIA Directive. The Commission intends to 
play a more active role in preventing infringements of environmental legislation and, if necessary, 
will make vigorous use of sanctions, including the repayment of Community funds. To improve 
and speed up information on this, dialogue with representative non-governmental environmental 
organisations could be improved. 
Structural Fund assistance should go beyond mere conformity with environmental rules, so the 
Commission will require project eligibility and selection criteria to reflect the imperatives of 
sustainable socio-economic and environmental development. The Commission will intensify its 
discussions on this topic with the Member States and regions in the Monitoring Committees. 
The experience of the environmental authorities is essential for the planning and implementation 
of the environmental dimension of the programmes, so the Commission will encourage Member 
States to increase their capacity and participation. 
1.3. Monitoring and interim assessment 
Reinforcing monitoring 
The monitoring and assessment of Fund assistance, the improvement of which is one of the elements 
of the revised rules and a key factor in their impact, are carried out in the Member States by 
Monitoring Committees, taking full account of the special nature of the Funds concerned and of local, 
regional and national circumstances. The new rules insist on the need for better appraisal and for a 
procedure which goes beyond mere financial monitoring in order to identify how Community 
resources have actually been used, in other words, to monitor physical implementation, results and the 
impact of the measures part-financed. With regard to the purely quantitative aspects of such 
monitoring, the current generation of programmes (1994-96/99) can be regarded as considerably 
better than the previous one. Where the more qualitative aspects are concerned, it is certainly 
necessary to improve the monitoring systems and methods applied to appraisals and assessments. 
To that end, the Commission has drawn up a working document entitled "Common guide for 
Monitoring and Interim Evaluation" which contains guidelines intended to assist those responsible for 
implementing the Structural Funds in the Member States. It should provide a clearer picture of what 
monitoring and assessment cover and act as a reference manual. It is flexible enough to be adaptable 
to the very varied situations in each of the Member States while presenting a coherent approach at 
Community level. As such it supports the monitoring requirements contained in each CSF and SPD. 
The Commission has no intention of imposing a single framework on Member States, but rather of 
providing a working document which can be used as a common reference work. To establish effective 
monitoring rules, the guide requires: 
• a definition of the data to be collected, which have to provide the information needed to assess the 
measures, their results and their impact; 
• a definition of the content of the information to be supplied to the Monitoring Committees, whose 
meetings are the culmination of the work on monitoring the assistance and which provide the 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 3 3 
opportunity for examining the data on monitoring, the results of interim assessment work and 
proposals for amending the programmes; 
• recognition of the importance of the annual progress reports submitted to the Commission, which 
supply information on the measures taken and their results, progress in administration, the general 
operational bases, the results of interim assessments and the discussions and decisions in the 
Committees during the programming period. 
Implementation of the interim assessments 
General principles: The main purpose of the interim assessments is to reinforce the monitoring 
mechanism and to give the Monitoring Committees a genuinely useful management tool. They 
therefore consist of a critical analysis of all the data collected, in particular during the monitoring 
procedure, and a measurement of the way in which the objectives pursued are gradually achieved, 
while providing an explanation of any deficiencies and a forecast of the results of the assistance. They 
also assess the validity of the assistance in progress and the relevance of its objectives. The 
assessments provide the Monitoring Committees with assessment factors and specific proposals 
relating to problems arising, with the aim of improving or adjusting, if necessary, the implementation 
of the measures using the possibilities for amendment offered by the regulations. As a general rule, 
assistance lasting longer than three years is subject to a mid-term assessment after the end of the third 
year; this is intended to provide a basis for any necessary amendments. It also undergoes an ex post 
evaluation at the end of the reference period. In the case of Objective 2, where assistance lasts for 
three years, the mid-term assessment is to be replaced by a provisional report on the assistance 
provided during the first programming period. 
Operational procedure: The interim assessment consists in adopting a systematic procedure for the 
critical analysis of the information provided by the monitoring system. This procedure, which should 
be established by each Monitoring Committee, must permit the collection of quantitative data on the 
physical and financial execution of the measures and on the observed results and impact. In 
partnership with the Commission, the Monitoring Committees must also organise the assessment 
procedure: selection of an independent assessor (expert or group of experts), preparation of work 
specifications, establishment of the timetable for reports, information for the assessor, appraisal of the 
assessment reports. This procedure must fit in with the Monitoring Committee timetable and its 
administration work. As a general rule, because of legal requirements, it is intended to organise the 
interim assessment process for the 6-year Objectives in the following way: 
• a preliminary report on the feasibility of the assessment, covering an analysis of the quality and 
content of the programming document and of the monitoring system established; 
• a mid-term assessment report prepared after the third year of activity, followed by additional 
reports; 
• a first summary report at the end of 1999 which will provide the preparatory work for the final ex 
post assessment. 
In the case of Objective 2, the mid-term report will be replaced by an analysis before the end of 1996 
of the initial results; this will be reinforced by the Objective 2 expost evaluation for 1989-93. 
Implementation: After adoption of the CSFs, SPDs and other forms of assistance under Objectives 1, 
2 and 5(b), the Commission discussed the general interim assessment approach with the Member 
States. At the end of often laborious negotiations, a general consensus was reached which, allowing 
for sometimes substantial nuances of interpretation, finally resulted in support for that approach at the 
informal ministerial meeting in Madrid in December 19957. However, the Committees' assessment 
procedures are being introduced very slowly and often run up against problems of an organisational 
nature. For instance, by the end of December 1995, eight of the nearly 130 Objective 1 committees or 
7 See Chapter III.A.3. Informal meetings of the ministers responsible for regional policy and planning. 
34 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
sub-committees had appointed their experts (Ireland, Belgian Hainaut and Corsica), 80 had 
programmed invitations to tender for the first half of 1996 and 40 had not yet taken a decision. In 
respect of the 80 which have programmed invitations to tender, the Commission has ensured that 
special work specifications are being established and adopted by the Monitoring Committees so that 
assessor selection procedures can be launched. 
With regard to Objective 2, the specifics of the interim assessments appear to vary from country to 
country and will be detailed separately in each case. The Monitoring Committees have paid particular 
attention to the operational implementation of the method. By the end of December 1995 only three 
committees (two in Germany and one in Belgium) out of 80 had appointed their assessors. Denmark, 
Sweden and Finland had launched invitations to tender, France and the Netherlands were planning 
them but Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and Austria had not yet adopted any provisions. This made 
it difficult at the end of 1995 to forecast how many summary reports could actually be prepared 
before the end of 1996 and be usable for the second Objective 2 programming period (1997-99). 
Similarly, for Objectives 3 and 4, the guidelines contained in the "Common guide for Monitoring and 
Interim Evaluation" were presented in the Member States at special meetings or at meetings of the 
Monitoring Committees. There was a need to make ESF partners more aware of the assessment of 
programming and management activities so that the Monitoring Committees could use the results of 
assessments for the management of measures. In order to formalise the methodology of assessment 
work, technical assessment groups were set up in the Monitoring Committees; this was accomplished 
with some difficulty because of the schedule for the procedures for the selection of the independent 
assessors, which had not yet started by December 1995 in all Member States. An initial report by the 
independent assessors was awaited at the beginning of 1996. This will provide an analysis of the 
existing monitoring and assessment systems to be drawn up and recommendations for their 
improvement within the framework of the interim assessments. The first report assessing the 
measures will be available at the beginning of 1997. 
With regard to Objective 5(b), the interim assessment is based on the guidelines approved in 
September 1994 by the Committee for Agricultural Structures and Rural Development. That 
assessment will provide the initial results of the execution and impact of the programmes up to mid 
1997. The assessors, whose selection is in progress, will also provide their support for the collection 
and analysis of data used for preparation of the annual reports by the Monitoring Committees. 
In general, considerable progress was made compared with the previous programming period but it 
will be necessary to ensure that Community expenditure has a significant economic and social return. 
1.4. Verification of additionality 
Work on verification of additionality in 1995 was a very heavy statistical and accounting exercise 
both for the Commission and for the Member States.' It made all partners aware, sometimes 
reluctantly, of the importance of the question: to guarantee that eligible public expenditure, whether 
or not part-financed by the Structural Funds, in eligible regions is maintained at at least the same level 
in the current programming period as it was in the previous period, 1989-93, so that the funds granted 
have a genuine impact. However, the results of the work vary greatly according to the stage of the 
verification process, the Objective and the Member State concerned. 
Prior appraisal of additionality 
Objective 1 : The principle of additionality had been verified by prior appraisal for the eligible regions 
in 1994 for the period 1994-99 and for the ten Member States concerned at the time the programming 
documents were being prepared and adopted. In 1995, this was also confirmed for Austria 
(Burgenland). However, in 1995 there was still a problem with France, which had undertaken to 
provide, before 31 December 1994, an update of the data in the financial tables included in the SPDs, 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 3 5 
those figures being insufficiently representative of the total amount of eligible national expenditure 
under Objective 1. That undertaking was not respected in 1994, nor was it in 1995. At the end of that 
year the Commission had still not received any updating of the French SPD data under Objective 1. 
The principle of additionality for the regions eligible under Objective 2 had also been verified by prior 
appraisal in 1994 for the nine Member States concerned, with the exception of Belgium, France, Italy 
and Luxembourg; a suspensory clause was inserted in the decisions adopting the programming 
documents for those countries. That clause suspends payment of the second Structural Funds advance 
until the relevant information needed for a prior appraisal of additionality is provided. The clause was 
lifted in May 1995 for Belgium and in December 1995 for France after the figures needed to verify that 
the principle of additionality had been correctly respected ex ante were transmitted. It was, however, still 
in force at the end of 1995 for Italy and Luxembourg8. The additionality principle was verified for the 
three new Member States in 1995 during the adoption of the Objective 2 programming documents. 
Objective 5(b): Here, verification has run up against methodological problems. Definition of the eligible 
areas does not always correspond to the administrative units and this poses problems-regarding the 
availability of data on public expenditurein those areas. In such cases, Member States fell back on 
methods for estimating expenditure within the areas. For a large number of the eligible areas, 
additionality information was included in the programming documents or supplied separately by the 
national administrations. In those cases the Commission was able to verify additionality before 
approving the programmes. Where the information was not yet available the approval decisions 
contained a clause suspending Community payments (for example in Germany and the Netherlands) 
pending transmission of the necessary information. Since then the information has been supplied and the 
Commission has been able to verify compliance with the additionality principle in all Objective 5(b) 
areas. 
The additionality principle also applies to all measures under Objective 5(a). However, verification 
poses problems relating to the nature of the measures. Although it has proved possible to verify 
application of the principle for measures intended to improve structures for the processing and 
marketing of agricultural and forestry products (Regulations (EEC) Nos 866/90 and 867/90) which were 
subject to programming, the principle is only partly applicable to measures intended to improve 
production structures. The diversity of national aid measures for identical purposes and the vast 
dispersion of administrations makes the gathering of coherent and comparable data difficult. A working 
paper was discussed in depth with the Member States at a STAR Committee meeting and in the 
Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 Monitoring Committees during 1995. 
The two Member States affected by Objective 6, Sweden and Finland, have both respected the principle 
of additionality. 
On-going assessment of additionality 
Nearly all the Objective 2 programming documents were adopted at the end of 1994 so the on-going 
assessment of additionality for those zones did not commence in 1995, so as not to place an additional 
burden on procedures. The Commission was to start work in 1996, as for Objective 6. 
Objective 1 programmes were adopted earlier, in mid 1994, and the rules for the on-going assessment of 
additionality were included in the programming documents. This is therefore an obligation resulting 
from a partnership agreement between each Member State and the Commission which consists in the 
annual updating of the information initially provided in the programming documents. The Commission 
did not receive any updated information from the Member States except for Portugal, so in October 1995 
it restarted the procedure by sending a letter to all Member States concerned by Objective 1. At that 
time, three countries (France, Italy and the United Kingdom) had still not respected the time limits in the 
8 The suspensory clause has since been lifted for Italy. 
36 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
programming documents. At the end of 1995 the situation was varied: Germany, Belgium, France, Italy 
and the Netherlands had supplied no figures; Spain, Greece, Portugal and the United Kingdom had 
supplied incomplete figures (to varying degrees), while Ireland had supplied satisfactory figures which 
allowed verification of the fact that in 1995 additionality was respected. 
Objectives 3 and 4: Figures for the on-going assessment of additionality were requested from all 
Member States in 1995. Nevertheless, since the Objective 3 programmes were adopted at the end of 
1994 and given the new character of Objective 4, the majority of the replies were expected in 1996. 
Figures received by the end of 1995 (from France and Luxembourg) suggest that additionality has been 
respected there. 
In general terms, despite the relatively slow progress in submitting data, the Commission and the 
Member States have worked closely and intensively to clarify the methodology for the collection of data 
and to increase their transparency. Once these bases are in position, future work on verification will be 
made much easier. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 37 
2. Objective 1 
2.1. Implementation of Objective 1 in 1995 
The second programming period (1994-99) was for the most part launched in 1994; the process 
continued in 1995. 24 operations were adopted in 1995: one SPD (Austria9), 16 OPs, 5 global grants and 
two major projects, as compared with a total of 141 in 1994 (127 OPs, 11 SPDs and three global grants). 
Thus, in 1994 and 1995 all the Objective 1 CSFs (6) and SPDs (12) were adopted, together with 
143 OPs, 8 global grants and two major projects (i.e. a total of 165 operations not including the CSFs). 
With regard to integration between the Funds, 88 of the 165 operations adopted in 1994-95 (53%) 
concern only one Fund (49 the ERDF, 20 the ESF, 16 the EAGGF and three the FIFG). Of the 34 (21%) 
financed by two Funds, the vast majority (31) are joint operations by the ERDF and the ESF, with one 
by the ERDF and the EAGGF, one by the ERDF and the FIFG and one by the ESF and the EAGGF. No 
operations were adopted involving the EAGGF and the FIFG or the ESF and the FIFG. 31 (19%) 
operations are financed by three Funds. These all concern the ERDF, the ESF and the EAGGF (not the 
FIFG), except for one, which involves the FIFG but not the EAGGF. Lastly, 12 (7%) operations were 
adopted which include financing from all four Funds. 
Table 8: Objective 1 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Progiammed 
Adopted 
% adopted 
Commitments 1994-95 
% of assistance 
Payments 1995-95 
% of assistance B 
730,0 * 
730,0 
100% 
107,0 
15% 
79,8 
11% D 
13.640,0 ** 
13.621,9 
100% 
3.892,1 
29% 
2.470,1 
18% EL 
13.980,0 *• 
13.661,1 
98% 
4.544,9 
33% 
2.760,7 
20% E 
26.300,0 •• 
24.668,3 
94% 
8.372,4 
34% 
5.570,0 
23% F 
2.189,2* 
2.189,2 
100% 
497,6 
23% 
286,7 
13% IRL 
5.620,0 •* 
5.622,5 
100% 
1.680,1 
30% 
1.369,6 
24% I 
14.860,0 ** 
13.491,6 
91% 
3.024,7 
22% 
1.555,4 
12% N 
150,0 * 
150,0 
100% 
37,2 
25% 
19,6 
13% AT 
165,6 • 
165,6 
100% 
28,8 
17% 
14,4 
9% P 
13.980,0 ** 
13.905,8 
99% 
4.548,8 
33% 
3.263,4 
23% UK 
2.359,8 • 
2.359,8 
100% 
532,3 
23% 
331,4 
14% Total 
93.974,6 
90.565,7 
96% 
27.265,9 
30% 
17.721,1 
20% 
* Programmed by SPD 
** Programmed by CSF 
Progress on the implementation of Objective 1 at the end of the first two years of the 1994-99 
programming period is fairly satisfactory. Almost all (96%) the assistance programmed has been 
adopted, as SPDs and as OPs, global grants and major projects. Actual implementation, which 
commenced for some operations in 1994, is now underway. Almost one third of total assistance has now 
been committed to the adopted operations, with most progress in this respect by the four Member States 
which are beneficiaries of the Cohesion Fund and Belgium in the rear with the lowest level of 
commitments. Naturally, there has been less progress in terms of payments since, apart from advances 
paid out when assistance is adopted, Community payments are made only at the request of national 
authorities as actual implementation progresses. The fact that the rate of payment of assistance is only 
20% is therefore mainly due to the adoption of programmes in late 1994. However, this has been 
remedied in some cases in 1995. The situation varies from one Member State to another, again with the 
four Member States which are beneficiaries of the Cohesion Fund in the lead, with payments 
approaching one quarter of available aid, and Belgium and Austria bringing up the rear. 
9 See Chapter I.A.7, Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies. 
38 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Consideration of the environment in Objective 1 measures: 
Environmental assistance by the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions and Member States mainly 
involves direct investment in environmental projects, often on a very large scale. For the period 1994-
99, ECU 8 327 million, or 9% of total funding programmed for Objective 1, is explicitly earmarked 
for environmental investments, most of which concerns measures to bring environmental 
infrastructures up to standard. The Fifth Periodic Report on the social and economic situation and 
development of the regions in the Community revealed that these infrastructures are particularly 
lacking in the most backward regions, despite recent progress. Moreover, they are both vital for 
protecting the regions they serve from ecological damage and important for their contribution to 
economic activity in the regions and localities concerned. 
The main ecological problems facing Objective 1 regions concern the protection and management of 
water resources, be they coastal or inland, urban or natural, and the disposal of domestic, industrial 
and toxic waste; 86% of the appropriations granted directly for the environment under Objective 1 
are allocated to these two areas. The projects and measures financed concern the treatment of waste 
water, water capture and supply, the collection, treatment and recycling of waste and the-elean-up of 
coastal areas and river basins. 
In these regions, much of the support for productive investments also has an indirect beneficial effect 
on the environment. Such investments mainly concern public transport, the promotion of 
environment-friendly tourism or energy-saving measures (particularly in SMEs). 
A number of agricultural programmes provide for measures to protect the environment, for example 
by controlling farm pollution and protecting landscapes in rural areas. These measures supplement 
the environmental measures adopted in the wake of the CAP reform. 
Despite their scale, particularly in the countries benefiting from the Cohesion Fund, the 
infrastructure projects financed under Objective 1 are subject to the same rigorous monitoring, 
evaluation and environmental impact studies as all other projects. 
Table 9: Objective 1 and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated directly to the 
environment in 1994-99 (EUR 12 - ECU million - 1994 prices) 
(b)13% <C>3%(d)l% 
Drainage and distribution ot water resources (a) 
Urban and industrial environment, protection of nature (b) 
Collection and treatment of waste (e) 
Research, train in g and others (d) 
Tota| 6.970 
1.057 
225 
75 
8.327 
(a) 83% 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 39 
2.2. Country-by-country survey 
BELGIUM 
SPD programming for 1994-99 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Stimulation of economic activity (a) 
Improving attractiveness (b) 
Transport infrastructures (c) 
Equal opportunities (d) 
Technical assistance (e) 
Total 
% Total 
480,1 
90,6 
30,9 
124,6 
3,8 
730,0 
100% ERDF 
388,9 
85,9 
30,9 
7,6 
2,6 
515,9 
71% ESF 
45,5 
3,0 
117,0 
1,2 
166,7 
23% EAGGF 
45,3 
1,7 
47,0 
6% FIFG 
0,4 
0,4 
0% (d)i7% (e>1% 
(C) 4% 
(b) 12% 
(a) 66% 
Implementation in 1995 
Hainault is the only Belgian province eligible under Objective 1. Its programming was adopted in the 
form of an SPD in June 1994. The total contribution from the four Structural Funds amounts to ECU 730 
million. The most important priority in the SPD concerns aid to industry. By the end of 1995 investment 
aid had been granted for the creation or expansion of 250 businesses and this will lead to the creation of 
some 2 000 jobs during the period from July 1994 to the end of 1996. The SPD provides for the creation 
over six years of some 4 800 jobs under these two measures and about 15 000 jobs under the entire 
programme. These two measures have been given priority by the Walloon authorities and are 
progressing rapidly. 
The technical and financial committees approved fewer projects under the other priorities in 1994 and 
1995, so no significant results have yet been attained for these. Approved measures mainly concern 
strengthening the research and development poles, cleaning up derelict industrial and urban sites, access 
to and facilities for industrial zones, water and waste management and transport infrastructure. 
The environment in the SPD for Hainault: no separate priority is dedicated to the environment, but 
it forms part of two different priorities. Firstly, the priority concerning economic revival includes a 
special measure for the industrial environment, aiming at reclaiming derelict industrial and urban 
sites and so on (with ECU 42 million from the ERDF). Secondly, the priority to enhance the 
attractiveness of the area includes environmental measures for the management of water resources 
and waste (with ECU 47 million from the ERDF) and for training in environmental protection 
(ECU 3 million from the ESF). In all, the Community's contribution to these environmental measures 
amounts to ECU 92 million, i.e. 13% of the entire allocation to Hainault. 
1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
Overall, not enough appropriations have been taken up yet for the 1995 ERDF instalment to be 
committed (but this is now planned for 1996). By contrast, utilization of the EAGGF, ESF and FIFG 
appropriations is proceeding normally and the 1995 instalments have been committed. In addition. ;it its 
second meeting in 1995 the Monitoring Committee decided to transfer some EAGGF appropriations 
from measures for the food industry to aquaculture projects financed by the FIFG. 
Table 10: Objective 1 - Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPD (ECU million) 
Programme and year ol adoption Total cost S K assistance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) (2yo) (3y(2> Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 
T9W 
2.411,7) "W5T "TÏÏ7 ï ~?m 79,}J| 75%' Sl'DHainaut yjn 15% 
40 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
GERMANY 
CSF pmgrumnùngfor 1994-99 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Productive investirent (a) 
AidforSMEs(b) 
R&D, innovation (c) 
Environment (d) 
Human resources, training (e) 
Agriculture, rural areas, fisheries (0 
Technical assistance (g) 
Total 
% Total 
2.430,6 
2.317,9 
613,1 
1.105,7 
3.648,2 
3.224,3 
300,2 
13.640,0 
100% ERDF 
2.375,2 
2.064,7 
485,0 
805,7 
584,1 
425,3 
80,0 
6.820,0 
50% ESF 
55,4 
253,2 
128,1 
300,0 
3.064,1 
107,3 
183,9 
4.092,0 
30% EAGGF 
2.608,2 
36,3 
2.644,5 
19% FIFG 
83,5 
83,5 
1% (f) 24% (9) 2% (a) 18% 
(b) 17% 
(e) 27% 
(d) 8% 
A CSF was adopted for the new German Lander in 1994. It is being implemented by means of 18 
operational programmes entailing Community assistance totalling ECU 13 622 million. The CSF takes 
an integrated approach with three OPs for each of the new Lander relating to economic development 
(mainly funded by the ERDF, with additional measures by the ESF and the EAGGF), development of 
the labour market (mainly funded by the ESF, with additional measures by the ERDF and the ESF) and 
development of rural areas (mainly funded by the EAGGF, with additional measures by the ERDF and 
the ESF). In Eastern Berlin, measures by all three Funds are integrated into a single OP. Two other 
programmes, one funded by the ESF and the other by the FIFG, are being implemented horizontally in 
all the Lander. 
Implementation in 1995 
Implementation of the priorities in the CSF is progressing well. At 31 December 1995, about 9 300 
projects had received aid from the ERDF. 64 600 new jobs had been created, and about 117 000 
maintained, thanks to productive investments and aid to SMEs. The rural development programmes 
opened the way for 20 300 jobs to be created or maintained in 1994-95. 
Measures to improve the environment in the new Lander have a priority to themselves in the CSF. 
They are mostly financed by the ERDF (ECU 806 million, or 12% of all ERDF appropriations for the 
CSF), with a substantial contribution from the ESF (ECU 300 million). In all, this represents 
ECU 1 106 million from the Structural Funds, accounting for 8% of aid under the CSF. The 
environmental priority in the CSF is implemented by means of measures included in each of the 
regional OPs. The ERDF measures concentrate on industiy and commerce, businesses supplying 
environmental products and services and the development of environmental protection infrastructure 
(rehabilitation of derelict industrial and commercial sites, creation of water treatment facilities, 
environmental technology activity centres, sei"vice enterprises and environmental agencies whose task 
is to advise and inform SMEs). ESF funding goes to skilling in the context of employment projects and 
the promotion of ecological occupations, for example by providing training for employees in SMEs. 
At the end of 1995, 461 projects had already received aid under this priority. 
Under the CSF priority relating to aid for productive investments and economic support infrastructures, 
most aid for productive investment has gone towards setting up subsidiaries and independent activities, 
rationalizing and converting existing firms, and commercial tourism. Investments in support 
infrastructure concern the development of commercial and industrial sites, technology centres, industrial 
and business parks, supply and waste disposal facilities and public tourism services. About 35% of the 
ERDF appropriations available for the programming period have been allocated to this priority, under 
which 2 480 projects had received ERDF aid by the end of 1995 (including 1 308 in Saxony) and about 
24 400 jobs had been created and some 57 700 maintained (including 32 800 in Saxony). Although the 
ESF's contribution to this priority is relatively meagre (1.4% of appropriations), it is important because it 
goes towards placing job-seekers, particularly young people, and creating in-house training places. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 41 
Under the CSF priority relating to aid to SMEs, an initial set of measures concerns productive 
investment (creation of SMEs and expansion, rationalization and conversion of existing SMEs). A 
second set of measures concerns support services for SMEs (creation and utilization of infrastructures 
such as industrial and business parks, supply and waste disposal services; shared premises and services 
such as technology and innovation centres and business incubators; creation of shared business facilities 
for vocational training; mobilization of local development potential; market access and business 
management assistance). About 30% of ERDF appropriations for 1994-99 have been allocated to this 
priority. The ESF contribution (about 6% of appropriations) goes towards continuing training and job 
stabilization. Particular effort is being focused on improving management in SMEs in the following 
areas: organization of work and staff, management, marketing, product creation and quality. With regard 
to the Eastern Berlin OP, at the end of 1995 the Commission authorized the transfer of about ECU 48 
million from the priority concerning aid for productive investments to the development of industrial and 
commercial sites, to make available a greater number of sites for leasing to regional SMEs. By the end 
of 1995, 5 536 projects had received aid under this priority, and about 35 000 jobs were created and 
some 53 500 maintained. 
Another of the CSF's priorities concerns research, technological development and innovation. Measures 
include, for example, investments in research services and laboratories, aid to technology centres and 
product creation and advice on technology and marketing. ESF assistance under this priority concerns 
mainly investments in vocational training and the placement of young researchers (as innovation 
assistants, for example). It has not been possible to utilize all of the available funds (3% of all ESF 
appropriations). Given the importance of this priority for the economic development of the Lander, a 
special effort will be made to catch up. By the end of 1995 307 projects had received aid under this 
priority, 40% of which are in Eastern Berlin. 
The operational programmes to stimulate employment cover a wide range of measures to assist the 
labour market and restructure education and training systems. About 80% of ESF appropriations for 
1995 were concentrated on these OPs (ECU 489 million). The lion's share of ESF assistance is 
channelled towards young people (Youthstart type measures) to guarantee apprenticeship training places 
and specific packages to help young people from deprived backgrounds. Specific modular training 
courses are planned for the unemployed to provide vocational and social skills, language training and 
training abroad. Special attention is given to vocational training for women and their (re)integration into 
working life; in addition to specific measures, provision is made to maintain the high rate of female 
employment (above 50%). Substantial assistance is provided for the creation of independent activities 
and management for SMEs. ESF assistance makes a substantial contribution to the employment 
programmes in the new Lander, accounting for 20-35% of their expenditure. An estimated 100 000 
people have taken part in measures part-financed by the ESF. The ERDF will also contribute under this 
CSF priority, to the tune of ECU 584.1 million (9% of ERDF appropriations for 1994-99), for measures 
to create and develop training places and training workshops for industry and business, vocational 
schools and specialized colleges as well as vocational training centres. 
The operational programmes relating to rural development aim at improving the economic situation in 
agriculture. The ERDF will contribute ECU 425.3 million (about 6% of ERDF appropriations for 1994-
96) for the development of infrastructure in rural areas (equipping of industrial and business sites, 
infrastructure to support economic activities). By the end of 1995 439 projects had received ERDF aid 
under these OPs. In the food industry there has been a transfer of activities away from milk and meat 
(the drastic reduction in livestock production has resulted in overcapacity in slaughterhouses) towards 
flowers and plants and fruit and vegetables. As a rule, investment is concentrated on new products which 
require more sophisticated processing. Lastly, village renewal is without doubt a motor for rural 
development. It mobilizes a great deal of private capital in a multitude of small investments which have 
a remarkable impact on local craft activities and the creation of jobs outside agriculture in rural areas. 
The ESF is contributing ECU 107.3 million (3% of ESF appropriations for 1994-99) to these OPs for 
measures to strengthen and maintain jobs (SMEs) in areas such as tourism, commerce and 
environmental improvement. Priority is given to the skilling and (re)integration of the unemployed 
(more than 50% women), where measures often include contributions from other Funds. 
42 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
It was necessary to reprogramme FIFG measures to assist fisheries to cope with an accelerated rate of 
investment in certain areas of assistance. 
Lastly, the 1994-99 CSF contains ECU 300.2 million for technical assistance. At the end of 1995, 269 
ERDF measures had been approved and set up, mostly for the implementation and monitoring of the 
OPs. 
With regard to the mid-term review of the programmes, ad hoc committees set up in the second half of 
1995 have drawn up a detailed timetable for the presentation of assessment reports at Lander level (the 
final reports are scheduled for April 1997) and the summary report at CSF level (final report scheduled 
for July 1997) and have fixed the terms of reference for the evaluation, which have been adopted by the 
Monitoring Committee. 
1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
With regard to the financial implementation of the CSF, commitments are quite satisfactory at 29% of 
Structural Fund assistance. At the end of 1995, payments for 1994 and 1995 amounted to ECU 2 470 
million, ERDF payments were ECU 1 027, i.e. 15% of ERDF appropriations for 1994-99 and 95% of the 
instalments for 1994 and 1995. Good progress is also being made in EAGGF operations in the new 
Lander. Investments and projects have been launched on a large scale and the take-up of appropriations 
is satisfactory. 
Table 11: Objective 1 - Germany - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) (2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
Regional OPs 
OP Eastern Berlin 
OP Brandenburg (1) 
OP Brandenburg (2) 
OP Brandenburg (3) 
OP Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (1) 
OP Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (2) 
OP Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (3) 
OP Saxony (1) 
OP Saxony (2) 
OP Saxony (3) 
OP Saxony-Anhalt (1) 
OP Saxony-Anhalt (2) 
OP Saxony-Anhalt (3) 
OPThunngia(l) 
OPThuringia(2) 
OPThuringia(3) 
UP Multircgionul 
OP Fisheries 
OP Training of labour force 
TOTAL 2.442,9 
6.141,4 
2.417,8 
889,1 
5 819,0 
1.880,7 
808,6 
8.908,0 
1.679,4 
948,3 
9.488,8 
2.059,0 
974,2 
8.240,4 
2.432,9 
778,6 
197,2 
2.360,5 
58.466,9 743,1 
964,8 
729,9 
471,9 
785,1 
676,6 
362,2 
2.081,2 
621,5 
659,8 
1.190,8 
583,5 
590,6 
1.021,8 
521,0 
457,9 
83,5 
1.076,7 
13.621,9 110,0 
95,4 
107,3 
70,2 
117,7 
197,8 
54,9 
267,4 
86,9 
107,3 
177,1 
81,3 
80,2 
152,6 
77,2 
68,1 
12,0 
159,5 
2.022,6 211,4 
226.3 
207.2 
134,8 
224,2 
296,6 
104,6 
590,1 
179,8 
146,2 
338,6 
173,9 
161,1 
291,3 
149,4 
130,8 
19,0 
306,7 
3.892.1 28% 
23% 
28% 
29% 
29% 
44% 
29% 
28% 
29% 
22% 
28% 
30% 
27% 
29% 
29% 
29% 
23% 
28% 
29% 47,2 
87,2 
85,3 
55,8 
123,8 
79,0 
44,7 
156,3 
76,9 
65,3 
48,1 
77,5 
40,1 
10,6 
52,1 
66,5 
8,1 
127,6 
1.252,0 107,0 
155,8 
162,1 
104,5 
177,1 
156,4 
69,5 
391,9 
142,3 
84,8 
128,8 
124,2 
102,8 
118,8 
89,4 
97,9 
11,6 
245,4 
2.470,1 51% 
69% 
78% 
77% 
79% 
53% 
66% 
66% 
79% 
58% 
38% 
71% 
64% 
41% 
60% 
75% 
61% 
80% 
63% 
(\) Economic development 
(2) Rural development 
(3) Labour market 
In 1995 the CSF for 1991-93 was still being completed. By the end of the year 100% of Structural Fund 
appropriations had been committed. ECU 1 437 million, or 92% of the total ERDF appropriations 
available under the 1991-93 CSF (ECU 1 567 million), had been paid by the end of 1995 without any 
payments actually having been made during 1995 itself, because the final reports and final payment 
requests for the completed OPs were not yet available at the end of the year. The deadline for 
presentation of these reports is 30 June 1996 for Mecklenburg-East Pomerania, Saxony and Saxony-
Anhalt. The deadline for Eastern Berlin, Thuringia and Brandenburg was postponed to 30 June 1997 
because the payment deadline had to be extended as a result of organizational difficulties arising from an 
unclear legal position concerning property and delays in the call for funds by private investors. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 43 
GREECE 
CSF programming for 1994-99 
ECU million 
Axes prioritaires 
Major infrastructure (a) 
Improvements in living standards (b) 
Economic competitiveness (c) 
Human resources and employment (d) 
Reduction of regional disparities (e) 
Technical assistance (f) 
Total 
% Total 
2.737,1 
I 456,8 
2684,3 
2.556,3 
4.474,4 
71,1 
13.980,0 
100% FEDER 
2.699,5 
1.436,8 
1 210,2 
377,0 
3.707,4 
58,6 
9.489,5 
68% FSE 
37,6 
20,0 
75,1 
2.179,3 
236,0 
12,5 
2.560,5 
18% FEOGA 
1.269,0 
531,0 
1.800,0 
13% 1FOP 
130,0 
130,0 
1% (01% 
(e) 32% (a) 20% 
(b) 10% 
(d) 1 (C) 19% 
New programmes adopted in 1995 
Most of the OPs and major projects in the Greek CSF for 1994-99 were adopted in 1994. The remaining 
OPs, concerning tourism and culture, telecommunications and postal services, were negotiated and 
adopted in 1995. The only OP remaining to be adopted in 1996 concerns technical assistance and 
includes the accompanying measures needed to adapt Greece's public administration to the second CSF. 
The OP relating to tourism and culture was adopted in November 1995. It consists of two sub-
programmes, one for tourism and one for culture. The total cost to the public sector is ECU 479.3 
million, of which the Structural Funds will contribute ECU 229.1 million (ECU 219.1 million from the 
ERDF and ECU 10 million from the ESF). The private sector is to contribute ECU 316.3 million to the 
subprogramme for tourism. The aim of this subprogramme is to alleviate the problems besetting the 
Greek tourist industry by extending the tourist season, achieving a more balanced geographical 
distribution of tourist activities and improving the quality of tourism products (particularly 
accommodation and human resources). The cultural infrastructure receiving funding is directly linked to 
the development of tourism (museums, restoration of monuments, conference centres). 
The telecommunications OP has been allocated ECU 172.7 million from the Structural Funds 
(ECU 142.2 million from the ERDF and ECU 30.5 million from the ESF). Its objective is to bring the 
Greek regulations into line with European legislation, bring the network up to standard in the outlying 
regions and improve the quality of telecommunications services by digitizing the network and 
developing new advanced services. 
The OP for the postal services will receive Community assistance worth ECU 78 million (ECU 70.9 
million from the ERDF and 7.1 million from the ESF). The total cost of the programme is ECU 117.1 
million. Its objective is to improve the quality of the service, to reorganize and upgrade operations and to 
review the legislation in this area. 
Implementation in 1995 
The environment is the subject of a subpriority in the improvements in living standards priority of the 
Greek CSF. The main objectives concern several types of operation: monitoring the various sources 
of pollution (water, noise, air); management of water resources and waste Matter; management of 
household and toxic waste; prevention of major environmental risks; improvement of air quality, 
particularly in Attica; regional planning, including the creation of a register giving priority cover to 
biotopes. This subpriority will absorb 35% of the ERDF contribution. It is the subject of a national 
OP with ECU 376. 7 million from the ERDF. In addition, environmental measures are included in the 
different regional programmes. In total, the Community will contribute ECU 624 million to the Greek 
environment (4% of the CSF). 
Among the programmes adopted in 1994, the agriculture OP stands out. This single-fund OP financed 
by the EAGGF is part of the national section of the CSF and consumed almost all its appropriations for 
1995. This was due to the excellent progress made by certain measures, such as those under 
Objective 5(a), the completion of projects commenced earlier and forestry measures. In 1995 the 
44 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
programme was allocated a further ECU 13.3 million following the indexing of the CSF, so that new 
measures could be launched. The situation with regard to the regional section of the CSF is more 
complex because of the great variety of assistance and the plethora of aid schemes, the innovative nature 
of many of the rural development measures and the introduction of new management arrangements for 
the regional OPs. Progress was therefore slower than expected. However, all the initial teething troubles 
were resolved in 1995 and most of the delays should be made up in 1996. In general, the regional OPs 
are progressing faster than the national OPs. This is because they involve smaller-scale projects and 
could therefore be launched more quickly, while major projects require new implementing structures to 
be set up first. 
Agricultural structures and rural development: some important achievements 
• 170 000 holdings received compensatory allowances; 
• 1 327 new investment plans were approved; 
• 900 ha were reafforested, 630 ha of national forests and parks improved, 
1 160 ha of ravines improved, 2 030 ha of forest protected; 
• 58 water management projects were completed and 8 important new projects 
started; 
• 420 ha of vine (affected by phylloxera) were included in the new 
programme. 
The institutional framework and the arrangements for coordination of the network were set up for the 
human resources priority. A central agency is responsible for planning and general programming. It also 
coordinates "observatories" of trends in industry, the labour market and skills and qualifications. 
Another of its tasks is to develop training specifications and study programmes, as well as generally 
monitoring the implementation of continuing training activities. In addition, arrangements for the 
certification of continuing training have been introduced. Under these arrangements approval was given 
first to training centres and then to instructuors and continuing training courses. The objective of 
certifying thos responsible for training and instructors is to ensure that continuing training is compatible 
with the initial training system run by the Ministry for National Education. 
The fisheries OP was implemented in two phases in 1995. In the first phase the national authorities 
adopted the legal framework for the application of the OP; in the second phase the first ministerial 
decisions were taken concerning potential beneficiaries and measures were implemented. The 
Monitoring Committee held two meetings, which helped to speed up the launching of the first measures 
under the programme, particularly those concerning sea fisheries. 80% of FIFG appropriations for 1994 
have been paid to Greece and implementation of measures progressed well enough for the 1995 
appropriations to be committed. 
Two other programmes were amended in 1995: the industry and services OP and the environment OP. 
The amendments were decided by the Monitoring Committee and concern only financial 
reprogramming to take account of delays in launching the programmes. This late start was caused by the 
major legislative and preparatory work needed because of the innovative nature of some of the measures. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 45 
New structures: 
Success of the Greek CSF depends on the creation of effective implementing 
structures, such as agencies for the construction of motorways and railways, 
realization of the cadastral survey, etc. (Egnatia S.A., Ergose, Cadastre). These 
agencies were set up in 1995 and have already started to function. 
Another major innovation is the two structures provided for in the CSF, never 
before seen in Greece, the "one-stop-sliop" for productive investments and the 
"management organization unit" to improve the management and monitoring 
of the CSF. These innovations will help to improve the quality of 
implementation of structural operations in Greece. 
Considerable effort has also been made to improve the public works system. 
Great progress has been made on the public works programme and many of the 
points have already been implemented and become law (e.g. the amendment to 
the basic law on public works and the adoption of presidential decrees, circulars 
and ministerial decisions). 
1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
The CSF has taken up 70% of total appropriations for 1995 and an aggregate of 55% for 1994 and 1995. 
Progress made in 1995 on the implementation of OPs and major projects made it possible to commit and 
pay large amounts (ECU 2 653 million committed and ECU Î 706 million paid). ERDF commitments 
have already exceeded forecasts and the ERDF allocation for Greece for 1995 (ECU 1 813 million 
committed instead of ECU 1 405 million). 
Table 12: Objective 1 - Greece - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SFassistance 
(I) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3V(2) 
1995 
Muttircgional OPs 
OP Culture, tourism 
OP Postal services 
OP Telecommunications 795,6 
117,1 
321,8 229,1 
78,0 
172,7 19,5 
10,8 
45.9 19,5 
10,8 
45,9 8% 
14% 
27% 9,7 
0,5 
1,7 9.7 
0,5 
1.7 50% 
4% 
4% 
1994 
Regional (IPs 
OP Attica 
OP Crete 
OP Northern Aegean 
OP Southern Aegean 
OP Epirus 
OP Continental Gieece 
OP Western Gieece 
OP Ionian Islands 
OP Central Macedonia 
OP Western Macedonia 
OP Macedonia-Thrace 
OP Péloponnèse 
OP Thessaly 
Muttircgional OPs 
OP Agriculture 
OP Railways 
OP Urban development (underground railway] 
OP Education and basic training 
OP Energy 
OP Environment 
OP Social exclusion 
OP Continuing training 
OP Natural gas 
OP Industry and services 
OP Modernization of the civil service 
OP Fisheries, Aquactulture 
OP Research and technology 
OP Roads-Ports-Airports 
OP Health and prevention 938,6 
435,3 
327,9 
380,0 
346,9 
623.0 
501,6 
228,2 
816,9 
308,1 
689,0 
440,2 
560,9 
2.795,3 
490,1 
1.566,0 
1.847,6 
946,3 
515,0 
328,0 
1.283,0 
825,4 
2.808,9 
305,4 
311,7 
579,3 
3.182,4 
339,0 
TOTAL 25.954,6 685.7 
312,3 
210,2 
224,1 
236,5 
371,8 
301,5 
170,7 
588,5 
219,4 
494,3 
286,0 
375,8 
1.247,7 
294,1 
783,0 
1.385,7 
352,1 
376,7 
246,0 
756.0 
354,6 
720,0 
168,6 
150,0 
316,2 
1.327,4 
226,4 
13.661,1 195,9 
84,2 
58,3 
32,9 
57,8 
54,1 
44,3 
24,7 
86,5 
31,9 
72,7 
42,0 
55,2 
354,0 
85,9 
294,5 
205,6 
108,3 
57,6 
35,0 
105,0 
75,8 
110,2 
25,0 
22,3 
48,4 
205,6 
3,1 298,7 
131,0 
89,8 
66,6 
93,2 
109,9 
89,5 
50,3 
174,8 
64,4 
146,8 
84,9 
111,6 
535,4 
138,1 
411,0 
395,8 
152.7 
95,3 
68,8 
208,8 
116,5 
182,2 
48,2 
42,8 
80,0 
455,9 
25,7 
2.653,0| 4.544,9 44% 
42% 
43% 
30% 
39% 
30% 
30% 
29% 
30% 
29% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
43% 
47% 
52% 
29% 
43% 
25% 
28% 
28% 
33% 
25% 
29% 
29% 
25% 
34% 
11% 
33% 106,5 
49,7 
32,7 
26.7 
24.0 
56,8 
45.2 
26,4 
90,1 
34,5 
74,4 
17,6 
59,6 
253,3 
84,4 
119.7 
157,2 
55.0 
30,3 
23,3 
79,6 
62,3 
56,3 
13,5 
5,3 
32,8 
75,1 
1,6 
1.705,8 158,0 
73,1 
48,5 
43.5 
41,7 
84.7 
67,9 
39,2 
134,2 
50.7 
111,5 
39,1 
87,7 
405,8 
110,5 
212,9 
252.2 
77.2 
49,1 
40,2 
131,5 
94,9 
92,3 
25,1 
15,6 
48,6 
200,3 
12,9 
2.760,7 53% 
56% 
54% 
65% 
45% 
77% 
76% 
78% 
77% 
79% 
76% 
46% 
79% 
76% 
80% 
52% 
64% 
51% 
52% 
58% 
63% 
81% 
51% 
52% 
36% 
61% 
44% 
50% 
61% 
46 7th Annual Report on the. Structural Funds (1995) 
It should be remembered that for practical purposes 1995 was the year in which the OPs under the CSF 
for 1989-93 were finally terminated. National payments were extended into 1995 (up to 30 September 
1995 for most OPs) and the amounts still not spent on the OPs and Community Initiatives could 
therefore be fully utilized. 
SPAIN 
CSF programming for 1994-99 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Adjustments to the system of production (a) 
Human resources (b) 
Access to isolated areas (c) 
Basic infrastructure (d) 
Total 
% Total 
9075,4 
8779,8 
6.517,6 
1.927,2 
26.300,0 
100% ERDF 
4.340,4 
3.159,0 
6.517,6 
1 927,2 
15.944,2 
61% ESF 
426,2 
5.620,8 
6.047,0 
23% EAGGF 
3.313,8 
3.313,8 
13% FIFG 
995,0 
995,0 
4% (d) 7% 
(a) 35% 
(C) 25% 
(b) 33% 
Since 1 February 1994, 33 regional OPs, 13 multi-regional OPs and seven global grants have been 
approved for Spain. Of the ECU 26 300 million allocated to Spanish Objective 1 regions in the CSF, 
94% (ECU 24 668 million) have therefore been programmed for the different forms of assistance. 
New programmes adopted in 1995 
Seven new operations were adopted in 1995, with Community assistance totalling ECU 627.2 million. 
These operations include four global grants, all under the main priority of the CSF, namely adjustment 
and development of the production structure. These global grants are for the regions of Salamanca, 
Castile-Leôn and Andalusia and for SMEs. The global grant for Salamanca will be implemented by 
"Consorcio Salamanca Emprende", a public body set up by agreement between the province, the 
municipality of Salamanca and partners such as the chamber of commerce, the unions and the university. 
Its main objective is economic development (investments in industry, crafts and services, RDT 
measures, promotion of local products and the region's tourist image, creation of a service centre for 
businesses) and the provision of technical assistance to change the mentality of local operators and 
encourage them to invest in their businesses. The global grant for Castile-Leôn is to be implemented by 
a public company the "Sociedad para el Desarrollo Industrial de Castillo y Leôn SA" intended to 
stimulate the development and consolidation of entrepreneurial projects seeking to modernize and 
diversify the region's industry. It will achieve this by offering venture capital formulas or technical 
assistance to entrepreneurs. The global grant for Andalusia, which is the largest global grant adopted in 
financial terms (ECU 223.9 million), will be implemented by the regional authorities and has three 
objectives: modernization of productive structures by supporting investments in businesses (industry and 
services, mainly tourism), technological modernization of businesses and upgrading of human resources. 
Lastly, the non-regional global grant, to be implemented by the Council of Chambers of Commerce, 
Industry and Navigation, focuses on internationalizing SMEs by means of measures to prepare for 
external promotion and support, information and promotion measures. 
The three other operations approved in 1995 are single-fund OPs. The first provides for ESF assistance 
in Cantabria (ECU 8.96 million) and the other two are EAGGF programmes worth ECU 355.8 million 
for Andalusia and technical assistance. Adoption of the multi-regional programme for economic 
diversification in rural areas would mean that all the CSF appropriations for the EAGGF had been 
programmed. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 47 
Implementation in 1995 
Environmental concerns have, for the first time, been integrated into all the operations provided for 
under the Spanish CSF, through the national strategic plan for the environment. This concern can be 
seen in the objectives and the priorities for assistance. The objectives concern persistant problems in 
Spain: the fight against desertification (reafforestation, forest hydrology, combating erosion and 
forest fires) ; improvement of water quality and water management (with the objective of reducing 
demand, particularly in farming); management of human and industrial waste; promotion of 
renewable sources of energy; upgrading the urban environment by means of mechanisms to 
coordinate the different authorities (urban planning, traffic in and around cities, noise, atmospheric 
pollution). 
The CSF priority relating to human resources includes a subpriority containing training measures in 
sectors concerned with the environment, with an ERDF allocation of ECU 1 730 million. However, 
most of the environmental measures can be found under the priority relating to the development of 
infrastructure and concern either energy or water. This priority has an ERDF allocation of 
ECU 1 927 million and accounts for 7.3% of total Community funding to the CSF. Water 
infrastructure alone will receive ECU 1 304 million (43% of the environment budget). In all, the 
direct investment for the environment in Spain (training and water infrastructure) represents 
ECU 3 034 million, or 11.5% of CSF appropriations. 
Most of the decisions approving investments in 1995 had to contain suspensory clauses because, on the 
one hand, of the time lag between the official date when the programming was launched and the 
commencement of implementation and, on the other hand, the very large number of aid schemes part-
financed by the Structural Funds which need to be scrutinized for compliance with Articles 92 and 93 of 
the Treaty. EAGGF assistance progressed satisfactorily on the whole, with all the programmed 
appropriations committed except for the OP for Cantabria, which was delayed. By contrast, part of the 
1996 instalment for the OP for Objective 5(a) measures was already committed in 1995. It is also worth 
noting that most operations were reprogrammed at the request of the Spanish authorities. It should be 
stressed that commitment appropriations were fully utilized. 
With regard to operations in the fisheries sector, implementation of the fisheries OP did not commence 
until 1995 because it was not adopted until December 1994. 60% of the 1994 instalment was 
implemented, so that the second advance for the financial year could be paid to the Member State and 
the 1995 instalment could be committed. Nevertheless, the annual timetable had to be reprogrammed, 
with ECU 56 million being transferred from the 1994 instalment to the 1995 instalment and ECU 20 
million from the 1999 instalment to the 1995 instalment10. 
10 For aid granted to crews and shipowners affected by the expiry of the fisheries agreement with Morocco, see also 
Chapter I.A.5.2 (Objective 5(a) fisheries). 
48 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
Table 13: Objective 1 - Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) (2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2)| 
1995 
Regional OPs 
OP Andalusia (3) 
GG Andalusia 
OP Cantabria (2) 
GG Salamanca 
GG Sodical (Castile-Leôn) 
Multiregionul OPs 
GG Chambers of commerce 
OP Technical assistance (3) 575,3 
1.894,5 
12,0 
39,1 
43,1 
37,0 
18.4 342,0 
223,9 
9,0 
12,9 
6,5 
19,2 
13,8 103,7 
67,9 
1.4 
6,3 
3,6 
1,1 
2,0 103,7 
67,9 
1,4 
6,3 
3,6 
1,1 
2,0 30% 
30% 
15% 
49% 
55% 
6% 
14% 51,8 
0,0 
0,7 
3,1 
1,8 
0,0 
1.0 51,8 
0,0 
0,7 
3,1 50% 
0% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
0% 
50% 
1994 
Regional OPs 
OP Andalusia (2) 
OP Andalusia (1) 
OP Asturias (3) 
OP Asturias (I) 
OP Asturias (2) 
OP Canary Islands (1) 
OP Canary Islands (2) 
OP Canary Islands (3) 
OP Castile-Leon (3) 
OP Castile-Leon (2) 
OP Castile-Leon (1) 
OP Castile-La-Mancha (1) 
OP Castile-La-Mancha (3) 
OP Castile-La-Mancha (2) 
OP Ceuta (1) 
OP Extremadura (3) 
OP Extremadura (1) 
OP Extremadura (2) 
OP Galicia (3) 
OP Galicia (1) 
OP Galicia (2) 
OP Melilla 
OP Murcia (2) 
OP Murcia (3) 
OP Murcia(l) 
GG M urcia 
OP Cantabria multiregional (3) 
OP Cantabria multiregional (1) 
OP Cantabria regional (1) 
OP Valencia (1) 
OP Valencia (2) 
OP Valencia (3) 
M u I tir eg io nul OPs 
OP Regional assistance 
GG Competitiveness ofSMEs 
OP Donana Phase 2(4) 
OP Local environment 
OP FORCEM 
OP Food industry 
OP 1NEM 
OP Scientific infrastructure 
OP Local 
OP M inistries 
OP Ministry of Education 
OP Autonomous bodies 
OP Fisheries 
GG Industrial technology 434,0 
5.559,0 
116,5 
1.398,5 
41,6 
1.179,4 
215,2 
154,4 
746,3 
172,6 
2.752,3 
1.779,5 
628,5 
47,5 
70,9 
307,1 
1.577,5 
209,9 
464,1 
2.493,4 
242,0 
82,4 
59,4 
127,3 
767,3 
562,3 
110,8 
536,6 
158,6 
3.691,7 
413,2 
274,2 
3 125,9 
300,9 
213,9 
828,6 
447,6 
3.028,6 
3 426,3 
479,4 
812,5 
52,9 
1.935,8 
416,6 
2 158,0 
482,5 
TOTAL 325,5 
2.938,9 
81,1 
809,2 
31,2 
694,7 
182,9 
80,7 
381,1 
129,4 
1.612,6 
936,6 
288,4 
35,6 
47,4 
174,8 
1.011,9 
167,9 
303,5 
1.544,5 
181,5 
42,1 
44,6 
55.6 
487,3 
79,2 
54,3 
343,0 
105,0 
1.207,9 
309,9 
103,5 
387,0 
210,6 
146,6 
580,6 
262,5 
1.220,0 
2.569,8 
342,2 
580,6 
39,7 
1.451,9 
312,4 
995,0 
150,2 
24.668,3 50,3 
478,4 
12,8 
206,8 
5,1 
266,8 
29,7 
11,1 
58,1 
0,0 
228,1 
187,5 
46,7 
5,9 
13,3 
30,7 
124,5 
0,0 
44,5 
519,8 
25,5 
12,1 
0,0 
9,3 
160,1 
0,0 
0,0 
105,0 
0,2 
507,9 
64,2 
17,5 
85,7 
36,0 
0,0 
0,0 
41,3 
234,7 
411,2 
72,7 
96,8 
0,0 
146,5 
56,8 
167,9 
21,5 
4.778,9 74,0 
1 033,9 
25,2 
303,0 
10,5 
368,4 
54,8 
29,8 
105,3 
19,7 
403,0 
310,1 
85,2 
11,7 
28,3 
47,4 
216,2 
21,4 
82,5 
806,6 
48,8 
15,9 
5,6 
17,4 
228,7 
12,3 
5,3 
134,7 
14,6 
726,3 
127,3 
32,4 
164,5 
66,7 
57,8 
96,8 
97,5 
443,5 
776,2 
135,6 
193,5 
5,6 
319,0 
92,7 
304,5 
26,5 
8.372,4 23% 
35% 
31% 
37% 
34% 
53% 
30% 
37% 
28% 
15% 
25% 
33% 
30% 
33% 
60% 
27% 
21% 
13% 
27% 
52% 
27% 
38% 
13% 
31% 
47% 
16% 
10% 
39% 
14% 
60% 
41% 
31% 
43% 
32% 
39% 
1 7% 
37% 
36% 
30% 
40% 
33% 
14% 
22% 
30% 
31% 
18% 
34% 37,0 
549,4 
13,9 
111,7 
6,8 
225,0 
14,8 
14,5 
60,7 
0,0 
235,0 
211,3 
34,9 
6,6 
15,1 
20,4 
127,1 
0,0 
47,0 
315,1 
28,7 
7,2 
0,0 
7,1 
94,5 
0,0 
1,6 
39,7 
0,1 
340,4 
70,8 
18,5 
108.0 
53,4 
0,0 
0,0 
20,6 
183,4 
388,1 
21,2 
29,0 
0,0 
159,5 
32 2 
41,0 
22,5 
3.772,2 48,9 
827,1 
20,1 
159,8 
8,3 
275,9 
27,4 
23,8 
84,2 
9,8 
322,4 
272,6 
54,2 
8,5 
22,6 
28,7 
172,9 
10,7 
66,0 
458,5 
37,4 
9,1 
2,1 
11,1 
128,8 
6,1 
4,2 
54,5 
7,3 
449,6 
95,2 
25.9 
147,4 
53,4 
28,9 
48,4 
48,8 
319,9 
570,5 
52,7 
77,4 
2,8 
245,7 
50 
109,2 
22,5 
5370,0 66% 
80% 
80% 
53% 
78% 
75% 
50% 
80% 
80% 
50% 
80% 
88% 
64% 
73% 
80% 
61% 
80% 
50% 
80% 
57% 
77% 
57% 
37% 
64% 
56% 
50% 
80% 
40% 
50% 
62% 
75% 
80% 
90% 
80% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
72% 
74% 
39% 
40% 
50% 
77% 
54% 
36% 
85% 
67% 
(1) Single-fund OP - ERDF 
(2) Single-fund OP - ESF 
(3) Single-fund OP -EAGGF 
(4) Including appropriations implemented under budget heading B2-1820 (transitional ar.d innovative measures) 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 49 
FRANCE 
SPD programming for 1994-99 
A vcsncs-Douai-Valencicnncs 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Stimulation of economic activity (a) 
Research and development (b) 
Human resources (c) 
Regional regeneration (d) 
Technical assistance (e) 
Total 
% Total 
141,8 
38,6 
92,5 
165,1 
2,0 
440,0 
100% ERDF 
100,8 
34,1 
43,9 
128,4 
0.9 
308,1 
70% ESF 
22,3 
4,5 
48,6 
6,1 
0,9 
82,4 
19% EAGGF 
18,7 
30,6 
0,2 
49,5 
11% (e) 0,01% 
(d) 38% (a 32% 
(b) 9% 
(c) 21% 
SPD programming for 1994-99 
Corsica 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Reducing isolation (a) 
Agricultural and marine production (b) 
Universities, research (c) 
Tourist and cultural heritage (d) 
Environment (e) 
Economic development (0 
Human resources (g) 
Technical assistance (h) 
Total 
% Total 
67,9 
72,4 
12,5 
15,0 
30,7 
18,3 
31,0 
2,1 
249,9 
100% ERDF 
67,9 
1,5 
12,5 
15,0 
30,7 
18,3 
0,6 
0,9 
147,4 
59% ESF 
30,4 
0,6 
31,0 
12% EAGGF 
63,4 
0,6 
64,0 
26% FIFG 
7,5 
7,5 
3% (g)12% <h)1% 
(f) 7% 
(e) 12% (a) 27% 
(d) 6% 
(C) 5% (b) 30% 
SPD programming for 1994-99 
Overseas departments 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Access, spatial balance (a) 
Environment and infrastructures (b) 
Production, competitiveness, industry, 
crafts (c) 
Human resources, social balance (d) 
Agriculture, rural development (e) 
Fisheries and aquaculture (f) 
Tourism (g) 
Technical assistance (h) 
Total 
% Total 
214,6 
305,9 
279,7 
394,3 
242,7 
24,5 
21,1 
16,4 
1.499,2 
100% ERDF 
202,7 
291,1 
178,6 
35,1 
21,1 
9,8 
738,4 
49% ESF 
1,8 
46,3 
359,2 
4,8 
412,1 
27% EA GGF 
10,1 
14,8 
48,7 
242,7 
1,7 
318,0 
21% FIFG 
6,1 
24,5 
0,1 
30,7 
2% (g) 1% 
(e)i6% (f) 1% i <h>1% (a) 14% 
(d)27% 
(b) 20% 
(c) 19% 
Implementation in 1995 
Environmental concerns in the French SPDs are very varied because of the diversity of the regions 
themselves. In all, they represent a Community contribution of almost ECU 323 million (15% of 
Objective 1 appropriations in France). In the overseas departments, the main concern is water: in 
Guadeloupe (environmental priority: ECU 39.6 million from the ERDF and the EAGGF), the main 
investment is a major irrigation project financed by the EAGGF; in Martinique (environmental 
priority: ECU 50.5 million from the ERDF) the chief concern is protection against water and floods; 
in Réunion (environmental priority: ECU 178.5 million from the ERDF), appropriations are 
concentrated on water management for irrigation purposes; in French Guiana (environmental 
priority: ECU 18.9 million from the ERDF), about half of the measures concern upgrading the M>ater 
system, to which should be added a further ECU 2 million from the EAGGF for exploration and 
protection of biodiversity in the tropical forest. In Corsica, environmental protection (ECU 30.7 
million from the ERDF) concerns measures to clean up the coastline and treat household waste (84% 
of the environment priority), and to upgrade the heritage, i.e. restoration of buildings using 
traditional materials. Lastly, in Nord Pas-de-Calais, the lion's share of the Community's contribution 
to the environment will go towards the rehabilitation of derelict industrial and urban sites and 
industrial pollution management (ECU29.1 million from the ERDF), as well as to research and 
environmental technologies (ECU 11.3 million from the ERDF) and training in this field 
(ECU 9 000 000 from the ESF). 
50 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
The six French SPDs (Corsica, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion and Avesnes-Douai-
Valenciennes in Nord Pas-de-Calais) were approved by the Commission in July 1994 and represent total 
assistance from the Structural Funds worth ECU 2 189 million. These SPDs have been rather slow to get 
underway. There are still problems with the monitoring of Community programmes in French Guiana, 
since the planned "Cellule Europe" has not yet been set up. However, the national and regional 
authorities have made a real effort to develop more specific methods for gathering information on 
projects at local level and to pass the information on selection criteria for projects and lists of projects on 
to the Monitoring Committees. In three of the six regions, the assessment structure is already in place or 
being set up. 
In the context of partnership, a workshop was organized in Réunion with regional officials on 21-
23 November 1995 to discuss matters relating to the implementation of Community programmes such as 
management of the Structural Funds and development engineering. 
1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
With the exception of Corsica and Martinique, where there is considerable delay and where no ERDF 
financial operation took place in 1995, all the other regions (Guadeloupe, Réunion, Nord Pas-de-Calais 
and French Guiana) declared sufficient expenditure to enable the Commission to commit the 1995 
instalment of the programmes and to pay the second advance on the 1994 instalment. However, only 
Guadeloupe and French Guiana declared enough expenditure (60% of the 1994 instalment) to trigger 
payments from the first advance on the 1995 instalment. With regard to fisheries, fewer than ten projects 
were adopted for each of the regions, with the exception of Corsica, where the programme is progressing 
at a satisfactory rate. 
Table 14: Objective 1 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD Hainaut 
SPD Corsica 
SPD Guadeloupe 
SPD French Guiana 
SPD M art inique 
SPD Réunion 
TOTAL 1.339,6 
679,4 
794,2 
304,4 
620,7 
1.267,2 
5.005,4 440,0 
249,9 
344,8 
164,9 
329,8 
659,7 
2.189,2 9,4 
14,2 
54,0 
8,1 
24,4 
112,2 
222,4 69,9 
48,5 
100,6 
26,9 
57,6 
194,2 
497,6 16% 
19% 
29% 
1 6% 
1 7% 
29% 
23% 8,9 
10,5 
32,4 
7,6 
21,9 
66,2 
14 7,4 40,0 
27,4 
56,0 
17,0 
38,5 
107,9 
286,7 57% 
56% 
56% 
63% 
67% 
56% 
58% 
Lastly, at the request of the French authorities the deadlines for payment by the national authorities to 
final beneficiaries were extended for several programmes from the previous programming period (1989-
93). 
IRELAND 
CSF programming for 1994-99 
Priorities 
Productive sector (a) 
Economic infrastructure (b) 
Human resources (c) 
Local development (d) 
Technical assistance (e) 
Total 
% Total 
2 508,0 
1 1 13,0 
1.732,0 
257,0 
10,0 
5.620,0 
100% ERDF 
1.099,0 
1.113,0 
160,0 
180,0 
10,0 
2.562,0 
46% ESF 
324,0 
1.572,0 
57,0 
1.953,0 
35% EAGGF 
1.038,0 
20,0 
1.058,0 
19% FIFG 
47,0 
47,0 
1% (d) 5% (e) o,2% 
(c) 31% (a) 44% 
(b) 20% 
New operations adopted in 1995 
The only new operation adopted in 1995 for Ireland concerned ERDF assistance to a major project 
within the meaning of Article 16(2) of the Coordination Regulation, the Tallaght Hospital. ERDF 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 51 
assistance amounts to ECU 39.4 million, a 30% contribution to the total cost of ECU 131.2 million11 
This is the first time that the ERDF has been involved in an operation in the health field in Ireland. The 
project concerns the construction and fitting out of the Tallaght university hospital in Dublin, which will 
have 513 beds and should create some 1 500 jobs directly and a further 1 100 indirectly. 
Implementation in 1995 
Environmental concerns are the subject of a subpriority included in the priority relating to economic 
infrastructure in the CSF which is being implemented in the form of an OP with ECU 78 million from 
the ERDF (1.4%> of Community appropriations). The programme focuses on water supplies, treatment 
of waste water, water supply systems, management of urban and dangerous waste, management and 
protection of coastlines and environmental monitoring and research. 
Implementation of the Irish OPs proceeded normally in 1995. Only the OP for industry, which also 
includes measures for the food industry, ran behind schedule because of delays in starting up. The slight 
overall delay will probably be made good thanks to an increase in payment rates in 1996VProgress in 
attaining the quantified objectives (macro- and micro-economic indicators) fixed in the CSF is 
satisfactory. Only the technical assistance programme (with ECU 10 million of Structural Fund 
assistance), has yet to be adopted. This should happen early in 1996. 
Implementation of the agriculture and rural development OP is in full swing, with the exception of a few 
measures. Expenditure is in line with the financing plan. Certain measures are very popular, particularly 
that concerning the control of farm pollution. Other measures have been suspended due to lack of 
appropriations. During 1995 an independent consultant studied the compensatory allowance system and 
the balance between income support and development measures. 
In the fisheries sector, a total of 155 projects funded by the FIFG were approved, relating to 
modernization of the fleet, aquaculture and marketing/promotion of products. The total investment in 
these projects amounts to ECU 31 million. 
Monitoring of operations is being carried out at three levels: the Monitoring Committee for the CSF, the 
Monitoring Committees for each of the OPs and the committees of the eight regional authorities. The 
Monitoring Committee for the CSF is made up of representatives of the ministries involved, the 
Commission and the EIB. The Monitoring Committees for the OPs consist of representatives of the 
social partners as well as the officials concerned. By way of example, the Committee coordinating 
human resource measures, responsible for monitoring horizontal matters affecting the quality and 
effectiveness of the training system, met for the first time in 1995. It examined the progress made by 
measures part-financed by the ESF throughout the CSF, as well as the measures concerning the training 
of instructors, equal opportunities and certification. At regional level, the representatives of voluntary 
organizations and local authorities are involved in the committees alongside representatives of public 
authorities and agencies and the social partners. The Monitoring Committees of the chief OPs are 
assisted by permanent, independent external assessors. In addition, three full-time evaluation units have 
been set up and a fourth will be created at the beginning of 1996. These units will evaluate specific 
aspects of the CSFs and OPs and will help the external assessors. They will also help to prepare the mid­
term review for all the programmes. 
1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
Although payments for 1994 were lower than expected (ECU 513 million, as against an initial forecast 
of ECU 771 million), most of the lag was made good by the end of 1995. Payments by the Structural 
Funds in 1995 amounted to ECU 856 million out of an initial budget of ECU 834 million. 85% of the 
appropriations planned for the first two years have thus been paid. 
See also Annex 6 Major projects adopted in 1995. 
52 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 15: Objective J - Ireland - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
0) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1995 
MP Tallaght hospital | 131,2| 39,41 39,41 39,4| 100% | 3l,5| "' 31,5 j 80% 
1994 
OP Agriculture, rural development 
OP Local development 
OP Industry 
OP Economic infrastructure 
OP Fisheries 
OP Human resources 
OP Environmental services 
OP Tourism 
OP Transport 
TOTAL 1.791,4 
420,1 
2.843,7 
319,6 
177,0 
2362,3 
125,6 
805,9 
1.406,2 
10.383,1 956,7 
257,0 
1.029,0 
108,0 
78,0 
1.732,1 
78,0 
456,3 
888,0 
5.622,5 160,1 
33,6 
127,1 
10,3 
12,3 
266,1 
6,2 
51,5 
247,6 
954,2 299,4 
54,8 
261,1 
11,9 
20,5 
541,9 
24,0 
94,0 
333,2 
1.680,1 31% 
21% 
25% 
11% 
26% 
31% 
31% 
21% 
38% 
30% 178,6 
22,1 
102,9 
8,7 
10,6 
264,9 
10,3 
51,0 
175,8 
856,5 263,0 
32,7 
196,0 
9,5 
14,7 
481,6 
19,2 
77,2 
244,2 
1.369,6 88% 
60% 
75% 
80% 
72% 
89% 
80% 
82% 
73% 
82% 
ITALY 
CSFprogrammin g for 1994-99 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Communications (a) 
Industry, crafts (b) 
Tourism (c) 
Rural development (d) 
Fisheries (e) 
Economic infrastructure (f) 
Human resources (g) 
Technical assistance (h) 
Total Total 
2.159,6 
3.707,5 
862,1 
2.340,7 
257,4 
3.235,9 
2 209,1 
87,7 
14.860,0 
100% ERDF 
2 159,6 
3.557,2 
774,6 
55,0 
2.992,5 
61,4 
59,7 
9.660,0 
65% ESF 
150,3 
87.5 
57,7 
24,4 
243,4 
2.147,7 
28,0 
2.739,0 
18% EAGGF 
2.228,0 
2.228,0 
15% FIFG 
233,0 
233,0 
2% (9) 15 % (h) 1% (a) i< 
(f) 21% 
(b) 24% 
(d)16% (°) 
The CSF for the Italian Objective 1 regions (Mezzogiorno) provides for total expenditure of ECU 32 440 
million, of which ECU 14 860 million will come from the Community. The CSF is being implemented 
by 13 multiregional OPs, 10 regional OPs and one major project, adopted in 1994 and 1995. 
New programmes adopted in 1995 
During 1995 a total of 11 operations were adopted, with total assistance from the Structural Funds 
amounting to ECU 8 085 million. Six of these operations are regional OPs, representing ECU 4 289 
million of Community assistance, and four are multiregional programmes. One of these alone, the OP 
for industry, accounts for 26% of total ERDF assistance allocated to the Mezzogiorno and includes part-
financing of the general Italian aid scheme for productive investment. Lastly, a major project was 
adopted for Calabria, at Gioia Tauro (ECU 40 million towards a planned total cost of ECU 120 
million)12. This major project within the meaning of Article 16(2) of the Coordination Regulation 
concerns the conversion of the Gioia Tauro port into a large container port specializing in transhipment 
in order to adapt its basic infrastructure to trends in world sea transport. The project should create 1 500 
jobs directly and indirectly. 
A little less than 10% of the total resources from the ERDF has yet to be programmed at national level, 
particularly for the multiregional OPs for energy, environment and technical assistance, regional and 
multiregional operations to be implemented by means of global grants (to be managed at national level) 
and certain major projects (the Messina-Palermo motorway). Commitments relating to the coming years 
will depend on these programmes being adopted and on the progress (in terms of national expenditure) 
of the programmes which have already been approved. 
12 See also Annex 6 Major projects adopted in 1995. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 53 
Implementation in 1995 
Some of the delay in implementation of the CSF in 1994 was retrieved in 1995. Italy's difficulties in 
utilizing Community funds, which were also very visible in the previous programming period, can be 
put down to weaknesses in the national political and administrative context. In order to improve the 
general implementing conditions for Community assistance in Italy, the Commission and the Italian 
Government concluded an agreement on 26 July 1995. At the conference for the State and the regions 
held on 29 September 1995, this was extended to include the regions and autonomous provinces. Under 
this agreement, the Italian Government will strengthen central and regional administrative structures, 
improve the implementing procedures for part-financed measures, strengthen technical assistance, 
particularly the arrangements for the monitoring, evaluation and control of the programmes, and 
guarantee financial cover for national matching funds. This agreement must be implemented if 
Community appropriations are to be better utilized during this programming period. At the end of 1995 
the Italian Government showed that it had taken a series of initiatives, particularly during the second half 
of the year, relating to administrative structures, the setting up of new integrated arrangements for 
monitoring and for procedures to select external experts and the making available of counterpart funds. 
These initiatives are a concrete manifestation of the spirit of the agreement and augur well for 
improvements in the conditions in which programmes are managed. 
The environment is the subject of two subpriorities in the Italian CSF, both of which are included in 
the priority relating to infrastructures. The first subpriority deals with water resources (ECU 1 119 
million from the ERDF), with the objective of increasing available resources and improving 
distribution, as well as reducing losses during supply and rationalizing management and 
maintenance. The second subpriority relates to environmental protection (ECU 748 million from the 
ERDF and the ESF), with the objective of cleaning up particularly rundown and polluted areas, 
eliminating situations presenting a serious danger to the environment, safeguarding the natural 
heritage and promoting public environmental services (water and urban waste). Together, the two 
subpriorities represent a Community contribution worth ECU 1 867 million, or 12.6%> of the 
appropriations allocated to the CSF. Half of these appropriations are being implemented at 
multiregional level, the other half at regional level, in each of the regional OPs. At multiregional 
level, the OP for water resources was adopted in 1995 with an ERDF contribution of ECU871 
million, and the environment OP should be adopted in 1996 (with ECU 48 million from the ERDF). 
With regard to EAGGF assistance, the measures in most of the programmes are organized by product 
sector with a view to helping modernize production and marketing in line with market demand. There 
are also measures to assist alternatives to traditional farming, such as farm tourism, rural tourism, small-
scale processing and direct sales of typical traditional farm products. The programmes also include 
research measures and technology transfer and agricultural advisory services. 
Agriculture and rural development - some significant achievements: 
In Sardinia (OP adopted in 1994): 
• 1 300 sheep and goat rearing holdings (417 000 head) received Community 
assistance to improve the health and hygiene conditions for milk production; 
• 32 modernization projects for cheese producing cooperatives; 
• 34 rural tourism projects to breed and train 'Anglo-Arab-Sardinian' horses. 
In Abruzzi (OP adopted in 1995): 
• 160 rural development projects financed, including 110 for rural tourism. 
1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
With regard to financial implementation, the Commission's commitment of appropriations in 1995 was 
satisfactory in relation to the amounts provided for in the CSF, except for ESF commitments, which fell 
well short of forecasts. However, insufficient funds were committed to fully make up for the delay in 
1994, so that at the end of 1995 there was a shortfall in commitments of ECU 1.2 billion. In terms of 
implementation in the field (i.e. expenditure by the implementing authorities), the situation of the 
54 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
programmes remained critical in 1995. In all, at the end of the second year of the programming period, 
only 2% of total appropriations for the six years had been spent. 
Table 16: Objective 1 - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payn-ents 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
l y y 3 • • • 
OP Abruzzi 
OP Abruzzi (1) 
OP Calabria (1) 
MP Gioia Tauro Port 
OP Campania 
OP Apulia 
OP Sicily 
M ultiregional OPs 
OP Industry and services 
OP Agricultural advisory services (1) 
OP W ater resources 
OP Tourism 333,4 
167,1 
482,0 
120,0 
2 890,8 
2.406,4 
2.603,1 
4.962,4 
231,4 
2.008,3 
302,8 150,5 
83,9 
241,0 
40,0 
1.327,9 
1 148,4 
1.337,2 
2,592,7 
162,0 
871,0 
130,0 75,0 
59,4 
76,2 
40,0 
124,0 
203,7 
189,4 
746,9 
34,4 
140,7 
22,2 91,5 
59,4 
76,2 
40,0 
177,2 
203,7 
189,4 
750,3 
34,4 
140,7 
22,2 61% 
71% 
32% 
100% 
13% 
1 8% 
14% 
29% 
21% 
16% 
17% 37,5 
30,7 
41,8 
0,0 
63,2 
92,9 
74,1 
373,5 
17,2 
70,3 
11,1 45,8 
30,7 
41,8 
0,0 
89,8 
92,9 
74,1 
375,2 
17,2 
70,3 
11,1 50% 
52% 
55% 
0% 
51% 
46% 
39% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
1994 
Regional OPs 
OP Basilicata 
OP Calabria 
OP Molise 
OP Sardinia 
Multiregional OPs 
OP "Emergency" Employment 
OP Training for instructors 
OP Training for migrant workers 
OP Ministry of Education 
OP Fisheries 
OP Research and development 
OP Telecommunications 
OP Rail transport 
OP Technical assistance (2) 
TOTAL 1.129,5 
1 308,0 
522,7 
2.103,4 
524,0 
271,4 
29,5 
395,0 
560,0 
1.341,3 
1 076,1 
1.756.6 
112,1 
27.637,4 583,2 
580,3 
292,0 
967,1 
355,7 
184,0 
20,0 
254,0 
233,0 
784,0 
376,7 
701,0 
76,0 
13.491,6 51,7 
1,0 
26,8 
50,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
48,9 
34,6 
8,2 
102,3 
192,6 
0,0 
2.228,6 98,1 
72,9 
37,7 
170,6 
32,7 
16,9 
1,8 
68,5 
66,5 
65,9 
215,9 
385,2 
7,0 
3.024,7 17% 
13% 
13% 
18% 
9% 
9% 
9% 
27% 
29% 
8% 
57% 
55% 
9% 
2 2% 29,2 
19,1 
15,5 
25,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
24,4 
0,0 
4,1 
34,1 
211,9 
0,0 
1.176,1 52,4 
36,5 
19,3 
86,9 
16,3 
8,5 
0,9 
34,3 
16,0 
32,9 
90,9 
308,2 
3,5 
1.555,4 53% 
50% 
51% 
51% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
24% 
50% 
42% 
80% 
50% 
5 1 % 
(1) Single-fund OP -EAGGF 
(2) Single-fund ESF 
Furthermore, the unsatisfactory utilization of Community funds under the CSF for the first programming 
period (1989-93) led the Commission to negotiate with the Italian Government, in the context of the 
agreement of 26 July 1995, a final extension of the national payment deadlines until 31 December 1995. 
At the end of 1995, since the Italian Government had undertaken some steps to implement the 
agreement, the extension of the Community payment deadlines was confirmed. This means that the 
Italian authorities now have two years after the deadline for committing national funds to finish paying 
the amounts in question. These extensions have enabled them almost fully to complete the national and 
regional commitments for 1989-93 (100% for the centrally managed OPs and 98.7% for the regionally 
managed OPs), although progress is still required as far as payments are concerned, particularly with 
regard to the regionally managed OPs which, at the end of 1995, had an average implementation rate of 
65% (ranging from 44% for Apulia to 75% for Basilicata). 
NETHERLANDS 
SPD programming for 1994-99 
Priorities 
Industrial promotion (a) 
Tourism (b) 
Agriculture, rural development (c) 
Fisheries (d) 
Human resources (c) 
Business infrastructure (0 
Transport infrastructure (g) 
Research and development (h) 
Technical assistance (i) 
Total 
% Total 
22,0 
5,2 
21,2 
8,2 
28,0 
17,0 
31,4 
14,4 
2,6 
150,0 
100% ERDF 
11,9 
4,3 
0,9 
16,5 
31,0 
14,4 
1,0 
80,0 
53% ESF 
10,1 
0,9 
27,1 
0,5 
0,4 
1,0 
40,0 
27% EA GGF 
21,2 
0,3 
21,5 
14% FIFG 
8,2 
0,3 
8,5 
6% (h) 10% (02% (a)15* 
(g) 21% 
(On (d) 5% 
(e) 19% 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 55 
Implementation in 1995 
The SPD adopted for the Netherlands on 21 June 1994 concerns Flevoland. The total contribution from 
the Structural Funds amounts to ECU 150 million. Implementation of the main project in the 
programme, which concerns the conversion of the highway N27 into a motorway (A27) to improve the 
link between Flevoland and the centre and south of the country, is running according to schedule. 
Another part of the programme concerns employment, providing for aid to firms which create jobs, 
whether they are established in Flevoland or have just established themselves there. The total number of 
participants in measures receiving funding from the ESF in 1995 exceeded expectations (1 788 as 
against 985). The regional employment office has launched some of the more important activities 
provided for in the SPD. This required intensive preparation and the inclusion of new partners, and 
consolidates the basis for activities part-financed by the ESF. 
Environmental protection has no separate priority in the SPD for Flevoland. Instead, environmental 
measures are included in several different priorities: agriculture, tourism and industry. An estimated 
ECU 5 million (3% of the Community's total contribution) will go towards environmental-protection, 
chiefly for measures such as assistance to SMEs to adopt less polluting and more energy-saving 
procedures, measures to control atmospheric and water pollution; reduction in the use of pesticides 
and herbicides, conservation of biodiversity, management of water sheets from the polder, 
decontamination of the Ketelmeer. 
With regard to monitoring and studying the impact of the SPD, the regional authorities of Flevoland 
have developed the DIN network {targets-efforts network) to ensure proper monitoring of the SPE) by 
measuring its impact on the Flevoland economy. The programme was developed in 1995 and will 
become operational in 1996. It is expected, for example, that the projects approved before the end of 
1995 will make it possible to create 1 600 permanent jobs directly, more than 3 000 permanent jobs 
indirectly and almost 2 800 temporary jobs. The objective is to create 15 000 net jobs between 1994 and 
1996. In addition, the University of Wageningen has drawn up a working document for Flevoland 
concerning extremely strict criteria for the selection of agricultural projects and criteria for the appraisal 
of innovative projects as well as their impact on employment in agriculture. Lastly, a seminar was 
organized in 1995 bringing together other Objective 1 regions (Burgenland, Highlands and Islands, 
Northern Ireland, Merseyside, Ireland) to exchange experiences of the implementation of programmes. 
1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
The financial implementation of the SPD has been satisfactory in terms of commitments at national 
level. However, there is a serious delay in payments of EAGGF funds because of the slow start in 
getting measures underway. Thus, at the end of 1995 public expenditure for agriculture amounted to 
ECU 1.3 million, compared with total planned expenditure of ECU 24.8 million for the 1994 and 1995 
instalments. However, in December 1995 the province of Flevoland applied for commitment of the 1995 
instalment of ERDF funding, illustrating that all of the planned projects are progressing normally. 
Similar progress is being made by the fisheries measures financed by the FIFG. 
Table 17: Objective 1 - the Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPD (ECU million) 
SF assistance 
(!) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) Programme and year of adoption Total cost % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
TTJ] ~TH]—T&Ï] Wl—5T%" SPD Flevoland 95877Î 150.01 
56 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
PORTUGAL 
CSF programming for 1994-99 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Human resources and employment (a) 
Economic competitiveness (b) 
Living standards (c) 
Regional economic base (d) 
Technical assistance (e) 
Total 
% Total 
3059,6 
6.306,2 
1.264,0 
3.144,3 
205,9 
13.980,0 
100% ERDF 
918,0 
4.073,2 
936,0 
2661,8 
134,9 
8.723,9 
62% ESF 
2.141,6 
414,0 
328,0 
194,1 
71,0 
3.148,7 
23% EAGGF 
1.637.0 
257,2 
1.894,2 
14% FIFG 
182,0 
31,2 
213,2 
2% (d) 22% (») 1% 
(a) 22% 
(c) 9% 
(b) 46% 
Assistance adopted in 1995 
In 1995 the only Commission approval was of a global grant for municipal investment. The contract 
between the intermediary body and the Commission was signed on 15 November 1995. The Portuguese 
CSF is thus being implemented by means of nine multiregional OPs and seven regional OPs, all adopted 
in 1994, and a global grant adopted in 1995. These operations account for all of the assistance 
programmed in the CSF. 
Implementation in 1995 
On the whole, progress in 1995 was satisfactory. Most of the programmes attained the objectives fixed 
for the year. However, progress was less satisfactory in certain cases, although the delays in the 
programmes in question should be made up thanks to the sustained management effort and monitoring 
undertaken by the Portuguese authorities. 
The environmental measures in the Portuguese CSF come under the priority relating to living 
standards and can also be found in the regional programmes as regional development measures. Very 
substantial funding is provided for in the regional OPs (ECU 1 056 million, or 7.6%> of CSF 
assistance) and concentrates mainly on the supply and distribution of water, collection and treatment 
of urban waste and waste water, reduction of river pollution, protection of the coastline and biotopes 
and public information. Under the living standards priority, the environment and urban renewal are 
the subject of an OP with ECU 559 million from the ERDF for two subprogrammes. The environment 
section (ECU260 million) provides for conservation and upgrading of the natural heritage, 
improvement of the environmental impact of productive activities, information and training measures 
and technical assistance. The urban renewal section (ECU 299 million) provides for the renovation of 
slums and degraded areas, EXPO '98 and technical assistance. 
With regard to programmes which had already been adopted, two additional allocations from the 1995 
indexing operation were granted: one, amounting to ECU 39.1 million, was allocated by the EAGGF 
Guidance Section to the agriculture subprogramme to alleviate the effects of the persistent drought in 
1995, the other, amounting to ECU 14.5 million, by the ESF to the knowledge and innovation OP in 
order to strengthen the vocational aspect of the education subprogramme. 
With regard to the rate of implementation, there is a delay in implementing the OP for the development 
of regional potential. This is mainly due to the innovative nature of the programme and the need for 
many legal instruments in order to decentralize its management (protocols with local development 
associations, banks, etc.). Nevertheless, it is expected that several subprogrammes and measures under 
this OP (rural centres, historic villages, aid schemes) will started in practice at the beginning of 1996. 
The rate of implementation of the urban renewal subprogramme of the environment and urban renewal 
OP is very slow, at 16%). This is partly due to the difficulties encountered in the compulsory purchase of 
land. 
The commerce subprogramme in the economic modernization OP is to be reprogrammed. Its low rate of 
implementation (20% for 1994 and 1995) is due above all to the fact that it finances measures which 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 57 
require a long implementation period. Also in the economic modernization OP, the first six months of 
implementation of the fisheries subprogramme was mainly spent selecting projects and adopting the first 
ministerial decisions on potential beneficiaries, as well as implementing the programmed measures. The 
rate of implementation picked up in the second half of the year and preparations for the evaluation of the 
OPs began. Invitations to tender for the appointment of independent experts are due to be issued at the 
beginning of 1996. The Monitoring Committee held six meetings during 1995, which helped to speed up 
implementation of the first measures. However, in order to compensate for the low rate of 
implementation in 1994, the Monitoring Committee reprogrammed the financial deadlines at its last 
meetings. It also adopted a specific FIFG measure to assist Portuguese crews affected by the expiry of 
the fisheries agreement with Morocco13 The purpose of this measure is to compensate for the temporary 
suspension of activity (from May to November 1995) caused by the absence of a new agreement. The 
funding for the measure is restricted to ECU 4.8 million. In addition, some of the FIFG appropriations 
already granted to Portugal under the CSF have been reallocated in order to indemnify shipowners for 
the temporary laying-up of their vessels, on the basis of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93. 
ECU 4 million has been mobilized for the entire laying-up period, to which the Community will 
contribute ECU 3 million. 
The delay in the financial implementation of the energy subprogramme in the infrastructure OP arose 
because certain projects initially included in this sub-programme, for which a heavy take-up of funds 
was expected in 1994 and 1995, were transferred to the Regen section of the Interreg Community 
Initiative14. The subprogramme was reprogrammed during 1995 in order to adjust the 1994 and 1995 
forecasts to take account of these transfers. 
The Commission did not adopt the technical assistance OP until 20 December 1994, which is why the 
implementation rate is so low. It is planned to use the ERDF's appropriations for 1994 in 1996, while the 
Portuguese authorities have requested reprogramming of the ESF section to transfer the appropriations 
not used in 1994 (ECU 8.2 million) to 1996(ECU4.1 million) and 1997(ECU4.1 million). 
The OP on the development of regional potential was the only programme to be amended in 1995, by 
decision of the Monitoring Committee on 13 November. The Community's part-financing of the 
programme remains the same (ECU 595 million, of which ECU 405 million is from the ERDF, ECU 81 
million from the ESF and ECU 109 million from the EAGGF Guidance Section). The main change lies 
in the introduction of an aid scheme for the smallest firms with the chief objective of encouraging the 
creation of new jobs (estimated at 20 000). This scheme is of the utmost importance to local and rural 
economies affected by depopulation and other development problems. The undertakings made in the 
initial version of the programme, particularly the creation of regional development agencies (with a view 
to gradually increasing the degree of decentralization and partnership between public and private 
economic operators) and the strengthening of policy for medium-sized towns (as a factor in the 
development of towns with the potential to play a role in regional development) are taken up in the 
revised version. 
1995 in the content of the 1994-99 programming period 
In all, financial implementation of the Portuguese CSF is making good progress. The average 
implementation rate on the ground in 1995 for all programmes was 85% for all Funds taken together 
(93% for the ERDF, 98% for the ESF). Community commitments represent one third of the funding 
available for the entire period. 
13 See Chapter I.A.5.2 on Objective 5(a) fisheries. 
14 See Chapter I.B.I on Community Initiatives. 
58 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 18: Objective 1 - Portugal - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adopt.on Total cost SF assistance 
0) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) V. 
(2)10) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
199 S 
Multiregional OP 
GG Support for local investment 33,3 25,0 25,0 25,0 100% 0,0 0,0 0% 
J994 
Regional OPs 
OP A zoers 
OP A lentejo 
OP Algarve 
OP Centre 
OP Lisbon-Tagus Valley 
OP Madeira 
OP North 
PO pluri-rcgionaux 
OP Environment and urban renewal 
OP Technical assistance 
OP Bases for knowledge and innovation 
OP Training and employment 
OP Infrastructure 
OP M odern ization of the economic fabric 
OP PRINEST (1) 
OP Development of regional potential 
OP Health and social integration 
TOTAL 
( 1 ) Statistical infrastructure 857,6 
250,6 
101,9 
490,5 
517,2 
665,2 
721,1 
973,7 
135,6 
2.257,0 
1.903,3 
3.915,8 
1) 678,8 
40,0 
1.231,8 
940,0 
2 6.713,3 616,0 
182,0 
76,0 
362,0 
382,0 
369,3 
537,0 
559,0 
101,7 
1 675,0 
1.384,6 
1.987,0 
4.3)9,2 
30,0 
595,0 
705,0 
13.905,8 84,7 
57,7 
24,9 
60,0 
94,0 
82,4 
97,8 
0,0 
11,0 
210,7 
219,3 
0,0 
284,3 
7,3 
14,0 
106,6 
1.379,7 216,2 
78,6 
28,5 
126,0 
124,5 
148,6 
210,0 
55,1 
28,6 
587,6 
409,3 
618,5 
1.526,2 
22,3 
67,2 
276,5 
4.548,8 35% 
43% 
3 7% 
35% 
33% 
40% 
39% 
10% 
28% 
3 5% 
30% 
31% 
3 5% 
74% 
11% 
39% 
33% 96,9 
27,0 
15,9 
47,0 
65,1 
74,8 
77,8 
16,5 
8,2 
232,5 
251,8 
259,0 
403,8 
7,4 
1 1,1 
72,3 
1.667,0 181,2 
43,8 
18,8 
88,3 
89,5 
123,8 
148,3 
44,1 
17,0 
412,7 
346,7 
517,9 
998,4 
17,2 
37,7 
178,1 
3.263,4 84% 
56% 
66% 
70% 
72% 
83% 
71% 
80% 
59% 
70% 
85% 
84% 
65% 
77% 
56% 
64% 
72% 
UNITED KINGDOM 
The environmental measures provided for in the SPDs for the United Kingdom are varied because of 
the diversity of the regions concerned. In Northern Ireland action is chiefly focused on protecting the 
natural environment (ECU 64.1 million, 5.2% of the appropriations in the SPD) but also covers the 
development of activities related to the environment such as services to businesses, product quality or 
research and development (ECU 19 million), conservation of the heritage (ECU 8.1 million), urban 
renewal (ECU 25.5 million) or energy-saving measures in businesses (ECU 5 million). Environmental 
action for Merseyside (ECU 45 million, or 5.5% of the appropriations in the SPD) concerns the 
treatment of industrial waste, the development of clean technologies and environmental skills in firms 
(ECU 13 million from the ERDF and the ESF), the restoration of run-down urban areas and 
protection of the natural environment and architectural heritage (ECU 29 million from the ERDF). 
Lastly, environmental measures in the Highlands and Islands (ECU 16.3 million, or 5.2% of the 
appropriations in the SPD) are financed by the three Funds, each according to its specific vocation: 
recycling of waste and environmental research are funded by the ERDF (ECU 7.6 million), a scheme 
for the protection of the natural environment is financed by the EAGGF (ECU 7.1 million) and 
training is funded by the ESF 1.6 million) In total, the Community's direct contribution to the 
environment in the United Kingdom amounts to about ECU 146 million, or 6%> of the overall 
allocation. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 59 
Implementation in 1995 
Implementation of the SPDs for the United Kingdom's Objective 1 regions (Northern Ireland, Highlands 
and Islands, Merseyside) has progressed in line with the programming forecasts. 
SPD programming for 1994-99 
Northern Ireland 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Economic development (a) 
Local communities (b) 
Measures to reduce remoteness (c) 
Agriculture and fisheries (d) 
Environment (e) 
Technical assistance (f) 
Total 
% Total 
315,1 
315,8 
321,2 
215,0 
64,1 
1,6 
1.232,8 
100% ERDF 
199,3 
90,6 
321,2 
64,1 
1,6 
676,8 
55% ESF 
115,8 
225,2 
13,0 
354,0 
29% EAGGF 
186,9 
186,9 
15% FIFG 
15,1 
15,1 
1% (e) 5% (f) 0.13% 
(d) 17% 
(C) 26% (a) 26% 
Northern Ireland: The rate of expenditure in 1995 made up for the slow start and the initial objective 
should be attained during 1996. The main delays concerned the energy measures (undenthe priority 
"measures to reduce peripherality"), with public enquiries slowing down expenditure on an important 
project to connect the electricity grids of Scotland and Northern Ireland. By contrast, the priority relating 
to environmental services had made good progress at the end of 1995. In addition, after the CAP reform 
the climate for investments in agriculture was good and several measures had to be suspended for lack of 
appropriations because the funds allocated to agricultural measure had been exhausted. The cessation of 
violence early in autumn 1994 led to an increased demand for investment in tourism and in projects 
under the measure for the physical and social environment, the objectives of which are reconciliation of 
local communities and urban renewal (the local communities priority). These activities were allocated 
additional funds by the Monitoring Committee in November 1995. A first step was also taken in 
considering whether the SPD should be adjusted to take account of these developments, as proposed by 
the British Government when preparing the Peace initiative approved in July 199515. With regard to the 
evaluation of the SPD, the Monitoring Committee agreed to appoint an external assessor at its meeting 
in November. External assessors will also be appointed for the different priorities, with the exception of 
the environmental services priority. 
SPD programming for 1994-99 
Highlnnils anil hi a nil s 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Business development (a) 
Tourism, culture (b) 
Environment (c) 
Primary sector (d) 
Local community development (e) 
Communications and services (f) 
Technical assistance (g) 
Total 
% Total 
72,1 
24,2 
16,3 
68,7 
46,9 
79,7 
3,1 
311,0 
100% ERDF 
54,3 
22,0 
7,6 
13,9 
79,7 
2,5 
180,0 
58% ESF 
17,8 
2,2 
ï,6 
33,0 
0,6 
55,2 
18% EA GGF 
7,1 
48,9 
56,0 
18% FIFG 
19,8 
19,8 
6% (9) 1% 
(f) 26% 
(e) 1 (a) 23% 
(d) 22% 
Highlands and Islands: Since the approval of the SPD in 1994, 1 500 projects have been presented, of 
which 604 have been selected. There has been a significant success, to judge from the increase in the 
number of participants in the programme: on the basis of the projects selected, more than 130 
organizations will receive assistance from the ERDF and the ESF. One third of the resources available 
from these two Funds has gone to the "Highlands and Islands Enterprise" network. A substantial 
amount of ERDF assistance is being pumped into the Western Isles, Caithness, Sutherland and Argyll 
through a set of projects relating to the development of communications, tourism and businesses. To 
judge by the commitments, the programme is making excellent progress with regard to tourism and 
cultural heritage measures, but progressing more slowly in other fields (research and development, 
access to information by firms, advisory assistance). The agricultural measures are being implemented at 
a satisfactory rate, with the exception of the environmental and forestry measures. Delays in payments 
have arisen between the phase of approval of the projects and the declaration of expenditure. The 
15 See Chapter I.B.I Community Initiatives. 
60 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
authorities responsible have promised to take the necessary steps in 1996 to ensure that these delays are 
not exacerbated. All the measures to be financed by the FIFG have been launched and are progressing at 
a satisfactory pace. The Monitoring Committee met twice in 1995, and the management committee four 
times, to assess the projects to be approved. In November 1995 the Monitoring Committee decided to 
review the programmes implementing procedures in order to encourage greater participation by local 
operators in line with the bottom-up approach. A number of local groups will be set up and invited to 
study the projects in their respective areas and the local strategies contributing to the overall attainment 
of the SPD's objectives. The Monitoring Committee also launched several thematic studies concerning 
the assessment of environmental impact, regional GDP and the labour market. 
SPD programming for 1994-99 
Merseyside 
ECU million 
Priorities 
Large firms (a) 
Local businesses (b) 
Technological development (c) 
Culture (d) 
Measures benefiting the local population (e) 
Technical assistance (0 
Total 
% Total 
186,0 
149,0 
62,0 
54,0 
361,0 
4,0 
816,0 
100% ERDF 
178,0 
106,0 
42,0 
38,0 
109,0 
2,0 
475,0 
58% ESF 
8,0 
40,0 
20,0 
16,0 
252,0 
2,0 
338,0 
41% EAGGF 
3,0 
3,0 
0% (f) 0,50% 
(a) 23% 
(e) 44% 
(b) 18% 
(d) 7% (C) 8% 
Merseyside: The Monitoring Committee met five times during the year and there were ten meetings of 
the technical committees chiefly responsible for project selection. A points scoring system was 
introduced for the selection of measures to receive ESF assistance and 688 measures were selected to 
receive a total of ECU 45 million. In the context of local economic development, 38 seriously 
disadvantaged areas were defined as target areas. Local partnership was set up in these areas, made up of 
the local authorities and the main bodies involved in the programme, and a specific development 
strategy was drawn up. More than 500 projects relating to industry eligible for ERDF assistance were 
presented. A two-tier selection procedure and scoring system were applied and 181 of the projects were 
selected. An important innovative project was approved for the development of SMEs, for which the 
Merseyside special investment fund will receive ECU 18.9 million to improve the functioning of the 
capital market by creating three investment funds with a total allocation of ECU 29.4 million. The 
Commission's approval was sought and the fund should begin to operate in 1996. Another important 
project which was approved concerns the Chevasse Park media factory, which aims to manage work 
places and to offer training to facilitate the growth of SMEs in the communications sector. This measure 
should help to create a cultural and communications activity pole close to the centre of Liverpool 
comprising, in particular, the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts financed under the previous 
programme. 
The rules governing applications for ERDF financing and their evaluation were reviewed in partnership: 
calls for projects will be issued continuously throughout the year and projects will be assessed using 
more rigorous criteria, particularly with regard to environmental requirements. Lastly, in addition to the 
Monitoring Committee's normal meetings, two "strategy days" were organized by the local partners, 
with more than 100 participants. During these days the implementation of the programme was examined 
in greater detail and technical working parties were set up to assist the local partners in making the best 
strategic choices. With regard to evaluation, a study on the Merseyside economy was launched to 
produce recommendations on implementation of the programme. This brought to light the Merseyside 
economy's potential for growth and stressed the need to help inhabitants in the most disadvantaged 
neighbourhoods to find jobs. 
1995 in the context of the 1994-99 programming period 
Financial implementation for Merseyside (commitments and payments) is progressing normally for the 
ESF, and more slowly for the ERDF and the EAGGF. Although 65% of all the available ERDF funds 
had in principle been approved by the end of 1995, there were few requests for payment. The same is 
true in the case of the Highlands and Islands: financial implementation (commitments and payments) is 
progressing normally for the ESF and the FIFG and more slowly for the ERDF and the EAGGF. In this 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 61 
case, the rate of commitment of ERDF funds at 31 December 1995 amounted to around 30% of 
available funds while payment requests were much lower. In December 1995 the financing schedule was 
amended so that the 1995 instalment for the ERDF could be committed. 
Table 19: Objective 1 - United Kingdom - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes andyear of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD Highlands and Islands 
SPD Northern Ireland 
SPD Merseyside 
TOTAL 1.012,4 
2.658,3 
2.000,0 
5.670,7 311,0 
1 232,8 
816,0 
2.359,8 39,1 
129,3 
50,2 
218,6 81,9 
288,3 
162,1 
532,3 26% 
23% 
20% 
23% 16,6 
102,8 
44,5 
163,8 40,7 
190,2 
100,5 
331,4 50% 
66% 
62% 
62% 
62 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
3. Objective 2 
Table 20: Summary of Objective 2 OPs/SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 (ECU million) 
SPDs ADOPTED IN 1994 OPs ADOPTED IN 1995 
Member State/Region TOTAL ERDF Member State/Region 
Belgium 160,0 130,0 30,0 Spain 1.130,0 «70,1 259,9 
14,8 
1.6 
107,9 
1,4 
31,3 
5,1 
58,1 
39,7 Aubange 
Liège 
Limburg 
Turnhotit 
Lolland 
North Jutland 
Germany 1,3 
88,5 
46,8 
23,4 0,9 
75,3 
35,1 
18,7 0.4 
13,2 
11,7 
4,7 
56,0 44,2 11,8 
9,5 
46,5 7,0! 
37,2; 
733,0 513,7 2193 Aragon 
Balearic Islands 
Catalonia 
Riqja 
Madrid 
Navarre 
Basque Country 
Multi-regional 64,2 
10,4 
510,1 
11,9 
145,0 
22,8 
325,9 
39,7 402,2 
10,5 
113,7 
17,7 
267,8 
0,0 
Bavaria 
Berlin 
Bremen 
Hesse 
Lower Saxony 
North Rhine Westphalia 
Rhineland-Palalinate 
Sanland 
Schleswig-Holstein 
Alsace 
Aquitaine 
Auvergne 
Lower Normandy 
Burgundy 
Brittany 
Centre 
Champagne-Ardcnne 
Franche-Comté 
Upper Normandy 
Langtiedoc-Roussillon 
Lorraine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Nord/Pas-de-Calais 
Loire Region 
Picardy 
Poilon-( 'hare nies 
Provencc-Alpes-Côle d'Azur 
Rhône-Alpes 
Italy 
Emilia-Romagna 
Friuli-Veneiia Gitilia 
Lazio 
Liguria 
Lomhardy 
Marche 
Piedmont 
Toscany 
l Imbria 
l'aile d'Aosta 
l'eneto 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Arhnem-Nijmegen 
Groningen-Drenlhe 
Twente-Overijsel 
Zuid-Limburg 
Zuidoost Brabant 
United Kingdom 
East London and the Lee I alley 
Eiist Midlands 
Eastern Scotland 
Gibraltar 
Greater Manchester, Ixincashire, Cheshire 
Industrial South Wales 
North Fast England 
Plymouth 
Thanet 
West ( 'umbria and Fiirness 
West Midlands 
Western Scotland 
Yorkshire and Humberside 14,7 
158,3 
46,9 
21,3 
42,5 
361,4 
23,5 
49,1 
15,4 9,5 
102,1 
30,5 
18,3 
29,8 
263,8 
15,2 
34,4 
10,0 
1.763,2 1.452,6 
19,6 
107,1 
61,1 
57,8 
49,4 
89,7 
24,2 
77,5 
47,8 
146,0 
70,5 
127,4 
42,6 
318,1 
135,9 
122,4 
53,3 
113,1 
99,7 16,1 
91,5 
50,6 
46,6 
42,0 
77,6 
20,5 
62,1 
41,2 
112,1 
59,9 
102,9 
34,6 
265,5 
109,6 
98,8 
43,6 
95,7 
81,8 
684,0 542,3 
12,0 
24,0 
64,0 
96,0 
23,0 
21,0 
205,0 
127,0 
35,0 
6,0 
71,0 9,6 
18,4 
52,2 
67,5 
1 
17,9 
164,0 
103,0 
27,5 
5,8 
57,6 
TOTAL 1994 7,0 6,0 
300,0 206,0 
56,0 
76,0 
58,0 
43,0 
67,0 39,4 
48,6J 
39,4 
31,7 
47,0 
2.142,0 1.606,9 
74,0 
79,0 
121,0 
5,0 
329,0 
188,0 
308,0 
29,0 
14,0 
25,0 
371,0 
286,0 
313,0 
5.845,2 
100% 55,5 
59,3 
96,8 
4,1 
230,3 
141,0 
231,0 
23,3 
11,9 
1 
278,0 
222,9 
234,0 
4.501,7 
"% 5,1 
56,2 
16,4 
3,0 
12,7 
97,6 
8,2 
14,7 
5,4 
310,6 
3,5 
15,6 
10,5 
11,3 
7,4 
12,1 
3,7 
15,4 
6,6 
33,9 
10,6 
24,5 
8,0 
52,6 
26,3 
23,6 
9,7 
17,4 
17,9 
141,7 
2,4 
5,6 
11,8 
28,5 
4,2 
3,1 
41,0 
24,0 
7,5 
0,2 
13,4 
1,0 
94,0 
16,6 
27,5 
18,6 
11,3 
20,0 
535,1 
18,5 
19,8 
24,2 
0,9 
98,7 
47,0 
77,0 
5,7 
2,1 
6,2 
93,0 
63,1 
79,0 
1.343,4 
21% TOTAL 1995 
% 1.130,0 
100% 870,1 259,9 
23% 
TOTAL 1994-1995 6.975,2 
100% 5.371,8 1.603,3 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 63 
3.1. Implementation of Objective 2 in 1995 
As far as Objective 2 is concerned, during 1995 work began on the programmes, which will run for an 
initial three-year period from 1994 to 1996, in all the twelve Member States. All the Objective 2 
programmes (SPDs) had been adopted at the end of 1994, as had the CSF for Spain, leaving only the 
eight OPs to implement that CSF and the SPDs for the three new Member States16 to be adopted in 
1995. This means that in the 15 Member States there are 82 operations under Objective 2: eight OPs 
within a single CSF in Spain and 74 SPDs in the other Member States. Of the SPDs, 64 had been 
adopted in 1994 while 18 operations (of which ten concerned the new Member States) were approved in 
1995. As far as the integration of the two Funds (ERDF and ESF) which finance Objective 2 is 
concerned, it should be noted that all but one programme (the multi-regional OP in Spain) provide for 
joint financing by the ERDF and the ESF. 
Table 21: Objective 2 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Programmed 
Adopted 
% 
Commitments 1994-95 
% of assistance 
Payments 1994-95 
% of assistance B 
160,0 * 
160,0 
100% 
62,2 
39% 
29,3 
18% DK 
56,0 * 
56,0 
100% 
30,3 
54% 
20,0 
36% D 
733,0 * 
733,0 
100% 
286,9 
39% 
156,9 
21% E 
1.130,0 *• 
1.130,0 
100% 
659,2 
58% 
448,0 
40% F 
1.763,2 * 
1.763,2 
100% 
904,4 
51% 
423,3 
24% 1 
684,0 * 
684,0 
100% 
299,9 
44% 
150,0 
22% L 
7,0 * 
7,0 
100% 
8,0 
114% 
4,0 
57% N 
300,0 • 
300,0 
100% 
105,0 
35% 
52,5 
18% AT 
101,0 * 
101,0 
100% 
54,1 
54% 
21,4 
21% Fl 
69,2 • 
69,2 
100% 
31,1 
45% 
15,6 
22% SE 
160,0 * 
160,0 
100% 
105,8 
66% 
38,1 
24% UK 
"2.142,0 * 
2.142,0 
100% 
1.250,0 
58% 
518,9 
24% Total 
7.305,4 
7.305,4 
100% 
3.796,9 
52% 
1.877,8 
26% 
* Programmed by SPD 
** Programmed by CSF 
The extent of implementation of Objective 2 at the end of the period 1994-95 can be looked at from a 
number of points of view. All the programming documents (mainly SPDs) were adopted and 52% of the 
commitments for them have been made. Payments at the end of two years stand at one quarter of total 
assistance. At first sight, these rates may appear low but it should be recalled that the vast majority of 
SPDs and OPs were not adopted until the last quarter of 1994 or the beginning of 1995. A substantial 
increase in absorption is therefore expected for 1996. However, the situation varies considerably from 
one Member State to another, with commitments as a percentage of assistance ranging from 35% in the 
Netherlands to almost 60% in the United Kingdom and 66% in Sweden while payments range from less 
than 20% of assistance in Belgium to 57% in Luxembourg. 
16 See Chapter I. A.7. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies. 
64 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Consideration of the environment in Objective 2 measures: 
Finance for sustainable development in the Objective 2 areas takes many forms since special 
attention was paid to this sector when the programmes were prepared. Environmental measures in 
the strict sense of the term account for ECU 597 million of the appropriations programmed for 1994-
96, or 5.7% of the total for the Objective. In addition, investment in the renovation of industrial and 
urban sites amounts to ECU 956 million, 14% of total funding for Objective 2 for 1994-96. To these 
amounts should be added the appropriations for 1997-99. 
The main problems experienced by the Objective 2 areas stem from industrial activities either past or 
present which have resulted in the contamination of land or groundwater by industrial pollution or 
the failure to remove waste and the abandonment of industrial or urban sites. As a result, 
environmental measures are concerned mainly with cleaning up pollution and encouraging new 
productive investment to use environmentally-friendly processes and plant. These account for over 
half (53%) of the finance allocated directly to the environment under Objective 2. A further 
substantial proportion (41%) goes to the treatment and cleaning up of sites. 
Because of its long-term benefits, support for productive investment including preventive measures is 
also of considerable importance under Objective 2. This includes incentives, primarily for small 
businesses, for the use of environmentally-friendly products, technologies and sources of energy, for 
the adoption of "green technologies" and for environmental research and development and for 
increasing awareness through vocational training to help the labour force adapt to changes in the 
structures of production. 
Table 22: Objective 2 and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated directly to the 
environment in 1994-96 (EUR 9 - ECU million -1994 prices) 
(C) 6% 
Removal ot'pollution, treatment of waste and clean technologies (a) 
Restoration of industrial sites and urban areas (b) 
Training and other (c) 
Total 210,8 
162,0 
24.2 
397,0 *m_^ 
% (a) 53% 
3.2. Country-by-country survey 
BELGIUM 
Programming for 1 994-96 (ECU million) 
Breakdown by sector : 
Productive environment (a) 
Human resources (b) 
Land improvement and restoration (c) 
Environmental protection (d) 
Technical assistance (c) 
Breakdown by Fund : 
ERDF 
ESF 
Total 
TSTDT 130,0 
30,0 
160,0 
Average per SPD"]" 76,0 
52,8 
18,8 
8,1 
4,1 
81% 
19% 
100% (C) 12% (d)5% (e)3% 
(a) 47% 
(b) 33% 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 65 
Implementation in 1995 
Each SPD except the one for Aubange contains a priority or subpriority dealing with measures for 
the environment. The general contribution of the Structural Funds is ECU 22 million (14% of total 
assistance), of which ECU 8 million will go to measures directly concerned with the protection of the 
environment. The bulk of the appropriations will be used for the treatment of industrial waste with 
others being used to clean up disused sites. Limburg and Turnhout are allocating 5% of the 
appropriations for the environment (using funding provided by the ESF) to environmental research 
and training and employment in this area. 
The total contribution of the Structural Funds to the areas of Belgium eligible under Objective 217 
amounts to ECU 160 million programmed in the four SPDs adopted in December 1994. The progress of 
the SPDs varies, with the programmes in Turnhout and Limburg already operational. The priorities in 
Turnhout are industry, services and the environment and the main project selected is a centre for 
promotion, demonstration, research and advice to help small firms develop and use environmentally-
friendly production and management techniques. Limburg has the same priorities, with the main project 
concerning technology to promote research into new materials for use in industry. In botTTcases, the 
Monitoring Committee and the Management Committee have operated satisfactorily. 
Implementation of the programme for Liège, by contrast, whose priorities are economic diversification, 
technological innovation, improving the attractiveness of the area and employment, has suffered some 
delay (the 1995 ERDF instalment could not be committed in that year). This is greatest in the areas of 
technological innovation, the development of tourist potential and the cleaning up of abandoned sites. 
Measures to develop locally generated potential (information for small firms, assistance, help with the 
establishment of firms) are, however, progressing satisfactorily. Approval at the end of the year of the 
scheme of aid for productive investment (ECU 13.7 million from the ERDF, or 18% of its total 
contribution) will enable this measure to get under way. 
Since the decision was taken in 1994, only one commitment (ECU 1.3 million) has been made for the 
Aubange programme. It was amended in autumn 1995 by the first Monitoring Committee, which 
decided to abandon the measure concerning business premises in favour of four measures relating to 
reception infrastructure for firms, one of which is a joint services centre, on the site of the European 
development pole. 
1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 
Table 23: Objective 2 - Belgium - Financial implementationof the SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)1(1) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD Aubange 
SPD Liège 
SPD Limburg 
SPD Turnliout 
TOTAL 3,2 
314,2 
121,8 
58,1 
497,2 1,3 
88,5 
46,8 
23,4 
160,0 0,4 
4,2 
0,0 
0.0 
4,6 1.3 
22,5 
14.9 
23.4 
62,2 100% 
25% 
32% 
100% 
39% 0.5 
1 1.3 
o.o 
0.0 
11,7 0.5 
1 1.3 
7,5 
10.1 
29,3 37% 
50% 
•50% 
43% 
4 7 % 
17 Aubange, Liège, Limburg and Turnhout. 
66 
DENMARK 
Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Breakdown by sector : 
Productive environment (a) 23,4 
Human resources (b) 31,6 
Technical assistance (c) 1,0 
Breakdown by Fund : 
ERDF I 44,21 79%" 
ESF 11,8 21% 
Total 56,0 100% 
TsTiTs 
Average perSPD) T$J) (b) 56% (a)42% 
Implementation in 1995 
The environment is not regarded as a separate priority in the Danish SPDs but is an integral part of 
most of the other priorities, such as aid to businesses, through, for example, support for the adoption 
of clean technologies. 
The two SPDs decided on in December 1994 for the eligible areas of Denmark18 provide for the 
Structural Funds to contribute a total of ECU 56 million in 1994-96. During 1995 implementation of 
these two programmes was satisfactory. When the Monitoring Committees met, it proved necessary, 
because of economic conditions in these areas, to increase the ERDF allocation for support for 
investment in existing small firms and the establishment of new firms, particularly in North Jutland. The 
financial progress of the programmes meant that the 1995 ERDF instalment for North Jutland could be 
committed and 80% of it paid. In the case of the SPD for Lolland, 50% of the single ERDF instalment 
has now been paid. 
Table 24: Objective 2 - Denmark - Financial implementation oftheSPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD Lolland 
SPD North Jutland 
TOTAL 36,1 
185,3 
221,4 9,5 
46,5 
56\0 0,0 
6.0 
6,0 9,5 
20,8 
36,3 100% 
45% 
54% 0.0 
8.3 
8,3 4,3 
15,7 
20,0 45% 
76% 
6 6 "/.. 
18 North Jutland and Lolland. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 67 
GERMANY 
Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Breakdown by sector : 
Productive environment (a) 245,0 
Human resources (b) 293,0 
Land improvement and restoration (c) 132,0 
Environmental protection (d) 52,0 
Technical assistance (e) 11,0 
Breakdown by Fund : 
ERDF I 513,71 70% 
ESF 219,3 30% 
Total 733,0 100% 
9 SPDs 
Average perSPD| SIT (d) 7% (e) 2% (a) 33% 
(C) 18% 
(b) 40% 
Implementation in 1995 
Environmental protection varies in the nine Lander eligible under Objective 2. The Community 
contribution amounts to a total of ECU 198 million, including measures directly relating to the 
environment (ECU 52 million) and others. Together with Luxembourg, Germany is the Member State 
which devotes the largest proportion of Objective 2 funding to environmental protection. Two of the 
Lander eligible under this Objective (Rhineland-Palatinate and Schleswig-Holstein) make no 
provision for the Structural Funds to finance environmental protection but they receive only a very 
small amount of Community aid. However, the Lander of Berlin, North Rhine-Westphalia and Hesse, 
which have more substantial environmental problems than the other two, have allocated an 
appropriate share of finance to them. Interesting experiments include North Rhine-Westphalia, which 
is concentrating on the restoration of industrial wasteland for an international exhibition on urban 
planning (Internationale Bauaustellung Emscherpark). This includes the renovation of industrial 
areas and old buildings converted into technology centres with aid also being provided for firms 
specializing in the environment. Berlin is also preparing programmes of a new type (Environmental 
improvement programmes and Initiatives to encourage economic activities relating to the 
environment) which include the environment in a social or economic programme. In this Land, the 
ESF will contribute ECU 14 million to employment and training relating to the environment. 
Nine SPDs for the German Objective 2 areas19 were approved in December 1994 for the 1994-96 
programming period. These programmes are intended to improve the competitiveness of these areas, 
consolidate and expand employment, restore certain areas of land and encourage research and 
development and measures to protect the environment. Total assistance from the Structural Funds 
amounts to ECU 733 million. Each Land has its own development strategy and so defines for itself the 
main aspects of its structural policy. 
19 Bavaria, western Berlin, Bremen, Hesse, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland Palatinate, Saarland 
and Sch leswi"-Hoi stein. 
68 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Examples of past and present achievements in Germany: 
Saarland: One of the priorities, receiving ERDF assistance of ECU 3.5 million 
towards a total cost of ECU 14.8 million, is the transfer of knowledge and 
technology through the promotion of institutional cooperation between the 
Zentrale fur Produktivitàt und Technologie (ZPT - Centre for productivity and 
technology), the Kontaktstelle fur Wissens- und Technologietramfer (KWT -
Contact point for the transfer of science and technology) in the University of the 
Saarland and the Institut des Technologietransfers (FITT - Institute for the 
transfer of technology) in the Hochschulefur Technik und Wirtschaft (Technical 
and economic institute). The ZPT offers advice and services to small firms and 
has established departments to provide information on Community activities 
and to deal with patents. One of the main tasks of the FITT and the KWT is to 
promote cooperation between various educational establishments and small 
firms (on the training available in higher education, the organization of 
cooperation measures, conferences and seminars and the supply of services 
where use is made of public aid programmes). 
North Rhine-Westphalia: The emphasis is on the restoration of industrial areas 
and the refurbishment of factories for economic purposes. For example, the 
former boiler room in the Zollverein XII pithead in Essen has been converted 
into a design centre for North Rhine-Westphalia. The ERDF contributed ECU 
9.8 million towards a total cost of ECU 19.9 million. Work on the mine has 
enabled almost 300 unemployed people to obtain vocational skills in a variety 
of construction trades (ESF contribution of ECU 2.1 million towards a total cost 
of ECU 6.4 million). 
Lower Saxony: Two business parks costing a total of ECU 16.6 million have 
been built at Peine near the Hannover-Berlin A2 motorway with assistance 
amounting to ECU 750 000 from the ERDF under Objectives 2 and 3 and ECU 
3.1 million from the Résider I Community Initiative.20 They provide 
administrative and social buildings and workshops and one of them, Peine II, 
received the Deutscher Stcidtebaupreis 1995. A total of 23 firms have acquired 
premises creating a total of 500 jobs. On one such site, a municipal promoter is 
offering training and job placement, mainly in connection with the environment. 
In 1994 160 people took part and the ESF contributed about ECU 550 000. 
1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 
Programmes show a low rate of payments in 1995 (55% of commitments but 21% of the aid) because of 
the comparatively late approval of the SPDs, in December 1994, and the delay in getting the assistance 
programmed under way in 1995. 
Table 25: Objective 2 - Germany - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assis tance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
19 95 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) "A, 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD Bavaria 
SPD Berlin 
SPD Bremen 
SPD Hesse 
SPD Lower Saxony 
SPD North Rhine Westphalia 
SPD Rhineland-Palatinate 
SPD Sa nia nd 
SPD Schlcswig-llolstein 
TOTAL 33,5 
• 390,7 
172.5 
61.3 
126.4 
1.298.8 
49.0 
212,6 
32,0 
2.376,9 14,7 
158,3 
46,9 
21,3 
42.5 
361.4 
23.5 
49.1 
15.4 
733,0 0.0 
13,1 
2.6 
1,2 
6.5 
5.4 
3.1 
6.1 
0.0 
38,0 13,6 
49,2 
14,9 
21,3 
13,5 
115,0 
23,5 
20,5 
15.4 
1U,9 93% 
31 % 
32% 
100% 
32% 
100% 
42% 
100% 
3 9 % 2.6 
1 1.9 
4.2 
0.6 
1.5 
5.8 
0.0 
3 2,5 29,9 
10.4 
10.6 
6.8 
57.5 
1 1,7 
12.9 
7.7 
1 5 6,9 69% 
61% 
69% 
50% 
50'!'.. 
50" o 
50". 
63% 
50% 
55% 
Programmes under the preceding phase (1992-93) also continued and most of them were completed in 
1995. These were seven programmes for the six western Lander, which received a total of ECU 303.2 
20 See Chapter I.B.I. Community Initiatives. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 69 
million (ECU 266.4 million from the ERDF and ECU 76.9 million from the ESF). Commitments for all 
these programmes had been made by the end of 1993. During 1995 the Commission made payments 
amounting to ECU 60.6 million for four programmes (Berlin, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia 
and Saarland) so that the western Lander had received ECU 185.6 million (82% of commitments) in 
Community aid for 1992-93 by the end of 1995. In the case of the Peine-Salzgitter (Lower Saxony) OP, 
the applications for payment of the balance have already been made, while an extension of the time for 
payment to 31 December 1996 has been granted to two programmes, North Rhine-Westphalia, because 
of delays in implementing certain projects, and Berlin, because of problems in implementing 
infrastructure projects and late applications for Community funds by certain private investors. 
SPAIN 
Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Breakdown by sector : 
Productive environment (a) 592,0 
Human resources (b) 317,0 
Land improvement and restoration (c) 174,0 
Environmental protection (d) 40,0 
Technical assistance (c) 8,0 
Breakdown by Fund : 
ERDFl 870,11 77% 
ESF 259,9 23% 
Total 1.130,0 100% 
/ CSF/ê ÔPs 
Average per OPI 141.3 (c) 15% (d)4% (e)i% 
(b) 28% 
(a) 52% 
Implementation in 1995 
Protection of the environment, a priority under the CSF, is programmed through an OP receiving 
ECU 40 million from the ERDF (3.5% of total assistance) and adopted in 1995. Eligible measures 
under this OP include equipment to prevent and treat industrial pollution, the restoration of run-down 
industrial sites, monitoring the quality of the environment and infrastructure to prevent and reduce 
the negative impact on the environment of productive activity. 
Spain is the only Member State whose national authorities chose to programme assistance under 
Objective 2 through a CSF and operational programmes. The CSF was adopted at the end of 1994 and 
implementation began with the approval of eight OPs in the first half of 1995. These comprised seven 
containing assistance from the ERDF and the ESF to each of the beneficiary Autonomous 
Communities21 and the multi-regional ESF programme, which contains the vocational training measures 
under the CSF and for which the national authorities are responsible. The Structural Funds are 
contributing ECU 1 130 million to these eight OPs as a whole. Each of them forms part of the CSF's 
priorities, support for employment and the competitiveness of firms, environmental protection, aid for 
technological research and innovation, the development of transport related to economic activity, local 
and urban development and technical assistance. 
21 Rioja, Aragon, the Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Navarre, Madrid and the Basque Country. 
70 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 26: Objective 2 - Spain - Programme priorities adopted in 1995 (ECU million) 
Aragon 
ERDF 
ESF 
Balearic Islands 
ERDF 
IUSF 
Catalonia 
ERDF 
ESF 
Madrid 
ERDF 
ESF 
Navarre 
ERDF 
ESF 
Rioja 
EJUiF 
ESF 
Basque Country 
ERDF 
ESF 
Multiregional ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
Total cost Employment and 
the 
competitiveness 
of firms 
28,3 
16.6 
11" 
8,8 
".6 
1.2 
167,0 
I2S. 1 
38.9 
62,5 
3-1.1 
28.4 
9,0 
1.3 
5,4 
4.4 
1.0 
123,6 
9 1.2 
32.3 
20,9 
425,5 
2S9, " 
135. S 
1.858.1 Environment 
0,6 
0.6 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
7,3 
7.3 
0.0 
0,6 
0.6 
0.0 
1,8 
If 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
29,2 
29.2 
0.0 
0,0 
39,5 
39.5 
0.0 
79,0 Research, 
innovation 
8,5 
5.5 
3.0 
0,3 
0.0 
0.3 
20,5 
16.2 
4.4 
26,6 
25.6 
1.0 
4,5 
2.9 
1.6 
1,0 
0." 
0.3 
31,0 
~.H 
23.2 
18,8 
111,3 
58.8 
52.5 
234.2 Transport 
17,0 
17,0 
0.0 
o.o 
0.0 
0.0 
162,9 
162,9 
0.0 
30,6 
30,6 
0.0 
5.1 
5.1 
0.0 
3,6 
3.6 
0.0 
83,1 
83.1 
0.0 
0,0 
302,2 
302.2 
0.0 
774,9 Local 
development 
9,3 
9.3 
0.0 
0,9 
0.9 
0.0 
150,9 
8Z4 
63.5 
23,1 
21.2 
IS 
2,2 
0.0 
2 2 
1.7 
1~ 
0.1 
55,9 
53.6 
2.3 
0,0 
243,9 
1-4,0 
69.9 
525,0 Technical 
assistance 
0,6 
0.5 
0.1 
0,4 
0.3 
0.1 
1,5 
0.4 
1.1 
1,6 
1.6 
0.0 
0,3 
0.2 
0,1 
0,1 
0.1 
0.0 
3,1 
2.9 
0.2 
0,0 
7,6 
5.9 
1.-
9,3 Structural 
Funds 
assistance 
64,2 
49.4 
14.8 
10,4 
*,« 1.6 
510,1 
402,2 
107,9 
145,0 
113.7 
31.3 
223 
5,1 
11,9 
10.5 
1.4 National 
public 
contribution 
73,8 
59.0 
14.9 
10,1 
S.8 
1.3 
606,5 
515.7 
90. 8 
162,8 
130.9 
31.9 
26,4 
20.6 
5.8 
14,1 
12.6 
1.5 
32S? 368,0 
26~,8 iu-
58,1 53.4 
39,7 
1.130,0 
H~0.1 
259.9 
3.911,7 48,2 
1.310,1 
1062.3 
2478 
During November and December the Monitoring Committees for each programme held their first 
meetings in the appropriate regional capital and the Monitoring Committee for the CSF met in Madrid at 
the end of October. In the cases of Catalonia (one programme) and the Basque Country (two 
programmes), assistance is subject to a suspensory clause. 
1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 
Financial progress in the OPs may be regarded as remarkable in view of the late adoption of this 
assistance and the fact that, while there remains in principle one year of programming, there are three 
years to finalize national commitments and payments. An exception is Aragon, where, as a result of 
delays in implementation, in December 1995 the Spanish authorities asked for reprogramming to shift 
the bulk of the programme to 1996. The OPs for the Balearic Islands, Navarre and Rioja were approved 
through a single commitment of the total amount of Community assistance. 
Table 27: Objective 2 - Spain - Financial implementation of programmes (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(I) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1995 
Regional OPs 
OP Aragon 
OP Balearic Islands 
OP Catalonia 
OP Rioja 
OP Madrid 
OP Navarre 
OP Basque Country' 
Multi-regional OP 
OP Multi-regional 
TOTAL 199,3 
61,1 
1.994,0 
74,1 
398,8 
62,5 
1.033,4 
88,3 
3.911,7 64,2 
10,4 
510,1 
11,9 
145,0 
22.8 
325,9 
39,7 
1.130,0 13,9 
10,4 
289,0 
11,9 
79,1 
22,8 
192,4 
39,7 
659,2 13,9 
10,4 
289,0 
11,9 
79,1 
22,8 
192,4 
39,7 
659,2 22% 
100% 
57% 
100% 
55% 
100% 
59% 
100'% 6,9 
5,2 
220,4 
5.9 
29,5 
16,7 
148,4 
14,9 
58"/..] 448,0 6,9 
5,2 
220,4 
5,9 
29,5 
16,7 
148,4 
14,9 
448,0 50% 
50% 
76% 
50% 
37% 
73% 
77% 
38% 
68% 
It should also be noted that assistance under the CSF for 1992-93 continued in 1995. That CSF, 
approved on 18 December 1992, contains ECU 724 million (at 1992 prices) of Community assistance 
for seven ERDF OPs (ECU 520 million), seven ESF OPs (ECU 166.6 million), the Renaval and Résider 
Community programmes in the Basque Country (ECU 34.2 million) and one Renaval Community 
programme in Cantabria (ECU 3 million). This, in the end, was not implemented and the amount was 
subsequently included in the corresponding regional OP. The 14 national initiative OPs (seven for the 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 71 
ERDF and seven for the ESF) were implemented in accordance with the contents of the five priorities in 
the CSF, establishment and development of productive activities, protection and improvement of the 
environment, support for research and development and training facilities, improvements to the 
communications network and technical assistance. In the case of the nine programmes part-financed by 
the ERDF, all the commitments had been finalized by 31 December 1993, with the exception of the 
programmes for Aragon, Cantabria and Madrid where an extension to 31 March 1994 was granted. The 
final date for payments for each of these OPs was 31 December 1995. At the end of November 1995, the 
Spanish authorities sent the Commission requests for this date to be put back to 31 March 1996 in the 
case of the programmes for Aragon and Madrid and to 30 June 1996 for that for Cantabria. The 
Commission agreed to these requests. 
FRANCE 
Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Breakdown by sector : 
Productive environment (a) 710,0 
Human resources (b) 614,0 
Land improvement and restoration (c) 313,0 
Environmental protection (d) 103,0 
Technical assistance (e) 25,0 
Breakdown by Fund : 
ERDFl 1.452,61 82%" 
ESF 310,6 18% 
Total 1.763,2 100% 
19 SPDs 
Average perSPDJ 9ÏJ (c) 18% (a) 4 0% 
(b) 35% 
Implementation in 1995 
Environmental measures differ considerably in France from one region to another. The total 
contribution of the Structural Funds amounts to ECU 234 million (only ECU 103 million if measures 
concerned with direct protection are excluded), 13% of total assistance. However, this figure may rise 
to 28% in Alsace and not exceed 3.5% in the Loire region. In Lower Normandy it is zero. Most of the 
measures are for urban restoration and the cleaning up of industrial sites, mainly by removing 
industrial pollution. The example of Picardy is fairly representative: a large part (18%) of the 
Community contribution goes to environmental projects, the use of clean technologies and advisory 
service fn,A ^""<- /> encouraged through the regional fund for the environment and energy, and 
employment .,.•/., training related to the environment will be encouraged. 
The 19 SPDs for the Objective 2 regions of France22 were approved in December 1994 and all the 
Monitoring Committer " ^ these programmes had been established by the end of March 1995. Most of 
the programmes got under wa^ fairly slowly and their implementation gives grounds for a certain degree 
of concern. 
The evaluation structure to monitor assistance has been established or is being set up in seven of the 19 
regions and in most regions the system suggests that monitoring will be more rigorous thanks to stronger 
teams and have a higher profile as the result of the quality of information sent to the Monitoring 
Committees, particularly as far as the selection of projects to receive Community funding is concerned. 
22 Alsace, Aquitaine, Auvergne, Brittany, Burgundy, Centre, Champagne-Ardennes, Franche-Comté, Languedoc-
Roussillon, Loire Region, Lorraine, Lower Normandy, Midi-Pyrénées, Mord/Pas-de-Calais, Picardy, Poitou-
Charentes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Rhône-Alpes and Upper Normandy. 
72 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Through partnership a meeting with the regional partners organized by the DATAR23 was held in May 
1995 and provided an opportunity to exchange experience on a number of topics, including assessment. 
1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 
Statements of expenditure for the 1994 instalment sent to the Commission at the end of 1995 for 11 of 
the 17 regions24 show that it had proved possible to commit the 1995 instalment but the first advance for 
that year had been paid in only three regions. This means that the level of public expenditure of the 1994 
instalment of the programme had not reached 40% in six regions and was below 60% in 14. It should be 
noted that Rhône-Alpes, Nord/Pas-de-Calais, Aquitaine, Brittany, Champagne-Ardennes and Franche-
Comté had not declared sufficient expenditure to justify a call for funds or a request for commitment of 
the Community instalment for 1995. The result is that at the end of 1995 France will have received 
payments totalling ECU 348.3 million in respect of the first advance for 1995 and the second advance 
for 1994. This situation is particularly worrying because programming should be completed and fully 
committed at national level before the end of 1996. 
Table 28: Objective 2 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
0) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD Alsace 
SPD Aquitaine 
SPD Auvergne 
SPD Lower Normandy 
SPD Burgundy 
SPD Brittany 
SPD Centre 
SPD Champagne-Ardenne 
SPD Franche-Comté 
SPD Upper Normandy 
SPD Languedoc-Roussillon 
SPD Lorraine 
SPD Midi-Pyrenees 
SPD Nord/Pas-de-Calais 
S PD Loire Region 
SPD Picardy 
SPD Poitou-Charentes 
SPD P.A.C.A. (1) 
SPD Rhône-Alpes 
TOTAL 
(1 ) Pro\ en ce-A Ip es-Cô te d'Azur 46,0 
379,2 
126,0 
169,5 
130,4 
262.3 
108,4 
211.3 
1 11,7 
396,9 
219,5 
282,7 
1 5 1,3 
923.1 
321,7 
429.2 
130.7 
295,7 
316,7 
s.ôli.O 19,6 
107,1 
61,1 
57,8 
49.4 
89,7 
24,2 
77,5 
47,8 
146,0 
70,5 
127.4 
42.6 
318,1 
135.9 
122,4 
53,3 
113,1 
99,7 
1.763,1 07) 
3,8 
19,3 
17,1 
13.9 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
2,1 
45,2 
19,9 
40,0 
13,6 
12,0 
41.9 
37,6 
17,1 
29.6 
0.0 
313,1 19,6 
37,9 
38,7 
35,5 
29,6 
28,5 
24,2 
24,6 
17,3 
91,6 
42,3 
80,4 
27.2 
114,1 
85,1 
76,5 
34,0 
65.6 
31.7 
904,4 100% 
35% 
63% 
61% 
60% 
32% 
100% 
32% 
36% 
63% 
60% 
63% 
64% 
36% 
63% 
62% 
64% 
58% 
32% 
5 1 % o.o 
2.6 
15.6 
12,2 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
1,1 
18.5 
5.7 
15.5 
2,1 
1 1.7 
22,9 
30.5 
6.7 
0.0 
0.0 
145,1 9,8 
19,6 
25,3 
21.3 
7.9 
14.3 
12,1 
12,3 
8,7, 
41,7 
16.9 
35,7 
8.9 
62.8 
27.0 
49,9 
15,2 
18,0 
15.8 
423.3 50% 
52% 
65% 
60% 
27% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
46% 
40% 
44% 
33% 
55% 
32% 
65% 
45% 
27% 
50% 
4 7 % 
At the request of the French authorities, the Commission took a decision to extend the period for 
national payments for final beneficiaries in respect of a number of programmes under previous phases of 
programming (1989-91 and 1992-93). 
23 Délégation à l'aménagement du territoire et à l'action régionale (department lor spatial planning and regional 
activities). 
24 Seventeen rather than 19 because a single commitment was made when the SPDs for Alsace and Centre were 
adopted. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
ITALY 
Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 73 
Breakdown by sector : 
Productive environment (a) 334,7 
Human resources (b) 204,3 
Land improvement and restoration (c) 86,0 
Environmental protection (d) 48,4 
Technical assistance (e) 10,6 
Breakdown by Fund : 
ERDF I 542,31 79%" 
ESF 141,7 21% 
Total 684,0 100% 
TTSTm 
Average per SPDI 62,2 (d) 7% (e) 2% 
(C) 13% 
(b) 30% a) 48% 
The new programming period 1994-96 provides for Community assistance totalling ECU 684 million to 
11 regions in northern and central Italy25 All the SPDs had been approved by the end of 1994 with 
Community assistance ranging from ECU 6 million for the Valle d'Aosta to ECU 205 million for 
Piedmont. As regards content, the programmes lay greater stress than in the past on activities relating to 
new sources of employment. This includes aid to small firms for the adoption of new technologies 
through support for R&D and the transfer of technology (science and technology parks, innovative 
services for small firms, specific training measures, the creation of consortia of producers and potential 
users of the results of work on research and innovation). Particular attention is also paid to the 
development of human resources, which is a specific priority in all the programmes other than those for 
Valle d'Aosta and Lombardy. This priority includes horizontal and/or innovative measures concerning 
skills and support for the economic system and experiments with new forms of assistance. It is 
structured in three parts: the development of human resources for workers in large firms threatened with 
or suffering from unemployment, innovative projects relating to training linked to the opportunities 
offered by new sources of employment (accompanying measures and local development initiatives) and 
improvements to the training system. 
Environmental protection has received particular attention. The total contribution of the Structural 
Funds is ECU 105 million (ECU 48 million if only measures directly concerned with the environment 
are included), 15% of total assistance. However, the figure varies sharply from one region to another, 
ranging from zero in Emilia-Romagna to 20% in Piedmont. In general, attention is concentrated 
mainly on industry, particularly control systems, environmental infrastructure, the restoration of 
abandoned areas, programmes of subsidies for investment in clean technologies and some specific 
training measures. For example, in Lombardy substantial aid will be given to help small firms 
modernize their facilities for treating waste water and other waste. In Piedmont a large part of the 
finance will go to clean technologies, the storage or recycling of industrial waste and the reclamation 
of abandoned industrial land. 
The programmes also give greater assistance to local development through a series of measures 
including grants for new investment, services, a fresh boost to the economy and new financial 
instruments with innovative aspects. 
Implementation in 1995 
In most regions, implementation of the SPDs began immediately the programmes had been approved. 
The outturn has, however, varied widely from one measure to another. In general, programmes 
providing grants to small firms (craft firms, tourism and services) have been very successful with 
25 Emilia-Romagna, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Liguria, Lombardy, Marche, Piedmont, Tuscany, IJmbria. Valle 
d'Aosta and Veneto. 
74 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
commitments approaching 100% in many regions. However, although new infrastructure measures have 
attracted a large number of applications, they require more time because of the cumbersome Italian 
legislation on invitations to tender. It should be noted that the process of selecting projects eligible for 
financing has encouraged transparency and compliance with the principle that assistance from the 
Structural Funds should add value and, in accordance with the selection criteria, only the most promising 
projects have been selected. 
The Monitoring Committees for all the SPDs met in 1995 and took the steps required for measures 
which had remained in suspense when the SPDs were adopted to make progress. The Committees 
approved the various selection criteria for the projects and issued calls for proposals. Where necessary, 
some (Liguria and Tuscany) adopted various corrective measures to adjust the programmes in the light 
of developments in the region. 
1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 
Table 29: Objective 2 - Italy - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) — 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD Emilia-Romagna 
SPD Friuli-Venczia Giulia 
SPD Lazio 
SPD Liguria 
SPD Lombardy 
SPD Marche 
SIM) Piedmont 
SPD Tuscany 
SPD Lmbria 
SPD Valle d'Aosla 
SPD Veneto 
TOTAL 39,4 
104.8 
193,4 
274,7 
76,1 
57,0 
695,9 
485,1 
80,1 
15.4 
223.7 
2.245,7 12,0 
24,0 
64,0 
96,0 
23,0 
21,0 
205.0 
127.0 
35.0 
6,0 
71,0 
6 8 4,0 0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 12,0 
24,0 
20,3 
30,5 
23,0 
21,0 
65,1 
40,4 
35,0 
6,0 
22.6 
299,9 100% 
100% 
32% 
32% 
100% 
100% 
3 2 % 
32% 
100% 
100% 
32% 
44% 0,0 
0.0 
o.o 
0.0 
o.o 
0.(1 
0.0 
0.0 
O.d 
O.d 
o.o 
0.(1 6,0 
12,0 
10,2 
15,3 
11,5 
10,5 
32,6 
20.2 
17,5 
3.0 
11.3 
150,0 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
In terms of financial implementation at national level, payments by the national authorities responsible 
for the implementation of the programmes give rise to considerable concern because of the low level of 
implementation at the end of 1995 (between 0% and 8% of the total planned for 1994-96). 
It should also be noted that implementation of the first phase (1989-91) of the previous programming 
period is now complete. While total payments amounted to 80% to 90% of the total available 
appropriations (ECU 158 million), this under-utilization is partly the result of difficulties encountered 
during implementation (long and obscure administrative procedures, the abandonment of projects to 
which appropriations had already been committed) and partly to the devaluation of the lira. As a result of 
this devaluation, full utilization of ERDF assistance would have required the national authorities to make 
additional resources available, which was not considered compatible with efforts to achieve budgetary 
discipline at national level. Each region has made an initial assessment of the impact on the economy 
and employment in its final report. However, a more complete ex post evaluation study will be carried 
out by an outside assessor selected by the Commission. In addition, information and publicity measures 
have been undertaken to raise the profile of the ESF measures. 
In the second phase (1992-93), the Community contribution to the nine programmes amounted to ECU 
183 million (ERDF: ECU 127 million; ESF: 56 million). Total investment under these programmes, 
including national public and private resources, amounts to ECU 1 billion and the average multiplier 
effect is about 5.7. Although commitments at regional level have reached 100% in almost all cases, 
implementation has been delayed because of the adoption of the programmes at the end of 1992 and the 
impact this had on payments on the ground. As a result, the final date for payment has been put back by 
six months in seven regions. By the end of 1995 the overall rate of payments was around 50%. However, 
since the rate of expenditure normally rises sharply during the last few months before the final dates for 
payment, there is every reason to expect the situation to improve in 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 75 
LUXEMBOURG 
Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Breakdown by sector : 
Productive environment (a) 1,0 
Human resources (b) 2,0 
Land improvement and restoration (c) 2,0 
Environmental protection (d) 2,0 
Breakdown by Fund : 
ERDFl 6fi\ 86%" 
ESF 1,0 14% 
Total 7,0 100% 
TJFD 
Average per SPDI 770" (d) 29% (a) 14% 
(C)29% (b) 28% 
Implementation in 1995 
Protection of the environment receives the largest share of appropriations under Objective 2 in the 
SPD for Luxembourg: 30% of the appropriations from the Structural Funds (ECU 2.2 million). This 
priority is concerned with cleaning up industrial -waste land and the treatment of waste. 
Progress in implementing the SPD for Luxembourg, which was adopted in 1994, is rather variable. 
Some measures (the equipping of reception areas and the construction of tourist infrastructure) are 
proceeding as planned while others had not really begun in 1995 because of start-up problems. Some 
adjustments will be made during 1996 (particularly the project to cover over the waste tip at 
Ronnebierg). 
Table 30: Objective 2 - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the SPD (ECU million) 
Programme and year of adoption I Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
199 5 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3 1/(2) 
T99~4 
SPD Luxembourii TrJTl (LOT 8TJ1 il4%| 
NETHERLANDS 
Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Breakdown by sector : 
Productive environment (a) 141,4 
Human resources (b) 112,8 
Land improvement and restoration (c) 41,5 
Environmental protection (d) 5,0 
Technical assistance (e) 9.2 
Breakdown by Fund : 
ERDFl 206.01 69%" 
ESF 94,0 31% 
Total 300,0 100% 
5 SPDs 
Average per SPD | 60,0 (c) 13% (d)2% (e)3% 
(b) 36% (a) 46% 
76 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Implementation in 1995 
Environmental measures in the Netherlands are very varied. Three of the SPDs (Groningen, 
Zuidoost Brabant and Zuid-Limburg) make specific provision for Community appropriations 
amounting to ECU 13 million (ECU 5 million for direct measures), or 4.5% of total assistance. These 
measures concentrate on improvements to make urban and industrial areas more attractive. 
The areas of the Netherlands eligible under Objective 226 receive a total of ECU 300 million from the 
Structural Funds in the form of five SPDs adopted in 1994. In general, the launch of these programmes 
in 1995 was satisfactory, as shown by the level of Community commitments, but actual implementation 
on the ground varied from one programme to another. The SPD for Zuidoost Brabant got off to a slow 
start because of its late approval but progress speeded up at the end of 1995 so that, by the beginning of 
1996, 54% of the total appropriations had been committed for approved projects (ERDF: 48%; ESF: 
66%). These included a number of major projects, which gave an important stimulus to private investors 
(some 250 companies). In the case of the Arnhem-Nijmegen programme, actual expenditure committed 
by the final beneficiaries now amounts to 40% of the total costs for 1994. In the case~of the ESF, 
however, some ECU 2 million out of a total of ECU 16.6 million had been committed so that a special 
working party was set up to encourage a larger number of projects part-financed by the ESF. This has 
made encouraging progress. 
Good progress in implementation: 
In Zuidoost Brabant, the measure for the restoration of areas for the 
establishment of economic activities will be completed early in 1996 and there 
are high expectations of the K1C (Kennisintensieve Industrie Clustering -
Knowledge-intensive industrial grouping) involving technical cooperation 
between firms not only in Zuidoost Brabant but also in Zuid-Limburg, another 
Objective 2 area, and in northern and centra! Limburg, which are eligible under 
Objective 5(b). 
//; Arnhem-Nijmegen, the aim of the programme is to create 3 000 jobs and it 
appears that the total number of jobs created by the projects approved has 
already reached that figure. 
/// Twente, the main project approved in 1995 was the general programme of 
assistance to small firms (total cost: ECU 11.4 million, ERDF aid: ECU 8.5 
million) which has three strands: assistance and advice, invesnnent grants and 
loans for innovative projects. The Commission approved the first two parts in 
spring 1995. 
In the case of the Twente SPD, about 43% of the ERDF assistance (ECU 39.4 million) was used for 
individual projects. This means that the ERDF provided about ECU 24 million in part-finance. While the 
schedule of commitments was complied with, there are delays in payments since the 1995 instalment has 
not been paid. The situation with regard to the Groningen-Drenthe programme is similar. While almost 
40% of ERDF assistance (ECU 48.6 million) has been committed, there is a delay in payments and the 
1995 instalment will have to be committed in 1996. The Zuid-Limburg programme became operational 
in a few months, mainly because it was the continuation of earlier programmes. By the end of 1995, 
32% of the assistance had been committed. Because a number of the projects decided on are on a large 
scale (the development of sites and facilities for economic activities), actual payments will be made 
later. 
26 Zuidoost Brabant, Arnhem-Nijmegen, Groningen-Drenthe, Twente and Zuid-Limburg. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 77 
1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 
Table 31: Objective 2 - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
0) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD Arhnem-Nijmegen 
SPD Groningen-Drenthe 
SPD Twente-Overijsel 
SPD Zuid-Limburg 
SPD Zuidoost Brabant 
TOTAL 171,6 
252,7 
197,5 
130,3 
172,0 
924,1 56,0 
76,0 
58,0 
43,0 
67,0 
300,0 0,0 
9,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
9,1 17,9 
33,4 
18,6 
13,8 
21,4 
105,0 32% 
44% 
32% 
32% 
32% 
35% 0.0 
12,3 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
12,3 9,0 
16,7 
9,3 
6,9 
10,7 
$2,5 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
UNITED KINGDOM 
Programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Breakdown by sector : 
Productive environment (a) 1.038,0 
Human resources (b) 755,0 
Land improvement and restoration (c) 189,0 
Environmental protection (d) 138,0 
Technical assistance (e) 22,0 
Breakdown by Fund : 
ERDFl 1.606,91 75%" 
ESF 535.1 25% 
Total 2.142,0 100% 
13 SPDs 
Average per SPD| 164~8~ (d) 6% (e) 1% 
(b) 35% (a) 49% 
Implementation in 1995 
Measures to protect the environment are included in virtually all the SPDs for the United Kingdom. 
They total ECU 138 million, or 6.5% of Community assistance. Despite their variety, they form two 
distinct group. Many areas are trying to improve their image and so are targeting measures on the 
renovation of urban centres while other have concentrated measures on (he development of clean 
technologies in firms in order to reduce industrial pollution. 
In the early part of the year, the bulk of the work involved establishing the Monitoring Committees for 
the 13 SPDs27 approved at the end of 1994 and defining the procedures and criteria for the selection of 
projects. In each region the Monitoring Committees set up a number of sub-committees (working 
parties, advisory groups, etc.) to assist in programme implementation, and particularly the assessment 
and selection of projects. The groups are organized on a regional or sub-regional basis (e.g. for 
Yorkshire and Humberside there is a separate advisory group responsible for selecting projects in the 
three areas eligible, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Humberside) or on a sectoral basis (e.g. a 
sectoral group for each of the programme priorities: small firms, R&D, local development, etc.). The 
Commission is represented on all these committees. 
27 Eastern Scotland, Western Scotland, East Midlands, Gibraltar, East London and the Lee Valley, Industrial South 
Wales, North East England, Greater Manchester Lancashire Cheshire, Plymouth, Thanet, West Cumbria and 
Furness, West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside. 
78 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Original methods of operating: 
The Monitoring Committees and working parties are assisted by secretariats. 
The Commission has attached great importance to the establishment of 
independent secretariats responsible to the Monitoring Committees but only in 
Scotland have such secretariats (with externally recruited staff and their 
establishment financed partly by technical assistance) been set up with the 
support of local partners. They have given very good results. In England and 
Wales the secretariats have been set up with staff from the regional government 
offices or the Welsh Office and in some cases staff seconded from the 
partnership paid partly through technical assistance. 
In all the regions, the Monitoring Committees have adopted transparent criteria 
for the selection of projects. All the projects are assessed using a system of 
points based on criteria agreed jointly by the respective Monitoring Committees. 
The criteria used include the capacity of the project to create permanent jobs. 
Other criteria include the cost/benefit ratio, the life of the project and its 
complementarity with other projects. Projects costing less than ECU 5 million 
are normally considered and selected by working parties reporting back to the 
appropriate Monitoring Committee. Projects costing more than that amount are 
normally approved by the Monitoring Committee. 
Operational mechanisms were introduced in all the regions in February-March 1995. The main task in 
the following months was to issue calls for projects, which was done at regular intervals throughout the 
year, and to select projects. Measures under the ESF were selected on the basis of a single call in each 
region, as were those under the ERDF in the case of the smallest programmes. In the case of larger 
programmes, a number of calls for projects were issued with varying results. For example, under the 
West Midlands SPD, over 800 proposals were received in response to the first call. Replies varied 
depending on the measure. Traditional measures such as "industrial sites and premises" and 
"development of tourism" sometimes reached the allocations fixed rapidly. More innovative measures 
such as the development of clean technologies and local economic development made slower progress. 
Some applicants, particularly associative bodies, often had problems in finding the part-finance required 
to implement their projects. 
The Monitoring Committees also resolved certain basic questions on the implementation of the SPDs. 
including the implementation of priorities for local development, where programmes sought to stimulate 
a bottom up approach, and combatting the social exclusion of the least favoured social groups 
concentrated in certain areas of each region. Where these areas had not been defined in the SPDs this 
was done by the Monitoring Committees during 1995. Plymouth is the area where the target population 
is most concentrated with 14% of the population of the Objective 2 areas. 
A certain amount of aid was provided under technical assistance, for example for the preparation of 
work programmes or to bolster secretariats through staff seconded from the enlarged partnership. 
As far as monitoring and evaluation are concerned, the local partners undertook to complete the basic 
indicators, some of which were not yet available when the SPDs were approved at the end of 1994. By 
the end of 1995 some major indicators still remained to be established in some beneficiary areas. 
Evaluations of earlier programmes (such as that for Eastern Scotland) or studies on specific subjects 
were launched and the results will be considered by the Monitoring Committees. In addition, in 1995 the 
Commission launched a study on local economic development in Great Britain. In some regions, such as 
North-East England, special seminars were organized to make the opportunities in this field better 
known. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 79 
1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 
Table 32: Objective 2 - United Kingdom - Financial implementationof the SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
0) Commitment 
1995 Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/{l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) "A, 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD East London & the Lee valley 
SPD East Midlands 
SPD Eastern Scotland 
SPD Gibraltar 
SPD Greater Manchester 
SPD Industrial South Wales 
SPD North East England 
SPD Plymouth 
SPD Thanet 
SPD West Cumbria & Furness 
SPD West Midlands 
SPD Western Scotland 
SPD Yorkshire & Humberside 
TOTAL 191,3 
218.2 
293,0 
11,5 
814,5 
526,4 
723,7 
69,2 
69,1 
65,3 
938,4 
665,8 
813,7 
5.400,1 74,0 
79,0 
121,0 
5,0 
329,0 
188,0 
308,0 
29,0 
14,0 
25,0 
371,0 
286.0 
313.0 
2.142,0 6,1 
6,5 
40,1 
0,0 
32,7 
15,6 
95,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
123.0 
94,8 
103,8 
518,3 29,7 
31,7 
78,6 
5.0 
137,3 
75,3 
193,6 
29,0 
14,0 
25.0 
240,9 
185,7 
204,4 
1.250,0 40% 
40% 
65% 
100% 
42% 
40% 
63% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
65% 
65% 
65%. 
58% 4.4 
5,8 
6.6 
0.0 
27,5 
14.3 
37,4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
19.1 
18,5 
19,3 
15 3,0 16.1 
18.4 
25,9 
2.5 
79.8 
44,2 
86.3 
14,5 
7.0 
12,5 
78.1 
63.9 
69,6 
518,9 54% 
58% 
50% 
58% 
59% 
45% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
34% 
34% 
42% 
In general, measures under the programmes have given impressive results in terms of the level of 
commitment of the Structural Funds. By the end of the year, the programmes which had been approved 
in principle represented about half the total assistance for that purpose. However, progress in terms of 
actual expenditure was rather slower. 
In December 1995 adjustments were made to four SPDs (Eastern Scotland, Western Scotland, Yorkshire 
and Humberside and West Midlands), mainly to define better the contribution of the private sector and 
to transfer to 1995 instalments of ERDF and ESF appropriations not used in 1994. 
80 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
4. Objectives 3 and 4 
4.1. Implementation of Objectives 3 and 4 in 1995 
All the programmes under Objective 3 have now been approved for the new period, as all the CSFs, OPs 
and SPDs for the nine existing Member States were adopted in 1994 and the three SPDs for the new 
Member States were adopted in 199528. In all, therefore, Objective 3 is being implemented by four 
CSFs, 46 OPs and seven SPDs (including three for the new Member States). All the Objective 4 
programmes for the Nine were also adopted in 1994, and in the new Member States, only the SPD for 
Sweden remained to be approved in 1995. Thus, Objective 4 is being implemented by nine SPDs 
(including two in the new Member States), one CSF and five OPs. 
Implementation of Objective 3 in the Member States in 1995 was satisfactory. Emphasis was placed on 
the new guidelines for the 1994-99 programming period, which introduced new possibilities for 
assistance as regards both the targeted recipients (all those threatened with exclusion from the labour 
market) and measures (integration pathways, basic and continuing training and apprenticeship schemes). 
Since the CSFs and SPDs for Objective 4 were approved in December 1994, measures were prepared in 
1995 at differing speeds in the different Member States. Priority was given to the dissemination of 
information (mainly through seminars and information campaigns), setting up the partnership and 
selecting projects. In some Member States measures were launched in 1995, in others this will happen in 
1996. The innovations in Objective 4, particularly with regard to pre-emptive measures, the extended 
partnership and the need to comply with competition rules have resulted in delays in implementation in 
relation to initial forecasts. 
Table 33: Objectives 3 and 4 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-95 and 1996-99 (ECU million) 
| B | DK | D | F | F | 1 | L | N | AT | FI | SE | UK | Total 
Objective 3 (1994/95-99 except for UK: 1994-96) 
Programmed 
Adopted 
Commitments 1994-1995 
% of assistance 
Payments 199*4-1995 
% of assistance 396,2 ** 
400,9 
101% 
97.8 
24% 
74.5 
19% 263,0 * 
263,0 . 
100% 
85,0 
32% 
74,2 
28% 1.682,1 ** 
1 682,1 
100% 
307,8 
18% 
234,3 
14% 1.474,4 ** 
1.480,3 
100% 
426,6 
29% 
244,5 
17% 2362,4 * 
2.562,4 
100% 
778,4 
30% 
503,7 
20% 1.316,3 ** 
1.300,1 
99% 
200,5 
15% 
100,2 
8% 20,7 * • 
20,7 
100% 
6,5 
31% 
5,6 
27% 922,8 * 
922,8 
100% 
282,3 
31% 
253,3 
27% 334,0 * 
334,0 
100% 
64.1 
19% 
32,0 
10% 258,4 * 
258.4 
100% 
60,3 
23% 
30,2 
12% 347,0 * 
347,0 
100% 
73,0 
21% 
36,5 
11% 1.501,0 * 
1.501,0 
100% 
975.0 
65% 
818.6 
55% 11.078,3 
11.072,7 
100% 
3.357,1 
30% 
2.407,6 
22% 
Objective 4 (1994/95-96 except for E, I,N,UK: 1994-99) 
Programmed 
Adopted 
% 
Commitments 1994-1995 
% of assistance 
Payments 1994-1995 
% of assistance 25,4 ** 
25,7 
101% 
4.6 
18% . 
9% 13,0* 
13,0 
100% 
6,0 
46% 
3,0 
23% 104,5 * 
104,5 
100% 
29,6 
28% 
14,8 
14% 368,6 * 
368,6 
100% 
118,1 
32% 
65,8 
18% 299,6 * 
299,6 
100% 
95,4 
32% 
47,7 
16% 398,8 * 
398,8 
100% 
60,6 
15% 
30,3 
8% 0,9 • 
0,9 
99% 
0,5 
59% 
0,3 
38% 156,2 * 
156,2 
100% 
22,2 
14% 
11,1 
7% 61,0 * 
61.0 
100% 
11,7 
19% 
5,9 
10% 84.6 * 
84,6 
100% 
14,8 
18% 
"<A 
9% 173,0* 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 329,7 * 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0.0 
0% 2.015,3 
1.512,9 
75% 
363.6 
24% 
188,7 
12% 
Programmed by SPD 
** Programmed by CSF 
The under-utilization of ESF appropriations for 199529 was noted by the various parties involved in the 
Community institutions and the Member States. The main reasons for this situation have been 
weeknesses and delays in implementation in certain Member States and delays in the adoption of many 
decisions. The situation varies according to the Objective and the Member State concerned, but a plan of 
action comprising steps to be taken by the Member States and the Commission has been adopted in 
order to improve implementation and achieve better control from 1996 on. 
28 See Chapter l.A.7. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies. 
29 See also Chapter II.A Budgetary implementation. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 81 
The environment in Objectives 3 and 4: 
Since Objectives 3 and 4 concern human resource measures to combat long-term unemployment and 
facilitate vocational integration (Objective 3) and to facilitate the adaptation of workers to industrial 
changes (Objective 4) environmental considerations are necessarily indirect and concern work 
experience and vocational training. However, in the long term they contribute to adapting employees 
to new jobs and increasing public awareness of environmental issues. Thus, under Objective 3 the 
ESF is supporting environmental action by part-financing employment aid for environmental 
improvement operations like the restoration of industrial sites, cleaning of rivers or beaches and the 
conservation of natural sites. Objective 4 includes vocational training and advisory measures in the 
context of re-skilling workers in the face of industrial changes. In the main, these measures aim to 
raise skill levels to enable workers to adapt to new, environmentally friendly procedures which often 
require advanced technical skills. 
4.2. Country-by-country survey 
BELGIUM 
Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities FSE 
Integration ofthe long-term unemployed (a) 133,0 
Vocational integration of young people seeking employment (b) 84,8 
Integration ofthose threatened with exclusion (c) 124,6 
Equal opportunities for men and women (d) 26,4 
Aid for training and integration facilities (e) 27,4 
Total 396,2 (d)7% (e) 7% (a) 34% 
(C) 31% 
(b) 21% 
Objective 3: Objective 3 in Belgium is programmed in a CSF and five OPs, all adopted in 1994 and 
representing ESF assistance worth ECU 396.2 million. Measures programmed for 1995 progressed well. 
The Monitoring Committees for the OPs studied the ways and means of achieving optimal management 
of the integration pathway, which will become an eligibility criterion from 1997. Underlying this 
discussion has been the setting up of a forum to take place in 1996 in which trainees under measures 
supported by the ESF will play a key role. The Monitoring Committees also focused on defining 
specifications for assessment as well as appointing independent assessors. 
Local branch offices in Brussels: 
The idea of setting up local branch offices came from the municipalities which 
make up the city of Brussels, the public social assistance centres (CPAS) and 
their partner associations as a shared means of assisting local inhabitants in 
difficulty. There is no single model. These local branches seek to render the 
various measures and legal provisions taken by the municipal, regional and 
federal authorities more accessible and applicable to the everyday reality ofthe 
local population they serve. They play an important coordinating role at local 
level in facilitating access by the population to vocational integration measures 
and encouraging the development of integration pathways. The local branch 
offices in Brussels have set up reception and guidance facilities. Each year 300 
to 600 people receive initial socio-vocational guidance in each of the local 
branches. There are now nine of them in the city's main municipalities. 
82 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Priorities I TTE 
Anticipation of labour market trends (a) S\T 
Improvements in training and guidance schemes (b) 6,4 
Development of training and guidance (c) 8,7 
Horizontal measures (d) 2,0 
Total J 25,4 (d) 8% 
(a) 33% 
(C) 34 
(b) 25% 
Objective 4: Like Objective 3, Objective 4 is programmed through a CSF and five OPs adopted in 1994 
with an ESF contribution of ECU 25.4 million until 1996. However, in contrast to initial plans, few 
measures were organized in 1995 because the Monitoring Committees for the OPs, in their concern to do 
justice to the specific goals of Objective 4, decided to determine as exactly as possible the criteria and 
procedures for selecting projects. Their discussions should be translated into administrative procedures 
during 1996. 
Table 34: Objectives 3 and 4 - Belgium - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
Objective 3 
1994 
OP Flemish Community 
OP French Community 
OP German-speaking community 
OP Brussels 
OP M in is try of employ ment 
total 632,0 
361,7 
12,4 
32,7 
94,3 
1.133,0 188,3 
158,7 
5,5 
12,4 
3 6,0 
41111,9 0,0 
25,9 
0,0 
1,9 
5,6 
33,4 30,4 
51,9 
0,8 
3,7 
10,9 
97,8 16% 
33% 
15% 
30% 
3 0% 
24% 9,4 
25.9 
0,1 
1.5 
5,5 
4 2,3 24,6 
38,9 
0,5 
2.4 
8,1 
74,5 81 % 
75% 
56% 
64% 
7 5% 
76% 
Objective 4 
1994 
OP Flemish community 
OP French Community 
OP German-speaking community 
OP Brussels 
OP M in is try of employment 
Total 
TOTAL 45,1 
11,1 
0,6 
3,1 
6,9 
66,« 
1.199,8 18,3 
3.7 
0,3 
1,0 
2,6 
25,7 
4 2 6,6 0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
33,4 3,5 
0,2 
0,1 
0,3 
0,6 
4,6 
102,4 19% 
5% 
25% 
30% 
24% 
1 fi % 
24% 0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
4 2.3 1.7 
0,1 
0,0 
0,1 
0.3 
2,3 
7 6,8 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
7 5 % 
The measures receiving assistance under Objective 3 in 1995 comprise active steps to combat 
unemployment, with special priority to integration mechanisms which, with appropriate supervision, can 
effectively help the unemployed into permanent jobs. Implementation of this exacting concept (the 
integration pathway) has been highly successful. The delays in starting up in 1994 have almost all been 
retrieved and the financial implementation rate is expected to be around 100% when the balances are 
calculated. The success rate of Objective 4, being much more recent in terms of both approach and 
direction, has been more varied in the different regions ofthe country. Only the federal OP kept up with 
initial programming in 1995. 
DENMARK 
Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities FSE 
Vocational integration of young people (R) 55,0 
Integration ofthe long-term unemployed (b) 144.0 
Integration of those threatened with exclusion (c) 58,5 
Technical assistance (d) 5,5 
Total 263,0 (C) 22% (d) 2% (a) 21% 
(b) 55% 
Objective 3: Objective 3 is being implemented in Denmark through a single SPD adopted in 1994, 
which saw ECU 41 million in commitment appropriations for 1995. The SPD supports and supplements 
Denmark's dynamic employment policy by concentrating assistance on a number of beneficiaries much 
smaller than the number of unemployed people receiving national assistance and on projects of a longer 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 83 
duration than in the previous programming period. Results in 1995 show that application of this 
principle is bearing fruit. 
Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Priorities 
Anticipation ot labour market trends ana vocational training 
requirements (a) 
Vocational training, guidance, advice (b) 
Improvements in vocational training schemes (c) 
Technical assistance (d) 
Total TSF 
1,9 
6,7 
3,9 
0,5 
TTC (d)4% 
(C) 30% (a ) 15% 
(b) 51% 
Objective 4: 1995 was the first full year of implementation ofthe SPD for 1994-96 in Denmark. Late 
approval ofthe SPD prevented any action in 1994 and resulted in ECU 1 million being carried forward 
from 1994. ECU 5 million was committed in 1995. The measures provided for in the SPD aim, in 
particular, at improving the current arrangements for monitoring the labour market and assisting firms to 
make better use of them. The ESF is also assisting measures with two other strategic aims: on the one 
hand, to develop vocational training in addition to that offered by the Danish system, matching market 
requirements and targeting those in greatest need and, on the other hand, to set up advisory services for 
businesses, especially SMEs. With regard to monitoring, the standing assessment committee provided 
for in the SPD has been set up. It is collaborating in the creation, application and development of new 
methods for anticipating and monitoring labour market requirements. 
Study on the impact of electronic data exchange (EDE): 
The purpose of this project is to study the extent to which EDE will change the 
skills required of staff and how surplus human resources can be reallocated 
elsewhere. The main target group is staff directly affected by the introduction of 
EDE, with management in second place. The first phase ofthe project, launched 
in 1995, consists in gathering information and pinpointing current and future 
uses of EDE by businesses by means of internal interviews and using experience 
gained in other countries. The project is being part-financed by the ESF (39%), 
the national public sector (33%) and the private sector (28%) 
Table 35: Objectives 3 and 4 - Denmark - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Com mitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) (2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
Objective 3 
1994 
SPD Denmark | 552,9| 263,0| 41,0| 85,01 32% | 39,0| 74,21 S7% 
Objective 4 
1994 
SPD Denmark 
TOTAL 28,9 
581,8 13,0 
2 7 6,0 5,0 
4 6,0 6.0 
9 1,0 46% 
33% 2,5 
4 1.5 3.0 
7 7.2 50% 
8 5 "/., 
GERMANY 
Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities FSE 
Vocational integration of those threatened with long-term 
unemployment (a) 951,4 
Vocational integration of young people seeking employment (b) 441,7 
Integration of those threatened with exclusion (c) 78,1 
Equal opportunities for men and women (d) 160,1 
Technical assistance and pilot projects (c) 50.7 
Total 1.682,0 (d)io% <e> 3% 
(C) 5% 
(b) 26% (a) 56% 
84 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Objective 3: Objective 3 in Germany is programmed in one CSF and 12 OPs (one per Land and one 
federal) adopted in 1994 with total ESF financing worth ECU 1 682 million. 1995 was the first full year 
of implementation ofthe OPs, which is why only 18% (ECU 48.2 million) ofthe total allocation of 
ECU 268.7 million provided for 1995 in the financing plan was committed and why commitments for 
1994-95 represented 58% ofthe amounts programmed. Most ofthe programmes only reached cruising 
speed during the second half of 1995. 
ESF assistance under Objective 3 at federal level is being used to supplement standard aid proposed 
under national employment measures, i.e. the "AFG-plus" programme run by the federal employment 
service (Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit), which supplements the training and employment aid provided for in 
the "AFG" (Arbeitsforderungsgesetz) employment promotion law. The most important aspect of the 
"AFG-plus" is the grant of aid to participants in vocational training measures who are not entitled to 
benefit under the AFG. Since the main beneficiaries of this assistance are women, implementation ofthe 
"AFG-plus" programme also helps contribute to equality of opportunities for men and women. 
At Lander level, the most noteworthy aspect of the new set of programmes is the creation or 
development of "soziale Betriebe", or social enterprises. Their mission is to integrate disadvantaged 
unemployed people by setting up businesses which, in time, will be viable without financial assistance 
from public funds. These social enterprises have mainly been developed in Lower Saxony and are 
currently being introduced in other parts ofthe country, often in slightly different forms. They will carry 
considerable weight when the OPs are assessed. 
Training women to drive buses in Munster: 
The aim of this project is to provide appropriate training for women who, after a 
period away from work, wish to re-enter the labour market as bus drivers. Part-
time training should enable them to get part-time work doing a job in which 
women are under-represented. The shift of emphasis away from physical 
strength towards customer service makes this work more attractive to women. 
Lasting 21 months, the training involves both general aspects (driving 
techniques, road safety and the highway code, labour law, passenger and goods 
transport, selling methods, office organization and using a PC) and long 
practical training courses, partly organized on a rotating basis, which bring 
women into contact with their future employers. 
With regard to implementation ofthe OPs, the closer cooperation between the regional branches ofthe 
federal labour services and the .social affairs services ofthe Lander provided for in the CSF has already 
begun to bear fruit. The implementing arrangements for several of the specific programmes for the 
Lander have been amended to make them compatible with the federal "AFG-plus" programme. Most of 
the bodies managing the programmes have found that the overall level of the programmes has been 
improved by applying the quality criteria ofthe CSF, which stipulate that projects must meet local and 
regional skilling requirements and be linked as closely as possible with businesses providing jobs. 
However, although progress is tangible, it is also slow and monitoring is needed to ensure that 
implementation continues. In addition, participation ofthe social partners and independent experts on 
the labour market in the work ofthe Monitoring Committee has permitted more intensive debate on the 
policy options. The economic and social partners in several Lander are collaborating in the selection of 
projects or the adjustment of regional programmes. 
Lastly, mid-term reviews of Objectives 3 and 4 have been prepared, with Monitoring Committee sub­
groups on assessment drawing up specifications and publishing an invitation to tender. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 85 
Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Priorities I FSE 
Anticipation oi labour market trends and vocational training 
requirements (a) 11,4 
Training and retraining, guidance and advice (b) 73,7 
Improvement and development of appropriate training 
schemes (c) 13,7 
Technical assistance (d) 5,7 
TôTâT nn^5~ (C) 13% (d)5% (a) 11% 
(b) 71% 
Objective 4: Objective 4 is being implemented in Germany by an SPD with ECU 104.5 million for 
1994-96. Implementation of assistance began late, so that the German authorities were able to spend 
only ECU 3 million in 1994 and 1995. The unspent funds from the 1994 and 1995 instalments will be 
carried forward to 1997-99. One ofthe main reasons for the delay was the temporary imposition ofthe 
"de minimis" rule on state aids, since the German authorities had to show that the planned assistance 
complied with Community competition rules. Consequently, none of assistance provided for in the SPD 
was implemented until May-June 1995. Another reason for the delay is the novelty of the approach 
under Objective 4, which required suitable structures to be set up to ensure that the right projects were 
selected. On 6 and 7 July 1995 the Germany authorities organized a seminar in Berlin to discuss 
planning for structural change and the forecasting of vocational training requirements. This was the first 
thematic seminar at European level since the Objective 4 programmes were launched. 
Table 36: Objectives 3 and 4 - Germany - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cos t S F as s is tance 
(1) Com mitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) P a y m e n t s 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
O bjective 3 
1994 
Regional OPs 
OP Bad en -W ùrtteniberg 
OP Bavaria 
OP Berlin 
OP Bremen 
OP Hamburg 
OP Hesse 
OP Lower Saxo n y 
OP Rluneland-Norlh 
VV es tp h alia 
OP Rh ineland-Palatinate 
OP Saar 
OP Sell les wig-Hols tein 
M ultiregional OPs 
OP Federal 
Total 1 15,8 
125,3 
1 13,0 
93,5 
86,1 
135,4 
276.S 
674.8 
65,8 
90,9 
90,4 
2.589,7 
4.457,4 52,4 
56.5 
50.8 
3 9,5 
39,1 
49,6 
121,2 
280,6 
29,5 
40,9 
34,4 
887,6 
1.6X2,1 8,3 
0,0 
8,1 
6,3 
0.0 
7,9 
0,0 
0,0 
5.0 
6,4 
6.1 
0,0 
4H,2 16,4 
8,7 
15.9 
12,3 
6,0 
15,5 
18,6 
43,0 
10,2 
13,0 
12.2 
136,1 
3 (17,H 3 1 % 
15% 
3 1 % 
3 1 % 
15% 
3 1 % 
15% 
1 5% 
3 4% 
3 2% 
3 5 % 
15% 
/ X % 6.6 
2.6 
S.S 
6.S 
l.S 
6.2 
0,0 
12.9 
4,1 
7.1 
6.7 
40.8 
1 114 .5 10,6 
6,9 
12,7 
9.9 
4.8 
10,0 
9.3 
3 4,4 
6,6 
10,4 
9,8 
108,8 
234.3 6 5% 
80% 
80% 
80% 
80% 
65% 
50% 
80% 
6 5% 
80% 
80% 
80% 
76% 
0 bj e c t i ve 4 
1994 
SPD German y 
Total 
TOTAL 255,3 
255,3 
4.712,7 104,5 
104,5 
1.786,6 0,0 
0,0 
48,2 29,6 
29,6 
3 3 7,4 28% 
2 S % 
19% O.U 
0.0 
1 0 4.5 14,8 
14,H 
249,1 50% 
5 0 % 
7 4 "/.. 
The rather low rate of budget implementation can be attributed mainly to the fact that the federal 
programme for Objective 3, which accounts for more than 50% of ESF assistance, is financing new 
measures which cannot be implemented in practice until a decision approving them has been taken. For 
this reason, the programme reached cruising speed only in the second half of the year. In addition, 
implementation of the programmes for the previous programming period continued until the end of 
1995. 
86 
SPAIN 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities FSE 
Vocational integration ofthe long-term unemployed (a) 499,3 
Vocational integration of young people seeking employment (b) 725,8 
Integration ofthose threatened with exclusion (c) 187,6 
Equal opportunities for men and women (d) 61,7 
Total 1.474,4 (C) 13% (d) 4% 
(a) 34% 
(b) 49% 
Objective 3: Objective 3 assistance in the Spanish regions outside Objective 1 is programmed in a CSF 
with Community assistance worth ECU 1 474 million. There are 11 OPs in all, of which four 
(representing 72% of total assistance) are managed by national bodies and the remaining seven (28%> of 
assistance) by the Autonomous Communities. Around ECU 233.8 million was available for 1995, about 
90%» of which was committed. The average rate of implementation of programmes is satisfactory. At its 
two meetings in 1995 the Monitoring Committee emphasized its strategic role in implementing the CSF 
priorities and in organizing the mid-term review as well as drawing up specifications for intermediate 
assessment by independent assessors. 
Stimulating the spirit of enterprise in Spain: 
The "Escuela de Organizaciôn Industrial" project was set up to help design a 
project to create new businesses to capitalize on local potential and to stimulate 
the spirit of enterprise and innovation through theoretical and practical training. 
To achieve this, the school provides training in how to manage a business in 
three integrated modules (theory, practical experience and supervision). During 
the practical phase, students develop a project to set up a business under the 
individual guidance of a project director (product/market definition, analysis of 
local potential, determining the strategy, etc) and during the final phase the 
finished project, including the data necessary to assess its viability, is formally 
presented. 
Objective 4 - prog rum min g for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
(C)6% (a) 10% 
Priorities FSE 
Pre-emptive measures, guidance and advice (a) 36,9 
Continuing training of workers (b) 308,4 
Technical as s is tance (c) 23,3 
TôîâT 368,6 
lb) 84% 
Objective 4: Objective 4 outside the Objective 1 areas of Spain is programmed in an SPD for 1994-99 
adopted at the end of 1994 with ESF assistance worth ECU 368.6 million. Implementation of this SPD 
has been seriously delayed, since only 25% of the 1994 instalment has been spent, leading the 
Commission to approve an amendment to the financing tables in the SPD in November 1995 to transfer 
unused amounts from 1994 to 1995. The delay is due both to the late approval ofthe SPD and the 
internal decision-making process of FORCEM, the joint body responsible for managing and part-
financing Objective 4. With regard to the measures implemented by FORCEM in 1994 and part-
financed by the ESF under Objective 4 (i.e. outside Objective 1 regions), it has become clear that the 
emphasis must be placed on training in SMEs (less than 250 employees), the least qualified workers and 
equality of opportunities for men and women. The Monitoring Committee met twice in 1995. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 3 7: Objectives 3 and 4 - Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 87 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Com mltments 
1995 Com mitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
19 9 5 Pnyin en ts 
19 94-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
Objective 3 
1994 
Regional OPs 
OP A ragon 
OP Balearic Is lands 
OP Catalonia 
OP Rioja 
OP Madrid 
OP Navarre 
OP Basque Country 
M ultiregional OPs 
OP INEM (1) 
OP M u Itiregional 
OP Un iversities 
OP Various bod ies 
Tola! 45,1 
28,8 
210,3 
9,6 
250,2 
94,6 
279,2 
1.364,4 
730,6 
201,2 
75,6 
3.2X9,6 20,3 
12,9 
94,6 
4,3 
1 12,6 
42,6 
125,7 
614,0 
328,8 
90,5 
34,0 
1.480,3 0,0 
0,0 
15.6 
0.0 
18,4 
6,8 
20,7 
1 10,0 
35,5 
0,0 
0,0 
2 0 7,0 20,0 
12,9 
3 1.1 
4.3 
36,8 
13,4 
4 1,3 
107,1 
5 8,3 
7,3 
3 3,9 
426,6 99% 
1 00% 
3 3% 
1 00% 
3 3% 
3 2% 
3 3% 
2 7% 
18% 
8% 
1 00% 
2 9 "A, 2, ! 
0.0 
1 S.r 
0,( 
13.-
o. 7 
1 5. ' 
S3.( 
0.' 
O.i 
lt> 9,7 2.6 
1.0 
2 3.0 
0.6 
10,1 
2 5 <• 
1 12.1 
4 0.5 
3.7 
2,4 
2 4 4,5 13% 
8% 
74% 
14% 
02% 
7 5 % 
(>3% 
7 0% 
M;% 
5 " "„ 
Objective 4 
1994 
SPD Spam 
Total 
TOTAL 1 045,0 
1.045,0 
4.334.5 368,6 
36X.6 
1.848,9 62,7 
62,7 
2 6 9,7 1 18,1 
118,1 
5 4 4,7 3 2% 
j : % 
2 9 % 3 S.I 
38,1 
2 (1 " .8 (-5.S 
6 5,8 
i 1 0.4 •}!."„ 
5 <• ':., 
5 ~ " ,i 
( 1 ) Natio nal institute tor employ ment 
FRANCE 
Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities FSE 
Integration of those threatened with long-term unemployment (a) 705.8 
Vocational integration of young people seeking employment (b) 987.2 
Integration ofthose threatened with exclusion (c) 714.2 
Equal opportunities for men and women (d) 17.9 
Technical assistance and pilot projects (e) 136,9 
Total 2.562,0 (C) 28% 
b) 38% 
Objective 3: The programming of ESF assistance under Objective 3 in France, implemented by an SPD 
with an ESF contribution amounting to ECU 2 562 million, contains a new feature in the greater 
involvement of local authorities, both financially (with 40% of ESF appropriations) and in terms o\~ 
programming and management (decentralization of appropriations in the regional section). 
Implementation in 1994 was much slower than expected because ofthe late adoption ofthe SPD. the 
reform of French financial channels, the programming of assistance in new domains and the greater 
involvement than hitherto ofthe local authorities. However, generally speaking the priority concerning 
those threatened with long-term unemployment progressed well. The priorities concerning the 
vocational integration of young people and equal opportunities were slower to get started and 
encountered difficulties in implementation. The priority concerning the integration ofthose threatened 
with exclusion faced still greater implementation problems. 
The rate of financial implementation was higher in 1995 than in 1994 (73%). Nevertheless, since neither 
of the meetings held by the Monitoring Committee in 1995 reported on the progress made in 
implementing the programme in 1995, no information regarding qualitative results or forecasts was 
available for inclusion in this report. In addition, in 1995 a debate began on employment policy in 
France which will have repercussions on the programming of Objective 3 (abolition of certain 
mechanisms, mergers, etc.) The Commission has repeatedly stressed the need to com cue a meeting ol 
the Monitoring Committee as quickly as possible. With regard to assessment, the specification has been 
adopted and the assessor selected. The steering committee met twice and should transmit a mid-term 
report at the end of July 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Priorities I TS~E 
Pre-emptive measures relating to skills and qualifications (a) 32,1 
Increase in the training effort (b) 227,8 
Improvements to training schemes (c) 14,6 
Technical assistance (d) 25,1 
Total 2"W (C)5% (d)8% (a,11% 
(b) 76% 
Objective 4: The decision approving the SPD for Objective 4, which provides for an ESF contribution 
worth ECU 299.6 million, was taken in 1994. Since the call for projects was not issued until early 1995, 
no measures were approved in 1994 for the 1994 instalment. In view ofthe newness of Objective 4, 
special efforts went into preparing communications measures (call for projects, dissemination of 
technical tools, exchange of experience) to train those involved and inform and raise the awareness of 
the bodies liaising with firms, especially SMEs (local chambers of trade, socio-professional bodies, 
social partners). Much of 1995 was dedicated to these measures and the presentation of projects 
therefore began only towards the end ofthe year. 70 projects were approved at national level and 335 at 
regional level. With regard to assessment, a steering committee was set up at the end of 1995 to 
determine specifications with a view to selecting an assessor. 
Measures to accompany changes in the car industry: 
A car parts company, Valéo Sécurité, in the department of Nièvre, has 
developed new products and new production systems and work organization 
arrangements in order to adapt to industrial change and find new markets. To 
accompany these changes in its development strategy, employees have attended 
framing programmes (integrated automation of production processes, use of 
new materials, integrated quality management, international sales and trade) to 
increase their independence and range of skills. These measures targeted 
employees with the lowest skill levels in order to increase their skills in line with 
the development of their jobs. The ESF contributed 8%, as did the French 
Government, while the firm contributed 84%. 
Table 38: Objectives 3 and 4 - France - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption! Total cost SF assistf 
(1) Com miIments 
1995 Com mitments 
1994-95 
(2) (2)/(lJ Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
O bj e c I i ve 3 
1994 
SPD France 503,71 65% 
O bj c c t i ve 4 
SPD France 
6.277,9 2.862,0 873,8 3 12,9 55 1,4 1 63% 
ITALY 
Objective 3 - programming jor 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities FSE 
Reintegration ofthe long-term unemployed (a) 424,2 
initial training and integration of young people (b) 566,0 
Integration ofthose threatened with exclusion (c) 131,6 
l:qual opportunities for men and women (d) 105.3 
Improvements in training schemes and employment services (e) 92.1 
Total 1.319,2 (e) 7% 
(b) 43% 
Programming of Objective 3 in Italy is being implemented by means of a CSF, adopted in August 1994, 
and 16 regional and multiregional OPs adopted in December 1994. Objective 4 programming is being 
implemented by an SPD also adopted in 1994. However, in 1995 the Commission decided to extend the 
commitments of funds for certain regional and multiregional OPs under Objectives 3 and 4 for the 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 89 
period 1990-93, so that the new and the old programming are running side by side and the 
implementation of the priorities of the Objective 3 CSF and the Objective 4 SPD for the second 
programming period has been slowed down. 
Objective 4 - programming for 19°4-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities I FSE 
rre-emptive measures, aid tor programming and managing a 
continuing training scheme (a) 58,3 
Training, the adjustment of human resources to structural 
changes in the productive economy (b) 323,1 
Technical assistance (c) 17,4 
Total J 1WJ (C) 4% (a) 15% 
(b) 81% 
The ESF has become an indispensable partner in the development of training in Italy. Most of the 
regional training systems are closely involved with Community assistance, either for part-financing or 
for training guidelines. Moreover, one ofthe characteristics ofthe new programming is the net increase 
in assistance under the responsibility ofthe central authorities. In addition, the new programming in Italv 
includes a system of tendering procedures for project selection which certainly ensure transparency and 
efficiency in the management of training systems but which also slow down implementation of the 
programming. This is why all the regions and autonomous provinces selected projects on the basis of 
invitations to tender published in the regional official gazettes only towards the end of 1995. The 
projects presented concern training and measures relating to the creation of new jobs (Objective 3) and 
prospecting measures to disseminate the results of studies on the anticipation of needs in businesses, as 
well as training measures (Objective 4). 
There has been some delay in implementing the measures part-financed under Objectives 3 and 4, and 
there were no commitments or payments in 1995 as a consequence. The amount provided for 1995 will 
therefore be reprogrammed over subsequent years. It should be pointed out that the part-financing 
mechanism, which had suffered from shortcomings in the past, has just been reformed.. Improvements 
can therefore be expected in the years to come. 
Table 39: Objectives 3 and 4 - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes (IXC million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F ass is tance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 C o m ni i I me n t s 
19 94-95 
(2) (2)/(l) l':i\ incuts 
19 9 5 \':\\ in e nts 
1 9 9 4-9 5 
(3) (31(2) 
O bjective 3 
1994 
Regional OPs 
OP Bolzano 
OP Emilia-Romagna 
OP Friuli-Venczia Giulia 
OP Lazio 
OP Liguria 
OP Lombardy 
OP M arche 
OP Pied mont 
OP Tuscany 
OP Trcnto 
OP Umbria 
OP Valle d'Aosta 
OP Venezia 
Multiregional OPs 
OP Technical assistance 
OP Innovative measures 
OP Train in g 
total 54,4 
409,8 
1 18,6 
271,7 
94,0 
3 89,1 
81.7 
271,6 
145.8 
62.7 
67.7 
2 7,6 
240,7 
77,8 
1 18.9 
456,8 
2.889,0 24,5 
184.4 
53,4 
122.3 
4 2.3 
175,1 
3 6,8 
122.2 
65.6 
28.2 
30,5 
12,4 
108,3 
35,0 
53,5 
205,6 
1.300,1 0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0,0 3.7 
27.6 
8.0 
18.3 
6.3 
26.2 
18.3 
') 8 
4.2 
4,d 
5,1' 
9.0 
3 4.8 
2 0 0,5 1 5% 
15% 
15% 
1 5" o 
1 5% 
15% 
1 5% 
15% 
15% 
15% 
1 5% 
1 5% 
1 7% 
17%. 
1 7% 
1 5 % 0.!i 
'>.( 
0.'. 
o o 
0,1 
0.0 
0.0 
O.i 
O.d 
0.0 
o.o 
II.II 1 .8 
13.S 
4.0 
1 ''.I 
2 S 
VI 
1.5 
I 7.4 
1 Oil, 2 Mi' , 
50" c. 
50% 
%'V 
v>% 
5 0" o 
50%. 
5 o ••;• 
0 bjective 4 
1994 
SPD M in is try of employ ment 
Total 
TOTAL 886,1 
886,1 
3.775,1 398,8 
398,8 
1.698,8 0.0 
0,0 
0,0 t'0.6 
6 0,6 
: (. i , i 15';,, | o.i! 
I5"„ 0,0 
1 5% | 0.0 .i(i,5 
3 0,3 
130.5 Mi" n 
.i II ",. 
M,-. 
90 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
LUXEMBOURG 
Objective 3 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities I FSE 
Integration ofthe long-term unemployed (a) 5,5 
Vocational integration of young people (b) 3,1 
Integration ofthose threatened with exclusion (c) 9,9 
Equal opportunities for men and women (d) 1,2 
Horizontal meas ures (e) 0.9 
Total 20,7 (d)6% (e)4% (a) 27% 
(C) 48% (b) 15% 
The Objective 3 SPD for Luxembourg, with ECU 20.7 million for 1994-99, is based on five priorities 
comprising a total of 14 training measures which have benefitted a total of 421 people. The Objective 4 
SPD, with ECU 900 000, targets low-qualified workers, particularly in sectors where there is little or no 
access to training. 
However, Luxembourg increasingly has a hard core of long-term unemployment. With ESF assistance, 
therefore, active measures to assist the unemployed have been strengthened by taking on social workers 
and setting up a new service for placement, prospection and support. Rates of financial implementation 
for both Objectives are very satisfactory. 
Objective 4 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Priorities | FSE 
Measures to anticipate trends in the labour market and 
requirements for vocational skills (a) 0.1 
Vocational training and retraining, guidance and ad vice (b) 0.5 
Improvement and development of training schemes (c) 0.1 
Measures covering the entire SPD (d) 0,1 
TôtâT ÏÏJ (d) 13% (a) 12% 
(C) 13% 
(b) 62% 
Table 40: Objectives 3 and 4 - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 
Programmes and year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Com mitments 
1995 Com mitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(U Payments 
19 95 Paym en ts 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
O bj e c t i \ e 3 
1994 
OP Pro ate promoters 
OP Public promoters 
Total 21.6 
24,4 
4 6,0 9,7 
1 1,0 
2 0,7 1.5 
l.S 
3,3 3,0 
3,5 
6,5 3 1 % 
3 2% 
3 1 % 1.7 
4,0 3.1 
5.6 S 3% 
9(1% 
8 7 % 
O bj e c 11 ve 4 
1994 
SPD Public promoters 
Total 
TOTAL 2.3 
2,3 
4X.3 0.9 
0,9 
2 1,6 0.3 
0,3 
3.6 0.5 
0.5 
7,0 0,59 
5 9 % 
3 2 % 0.2 
0.2 
0.2 0.3 
0,3 
5.9 0.65 
0 5% 
8 5 "/„ 
NETHERLANDS 
Objective 3 - programming jor 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities FSE 
Training (a) 480.0 
Job placement (h) 120.0 
Integration pathways (c) 277,0 
Technical assistance (d) 46.0 
___ 9 2 3.0 (C) 30% (d) 5% 
(b) 13% (a) 52% 
Objective 3: Implementation ofthe Objective 3 SPD, adopted in 1994. commenced in 1994 and reached 
its cruising speed at the beginning of 1995, so that all the ECU 143.8 million in the financing plan for 
1995 was committed. The main measure implemented was the training measure provided for in the SPD 
which concerns initial, basic ami vocational training and includes practical training in firms or 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 91 
educational establishments, individual follow-up and personal guidance. A special effort was also made 
in 1995 to implement the new "integration pathways" measure in the new programme, which was 
specifically designed, using an integrated approach, to help the socially excluded return to the labour 
market. The Netherlands has also implemented a placement measure. These different measures focus on 
activities such as training, preparation for vocational integration, integrated initiatives to achieve closer 
cooperation between local authorities, the employment of people in the health sector and the 
reintegration ofthe partially disabled into the labour market. Other measures concern employment pools 
and the acquisition of work experience. Young unemployed people have benefitted from training 
programmes specifically designed for those who left school early, special schemes guaranteeing jobs 
and an extension of apprenticeship schemes. Lastly, the Monitoring Committee for the SPD gave special 
attention to improving the selection criteria adopted the previous year, because the lack of transparency 
had caused difficulties for programme managers. During the year, the Committee refined its quality 
criteria in order to ensure that better projects were selected, thereby allowing the regions to add certain 
criteria of their own and to improve the complementarity between projects and regional policy. At the 
same time, the restructuring ofthe regional employment offices was commenced. 
A project for the socially excluded in North Brabant: 
Initially an experimental project of the provincial employment aid agency, an 
office has been set up to offer advice to individuals excluded from the labour 
market because of mental problems. They receive personal follow-up 
throughout the process of training and recruitment, as well as after their 
reclassification. In this way they can step out of their isolation and some can 
find a job. 
Objective 4 - programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities I FSE 
Encouraging interest in training (a) 13,0 
Matching training to needs (b) 29,1 
Training programmes (c) 106,7 
Technical assistance (d) 7.4 
TïïtâT ÎTS^T (d)5% (a) 8% 
(c) 68% (b)i9% 
Objective 4: Since the Dutch SPD for Objective 4 could not be launched until the second half of 1995, 
the appropriations allocated had not yet been committed at the end of 1995. This considerable delay is 
due to uncertainty as to the programme's implementing procedures and the need to set up a special 
temporary office in the Ministry for Social Affairs and Employment. In June 1995 a conference was 
finally organized in order to launch the Objective 4 programme30, during which an information booklet 
for potential promoters was officially presented. The Monitoring Committee for the SPD was also set up 
in mid-1995, when it adopted the project selection criteria. However, the Netherlands has had difficulty 
in finding suitable sources of part-financing and using existing resources to set up new structures. These 
different reasons explain why the first wave of projects was not presented until the end of 1995. 
Table 41: Objectives 3 and 4 - Netherlands - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes midyear of adoption S F as s is tance 
C) C o m m 11 m e n t s 
1995 C o m m i I me n I s 
1994-95 
(2) (2)/(I) Payments 
I 9 9 5 Pay men ts 
1994-9 5 
(3) (31/(2) 
O bj e c t i ve 3 
1994 
SP D Netherlands 253,3 1 90% 
O bjective 4 
SPD Netherlands 363,0 11.1 50% 
1.0 7 9,0 3 0 4.5 2S% 2 fi 4 ,4 j 8 7% 
ï() H fogether with the Community Initiatives Emploi and Adapt (see also Chapter I.B.I Community Initiatives). 
92 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
UNITED KINGDOM 
Objective 3 - programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 
Priorities I FSE 
Vocational integration ofthose unemployed for six months cr more (a) 566,0 
Vocational integration ofthe under 25s (b) 475,0 
Vocational integration ofthose threatened with exclusion (c) 353,0 
Equal opportunities for men and women (d) 91,0 
Technical assistance (e) 16,0 
Total 1.501,0 <d>6% (G)1% (a) 37% 
(C) 24% 
It should be remembered that only Objective 3 has been programmed in the United Kingdom for 1994-
96, as the authorities did not wish to present a programme for Objective 4 for that period. 
Objective 3: The SPD for Objective 3 covers the period 1994-96 and has a total allocation of ECU 1 501 
million, of which ECU 497 million was committed in 1995. Four priority groups are targeted for 
integration or reintegration measures: the long-term unemployed, young workers with few or no 
qualifications, those threatened with exclusion and the main potential beneficiaries of equal 
opportunities measures. Three types of measure are planned for each target group: guidance and 
counselling, training and job-hunting. This approach makes it possible to develop integrated projects 
giving those taking part a structured and signposted pathway to lead them from a situation of inadequate 
schooling or unemployment to suitable qualifications and a job. The selection of projects is administered 
by several types of body (national and local government, training and enterprise councils and local 
enterprise companies in Scotland, higher education establishments, universities and charitable 
organizations). The annual financial allocation for each type of body, per priority and per measure, was 
approved by the Monitoring Committee in 1994. 
The delay in implementation in 1994 resulted in retiospective selection in 1995. However, it became 
clear once the projects had been selected that, for all the different types of body, tire distribution by 
target group and measure did not correspond to the one in the financing plan ofthe SPD, which therefore 
had to be amended. The same procedure had to be repeated in 1995 when the situation recurred, this 
time because there were not enough measures under the equal opportunities target group or the measure 
for direct assistance in finding a job for all four target groups. It was decided to concentrate the lion's 
share of financing (95%) on the training measure for all four groups. 
Lastly, the Objective 3 Monitoring Committee decided to set up a standing assessment group to prepare, 
study and supervise the assessment procedure and report back to it. The assessment process is based on 
the analysis ofthe participants' dossiers, the monitoring of beneficiaries and ad hoc studies. 
Table 42: Objectives 3 and 4 - United Kingdom - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) 
Programme and year of adoption I Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Commitments I % 
1994-95 (2)/(l) 
(2) Commitments 
1995 Payments 
19 9 5 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
Objective 3 
497,01 975,01 WÂ SPD United Kingdom 898,91 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 93 
5. Objective 5(a) 
5.1. Objective 5(a) for agriculture 
Programming for 1994-99 
Objective 5(a) - a horizontal Objective which concerns farming throughout the Union - is a fundamental 
part of Community rural development policy31. Closely linked to the common agricultural policy, with 
the task of modernizing agricultural structures and funding of ECU 5 400 million32, it makes an 
important contribution to helping the Structural Funds achieve social and economic cohesion. 
Objective 5(a) measures are taken pursuant to specific Regulations, the most important of which are 
Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 on production structures, and Regulations (EEC) No 866/90 and No 
867/90 on marketing and processing structures. These Regulations were revised in 1994 by 
Regulation (EC) No 2843/9433, which simplified the rules and introduced greater flexibility into the 
granting of aid. 
Competitiveness and employment: Measures to make the agricultural sector more competitive and 
maintain employment levels are supported at every level, from farmers setting up to the modernization 
of holdings and the marketing of agricultural products: 
• training aid34 helps to improve technical knowledge among farmers setting up so that they can meet 
the challenges of a constantly changing economic environment; 
• setting-up aid for young farmers35 contributes to generational renewal to counteract one of the 
trends which weighs heaviest on the agricultural sector and most undermines competitiveness: the 
ageing ofthe active population; 
• aid for investments in agricultural holdings36 assists with modernizing facilities, rationalizing the 
production process and making it more profitable, diversification, improving living and working 
conditions and maintaining employment; 
• aid for back-up measures to assist agricultural holdings37 (administrative services, mutual aid, 
accounting) makes a qualitative contribution to improving competitiveness; 
• aid to producer groups38 for marketing their products in regions with specific marketing problems 
also contributes to redressing inter-regional imbalances; 
• aid for investment in the processing and marketing of agricultural and forestry products39 assists 
with the modernization of industrial and commercial activities which receive inputs from 
agriculture by guaranteeing better outlets for farmers and ensuring that they receive a share of the 
profits arising from the value added to their products. 
When approving specific measures proposed by Member States, the Commission takes care to ensure 
that they are compatible with other measures covered by the regional Objectives (1, 5(b) and 6), and 
with other Community policies, in particular environmental policy and the common agricultural 
policy. To this end, a number of rules are applied (selection criteria, sectoral prohibitions and limits, 
31 See also Chapter II.D.2. The Structural Funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development. 
32 Initial financial allocation for 1994-99. 
33 See 1994 Annual Report. 
34 Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 
35 Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 
36 Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 
37 Articles 13 to 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 
38 Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78. 
39 Regulations (EEC) No 866/90 and No 867/90. 
94 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
conditions to be fulfilled, etc.) to guarantee complementarity with CAP measures40. Preventing 
surplus production and encouraging production of products which can be disposed of through normal 
market outlets are also important factors in improving the sector's competitiveness. 
Consideration ofthe environment in Objective 5(a) measures for agriculture: 
In the context of the adjustment of agricultural structures, assistance granted by the EAGGF 
Guidance Section under Objective 5(a) has beneficial effects on the environment through support 
for investments in agricultural holdings which are intended to protect and improve the 
environment. Furthermore, as part of the measures for adjusting processing and marketing 
structures for agricultural products, in 1994 the Commission amended the selection criteria for 
investment aid so as to encourage investments in processing industries using technological 
innovations that are environmentally friendly, help prevent pollution and eliminate waste and 
promote organic farming products. 
Note should also be taken of the impact on the environment of the measures to accompany the 
reform of the CAP adopted by the Council in 1992. One of the three measures, financed by the 
EAGGF Guarantee section, concerns agricultural production methods compatible^ with the 
requirements of the protection ofthe environment and the maintenance ofthe countryside41. This 
Regulation provides in particular for limiting agricultural production by reducing the use of 
fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides, as well as reducing the number of livestock held on farms or 
the number of head per hectare. In 1995 ECU 484.5 million was paid out for this purpose in the 
twelve Member States. Forecast expenditure for 1996 is over ECU 1 300 million for the fifteen 
Member States. 
Balanced land use and employment: To achieve balanced land-use development, specific measures 
are applied in particular to assist mountainous and other less-favoured areas42 They are designed to 
maintain farming in such areas through compensation for the permanent natural handicaps which 
exist there and comprise principally compensatory payments per production unit and more generous 
investment aid than that granted to areas without such handicaps. Their effect is to maintain the social 
fabric in areas under serious threat of depopulation and so prevent job losses, the flight from the land 
and desertification. 
40 See Chapter II.D.2. The Structural Funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development. 
41 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992. 0.1 No L 215. 30.7.1902. 
,: Articles 1 7 to 20 o{ Regulation (EEC) No 2 32S 9. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 95 
Table 43: Extent of less-favoured areas (in 1 000 ha) within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC (situation at 
the start of 1996) 
M EM B ER S TA TES 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
S pain 
Fran ce 
France (c.xcl. OD) 
France 01) 
Ire Ian d 
Italy 
Lu xe m bou rg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kin gdo m 
Total EUR 12 
A u s tria 
Fin Ian d 
Sweden 
Total EUR 15 UAA of less-favou red areas01 
Mountain 
areas (Art. 
3(3)) 
336 
3.914 
7.503 
5,284 
5.1')~ 
H~ 
5.218 
1.227 
23.482 
2,047 
1.407 
526 
27.462 
35% Other less-
fa vou red 
areas (Art. 
3(4)) 
273 
7.987 
964 
1 1.343 
7.809 
~.~<J4 
15 
3.456 
3.405 
1 22 
2,056 
8.341 
45.756 
208 
5 36 
1.01 I 
47.51 t 
6 1 %, Less-favou red 
a reas with 
specific 
h an dica ps 
(Art. 3(5)) 
199 
402 
700 
8 04 
'29 
12 
218 
1 1 1 
150 
1 
2.600 
164 
220 
3 33 
3.317 Total UAA 
Less-la vou re d 
are as 
273 
0 
8,522 
5.280 
19.546 
13,897 
13.-2(1 
1" 
3.4 6 8 
8.84 1 
124 
1 1 1 
3,433 
8,342 
71.837 
2.4 19 
2.164 
1 ,869 
78.290 
10(1% Me m be r S ta te 
1 .3 5 7 
2.770 
17.012 
6.4 0 8 
26.330 
30.01 1 
29 S34 
/" 
4.892 
16.496 
127 
2.0 1 1 
3.998 
18,658 
13 0.070 
3,524 
2.549 
3.6 3 4 
139.777 % of 1 c s s -
fa vou red 
areas in the 
Mem ber State 
2 0% 
0% 
5 0% 
8 2 % 
74% 
4 6 % 
4 6 %, 
1(10% 
7 1% 
™ 5 4 % 
98% 
6 % 
8 6% 
4 5 % 
5 5 % 
6 9 % 
8 5% 
5 1 % 
5 6 % 
( I ) UAA: Li sa hie agricultural area including "common land" estimated at: 2 300 000 ha in Greece; 1 770 000 lia in Spam; 
1 239 000 ha in France; 450 000 ha in Ireland; 1 550 000 ha in Italy: 700 000 ha in Portugal; ! 220 000 ha in the 
United kingdom; 250 000 ha in Austria; 100 000 ha in Sweden 
Member State selections of measures for the 1994-99 programmes: Taken as a whole, the Objective 
5(a) measures provide a flexible legal framework within which Member States may both select measures 
and decide what arrangements are most appropriate to the specific needs of each area. Thanks to this 
flexibility, Member States have been able to select the sectors, categories of farmers and areas which 
they consider should receive priority. 
Member States' options for 1994-99 
(f) 42% Belgium 
(a) 25% Denmark 
(c) (d)4% 
3% a)45% 
(C)21% (b)2% (b)5% 
(e) 50% 
r-j Investments on holdings (a) 
r-i T raining and support seivices (d) r-j P roducer group s (b ) 
cm M ountain and Icss-favourul areas (e) m P io ces s in g and in at I» cling (c ) 
Youni: farine i s ( f) 
96 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
(e) 19 
(d) 2% (C) 39% (f) 44% (b) 1% 
(e) 26% (c) (e 
15% 27% 
(d 2% (C)30% 
Luxemburg 
(f) 26% (a) 26% (d) o.3% Netherlands 
4% 
(e) (f)2% 
(e)44% (b)5% (a) 56% United Kingdom 
5% 
(f) 0,3% ^ (a) ^ (b)0,V 
(e) 32% 
(C)63% 
Q Investments on holdings (a) 
r-jTraining and support services (d) (Producer groups (b) 
i M ountain and less-favoured areas (e) (Processing and marketing (c) 
i Young farmers (f) 
Implementation forecasts: After adoption ofthe programming documents and expenditure forecasts 
for the new Member States43, the indicative financial programming for Objective 5(a) measures 
outside Objective 1 and 6 regions44 for the period 1994-99 is as follows : 
Table 44: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Implementation forecasts for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Austria (1) 
Netherlands 
United kingdom 
Finland(l) 
Sweden(l) 
Total Total 
170,4 
127,0 
1.060,9 
326,0 
1.745,5 
ao,o 
39,0 
385,8 
118,0 
361,0 
331,0 
90,1 
5.443,7 Production 140,4 
Processing and marketing 30,0 
Production 100,3 
Marketing and processing 26,7 
Production 851,7 
Processing and marketing 218,3 
Production 207,0 
Processing and marketing 119,0 
Production 1.486,6 
Processing and marketing 258,9 
Production 494,4 
Processing and marketing 185,6 
Production 37.3 
Processing and marketing 1,7 
Production 323,5 
Processing and marketing 62,3 
Production 78.8 
Processing and marketing 39,2 
Production 134.5 
Processing and marketing 226,5 
Production 287,9 
Processing and marketing 43,1 
Production 67.2 
Processing and marketing 22,9 
Production 4.209,6 
Processing and marketing 1.234,1 % 
82% 
18% 
79% 
21% 
80% 
20% 
63% 
37% 
85% 
15% 
73% 
27% 
96% 
4% 
84% 
16% 
67% 
33% 
37% 
63% 
87% 
13% 
75% 
25% 
77% 
23% 
U) 1995.99 . see a|so Chapter I.A .7. Integration ofthe new Member States into the 
structural policies, 
43 For more details on the new Member States, see Chapter I.A.7. Integration ofthe new Member States into the 
structural policies. 
44 In Objective 1 and 6 regions, Objective 5(a) measures are programmed within the CSFs and SPDs. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 97 
Implementation of Objective 5(a) for agriculture in 1995 
Physical and financial implementation for 1995 outside Objective 1 and 6 regions is shown below. 
Table 45: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Financial implementation in 1995 (commitments - ECU million) 
Member State 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Austria 
Netherlands 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom (1) 
TOTAL Indirect measures 
"structures of 
production" 
22,65fj 
16,731 
138,230 
19,920 
216,972 
5,188 
61,498 
4,889 
54,523 
13,721 
22,802 
577,124 Processing and 
marketing (R. 
866/90) 
7,583 
26,902 
1,176 
35,111 
0,283 
6.897 
77,952 Total 
30.233 
16.731 
165,132 
21,096 
252.083 
5,471 
61,498 
4,889 
61.420 
13,721 
22,802 
655.076 
(1) Revised SPD 
A large number of the programmes concerning measures for processing and marketing had been 
approved and the first instalment committed by the end of 1994. However, a number of Member States 
could not receive the second instalment (1995) before the end of that year because the programmes had 
not made sufficient progress. The first instalment for Austria was not committed until the beginning of 
1996 and Sweden did not programme an amount for 1995. 
Table 46: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Physical implementation in 1994 
Member Stute 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg* 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Un ited Kingdom 
TOTAL Setting-up of young farmers 
(Art. 10) 
Number of beneficiaries 
Obj. 1 
Q84 
705 
3.501 
1 5Q 
357 
718 
1 059 
7.555 Non-Obj. 1 
772 
438 
4.049 
1.212 
7.086 
1.495 
59 
15.11 1 Total 
844 
438 
5.033 
705 
4 713 
7 245 
357 
2 213 
59 
0 
1 059 
0 
22.666 Investment aid for 
young farmers (Art. 1 1 ) 
Number of beneficiaries 
Obj. 1 
26 
251 
1.890 
21 
290 
55 
4 
1.025 
8 
3.570 Non-Obj. 1 
342 
420 
689 
753 
2.256 
412 
101 
90 
14 
5.07 7 Total 
368 
420 
689 
251 
2 643 
2 277 
290 
467 
101 
94 
1 025 
8.647 Investment aid 
(Art. 7) 
N u m be r o f be n e 11 c i a r i e s 
Obj. 1 
81 
2,466 
9 762 
57 
2.660 
273 
25 
2 353 
237 
17.914 Non-Obj. 1 
1 006 
'1 436 
2.110 
3 277 
7 400 
1 696 
^6 
S58 
409 
18.348 Total 
1 147 
1 436 
2 110 
2 466 
13 03 0 
7 457 
2 660 
1 l>69 
9o 
8S3 
2 3 53 
646 
36.262 C o m pe n s a 1 o r y 
allowances (Art. 19) 
N u m be r o f h ol di n g s 
6 873 
140 612 
231 275 
187 538 
187 059 
140.612 
105.619 
39 056 
2 515 
3.901 
89 510 
60.912 
1 .195.482 
1 993, except for compensatory allowances : I 994 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 47: Objective 5(a) agriculture - State of financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 
B DK D F AT II Sfc IK Total 
Programmed 
.Adopted 170,4 
170.4 
100% 127,0 
127,0 
100% 1.069,9 
1.069,9 
100% 326,0 
326.0 
100% 1.745,5 
1.745,5 
100% 680,0 
6S0.0 
100% 39,0 
39,0 
100% 118,0 
118,0 
100% 385.8 
385,8 
100% 331.0 
331,0 
100% 90,1 
90,1 
100% 
T2ÏX 
3 or» RTTT 
31% ITT 
31 % 1xT nrr 361,0 
361,0 
100% 5.443,7 
5 44.3,7 
100°',, 
T3 Commitments 1994-95 
% of assistance mr 
30% 678,6 
39% TT7X 
17% 6TX 
16% 
402,8 Tier 
9% 8X2 
24% 7K6 
29% 
Payments 1994-95 
% of assistance 16.5 
10% T9~r 209,8 
20% ~S(7X~ 
7 5°;, 5,4 
14% 1X2 
1 0% 30.7 
8% 6.9 
8% 41.7 
12% 914,9 
17% 
'rogrammed by SPD 
Programmed by CSF for Regulation (I'.llC) No 866/90 
///; Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
5.2. Objective 5(a) for fisheries 
Programming for 1994-99 
The objective ofthe adjustment of fisheries strucmres, the financial instrument for which is the FIFG, is 
pursued through operations aiming both to ensure a sustainable balance between fisheries resources and 
fishing activities and to support and strengthen the entire European fisheries sector. As regards the 
adjustment of fishing effort, the FIFG contributed in 1995 to part-financing the reduction of the 
European fleet in line with the Multiannual Guidance Programme for 1993-96 through the permanent 
cessation of fishing vessel activity (in the fonn ofthe scrapping or export of vessels or the formation of 
joint ventures). At the same time, work was continued on strengthening the European fisheries and 
aquaculture industry, in particular in the fields of product processing and marketing, aquaculture and 
port facilities. 
Consideration ofthe environment in Objective 5(a) measures for fisheries: 
Several measures part-financed by the FIFG, including the adjustment of fishing^effort, are 
designed to reduce the disruptive effect of fishing activity on the environment and fisheries 
resources, which are still being over-exploited. This involves supporting material investment in 
protecting fisheries resources in coastal sea areas, protecting certain coastal areas and 
modernizing facilities and equipment in fishing ports, aquaculture and the processing industry as 
well as the introduction, under the common fisheries policy, of technical rules to protect fisheries 
resources and the maritime ecosystem in general, which have a clear preventive impact in terms of 
the conservation ofthe environment. 
Objective 5(a) and protected maritime areas: 
The improvement and protection of certain coastal areas is the fourth aspect of FIFG intervention. 
The creation of protected marine areas can be achieved through the introduction of mobile or 
stationary units, in the form of artificial reefs, the creation of marine reserves, the prohibition of 
fishing activities, etc. This action will help to protect juveniles and improve living standards and 
resource development in the regions concerned. More than ECU 30 million of FIFG resources 
have been allocated to these projects, of which ECU 16 million has gone to Spain. 
Objective 5(a) for fisheries concerns only measures outside Objective 1 and 6 regions (within those 
regions "fisheries" operations are included in CSFs and/or single programming documents). There are 
a total of 12 of these programmes, nine in the old Member States, which were adopted in 1994, and 
three in the new Member States, which were adopted in 19954-. ECU 176.9 million has been 
committed under this heading and ECU 81 million was paid out in 1995 (of which ECU 65 million 
and ECU 19.1 million respectively were for the new Member States). 
FIFG measures in Objective 1 regions were implemented through five operational programmes for 
fisheries, but also under the "fisheries and aquaculture" chapters in a total of nine SPDs and three OPs. 
Similarly, in Objective 6 regions both the single programming documents for Finland and Sweden 
contain a "fisheries and aquaculture" heading. ECU 270.8 million has been committed and ECU 81.3 
million was paid out in 1995 for Objective 1 regions, while for Objective 6 regions commitments and 
payments represented ECU 1.4 million and ECU 700 000 respectively. 
45 See Chapter I.A.7. Integration ofthe new Member States into the structural policies. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 99 
Table 48: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Operational priorities of single programming documents for 1994-99 
(ECU million) 
Adjustment of fishing efforts 
Other fishing fleet measures 
Modernization and renovation of the fishing fleet 
Aquaculture 
Protection of marine areas 
Port facilities 
Processing and m ark et in g of products 
Promotion of products 
Socio-economic measures (2) 
Other measures 
Total B 
5,2 
0,0 
7,9 
1,9 
0,7 
1,5 
5,9 
1,2 
pm 
0,2 
24,5 DK 
37,7 
0,0 
35,0 
9,2 
3,2 
9,8 
30,1 
7,2 
pm 
7,6 
139,9 D(l) 
6,8 
0,0 
12,3 
7,1 
0,0 
5,6 
39,4 
2,5 
pm 
1,8 
75,5 E 
40,6 
0,0 
35,9 
7,2 
1,8 
6,0 
23,9 
1,8 
pm 
2,4 
119,6 F 
16,2 
27,0 
20,3 
33,7 
0,0 
8,1 
54,8 
5,0 
pm 
24,8 
189,9 ' 
35,4 
0,0 
3 3,6 
20,5 
1,2 
5,6 
28,1 
3,6 
pm 
6.4 
134,4 L 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,3 
0,1 
pm 
0,0 
1.1 N 
8,0 
0,0 
2,2 
1,5 
0,0 
20,4 
8,5 
6.0 
pm 
0,0 
46,6 UK 
13,5 
18,5 
13,3 
3,8 
0,4 
4,3 
22,7 
12,1 
pm 
0,2 
88,7 Total 
163,4 
45,5 
160,5 
85,6 
7,3 
61,3 
213,7 
39,5 
pm 
43,4 
820,2 
( I ) Indexed amounts. 
(2) Following the am en dm en t of Regulation (EC) No 3 6 99/93 in 1995, these m easures may be introduced by the M ember States 
The am ount of these measures is to be determ ined within the overall financing allocation. 
Implementation of Objective 5(a) for fisheries in 1995 ~~ 
In 1995 the main steps taken were the adoption of socio-economic measures, a specific measure to assist 
Spanish and Portuguese fishermen and the rescheduling of FIFG appropriations for certain Member 
States. 
Socio-economic measures for fishermen: Alongside the measures to reduce the fleet and improve 
fisheries and aquaculture structures, a new, socio-economic dimension was added to FIFG-financed 
measures in 1995. A Regulation adopted by the Council in November46 allows the FIFG to finance, 
at the request ofthe Member States, two new types of measure to alleviate the social consequences of 
the far-reaching restructuring ofthe sector, in particular job losses arising from the reduction ofthe 
Community fleet. These measures consist of aid for national early retirement schemes for sea-going 
fishermen (under certain conditions concerning age and the length of time spent in this occupation) 
and individual grants for younger fishermen obliged to leave this employment because of the 
withdrawal of fishing vessels from use. These measures, which meet the requests of several Member 
States, the European Parliament and those employed in the sector, will impose no additional burden 
on the Structural Fund budget since they will be financed through the rescheduling cf FIFG 
appropriations already allocated. 
Specific measures to assist Spanish and Portuguese fishermen: The expiry of the Fisheries 
Agreement with Morocco and the temporary absence of a new one caused around 700 vessels in 
Spain and Portugal, whose fishing activities were in waters under Moroccan sovereignty or 
jurisdiction, to be laid up between May and November 1995. A specific measure for the crews 
concerned, designed to limit the consequences of this situation, was established47 using a system of 
monthly individual compensation payments. Expenditure on this measure is limited to ECU 31.8 
million (ECU 27 million for Spain and ECU 4.8 million for Portugal), of which the Union provided 
ECU 23.85 million. In addition, FIFG appropriations already granted to these two Member States 
under their operational programmes were partly re-directed to compensate ship-owners for the 
temporary inactivity of their vessels, on the basis of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93. For 
the entire period during which activity was interrupted, ECU 52 million were made available 
(ECU 48 million for Spain and ECU 4 million for Portugal), of which ECU 39 million came from 
Union resources. 
Reprogramming of FIFG appropriations: The delayed adoption of a number of FIFG programming 
documents in 1994 and difficulties relating to the establishment of a completely new financial 
instrument led in some Member States to a certain delay in the use of FIFG appropriations programmed 
46 Regulation (EC) No 2791/95 of 20 November 1995, OJ No L 283, 25.11.1995. 
47 Council Decision 95/451/EC of 26 October 1995, OJ No L 264, 7.11.1995. 
100 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
for 1994. To avoid this delay having repercussions on the entire programming period, the Commission 
and the eight Member States concerned decided, through the partnership, to reschedule the commitments 
by transferring part ofthe 1994 appropriations to 1995. Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United 
Kingdom benefited from this arrangement under Objective 5(a), and similar rescheduling was carried 
out for Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain under Objective 1. 
Changes in the rules: Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 laying down the criteria and arrangements 
regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector was amended twice 
in 1995. The first amendment48 introduced gross tonnage as the unit of vessel measurement (used to 
establish premiums for permanent abandonment of activity). The second concerned socio-economic 
measures for sea-going fishermen (see above). A third proposal for a Council Regulation was 
introduced before the end of the year49 intended, firstly, to maintain at a constant level permanent 
withdrawal premiums for vessels more than thirty years old and, secondly, to put a ceiling on the cost 
of measures for the temporary cessation of fishing activity. Finally, with regard to rules for the 
payment of FIFG appropriations, the Commission adopted a new Regulation50 laying down the 
procedure for presenting half-yearly statements of expenditure and annual implementation reports, on 
the basis of which advances and balances are paid out. These measures are intended to harmonize and 
rationalize systems for paying out FIFG assistance, as well as guaranteeing greater transparency. 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 49: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Programmed 
Adopted 
% 
Commitments 1994-95 
% o l'assistance 
Payments 1994-95 
% of ass is tan ce B 
24,5 
24,5 
100% 
4.1 
17% 
• 13% DK: 
139,9 
139.9 
100% 
46,6 
33% 
30,3 
22% D 
74,5 
74,5 
100% 
24,9 
33% 
16,1 
22% E 
119,6 
119,6 
100% 
39,8 
33% 
10,0 
8% F 
189,9 
189,9 
100% 
63,3 
33% 
41,1 
22% 1 
134.4 
134,4 
100% 
44,8 
33% 
11,2 
8% L 
1,1 
1,1 
100% 
1,1 
100% 
0.2 
15% N 
46,6 
46,6 
100% 
9? 
20% 
6,2 
13% AT 
2,0 
2.0 
100% 
2.0 
100% 
0,2 
10% FI 
23.0 
23.0 
100% 
23,0 
100% 
6.9 
30% SE 
40,0 
40.0 
100% 
40,0 
100% 
12,0 
30% Ok 
88,7 
88,7 
100% 
14,8 
17% 
11,8 
13% Total 
884,2 
884.2 
100% 
313,4 
35% 
149.3 
17% 
Country-by-country survey 
Table 50: Objective 5(a) fisheries - Financial implementation of SPDs (ECU million) 
P rojj ranimes 
and 
year of adoption Total cost s S F assis lance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) «À 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
SPD Belgium 
SPD Den mark 
SPD Germany 
SPD Spain 
SPD France 
SPD Italy 
SPD Luxembourg 
SPD Netherlands 
SPD t'n ited Kingdom 
TOT.-xL 91.9 
438.8 
369.2 
334.1 
S-J 3.0 
380.8 
3.7 
123,5 
240.8 
2.825,» 24.5 
139.9 
74.5 
119,6 
189.9 
134.4 
1.1 
46.6 
88,7 
819,2 0,0 
23.3 
12.5 
19,9 
3 1,6 
22,4 
0.9 
1.4 
0,0 
lit,9 4,1 
46.6 
24.9 
39,8 
63.3 
44.8 
1.1 
9.2 
14.8 
248,4 1 7%, 
3 3 % 
33% 
33% 
33% 
100% 
20% 
1 7% 
30% 1.2 
18.6 
9.9 
0.0 
25.3 
0.0 
0,1 
4.4 
(il,9 3,3 
30.3 
16.1 
10,0 
41,1 
11.2 
0.2 
6.2 
11.8 
130,2 80% 
65% 
65% 
25% 
65% 
25% 
15% 
68%, 
80% 
52% 
Belgium: The contribution ofthe FIFG to the single programming document under Objective 5(a) in 
Belgium is ECU 24.5 million for 1994-99, with ECU 4.1 million each for 1994 and 1995. 
Implementation ofthe programme began in 1995 in the case of adjustment ofthe fishing effort and 
renewal and modernization ofthe fleet. 
48 Council Regulation (EC) No 1624/95 of 29 June 1995. OJ No L 155, 6.7.1995. 
49 COM(95) 627 final. 5.12.1995. 
50 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1796/95 of 25 July 1995, OJ No L 174, 26.7.1995. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ Q \ 
Denmark: ECU 23.3 million was committed in 1995 under Objective 5(a) for fisheries in Denmark. The 
Monitoring Committee met twice in that year and adopted detailed, project selection criteria. 
Implementation ofthe programme proceeded satisfactorily. Substantial legislative work was carried out 
in Denmark in 1995 in order to adapt national law to the Structural Fund system. The Danish authorities 
organized a major conference in May 1995 on the future of fisheries in Denmark. 
Germany: In 1995 Monitoring Committees were established and adopted their rules of procedure and 
project selection criteria. This facilitated a rapid start-up of the programmes (adopted in December 
1994), so that absorption of appropriations was satisfactory. Two thirds ofthe annual instalment for 
1994 was implemented, which meant that the 1995 instalment could be committed and the second 1994 
advance paid out, as well as the first advance for 1995 (total FIFG payments: ECU 16.1 million out of 
ECU 24.9 million committed.). 
Spain: Since the Spanish single programming document was adopted on 22 December 1994, 
implementation could not really start until 1995. The level of implementation was 25% ofthe 1994 
instalment (total FIFG payments: ECU 10 million out of ECU 19.9 million committed). Reprogramming 
was carried out on 19 October 1995 involving the transfer of ECU 15.1 million to the 1995 instalment, 
which subsequently enabled the Commission to commit the 1995 instalment. 
France: The single programming document, adopted on 22 December 1994, was actually implemented 
in 1995. However, implementation was satisfactory and used 64% ofthe annual instalment for 1994, so 
that the second instalment for the year could be paid out, the 1995 instalment committed and a first 
advance paid out within the time limits provided for (total FIFG payments: ECU 41.1 million out of 
ECU 63.3 million committed, with a national contribution of ECU 42.5 million). 
Italy: 1995 was marked by difficulty in absorbing appropriations because ofthe delayed availability of 
the national financial contribution for internal administrative reasons (delayed approval ofthe findings 
ofthe inter-Ministerial Committee for economic programming; Sardinian appeal against those findings). 
As a result of these delays, the appropriations needed for national part-financing only became available 
from October 1995. On 23 October 1995 the Monitoring Committees for the two FIFG programmes 
(Objective 5(a) and Objective 1) approved the rescheduling ofthe 1994 instalment to adjust it to the real 
state of progress, thereby enabling the Commission to commit the 1995 instalment. Almost all the 
projects financed are part ofthe last instalment (1994) under Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, paid out of 
the FIFG budget. 
Luxembourg: The main objective ofthe programme is to assist the development of aquaculture and the 
processing and marketing of aquaculture products. The Monitoring Committee met twice in 1995 and 
the principal beneficiary has already made substantial investments in improving and increasing 
production of certain species offish in aquaculture. 
Netherlands: In 1995 the programme's Monitoring Committee was set up. After it had adopted its rules 
of procedure and project selection criteria, actual implementation ofthe programme began with the first 
measures for the permanent withdrawal of fishing vessels. In addition, the Dutch authorities informed 
the Monitoring Committee of various measures launched under other headings in the programme, 
namely agriculture, product processing and marketing, and the promotion of fisheries products. 
Financial rescheduling was, however, adopted on 29 November 1995, reducing the 1994 instalment 
initially provided for (ECU 7.8 million) by ECU 1.2 million, while the 1995 instalment was increased 
from ECU 7.8 million to ECU 14.3 million. 
United Kingdom: The Objective 5(a) single programming document concentrates on adjusting fishing 
effort, modernizing and improving the safety of vessels, adjusting the processing industry and 
developing ports. Appropriate national legislation was adopted in June 1995 and certain FIFG measures 
were launched at the end of 1995. It was necessary to revise the financial plan for the single 
programming document, reducing the 1994 instalment by 30% and increasing the 1996 instalment by 
the same proportion, in order to schedule expenditure more efficiently over the whole period. The 
] 02 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
meeting ofthe Monitoring Committee enabled project selection criteria to be adopted. A measure for 
taking vessels out of service is underway for 1993-98: around 7% ofthe fleet has currently been taken 
out of service, and it is estimated that at the end of 1998 around 12% will have been withdrawn. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 10; 
6. Objective 5(b) 
6.1. Programming for 1994-99 
Table 51: Objective 5(b) - area and population of eligible areas and funding allocated to each Member State, 
1994-99 
Member States 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
United Kingdom 
ËLk 9 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
EUR 3 
Total Area (km2) 
6.831 
8.374 
96.178 
85.223 
291.558 
80.486 
831 
5.405 
67.987 
642.873 
5Ô.Ô4Ô 
95.219 
52.746 
198.005 
840.878 Population 
('000 inhab.) 
448 
361 
7.823 
1.731 
9.759 
4.828 
30 
800 
2.841 
28.621 
2.276 
1.094 
754 
4.124 
32.745 Structural Fund 
allocation (Ed 
million) 
78.1 
54.0 
1.229,0 
664,0 
2.239,4 
903." 
6.0 
150.0 
S20.5 
6.144.7 
411.0 
194.0 
138.0 
743,0 
6.887." 
A study ofthe 78 single programming documents approved in 1994 and 1995 for the Objective 5(b) 
1994-99 programming period confirms that the main priorities set by the Commission have been taken 
into account. Article 4 ofthe Framework Regulation, specifying that "Community operations shall be 
such as to complement or contribute to corresponding national operations," has led the Commission to 
adjust its assistance to the specific contexts of each Member State and region. The result has been a great 
diversity of programmes, reflecting the very varying nature of European rural areas. 
Priorities adjusted to national and regional contexts 
Agricultural diversif cation, support for forestry-related activities and the construction of rural 
infrastructures together receive more than 27% of Community funding. However, this percentage can 
vary greatly from one Member State to another: Denmark, Spain, France, Italy and Austria submitted 
programmes under which the proportion ofthe appropriations set aside for this development priority is 
higher than average. This means that farms located in Objective 5(b) areas may be assisted when they 
engage in product improvement projects, in particular under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on 
the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications. In fragile rural areas, the major role 
that can be played by farmers in tourist development (farm tourism) and maintaining or protecting the 
environment is very actively encouraged. Farmers' efforts to diversify their products arc also 
encouraged. These measures, which are targeted and adjusted to each different regional or even "micro-
regional" context, are a useful complement to the common agricultural policy, the effects of which they 
are designed to reinforce.51 
Setting up and supporting SMEs is the second largest sphere of assistance (25% o{ Community 
funding). For Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and the United Kingdom, this is the most 
important priority and the proportion of appropriations devoted to it exceeds the Community average. It 
enables trade and crafts to be maintained and developed in villages and thus helps to improve the 
services available to the rural population. Production too is involved, since appropriations are also 
allocated to supporting direct investment by SMEs and enabling them to develop or establish themselves 
(areas of economic activity, industrial premises, etc.). The main purpose of this assistance is to allow 
rural SMEs to benefit from the effects ofthe single market. 
51 See Chapter 1I.D.2. The Structural Funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development. 
104 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Investment in human resources is the third largest sphere of assistance. Almost 15% of Community 
funding is being used to finance training and recruitment aid measures. Investment in "human capital" 
must be inseparably linked with other productive investment. In the countryside, the priority is to adjust 
training arrangements to the specific conditions of particular areas and their inhabitants (low population 
density, development projects which are often very specific and do not always conform to pre-
established training models). The Commission has put a great deal of effort into ensuring that priority 
for assistance under this heading is given to training modules designed and implemented to meet real 
needs and which support local development trends. 
Tourism (complementary to the farm tourism referred to above) involves more than 12% of the 
Community appropriations allocated. In Denmark, the majority of funding is allocated to this priority. 
The United Kingdom and Italy also decided to devote a major part of the funding to this area of 
assistance, which takes second and third place respectively in their list of priorities. One aim is to 
improve and increase tourist accommodation capacity. Where necessary, accompanying investment is 
planned to make rural areas more attractive (site improvements, tourist sign-posting, development ofthe 
cultural, architectural and natural heritage). A key objective is to make original forms of tourism 
available on the market (cultural tourism, discovery trails, open-air sports, etc.). 
Consideration ofthe environment in Objective 5(b) measures : 
A high-quality environment can contribute to the development of rural areas. It is the basis for many 
tourist and farming activities which, in turn, can contribute to a better environment. Thus, under 
Objective 5(b), direct investment in environmental projects accounts for ECU 720.5 million for 1994-
99, i.e. 11.7% of the appropriations for this Objective, which are to a very large extent (56%j 
concentrated on measures, most frequently of a preventive nature, contributing to the conservation of 
the countryside and biodiversity. Another substantial fraction (30%) of the funding goes towards 
restorative measures to reduce pollution. More specific examples are the establishment of teams and 
structures for introducing people to environmental protection in cooperation with the farm tourism 
sector in particular (discovery trails, education and reception points) and measures to protect aquatic 
hiotopes (reintroducing salmon, restoring sites which have deteriorated). In very sensitive areas (for 
example, wetlands), Community assistance takes account of the particular constraints which this 
imposes on economic activity and provides them with additional resources for adjustment. In addition, 
productive activities are encouraged entailing diversification and based on a high-quality 
environment, such as services associated with research and development on food and agriculture, 
"green tourism", organic farming and nature conservation. In rural areas, as elsewhere, investments 
are also encouraged in SMEs to support products and techniques compatible with the needs of the 
environment, renewable energy and techniques which economize on the use of energy and water. 
Table 52: Objective 5(b) and the environment - breakdown of appropriations allocated directly to the 
environment, 1994-99 (EUR 9 - ECU million - 1994prices) 
(C) 14% 
Management of nature, the country side and biodiversity (a) 
Deposition ' treatment (clean technologies, industrial waste) (l>) 
U p y ra d in y w o o d lands ( c ) 
Total 400.5 
216,2 
103,8 
TTUJ 
(b) 30% (a) 56% 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
A contrasted impact of Community investment in different Member States 
Commission expectations concerning the impact of Community investment in relation to total 
expected investment were of two kinds: firstly, to ensure that the Community allocation to each 
programme could directly generate by the "lever effect" a significant total investment; secondly, to 
avoid Community funding being so diluted among the vast range of public assistance measures that 
the qualitative contribution made by Union assistance could not be perceived. A study of the 
financing plans of each SPD adopted shows that the ratio between Community investment and total 
planned investment is directly related to the content of the programmes (priorities, content of 
measures, types of operations). On average, one ecu from the Community should generate ECU 3.9 of 
investment : 
• Italy and Austria proposed programmes envisaging ECU 5.2 to 6.5 of investment lor each ecu 
allocated by the Community; 
• in the case of Finland, Belgium, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg, 
the expected impact ranges from ECU 3.2 to 4.3 of total investment planned for each ecu from the 
Community; 
• in the case ofthe United Kingdom and Spain, investment of ECU 2.5 to 2.7 is expected for every 
ecu contributed by the Community. 
106 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
6.2. Implementation of Objective 5(b) in 1995 
Table 53: Objective 5(b) - Summary of SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 (ECU million) 
SPDs ADOPTED IN 1994 
Member Slate/region 
Denmark 
Germany 
Havana 
Hesse 
Lower Saxony 
Rhinekmd-Palattnale 
Schleswig-Hotstein 
Spain 
Aragon 
( 'alalunia 
Rioja 
Madrid 
Savarre 
liasque ( 'ounlry 
France 
Alsace 
Aquitaine 
Auvergne 
1 jiwcr Sormandy 
Burgundy 
Hnitany 
( 'entre 
( hantjxignc-Ardenne 
l'ranchc-i'oiiué 
1 'pper Sormand) 
Ixtnguedoc-Roussi lion 
Limousin 
1 orraine 
Midi-1'yrcnécs 
1 otre 
I'oitouA liarentes 
Provence-Alfies-(. 'oie d'Azur 
Klu'me-Alpes 
Italy 
Bolzano 
L'jnilia Homagna 
lazio 
himhardy 
luscany 
li-enlo 
( 'mhrta 
l'allé d'Aosta 
1 'enelo 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
L ries land 
< In iningen ! 1 irenliie 
l.imhourg 
Overiissel 
Zee/and 
United Kingdom 
Past Anglia 
Ijiglislt Northern Uplands 
South West pngland 
TOTAL 1994 TOTAL 
54,0 
1.083,3 
560,; 
80,8 
245,1 
111,3 
85,9 
617,9 
298.6 
148,0 
38,0 
49,3 
56,b 
26,5 
2.218,1 
48,8 
225.3 
164.7 
I33..i 
112.7 
186,3 
84.1 
29.5 
78.1 
11.2 
1 19.0 
128.0 
96.8 
2S3.1 
122.0 
130.1 
95.0 
I6f>,4 
664,2 
43.0 
57.1 
145.7 
40.3 
133.0 
10 () 
75.5 
4.2 
145.(i 
6,0 
150.0 
68.7 
34." 
19.1 
15,5 
11.8 
387.0 
60,0 
10S,( 
219,0 
5.180.5 
100%', EAGGF 
21,6 
45422 
235,3 
42,0 
98,0 
44,5 
34,4 
393.9 
197 7 
88,6 
26,3 
24.3 
37,8 
19,1 
1.000,1 
19,0 
113,5 
80.3 
47,0 
ol,2 
73,0 
36.1 
12,1 
34,3 
5.0 
63.5 
68,5 
36,3 
122.2 
47,0 
59.3 
46.0 
75,7 
305.2 
]Q,Q 
28,5 
70,0 
18,1 
5S.5 
Q ; 
33.1 
65,5 
2,2 
50,6 
20.6 
11.5 
8.1 
4.8 
5.6 
78,6 
10.5 
27,1 
41,1 
2.306,2 
-15% ERDF 
21,6 
416,5 
207,3 
32,3 
98.0 
44,5 
34,4 
148,6 
72,8 
36,0 
10,1 
13,2 
12,1 
4,5 
927,2 
24.2 
81,5 
63,3 
61,3 
39,4 
91,1 
35,9 
14,2 
33.2 
4.8 
41,2 
39,1 
48.3 
130,9 
57.7 
47,4 
38,7 
75,0 
264,4 
17.9 
21.5 
51,5 
18.1 
56,1 
32,6 
2,0 
56.8 
3,1 
81,8 
43.5 
16.8 
8,1 
8,(> 
4,6 
250,4 
40.5 
64.8 
145,1 
2.113,5 
-11% ESF 
10,8 
212,6 
117,6 
6,5 
49,0 
22,3 
17,2 
75,5 
28,! 
23,4 
2,6 
11,7 
6,7 
3,0 
290,8 
5,5 
30,3 
21,1 
25,0 
12.1 
12,0 
3,0 
10.6 
1,4 
15.2 
20.5 
12.2 
30.0 
17.3 
23,4 
10.3 
18.6 
94,7 
5.2 
7.1 
24.1 
4.0 
18,5 
2,8 
9,7 
0,0 
23,3 
0,8 
17,6 
4,6 
6,6 
1,8 
1,6 
58,(»l 
0,0 
16.2 
32,8 
760.8 
15%, SPDs ADOPTED IN 1995 
Member State/region 
Belgium 
Meetjesland 
Walkmia 
Westhoek 
Germany 
liaden- Wiirttemherg 
North Rliine-Westpltalia 
Saarland 
Spain 
Balearic Islands 
France 
Massif Central 
Massif des Pyrenees 
Italy 
Friuli- Venezia Giulia 
Liguria 
Marthe 
Piedmont 
United Kingdom 
Borders Region 
Central Scotland 1 Tayside 
Dumfries and Galloway 
ICnglish Midland Uplands 
Grampian 
Lincolnshire 
The Marches 
Wales 
TOTAL 1995 TOTAL 
78,1 
10,3 
41,4 
26,4 
145,7 
74,9 
46,8 
24,1 
46,1 
•4d,l 
21,3 
12,7 
8,6 
239,5 
44.0 
35,8 
76,2 
83,5 
433,5 
30,4 
25,4 
47,7 
12,2 
39,5 
53.7 
40.6 
184,0 
964,2 
1110% EAGGF 
23,8 
3,5 
12,4 
7,9 
68,7 
42,4 
18,3 
7,9 
20,7 
20, ' 
7.0 
2.8 
4,2 
105,7 
20,7 
13,3 
37.6 
34,1 
72,6 
3,7 
6,4 
2,1 
4,8 
9.5 
7.4 
35.6 
298,5 
31% ERDF 
41,1 
5,2 
20,4 
15,5 
58,6 
27,4 
23,7 
7,5 
12,2 
12,2 
12,3 
8,3 
3,9 
105,9 
17,8 
18,1 
30,5 
39,5 
284,6 
20,7 
17.1 
34,4 
8,2 
28,6 
36,2 
24,2 
115,1 
514,7 
53%, ESF 
13,2 
1,6 
8,7 
2,9 
18,4 
5,1 
4,7 
8,7 
13,2 
13,2 
2,0 
1,5 
0,5 
27,9 
5,5 
4,3 
8,1 
9.9 
76,3 
6,1 
5,1 
6,9 
1.8 
6,1 
8,0 
8,9 
33.3 
151,0 
16%, 
TOTAL 1994-1995 6.144,7 
100% 2.604,7 
•42% 2.628,2 
43% 911,8 
15%, 
In 1995 the Commission approved 30 Objective 5(b) SPDs, including nine for the new Member States,^2 
bringing the total number of such documents adopted for 1994-99 up to 78 (48 were adopted in 1994). 
52 See Chapter I. A.7. Integration ofthe new Member States into the structural policies. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 107 
Among the programmes adopted in 1994 and 1995, 77 include contributions from three Funds (the 
ERDF, EAGGF and ESF) and only one (Valle d'Aosta) from the ERDF and EAGGF alone. 
More generally, 1995 was the year in which implementation of most Objective 5(b) SPDs actually 
began, with financing for 1994-99 forecast at ECU 6 900 million. Substantial work was done regarding 
the new Member States (Austria, Finland, Sweden) in order to decide which areas are eligible, define the 
amounts of Community funding, prepare and adopt the single programming documents and organize the 
first meetings ofthe Monitoring Committees. 
Almost ECU 6 750 million was allocated to Objective 5(b) programmes approved in 1994 and 1995. 
Over these two years, the Commission committed ECU 1 181 million (or 17.5% ofthe 1994-99 total 
allocation) and paid out ECU 662 million (or 9.8% of total funding). After the 78 single programming 
documents had been adopted, the Commission committed a first instalment and paid half the 
appropriations so committed. Regions were then entitled to apply for subsequent payments and 
commitments according to the actual state of progress of projects on the ground. Excluding Austria, 
Finland and Sweden, whose single programming documents were approved somewhat later, 21 regions 
were in a position to apply for a second Community payment (second advance on the first instalment 
from the EAGGF, ERDF and ESF); 15 regions were able to apply for a third Community payment (the 
balance ofthe first instalment) in the case ofthe EAGGF, and 13 in the case ofthe ERDF. Few regions 
were able to apply for a fourth payment (second advance on the second instalment): five regions in the 
case ofthe ERDF and eight in the case ofthe EAGGF. 
Table 54: Objective 5(b) -1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 
Programmed 
Adopted 
/o 
Commitments 1994-99 
% of assistance 
Payments 1994-99 
% of assistance B 
78,1 
78,1 
100% 
9,2 
12% 
4,6 
6% DK 
54,0 
54,0 
100% 
9,8 
18% 
5,7 
10% D 
1.229,0 
1.229,0 
100% 
261,7 
21% 
134.2 
11% E 
664,0 
664,0 
100% 
162,1 
24% 
118,4 
18% F 
2.239,4 
2.239,4 
100% 
373,2 
17% 
207,9 
9% I 
903,7 
903,7 
100% 
107,0 
12% 
53,5 
6% L 
6,0 
6.0 
100% 
0.8 
14% 
0,4 
, 7% N 
150,0 
150,0 
100% 
25,6 
17% 
12.6 
8% AT 
411,0 
411.0 
100% 
78.3 
19% 
39,2 
10% Fl 
194,0 
194.0 
100% 
32.8 
17% 
15.9 
8% SE 
138,0 
0,0 
0% 
0.0 
0% 
0,0 
0% IK 
820.5 
820.5 
100% 
120.7 
15% 
69.4 
8% Total 
6.887.7 
6.749.7 
98% 
1.181.2 
18% 
661.9 
10% 
As regards the state of progress ofthe programmes, it should first be noted that financial implementation 
will have to be accelerated. To achieve this, an effort will be made to ensure better circulation of the 
appropriations. Greater involvement of public part-financers will have to be encouraged at Monitoring 
Committee meetings. If it proves appropriate, adjustments to the programmes could be adopted. 
Secondly, greater attention should be paid to the objective of integrating the three Funds, thereby 
achieving concrete results reflecting a link between investment in human resources and investment in 
the productive sectors. 
108 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
6.3. Country-by-country survey53 
BELGIUM 
Objective 5(b) - programming for 1994-99 
Population ('OOOinhab.) 4*4T 
Area (km2) 6.831 
ECU million 
iSl'Ùs ToTÏÏTl UJ 
Average per SPD 26,0 
Breakdown hy Bund 
: EAGGF I 23^" 
ERDF 41,1 
ESF 13,2 (9) 1% 
(a) 35% 
(b) 26% • Agriculture, forestry, 
horticulture (a) 
p Economic stimulation and 
diversification (b) 
B Maintenance of sea 
fishing (c) 
p Tourists development (d) 
^Village attractiveness and j 
living standards (e) 
• Human resources and i 
training (f) 
i 
B Technical assistance (g) ' 
Implementation in 1995 
Three SPDs were approved by the Commission at the beginning of 1995: in Flanders, two programmes 
for the regions of Westhoek and Meetjesland, and in Wallonia one programme for the south-east of 
Belgium. Flanders and Wallonia are responsible for the implementation of these Community operations, 
which give high priority to developing small and medium-sized firms and industry and to diversification 
in agriculture and forestry. The three Monitoring Committees met during 1995. Proposals for assessment 
and information programmes will be submitted at their next meetings. Precise project selection criteria 
have been established and communicated to Committee members. 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 55: Objective 5(b) - Belgium - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) "A, 
(2)1(1) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
199 S 
M eetjeslan d 
W a lion ia 
Westhoek 
TOTAL 34.2 
135,4 
96.6 
266,2 10.3 
41.4 
26,4 
78,1 1.2 
4,9 
3,1 
9,2 1.2 
4,9 
3,1 
9,2 12% 
12% 
12% 
12%, 0.6 
2.4 
1.5 
4,6 0.6 
2.4 
1.5 
4,6 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
Progress on financial implementation ofthe programmes must be accelerated in 1996, since in 1994-95 
the Commission committed 12% and paid out 6% ofthe total appropriations for the whole period. 
DENMARK 
Objective 5(b) - programming for 1994-99 
Population (000 inhab.) I 361 
Arca(knr) 8.374 
/:( '{/' million 
I SPD Total I 54,0 
Average per SPD 54,0 
Breakdown by Bund 
'• EAGG1-'| TTJ 
ERDF 21,6 
ESF 10,8 (C) 37% (d) 2% (a) 25% 
(b) 36% [Diversification/ 
environmental protection 
(Business development (b): 
rjTounsm (c) 
«Technical assistance (d) 
53 For a more detailed description of each Member State's programming priorities, see the 1994 Annual Report. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 109 
Implementation in 1995 
On 21 December 1994 the Commission approved the single programming document for Denmark which 
established three major priorities of equal importance: diversification of agriculture and forestry, 
diversification and development of non-agricultural sectors and development of tourism. The Danish 
Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for implementing the programme. The Monitoring Committee for 
the programme met at the end of 1995. Its members were informed ofthe project selection criteria. 
Assessment and information programmes are to be adopted in 1996. 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 56: Objective 5(b) - Denmark - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) "A, 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1994 
Denmark | 201.5] 54,01 3,4 [ 9,8 j 18%| 2.51 5.71 58% 
Between 1994 and 1995, after committing 18% ofthe total Community appropriations, the Commission 
paid out 10.5% ofthe overall allocation for the period as a whole. 
GERMANY 
Objective 5(h) - programming for 1994-99 
Population ('000 in h ab.) I 7~82T 
Area(knr) 96.178 
HCU million 
S SPDs TôtâTI 1229,0 
Avci^e per SPD 153.6 
Breakdown /> y Bund 
: EAGGF I 5723" 
ERDF 475,1 
ESF 231.0 (C) 19% (d) 0,1% 
(a) 42% 
(b) 39% Q Diversification and 
adjustment of agricultural 
structures (a) 
• Development of non-
farming sectors (b) 
^Development of human 
resources (c) 
rj Environmental protection 
(Saarland) (d) 
Implementation in 1995 
Between December 1994 and March 1995 eight single programming documents were approved for the 
German regions. These programmes give high priority to the development of small and medium-sized 
firms and industry, followed by agricultural and forestry diversification. Responsibility for each ofthe 
programmes is in the hands ofthe Lander. The eight Monitoring Committees met in 1995. Project 
selection criteria were precisely defined under the various arrangements for regional aid used for the 
implementation ofthe programmes. Mid-term assessment was to begin in 1996 and be finalized in 1997. 
110 ~ih Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 5 7: Objective 5(b) - Germany - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
und 
year of adoption Total cos t S F assis tance 
O) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2VO) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
1 V 9 i — • 
Baden-W ùrtteniberg 
North Rhine-
\V cstpli alia 
Saarland 450,8 
1 17,9 
108,0 74,9 
46,8 
24,1 8,8 
5,5 
2,8 8.8 
5,5 
2,8 12% 
12% 
12% 4,4 
2,7 
1,7 4.4 
2,7 
1,7 50% 
50% 
61% 
1 VV4 
Bavaria 
Hesse 
Lower Saxony 
Rhineland-Palatin ate 
Sch les vvig-Ho Is te in 
TOTAL 2 933,4 
232,3 
706,5 
426,8 
229,6 
5.205,3 560,2 
80,8 
245,1 
11 1,3 
85.9 
1.229,0 70,4 
14,1 
15,6 
8,0 
10,7 
135,8 135,5 
23,7 
44,4 
20,2 
20,9 
261,7 24% 
29% 
1 8% 
18% 
24% 
21% 34.9 
8,0 
1 1,3 
6.4 
1,8 
7 1,2 67,4 
12,8 
25,7 
12,5 
7,0 
134,2 50% 
54% 
58% 
62% 
33% 
51% 
The state of financing of the single programming documents is satisfactory, as the Commission has 
committed 21% and paid out 11% ofthe appropriations provided for the period as a whole. 
SPAIN 
Objective 5(b) - programming for 1994-99 
Population ('000 inhab.) | 1.731 
Area(knr) 85.223 
ECU million 
' SPDs TÏÏTàTj WbTJ 
Average per SPD y~4~9" 
Breakdown h y Bund 
: EAGGF) 4~TT~6 
ERDF 160.8 
ESF 88.6 (e) 13% 
(a) 31% 
(d) 10% 
(C) 22 
(b) 24% p Basic infrastructure (a) 
• Diversification of economic 
activity (b) 
B Protection of natural 
resources (c) 
• Improving rural living 
conditions (d) 
H Human resources (e) 
Implementation in 1995 
All the Spanish Objective 5(b) single programming documents were approved in 1994, with the 
exception ofthe one for the Balearic Islands (approved on 18 January 1995). In total, seven programmes 
are being implemented. They are organized around five priorities : basic infrastructure for economic 
development (country roads, electrification and small-scale industrial infrastructure, consolidation of 
holdings and improving existing irrigation networks); economic diversification and job creation 
(agricultural diversification, quality policy, aid to craft, industry and service SMEs); protecting and 
developing the potential of the environment (protection and extension of forested areas, combating 
erosion, developing the potential of protected country areas): improving rural living conditions 
(improving small-scale infrastructure and the renovation of villages): and human resources (training, 
recruitment aid. improving employment structures, improving scientific and technological potential). 
Responsibility for implementing the programmes is in the hands ofthe Autonomous Communities. 
The Monitoring Committees for these programmes were set up during the first half of 1995. The Madrid 
and Balearic Committees held second meetings at the end of 1995. A national Monitoring Committee 
responsible for coordination at national level of aspects concerning more than one single SPD met in 
July and December. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 111 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 58: Objective 5(b) - Spain - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption Total cost S F assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1995 
Balearic Islands | 146,9 j 46,1 | 8,2 ( 8.21 18% | 6.81 6.81 82% 
1994 
A ra g o n 
Catalonia 
Rioja 
M adrid 
Navarre 
Basque Country 
TOTAL 763,6 
366.7 
166,5 
112,9 
161.0 
81,2 
1.798,7 298,6 
148,0 
38.9 
49,3 
56,6 
26,5 
6"64,û 41,0 
17,1 
1,9 
6,5 
10,1 
3.8 
88,6 78.8 
34,7 
6,2 
11,3 
16,4 
6,4 
162,1 26% 
23% 
16% 
23% 
29% 
24% 
24% 3 7,S 
15.S 
1.8 
5,4 
10.9 
1 ™* 
81,7 56.8 
24,6 
4.0 
7,8 
14.1 
4.6 
118,4 72% 
7 1 % 
64% 
69% 
86% 
7 1 % 
73% 
Financial implementation generally went ahead very rapidly in 1995 in order to make up for the delay in 
approving single programming documents in 1994. The Commission was able to commit 24% and pay 
out 18% ofthe total appropriations allocated to the single programming documents for the period as a 
whole. 
FRANCE 
Objective 5(b) - programming for 1994-99 
Population ('000 mhab.) 1 9.759 
Area(knr) 291.558 
ECU million 
20 Sl'D.s Total I 2239,4 
Average per SPD 112,0 
lircakdt) wn h v Bund 
: EAGGF I TÏÏÏÏ7T 
ERDF 939.4 
ESF 292.9 (d) 2% (a) 14o/o 
(C) 33% 
(b) 51% • Agricultural diversification 
(a") 
• Economic development (b) 
• Altractiveness of rural 
areas (c) 
« Technical assistance id) 
Implementation in 1995 
Eighteen French single programming documents were approved in 1994 and two further programmes 
concerning the Massif Central and the French Pyrenees were adopted in the first quarter of 1995. A 
specific programme concerning technical assistance still remained to be adopted at the end of 1995. All 
these programmes confirm the priority given to strategies for diversification and developing the potential 
of agricultural and forestry production. The second level of priority is "diversification and development 
in non-agricultural sectors". Responsibility for the implementation ofthe programmes is in the hands of 
the regional representative ofthe State. 
Thirty Monitoring Committee meetings were held in 1995. This allowed all the partners to be informed 
about the project selection criteria, which were set out in the application documents drawn up in each 
region. Most of the Committees considered and proposed assessment programmes, and the assessors 
were to be selected in the first half of 1996 in order to start interim assessment during the second half of 
the vear. 
112 "7/? Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 59: Objective 5(b) - France - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
199$ 
Massit Central 
Massif des Pyrénées 27,4 
17.8 12,7 
8,6 1,1 
1.1 1,1 
1,1 8% 
13% 0,5 
0,5 0,5 
0,5 50% 
50% 
19 94 
Alsace 
Aquitaine 
Auvergne 
Lower Normandy 
Burgundy 
Brittany 
Centre 
Ch a m p a g n e-A rd e n n e 
Franche-Comlé 
Upper Normandy 
Languedoc-Roussillon 
Limousin 
Lorraine 
M idi-Pyrénées 
Loire 
Poitou-Charentes 
P.A.C.A.(l) 
Rhône-Alpes 
TO TA L 
( 1 ) Provence-A lpes-Cô 169,1 
762,4 
724,7 
433,4 
407,6 
510,6 
259,7 
100,1 
437,6 
32,9 
344,3 
560,8 
304,6 
849,9 
334.2 
450,8 
288,0 
844,5 
7.860,4 
e d'Azur 48,8 
225,3 
164,7 
133,3 
112,7 
186,3 
84,1 
29,3 
78,1 
11,2 
119.9 
128,0 
96,8 
283,1 
122,0 
130,1 
95,0 
169,4 
2.239,4 0.2 
2.8 
25,7 
12.8 
20,4 
0,0 
1,1 
0.0 
6,9 
0,0 
0,0 
14,0 
1,4 
4.9 
12,5 
3,8 
0.3 
1.6 
I 10,5 6,7 
34,4 
44.9 
31,5 
29,7 
26,2 
5.1 
4.1 
13,9 
1,1 
11,7 
32,0 
10,2 
33.9 
27.8 
20,9 
12,1 
24,9 
373,2 14% 
15% 
27% 
24% 
26% 
14% 
6% 
14% 
18% 
10% 
10% 
25% 
11% 
12% 
23% 
16% 
13% 
15% 
17% 0.0 
3,4 
19,0 
7.8 
9,4 
3,1 
0.5 
0.0 
4.8 
0.0 
0.0 
12,5 
1.2 
3.7 
4.2 
2.6 
1.9 
1.5 
7 6,6 3,3 
19,2 
28,6 
17.1 
14,1 
16.2 
2.5 
2.1 
8,3 
0.5 
5,8 
21.5 
5,6 
18.2 
11,8 
11.1 
7.8 
13.2 
207,9 4 8% 
56% 
64% 
54% 
47% 
62% 
49% 
50% 
60% 
50% 
50% 
67% 
55% 
54% 
42% 
53% 
65% 
56% 
The Commission committed 17% and paid out 9% ofthe Community allocation for France (entire 
period). A sustained effort must be made to make up for the delay caused largely by the fact that 
programmes were adopted at the end of 1994. 
ITALY 
Objective 5(h) - programming for 1994-99 
Population ('000 inhab. 
Area (ktrr) 4.828 
80.486 
/:'('(/ million 
n SPDS Total 
A v e i a g e per S P D 
Break do wn h y E und 
EAGGF 
ERDF 
ESF ~9~0T7 
-61T5-
370.3 
122.6 (d) 12% (e) 1% 
a) 32% 
(C) 12% 
(b) 43% Q Modernization and 
diversification of 
agriculture (a) 
p Reinforcement of non-
agricultural sector (b) 
m Environment (c) 
• Human resources (d) 
• Technical assistance (e) 
Implementation in 1995 
During the first quarter of 1995, the adoption procedures for the 13 Italian single programming 
documents were completed. These programmes show the priority given to agricultural and forestry 
diversification, the second priority being the development of small and medium-sized firms and industry 
and tourism, while an effort was made to ensure that, in addition to the training measures provided for 
under each of the priorities, a separate priority was adopted for the development of human resources. 
The Italian programmes call for substantial participation by the private sector. Responsibility for 
implementing the programmes is in the hands ofthe regions and autonomous provinces. 
The Commission participated in seventeen Monitoring Committees meetings, which concentrated on the 
importance of transparent procedures and project selection criteria. All the Committees drew up and 
approved assessment programmes. Selection of independent assessors by invitation to tender will be 
completed in the middle of 1996. The Committees also adopted information and publicity programmes. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 113 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 60: Objective 5(b) - Italy - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
TWT Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) (2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 
Liguria 
Marche 
Piedmont T73T 
189,6 
429,9 
438.2 35,8 
76,2 
83,5 
TFR 
Bolzano 
Emilia Romagna 
Lazio 
Lombardy 
Tuscany 
Trento 
Umbria 
Valle d'Aosta 
Veneto 
TOTAL T2~ 
4,2 
8,9 
9.8 17% 
12% 
12% 
12% "5U%" 
50% 
50% 
50% 
BTJ 
311,6 
514,9 
213,8 
744,9 
66,0 
341,9 
13,9 
1.033,2 
4.728,4 ~~737T 
57.1 
145,7 
40,3 
133,0 
19,9 
75,5 
4.2 
145,6 
TLTTJ 3,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0,0 
TTJ 6,8 
16.7 
4,8 
15,8 
1,1 
10,7 
0,6 
17.3 17% 
12% 
11 % 
12% 
1 2% 
6% 
14% 
14% 
12% 
HfTfi u%-HI) 
3 
8 
2 
7 
0 
5 
0,3 
8.6 5ÏÏ% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
T5l T1T5 TÏÏ7^ 
For 1994-95, the Commission committed 12% and paid out 6% ofthe Community allocation reserved 
for the Italian single programming documents. Following the invitations to tender issued in 1995 and 
appraisal of the projects submitted, it was expected that the utilisation of available financing would 
increase from 1996. 
LUXEMBOURG 
Objective 5(h) - programming jor 1994-99 
Population ('000 inhab.) I MT 
Area (knr) 831 
ECU million 
/ S I'D ToTâT] oTF 
A v e ra g e per SPD 6~TT 
Breakdown h y Blind 
: EAGGFI IT 
ERDF 3.1 
ESF 0.8 (a) 21% 
(C) 51% 
(t>) 28% Q Revitalization of agriculture 
and forestry (a) 
• Employment in industry 
and services (b) 
H Tourism and living 
standards (c) 
Implementation in 1995 
The single programming document for the Objective 5(b) area of Luxembourg was approved in 
December 1994. The priorities of this programme are creating and maintaining jobs in SMEs and small 
and medium-sized industry and developing tourism and the quality of life. Responsibility for 
implementation ofthe programme is in the hands ofthe Ministry of Agriculture. The first meeting ofthe 
Monitoring Committee, which was to have been held in 1995, was postponed to 1996. 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 61: Objective 5(b) - Luxembourg - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) 
Commitments I Commitments Programme 
a n d 
year of adoption 
1994 
Luxembourg Total cost S F assistance 
0) 1995 1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
I 9 9 5 Payments 
19 94-9 5 
(3) (3)/(2) 
2531 6,01 "ôin O.ST 14% I 0.21 
The Commission committed 14% and paid out 7% ofthe Community allocation for the whole period. 
114 7ih Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
NETHERLANDS 
Objective 5(h) - programming for 1994-99 
Population ('OOOinhab.) I 8W 
Area (km2) 5.405 
ECU million 
S SPbs TotaT] TWJT 
Average per SPD JUJ 
Breakdown hv Euntl 
: EAGGF) ÎÏÏJ 
ERDF 81,8 
ESF 17,6 (e) 11% W 1% <a> 8% 
(d) 13% (b) 25% 
(C) 42% • Development of agriculture 
and horticulture (a) 
p Business establishment 
(b) 
a Tourist infrastructure (c) 
• Environmental protection 
(d) 
d Human resources (e) 
• Technical assistance (f) 
Implementation in 1995 
Five single programming documents for the Netherlands were adopted by the Commission in 
December 1994. The operations are directed primarily towards supporting small and medium-sized 
firms and industry and protecting the environment. Responsibility for the implementation of the 
programmes is in the hands ofthe regional authorities. 
The Commission participated in eight Monitoring Committee meetings in 1995. During the meetings 
information was provided on the project selection criteria. The programmes are currently being drawn 
up, and should lead to the first invitations to tender being issued during 1996. 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 62: Objective 5(b) - Netherlands - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
P ro« ranimes 
and 
year of adoption Total cost S F assis tance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
I 9 9 5 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
1994 
Erie s la nd 
Gron in gen / Drenthe 
Limburg 
Overijssel 
Zee land 
TOTAL 266,9 
157,4 
48.4 
70,2 
49.2 
592,1 68.7 
34.9 
19,1 
15,5 
11.8 
150,0 4,5 
0.0 
0.0 
1,4 
1,4 
7,3 12,7 
4.2 
2.3 
3.3 
3.2 
2 5,6 1 8%, 
12% 
12% 
21% 
27% 
1 7 % 4.1 
1.7 
0.4 
1.2 
2.0 
9,5 5.2 
2.1 
1.1 
1.6 
2.5 
12,6 4 1 % 
50% 
50% 
50% 
79% 
4 9%, 
Between 1994 and 1995, the Commission committed 17% and paid out 8% of the Community 
appropriations allocated for the period as a whole. 
UNITED KINGDOM 
Objective 5(h) - programming for 1994-99 
Population t/000 inhab.) I 2.841 
Area (knr) 67.987 
PA'U million 
TTsTTh, TÔ1ÏÏT] STTTTJ 
Average per S I'D 74.6 
Hreakdo wn hv Eund 
'• EAGGF I T3TT 
ERDF 535.0 
ESF 134.3 (d) 15% 
(C) 20% (0 1% 
(e) 3% (a) 6% D Diversification of 
(b) 55% agriculture (a) 
p Business (non-
agricultural) (b) 
B Tourism (c) 
• Environmental protection 
(d) 
a Human resources (e) 
• Technical assistance (f) 
7lh Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 115 
Implementation in 1995 
Eleven single programming documents for the United Kingdom were approved between the end of 1994 
and the beginning of 1995. Generally speaking, they give a high priority to supporting small and 
medium-sized firms and industry and to developing tourism. The programmes are implemented by the 
Government departments concerned. 
Eighteen Monitoring Committee meetings were organized in 1995. At the meetings Committee 
members were informed ofthe project selection criteria. Assessment programmes should be finalized in 
1996. 
1995 in the context ofthe 1994-99 programming period 
Table 63: Objective 5(b) - United Kingdom - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption Total cost SF assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
I 99S 
Borders Region 
Central Scotland / Taysidc 
Dumfries and Galloway 
English Midland Uplands 
Grampian 
Lincolnshire 
The Marches 
Wales 76,6 
64,0 
125,3 
33.3 
96.2 
133,6 
90.8 
483,4 30,4 
25,4 
47,7 
12.2 
39,5 
53,7 
40,6 
184,0 3.8 
6,7 
1,4 
5.6 
7,5 
6.2 
27.1 3.8 
6,7 
1,4 
5.6 
7,5 
6.2 
27,1 25% 
15% 
14% 
12% 
14% 
14% 
15% 
1 5% 3.1 
2.0 
3 6 
0.7 
2.9 
4.0 
3.4 
15.3 3.1 
2.0 
3.6 
0.7 
2.9 
4.0 
3.4 41 % 
54% 
54% 
5 ~> % 
55% 
56%, 
1994 
East An g lia 
English Northern Uplands 
South W est England 
TOTAL 132,4 
262,3 
514,5 
2.012,3 60,0 
108.0 
219.0 
820,5 1.4 
2.2 
5.1 
74,6 8,6 
15,0 
31.2 
120,7 14% 
14% 
14% 
15%, 1.0 
1.7 
8.8 
4 (.,4 4.6 
8.1 
21.S 
69.4 5 3 " o 
54";, 
70% 
58% 
The Commission committed 15% and paid out 8% ofthe Community allocation for the period as a 
whole. 
16 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
7. Integration ofthe new Member States into the structural policies 
Integration of the three new Member States into the structural policies was an important aspect of the 
1994 accession negotiations; it is an aspect which is largely regulated by the Act of Accession itself. The 
Act provides for the creation of a new Structural Funds Objective, Objective 6, for regions with a very 
low population density, makes the Austrian Land of Burgenland eligible under Objective 1 and also 
fixes for each Member State the financial resources for Objectives 1 (Austria), 6 (Finland and Sweden) 
and Objectives 2 and 5(b) (all three countries). The Act did not establish the list of eligible areas under 
Objectives 2 and 5(b), nor did it allocate the appropriations for Objectives 2 to 5(b). This was a task for 
the Commission, which adopted the decisions in 199554. 
In 1995, activities relating to the new Member States were more concerned with preparing all the 
programming documents under the various Objectives than with implementing the programmes, given 
that Community rules did not apply to those countries until 1 January 1995. It was therefore felt that the 
priorities for the different programmes for those countries should be presented in a separate section, 
whereas for the other Member States the Report concentrates on implementation and execution during 
1995. However, almost all the programmes of assistance by Objective were adopted rapidly in 1995 so 
that most of them could start up before the end ofthe year. 
A total of 35 programming documents were adopted for the three new Member States in 1995: 17 for 
Austria and 9 each for Finland and Sweden. By the end ofthe year there were only six Swedish SPDs 
left to approve, one under Objective 4 and five under Objective 5(b). Objectives 2 and 5(b) had the 
majority of the approved programmes (10), followed by Objective 5(b) (9), then Objective 5(a) 
agriculture (5). For the other Objectives, one SPD per Member State was approved (Objective 1: 1, 
Objective 3: 3, Objective 4: 2, Objective 5(a) fisheries: 3, Objective 6: 2). 
The desire to preserve sustainable development: 
Austria, Finland and Sweden are environmentally conscious countries. The state ofthe environment 
in all three new Member States is very good. The northern parts of Sweden and Finland in particular 
(the sparsely-populated Objective 6 region) is recognized as one ofthe last natural wildernesses left 
in Europe in an almost pristine state. Austria possesses some of Europe's most beautiful mountain 
regions. 
The high sensitivity of public opinion to environmental issues has resulted in well developed 
environmental legislation in each of these Member States. In the Finnish and Swedish Objective 6 and 
2 regions, the main environmental problem is probably the potential threat posed by cross-border 
pollution. Some damage is caused through acidification of land and water. Another important issue in 
these two countries is the sustainable exploitation of natural resources. In Austria, the main 
environmental issues are probably the protection of the natural environment in the mountainous 
regions against transport pollution and the promotion of sustainable forms of tourism. 
The environment as a horizontal concern in all programmes : 
A common feature of all programmes in the new Member States is regard for the environment as a 
horizontal theme underpinning all measures. In all the Swedish programmes, environmental concerns 
are regarded as a horizontal criterion in most measures. It is however not possible to translate the 
commitment to give priority to actions contributing to sustainable development or to an improvement 
of environmental conditions into monetary terms. 
54 For more details on the structural aspects of enlargement in 1994, see the 1994 Annual Report. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 117 
7.1. Objectives 1 and 6 
Objective 1 
AUSTRIA 
Burgenland is the only region in the three new Member States eligible under Objective 1. In 1995 the per 
capita GDP in this region bordering three central European countries was about 70%> ofthe Community 
average. Its 270 000 inhabitants live in 4 000 km2 of mainly rural areas. The SPD presented to the 
Commission on 20 April 1995 was adopted on 15 November 1995 and provided for ECU 165.6 million 
in Structural Funds assistance to a programme costing a total of ECU 831.4 million. 
Objectif 1: Autriche - la programmation 1995-1999 
Priorities 
1 rade and industry (a) 
Research & development (b) 
Tourism (c) 
Agriculture and environment (d) 
Promotion of job creation and 
stability (e) 
Technical assistance (f) 
Total Total cost 
360,9 
82,6 
191,5 
125,0 
63,0 
8.4 
831,4 S.F. assistance 
Total 
56,8 
15,5 
38,7 
24,2 
26,3 
4,1 
165,6 EMU F 
53,8 
12,5 
38,7 
0,7 
2,0 
107,6 ESF 
3,0 
3,0 
25,6 
1,5 
33,1 EAGOF 
24,2 
0,6 
24,8 National 
public 
contribution 
I 14,4 
26,9 
63,2 
48,2 
26,7 
4,2 
283,6 Private 
contribution 
189,7 
40,2 
89,6 
52,6 
10,0 
382,1 (e) 8% (f) 1% 
(d) 15% 
(C) 23% (a) 43% 
(b) 10% 
The general aims of the regional development programme are to create in central Europe a region with 
dynamic industrial, commercial, tourist and agricultural sectors and to reduce internal economic 
disparities by creating a more uniform standard of living throughout the region. The measures financed 
will create an extra 7 300 jobs (6 000 in industry, 1 000 in technology-based SMEs and 300 in 
technology centres). 
A few general priorities: 
• Particular attention will be paid to ways of increasing job opportunities for 
women, unskilled labour and young people in essentially rural areas, this 
being an essential way of stopping population drift and reducing out-
migration. 
• Measures to train and reskill local labour are aimed at better meeting the 
needs ofthe region with regard to training SME entrepreneurs in technology 
and to development ofthe local economy. 
• Internationalization, cooperation and networking, reflecting the geographical 
situation of Burgenland and its cooperation with Hungary and other central 
and eastern European countries. 
• Preservation of a unique environment: The measure "protection of nature 
and the environment" (ECU 800 000 of Structural Funds money; total cost: 
2.26 million) provides part-finance for projects in protected zones and 
landscapes attractive to tourism: the Burgenland ecological programme, the 
programme to clean up the Neusiedlersee, the Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel 
national park and the programme to protect threatened biotopes and 
habitats. 
The opportunities offered by the new situation in central Europe and by the accession of Austria to the 
European Union need to be fully exploited to the profit of Burgenland between 1995 and 1999. In this 
respect, the growth potential in neighbouring countries and the other regions of Austria should have a 
very favourable impact on the future prospects for northern and central Burgenland. The southern part 
does not benefit from the same external stimuli and will have to concentrate on the development of its 
locally-generated potential (particularly spa tourism) while drawing maximum benefit from cross-border 
cooperation. 
118 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 64: Objective 1 - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) 
Total cost 5T: 
assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Programme 
and 
year of adoption 
T9T5 
SPD Burgenland Payments 
1995 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1TiJ\ TOJI "2571 TJ% \AJ\ ~5Wo 
Objective 6 
Objective 6 was introduced by the Act of Accession and targets the development of sparsely populated 
areas; this is understood to mean a population density of no more than 8 inhabitants per square 
kilometre. The areas in Finland and Sweden eligible under Objective 6 were defined in Protocol No 6 to 
the Act of Accession. As a general rule, the provisions ofthe Structural Funds Regulations, in particular 
those applicable to Objective 1, also apply to Objective 6. 
Table 65: Objective 6 in Finland and Sweden - basic statistics 
Finland 
Sweden 
TOTAL Total 
Objective 6 
population 
840.000 
449.000 
1.289.000 Vo of 
national 
total 
17% 
5% 
-total 
Objective 6 
area (km2) 
206.000 
241.640 
447.640 % of 
national 
total 
60% 
50% 
-
FINLAND 
The Finnish regions eligible under Objective 6 cover a continuous surface comprising the regions of 
Lappi (Lappland), Kainuu, Pohjois-Karjala (North Karelia) and Etelâ-Savo (South Savo) and parts ofthe 
regions of North and Central Ostrobothnia, Pohjois-Savo (North Savo) and Keski-Suomi (Central 
Finland). The average population density is 4 inhabitants per km . The increase in unemployment 
resulting from the crisis in the 1990s has worsened the traditional problems in those regions - a gradual 
decrease in population and an exodus from the land towards the towns. All the regions are also highly 
dependent on the agriculture and forestry sectors and on public services, and the industrial base is 
unbalanced, concentrated on a number of major forestry, metals and chemicals businesses. In addition, 
there are relatively few SMEs and job losses in the public sector are affecting women more than men. 
The Objective 6 SPD was presented to the Commission on 8 March 1995 and adopted on 11 July 1995. 
Its strategy is to develop the strengths ofthe regions: timber and forestry products, specialized branches 
of agriculture, metals, electronics and tourism. It is aimed at creating a stronger SME sector through 
incentives to establish local industry and private service firms and through training and R&D. The 
programme also aims to exploit to their maximum the opportunities offered by new technologies, 
particularly in telecommunications, so as to counteract the effect of the long distances. Because of the 
significance of agriculture, particularly in the southern parts of the zone, about a quarter of the 
programme is to be earmarked for aid to farmers under the system of aid to less-favoured areas 
(Objective 5(a)). The programme also contains ESF measures to aid the unemployed and to support 
training. The ESF will also finance projects relating to the information society. 
During negotiations with the Finnish authorities, a number of amendments were made to the 
programmes initially presented. The Community part-financing rate for the less-favoured areas was 
reduced so as to release appropriations for development. Basic infrastructure projects were abandoned 
and measures relating to human resources in the information society were strengthened. Lastly, a 
number of relatively minor measures were regrouped into a package of flexible rural development which 
will finance mainly local projects in a large variety of sectors, including projects relating to the Sami 
minority in northern Lappland. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 119 
Objective 6, Finland - programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities 
Industrial development (a) 
Development of human resources (b) 
Agriculture, forestry, fisheries, rural 
development & environment (c) 
Technical assistance (d) 
Total Total cost 
513,4 
189,8 
604,5 
18,4 
1.326,1 S.F. assistance 
Total 
153,7 
87,9 
209,1 
9,2 
459,9 ERDF 
133,8 
16,7 
18,6 
3,4 
172,5 ESF 
19,9 
71,2 
12,6 
2,1 
105,8 EAGGF 
0,0 
0,0 
174,0 
3,6 
177,6 FIFG 
0,0 
0,0 
3,9 
0,1 
4,0 National 
public 
contribution 
153,7 
87,9 
280,5 
9,2 
531,3 Private 
contribution 
206,0 
14.0 
114,9 
334,9 (d) 1% (a ) 39% 
(c) 46% (b) 14% 
The final programme consists of three priorities: industrial development, the creation of businesses and 
investment in existing businesses, and human resources, comprising training and advice to the 
unemployed, research and the information society, and agriculture, forestry, fisheries, rural development 
and the environment. The Community contribution to the programme is ECU 459.9 million (a major 
proportion of this, 39%, coming from the EAGGF as a result ofthe size of compensatory allowance 
payments) out of total expenditure of ECU 1 326 million. 
Measures for the environment: 
Under the industrial development and environmental protection priorities, the Finnish SPD provides 
for environmental measures requiring a Community contribution of ECU 14.4 million: 
• Firstly, to encourage the use of biomass and other renewable energy sources and to develop 
energy infrastructures and networks (Structural Funds assistance: ECU 8 million; total cost: 35.3 
million). This relates, inter alia, to environmentally sound production methods (renewable energy 
sources, emission reduction, etc) and measures for the rational use of energy. 
• The environmental protection measure provides for improving water supply and waste disposal 
systems, developing recycling, environmental protection in tourist centres, investments in nature 
reserves, environmental studies, environmental management plans, etc. (Structural Funds 
assistance: ECU 6.4 million, total cost: 16 million). 
The aims ofthe programme are to reduce the rate of unemployment by 2% and to put 8 000 people back 
to work each year, this in a region which had 90 600 jobless in 1994 (24% ofthe active population): to 
increase to 135 000 the number of jobs in the private services and industry (117 500 in 1994): and to 
reduce by 5 points (from 20% to 15%) the gap between local GDP and the national average. 
Management ofthe SPD is shared between the regions and central government. Each region has adopted 
its own programme which it will implement in accordance with a common framework of project 
selection procedures and criteria via a regional management committee comprising representatives of 
the region, of the ministries' local offices and of the social partners. This is why the programme is 
contained in a single SPD with a single Monitoring Committee. Two meetings of the Monitoring 
Committee took place, in September and November 1995. 
SWEDEN 
There are seven Swedish regions eligible under Objective 6, located in the north ofthe country. They are 
one entire county (Jamtland), and parts of six others (Vàrmland, Kopparberg, Gàvleborg, 
Vâsternorrland, Vàsterbotten and Norrbotten). Their population density is 2 inhabitants per km". These 
areas taken as a whole are characterized by small urban centres separated by long distances, with a third 
ofthe population living in very isolated habitats outside those centres. The sparseness ofthe population 
in the interior of the region along with the resulting close dependence on the coastal regions creates a 
great demand for infrastructure and social solidarity. The rate of unemployment is 13% and jobs, 
particularly those for women, are mainly in the public sector followed by forestry and mining, which is 
in decline, in second place. 
The SPD was adopted by the Commission on 6 November 1995 and provides for a Structural Funds 
contribution of ECU 252 million to a total cost ECU 635 million. The aim ofthe programme is to help to 
overcome the problems linked to the remoteness of the region, to job losses in traditional industries 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
(especially in the mines) and to population imbalances caused by the exodus of women and young 
people. The programme also seeks to develop the strengths of the region: its unspoilt environment, 
abundant natural resources and relatively well developed infrastructures. The SPD therefore seeks to 
create jobs in the private sector so as to reduce unemployment and offset the planned job losses in the 
public sector, which will mainly hit women. The viability ofthe widely scattered small communities will 
depend on their capacity to create new jobs and keep the region attractive as a place in which to live and 
work. 
Objective 6, Sweden - programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities 
Lmployment, trade and industry (a) 
Promotion of know-how (b) 
Agriculture, fisheries & natural res. (c) 
Rural development & community work (d) 
Sami population (e) 
Technical assistance (f) 
Total Total cost 
269,4 
102,7 
151,5 
85,4 
15,7 
10,3 
635,0 S.F. assistance 
Total 
82,6 
48,8 
66,1 
41,7 
7,6 
5,2 
252,0 ERDF 
58,2 
35,7 
12,5 
13,7 
0,0 
2,5 
122,6 ESF 
26.9 
13,1 
6,0 
20,C 
2.6 
1.3 
63,9 EAGGF 
3,5 
0,0 
43,6 
8,0 
5,0 
1,2 
61,4 FIFG 
0,0 
0,0 
4,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
4,1 National 
public 
contribution 
80,2 
40,4 
61,0 
41,7 
7,6 
5,2 
236,1 Private 
contribution 
106.6 
13,5 
24,4 
2,0 
0,5 
147,0 (e) 2% 
(f) 2% 
(a) 43% 
(C) 24% 
(b) 16% 
The programme's strategy, which revolves around five priorities, is also based on a number of horizontal 
themes: maximum use ofthe information technologies in all socio-economic activities, guaranteed equal 
opportunities for men and women, preservation of the exceptional natural environment and cultural 
heritage, exploiting the competitive advantages ofthe region, and improving the skills and qualifications 
of individuals. There is also a set of measures to help firms and increase their competitiveness, develop 
the potential of RTD and information technologies, develop natural and agricultural resources while 
respecting the environment, expand tourism, encourage local initiatives and improve the level of training 
and qualifications. The special priority for the Sami people will help to preserve their environment and 
their traditional way of life, the farming of reindeer. 
Measures for the environment: 
The Swedish SPD provides for two measures with Community funding of ECU 6 million: 
• for natural resources and conservation ofthe country-side: measures for recycling, improvement of 
water supply and drainage systems, research and pilot projects in environmentally sound 
agriculture, and development of better environmental management systems (Structural Funds 
contribution: ECU 4 million; total cost: 8 million); 
• to develop environmental expertise, it is planned to support training in environmental 
technologies, the training of farmers and forest owners in environmental management, training in 
recycling for industry and commerce, new water technologies, and publicity in the tourism sector 
on public right of access to the countryside ("allemansrdtt") (Structural Funds contribution: 
ECU2 million; total cost: 4 million). 
The general targets of the programme are to create or preserve about 9 500 jobs, to reduce the gap 
between the per capita GDP in the region (excluding energy production) and the national average, to 
create 900 new firms and to increase expertise in information technologies. 
The majority of the programme budget (80%) will be executed by regional management committees 
made up from existing local and regional structures. Some measures, for example those under Objective 
5(a), will be managed by central bodies, while the Sami will receive a global grant. The first meeting of 
the SPD Monitoring Committee took place in December 1995 and the approval and execution ofthe 
projects commenced in that year. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 121 
Table 66: Objective 6 - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmed 
Adopted 
% 
Commitments 1995 
% of assistance 
Payments 1995 
% of assistance Fl 
459,9 
459,9 
100% 
81,0 
18% 
40,5 
9% sv 252,0 
252,0 
100% 
44,9 
18% 
22,5 
9% Total 
711,9 
711,9 
100% 
125,9 
18% 
63,0 
9% 
7.2. Objective 2 
The Commission, acting in accordance with the Regulations governing the Structural Funds and the 
provisions ofthe Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and with the unanimous approval of 
the Committee for the Development and Conversion of Regions, adopted the lists of zones eligible under 
Objective 2 for Austria and Finland on 22 February 199555 and for Sweden on 10 May 199556. 
Table 6 7: Objective 2 in the new Member States - basic statistics 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden Number of 
eligible regions 
4 
6 
5 Total Objective 2 
population 
640.000 
790.000 
970.000 Vo 
of total 
8% 
15% 
11% Total area 
8.692 
17.000 
35.325 /o 
of total 
10% 
5% 
8% 
AUSTRIA 
The Austrian authorities presented proposals for the four Austrian Objective 2 regions (Styria, Lower 
Austria, Upper Austria and Vorarlberg) on 26 April 1995, and the Commission adopted the SPDs on 
15 November 1995. The programmes cover the period 1995-99. Their total cost is ECU 816 million, and 
the Structural Funds contribution is ECU 101 million. 
Table 68: Objective 2 - Austria - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund (ECU million) 
SPD 
Styria 
Lower Austria 
Upper Austria 
Vorarlberg 
TOTAL Total cost 
463,4 
199.2 
67.0 
86,6 
816,1 S.t. assistance 
lotal 
58,0 
22,4 
10,8 
9,9 
101,0 ERDF 
38,8 
17,9 
7,1 
6,4 
70,2 ESF 
19.2 
4.5 
3.6 
3.5 
30,8 National 
public 
contribution 
123.7 
33.7 
18.7 
12.0 
188,2 Private 
contribution 
281.7 
143.0 
37.5 
64.7 
5 26,9 
The strategy behind the SPDs is to modernize and diversify the economy in these areas, which have been 
hit by the rapid decline in the metallurgical, mining and textile sectors. The accent is on creating new 
enterprises and strengthening existing ones (particularly SMEs) by developing new technical skills. 
About 60% of the available resources are earmarked for strengthening industry and the handicrafts 
sector and the corresponding technical skills; 30% will help to finance measures to provide human 
resources with skills and 7% will help to develop and promote tourism. It is estimated that measures 
financed under the four SPDs will help to create or maintain 11 000 jobs. 
55 OJNoL 51, 8.3.1995. 
56OJNoL 123,3.6.1995. 
122 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Objective 2 Austria - programming for 1995-99 
Priorities 
Investments in enterprises (including 
tourism) (a) 
R&D, innovation, technology transfer (b) 
Infrastructures supporting activities (c) 
Training and reskilling (d) 
Technical assistance (e) 
TOTAL Total 
cost 
573,4 
84,4 
76,6 
75,6 
6,1 
816,1 S.F. assistance 
Total 
40,8 
10,2 
16,7 
30,5 
2,8 
101,0 ERDF 
40,8 
10,2 
16,7 
0,0 
2,5 
70,2 ESF 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
30,5 
0,3 
30,8 National 
public 
contribution 
84,9 
23,2 
35,1 
41,7 
3,3 
188,2 Private 
contribution 
447,7 
51,0 
24,8 
3,4 
0,0 
526,9 (d) 9% (e)i% 
(a) 71« 
Integration ofthe environment: 
Environmental protection is an integral part of the SPDs and is included in support for the 
introduction of "clean" technologies and the use of alternative energy sources: 
• In Styria, two measures under two different priorities (investment in industry and tourism, 
technology transfer and advice) provide for support to investment in environmental protection 
enterprises and advice on energy-saving and environmental technologies. 
• In Vorarlberg, the know-how improvement measure provides for aid to pilot and full-scale 
projects promoting the rational use of energy and more environmentally-sound production 
methods. 
• in Lower Austria, action to help the environment is planned within three measures: economic 
restructuring: support to investment by enterprises (rational use of energy, reducing industrial 
waste and air pollution, etc); advisory services to enterprises: advice to SMEs (waste treatment, 
pollution reduction, audits, etc), and economic infrastructure: investments in renewable energy 
sources (solar, biomass, wind, hydro-electricity, etc). 
In addition, there are special measures aimed at the reintegration of women into the labour market, 
mainly in Lower and Upper Austria. Technical assistance will be supplied to strengthen and create 
regional management structures aiding the development and launching of innovative project ideas and 
the coordination of regional development efforts. 
Table 69: Objective 2 - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
P r og r a m m e s 
and 
year of adoption Total cost S.F. 
assistance 
(I) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1995 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1995 
SPD Lower Austria 
SPD Upper Austria 
SPD Styria 
SPD Vorarlberg 
TOTAL 199,2 
67,0 
463,4 
86,6 
816,1 22,4 
10,8 
58,0 
9,9 
101,0 22,4 
10,8 
11,1 
9,9 
54,1 100% 
100% 
19% 
100% 
54% 7.6 
3,9 
5,6 
4.3 
21,4 34% 
37% 
50% 
44% 
40% 
FINLAND 
Six industrial areas of Finland are eligible under Objective 2. Programming is integrated into a single 
SPD for 1995-96, the Finnish authorities having opted to present a new programme for 1997-99. Three 
ofthe areas are coastal regions (parts ofthe regions Satakunta and South-West Finland on the west coast 
and Ita-Uusimaa and Kymenlaakso on the eastern coast of the Gulf of Finland and Kokkola on the 
northwestern coast); the other three are in the interior, in the regions of Paijat-Hame (Lahti) and in 
Central Finland (Jyvàskylà) and South Karelia (Lappeenranta). The main problem is the high rate of 
unemployment (an average 23% in 1994 against a national average of 20%), due to structural changes 
and the constant erosion of jobs in the main industries, dominated by the major companies in the 
forestry, metals and chemicals sectors. The structural decline in employment in those industries has been 
speeded up by the collapse in trade with Russia after 1990. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 123 
Dependence on a few large employers is one ofthe weak points in these regions. Because of this, the 
SPD stresses the development and diversification of SMEs. In addition to aid for setting up new 
enterprises, the programme encourages the development of existing SMEs through investments, 
research, the development of new products and improving skills in technology and marketing, hence the 
importance of training and networking with other SMEs or larger enterprises (grouped development). 
Lastly, the programme is aimed at developing Finland's role as an access route to Russia and the Baltic 
States, especially by means of targeted investments in the ports used for transit trade. 
Objective 2 Finland - programming for 1995-96 
Priorities 
Development of enterprises (a) 
Skills and technologies (b) 
Environment, infrastructures and tourism 
(c) 
Technical assistance (d) 
TOTAL Total 
cost 
172.8 
45,6 
61,8 
2,8 
283,0 S.F. assistance 
Total 
36,6 
16,3 
14,9 
1,4 
59,2 ERDF 
3 0,5 
8,7 
14,9 
I.I 
55,2 ESF 
6.1 
7.6 
0,0 
0,3 
14,0 National 
public 
contribution 
49.4 
20.1 
37,0 
1,4 
107,9 Private 
contribut on 
86,8 
9.2 
9.9 
105,9 (C) 22% 
(b) 16 (d) 1 
(a) 61% 
The programme was presented to the Commission on 8 March 1995 and adopted on 11 July 1995. It 
contains three priorities: the development of enterprises; the development of skills and technologies; and 
the environment, infrastructures and tourism. The Community contribution is ECU 69.2 million, and the 
total cost is ECU 283 million. The aims ofthe programme are a net increase of about 10 000 jobs in the 
industry and service sectors, a reduction in the rate of jobless towards the national average, a 3% 
increase in the number of SMEs and a 3% increase in the number of exporting SMEs. 
Two environmental protection measures: 
One is included in the priority for the development of skills and technologies and the other in that for 
the environment proper: 
• The measure "development and application of environmental technologies" (ECU 300 000 from 
the Structural Funds, total cost: ECU 1.1 million) provides aid for the gathering and 
dissemination of information on "green" technologies, for the development of environmentally-
sound products and production methods, and for studies into environmental research and into 
cooperation between enterprises in the environmental field. 
• The measure "environmental protection and urban renewal" (Structural Funds: ECU 6.9 million, 
• total cost: ECU 30 million) provides aid for the renovation and use of vacant industrial structures, 
for improving the environment in town centres, for public awareness campaigns on environmental 
issues, and for research and development in waste treatment. 
Programme management is divided between the regions and central government. Each area has adopted 
its own programme which it is implementing in accordance with a common framework of selection 
procedures and criteria via a regional management committee composed of representatives ofthe region, 
of the regional offices of the ministries and of the social partners. This is why the programme is 
integrated into a single programming document with a single national monitoring committee. The 
Monitoring Committee met twice: in September and November 1995. 
Table 70: Objective 2 - Finland - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) 
assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) ~~%~ 
(2)/(l) Programme 
and 
year of adoption 
TWT Total cost Payments 
1995 
(3) % 
(3)H2) 
IrWo SPD Finland 18TÏÏ1 TOI "3TT]~ -FVÔ] T376I 
124 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
SWEDEN 
The proposals covering the five Swedish Objective 2 regions (Angermanlandskust, Blekinge, Fyrstad, 
Norra Norrlandskust and Bergslagen, with a total population of 970 000) were presented to the 
Commission on 16 June 1995 and the five SPDs, which cover the period 1995-99, were adopted on 
22 November 1995. The five regions are characterized by a high degree of dependence on traditional 
industries (forestry, mining, mechanical engineering), the dominance of one or two large employers on 
the local labour markets, a weak enterprise spirit and a tendency for people to leave resulting in ageing 
of the remaining population. The programmes provide for a total Structural Funds contribution of 
ECU 160 million to a total cost of just over ECU 800 million. 
The main challenge facing these regions is to create new jobs to compensate for the losses suffered 
recently in traditional industries and those anticipated in the public sector. The main aim ofthe SPD is 
therefore to modernize and diversify the economies in the regions so as to provide a solid foundation for 
the creation of jobs in the private sector. The five programmes seek to improve the business environment 
in the regions concerned and strengthen SMEs in the productive sector and services to businesses. 
Another aim is to develop tourist activities based on the rich cultural heritage and natural beauty of the 
regions. It is estimated that implementing the programmes will create 21 000 new jobs. 
Table 71: Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund (ECU million) 
SPD 
Angermanlandskust 
Bergslagen 
Blekinge 
Fyrstad 
Norra Norrlandskust 
TOTAL Total cost 
89,5 
321,4 
85,8 
145,5 
161,0 
803,2 S.F. assistance 
Total 
18,0 
67,0 
15,0 
24,0 
36,0 
160,0 ERDF 
14,2 
47,5 
12,3 
19,0 
28,7 
121,7 ESF 
3,8 
19,5 
2,7 
5,0 
7,3 
38,3 National 
public 
contribution 
29,5 
150,9 
33.1 
56,0 
83,0 
352,5 Private 
contribution 
42.0 
103,5 
37,7 
65.5 
42,0 
290,7 
In order to achieve these strategic aims, the priorities are centered on the development of businesses and 
industry, tourism and human resources. Aid will go to advisory services, networking and research and 
training activities so as to encourage diversification and increase the competitiveness of businesses and 
the export potential. To stimulate innovation in SMEs, the SPDs provide for aid to business networking, 
collaboration between businesses and centres of expertise and SME staff training. Efforts will also be 
made to attract investments (restructuring and cleaning-up of industrial sites and promotion activities). 
Lastly, the programmes will assist measures to encourage the development of tourist activities (for 
example, small-scale tourist infrastructures, the organization of cultural events emphasising the rich 
heritage of the regions, the development of new attractions). These priorities are based on horizontal 
themes such as the development of information technologies, the promotion of equal opportunities, 
conservation ofthe environment and increasing skills and know-how. 
Measures for the environment: 
Each ofthe Swedish SPDs include such measures, which concern: 
• The renovation and cleaning-up of abandoned industrial sites and structures (Bergslagen: ERDF: 
ECU 3 million; total cost: 16 million). 
• Aid for the development of environmentally-sound products and for the introduction of "clean" 
technologies into SMEs (Fyrstad: ERDF: ECU 600 000; total cost: 3.6 million). 
• Aid for the conservation and maintenance ofthe heritage (Fyrstad: ERDF: ECU 1.6 million; total 
cost: 9.1 million; Norra Norrlandskust: ERDF: ECU 1.8 million; total cost: 8.7 million). 
The main beneficiaries ofthe programmes will be the SMEs, those wishing to start up businesses, the 
municipalities, various local organizations and training and R&D institutions. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Objective 2 Sweden - programming for 1995-99 
Priorities 
Development of enterprises (a) 
Innovation, research & technology (b) 
Enterprise environment, tourism, local 
development (c) 
Training, skills (d) 
Technical assistance (e) 
TOTAL Total 
cost 
453,1 
86,7 
157,1 
97,2 
9,1 
803,2 S.F. assistance 
Total 
79,5 
17,8 
33,8 
24,3 
4,6 
160,0 ERDF 
63,5 
17,8 
30,8 
6,2 
3,4 
121,7 ESF 
16 
0,0 
3 
18,1 
1,2 
38,3 National 
public 
contribution 
171,7 
39,8 
89,6 
46,9 
4,5 
352,5 Private 
contribution 
201,9 
29,1 
33,7 
26,0 
0,0 
290,7 (d) 12% (e) 1% 
(C) 20% 
(b) 11% (a) 56% 
Programming will be carried out through partnership involving the Commission, central government and 
regional and local authorities representing all local interests, including the social partners, via a system 
of management committees under one general Monitoring Committee for the SPD. The first meeting of 
the five SPD Monitoring Committees was held in December 1995. 
Table 72: Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption Total cost S.F. 
assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1995 
SPD Angermanlandskust 
SPD Bergslagen 
SPD Blekinge 
SPD Fyrstad 
SPD Norra NorrlaniJskust 
TOTAL ^9,5 
321,4 
85,8 
145,5 
161,0 
803,2 18.0 
67.0 
15,0 
24,0 
36,0 
160,0 18.0 
12,8 
15,0 
24,0 
36,0 
105,8 100% 
19% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
66% 6,2 
6.4 
5,0 
8,2 
12,3 
38,1 34% 
50% 
34% 
34% 
34% 
36% 
7.3. Objectives 3 and 4 
As for the other Objectives, 1995 was the year in which the Objective 3 and 4 SPDs for the new Member 
States were established in an active partnership process. 
Table 73: Objectives 3 and 4 - Indicative breakdown of appropriations for the new Member States (ECU 
million) 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
Total Objectives 3 and 4 
395,0 
343,0 
520,0 
1.258,0 Objective 3 
334,0 
258,4 
347.0 
939,4 Objective 4 
61.0 
84.6 
173.0 
318,6 
AUSTRIA 
The Austrian Objective 3 and 4 SPDs were adopted in July 1995. They represent total ESF funding of 
ECU 395 million and are implemented under the general responsibility ofthe Minister for Labour and 
Social Affairs, mainly via the public employment service and the Lander social affairs departments. 
They cover 1995-99. 
126 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Objective 3: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities ESF 
Support for categories hit by structural changes (a) 25,8 
Integration ofthe long-term unemployed, old people and 
those threatened with exclusion (b) 113,8 
Integration ofthe handicapped (c) 95,2 
Aid for integration of young people into employment (d) 22,9 
Promotion of equal opportunities (e) 61,1 
Technical assistance (f) 15,2 
Total 334,0 (e) 18% (f) 5% (a) 8% 
(d) 7% 
(C) 29% (b) 33% 
Objective 3: Under this Objective special priority will be given to aid for those parts of the population 
particularly affected by economic trends resulting from accession. The ESF funding - continuance and 
deepening of Austrian labour market policies - will be targeted mainly at the long-term unemployed, old 
people and those threatened with exclusion from the labour market. There will be sizeable aid to 
encourage unemployed handicapped people to reintegrate into the labour market. Additional measures 
will promote equal opportunities and the integration of young people into the labour market. "~~ 
Objective 4: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities I ESF 
Anticipation of labour market trends and updating of skills (a) 4~JT 
Professional training (b) 46,0 
Improvement and development of training system (c) 8,4 
Technical assistance (d) 2,1 
Total 61,0 (C) 14% <d> 3% <a) 7% 
(b) 76% 
Objective 4: The main aim ofthe SPD is to help salaried staff to adjust to industrial change and to new 
production methods. To this end, in accordance with the principle of concentration, measures will be 
centered around SMEs. They will target old workers, unskilled workers or workers with obsolete skills, 
workers in key positions, customs agents, short-time and seasonal workers. Since this is a new approach 
to labour policy in Austria, the measures will be evaluated after two years and adjusted or replaced if 
necessary. 
Implementation ofthe programmes in 1995 was facilitated by the decision ofthe Austrian authorities to 
pay advances to project promoters. However, the socio-economic effects will only become clear during 
the course of 1996. 
Table 74: Objectives 3 and 4 - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption total cost S.K. 
assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 
(3) /o 
(3)/(2) 
Objective 3 
1995 
SPD Austria 779,3 334,0 64,1 19% 32.0 50% 
Objective 4 
7^5 
SPD Austria 
TOTAL 171,4 
950,6 61,0 
395,0 11,7 
75,8 19% 
19% 5^ 
3 7,9 50% 
50% 
FINLAND 
Finland was the first of the new Member States to have its ESF programmes approved. The Finnish 
Objective 3 and 4 SPDs were adopted on 25 July 1995 and provide for total ESF funding of ECU 343 
million. This is equivalent to 7% ofthe national funds earmarked for employment measures. Finland is 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 127 
one ofthe most advanced countries in Europe in terms of education, training and employment policy so 
the ESF measures and programmes give a significant place to innovative measures. 
With regard to implementation, Monitoring Committees have been set up for each Objective and all of 
them have already met. Several seminars, preparatory meetings and working parties have also been 
organized. The monitoring and evaluation rules have been developed with the Finnish authorities and the 
Monitoring Committees will take decisions on them during the first half of 1996. The employment 
ministry will be responsible for coordinating Objective 3 and 4 measures and will coordinate, with the 
competent authorities, the human resources measures under all Objectives. It will be responsible for 
executing most ofthe ESF horizontal programmes. Establishment ofthe budget and national rules will 
guarantee wide distribution ofthe decision-making procedures applied to ESF projects. 
Objective 3: The SPD is designed to combat unemployment and trigger economic growth by the creation 
of SMEs. Some 97 400 people should benefit from the measures programmed under Objective 3. 
Objective 3: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities I ESF 
Reintegration pathways (a) 110,0 
Job creation and human resources development in SMEs (b) 61,5 
Young people's employment needs (c) 82,2 
Measures in favour ofthe Aland islands (d) 0,8 
Technical assistance (e) 3,9 
Total 258,4 (c) 32% (d) 0,3% (e) 2% 
(a) 42% 
(b) 24% 
In early 1995 the Finnish authorities speeded up the launch of the programme by introducing an 
"absolute priority procedure". Drawing up new working methods and practical models, the 
administrative procedure and the creation ofthe necessary tools had taken longer than anticipated. Most 
ofthe projects started up in late autumn. A total of 204 projects started up in 1995. Given the problems 
bound to be encountered in the first year, this overall picture for 1995 is satisfactory. 
Objective 4: Objective 4 will receive total funding of ECU 84.6 million in 1995-99. It contains three 
priorities and should benefit 34 500 people. 
Objective 4: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities ESF 
Forecasts of trends throughout working life (a) 7.6 
Professional training and retraining; guidance and advice (b) 47.5 
Development of innovative know-how and networks (c) 25.5 
Measures in favour ofthe Aland islands (d) 0,2 
Technical assistance (e) 3,8 
Total 84,6 (d) 0,2% <e) 4% (a) 9% 
(c) 30 
(b) 57% 
The Objective 4 programme started up more rapidly than anticipated in most ofthe Member States. The 
only problem is the concentration of funding and projects on a small number of measures, especially the 
measure to develop practical skills in the workforce, the largest one in the SPD and the only one really to 
have started properly. The other measures still contain only a few projects. A total of 81 projects got 
underway in 1995. 
128 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 75: Objectives 3 and 4 - Finland - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU mil/Ion) 
WT. 
assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) Programmes 
and 
year of adoption 
Objective 3 
TW5 Total cost 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 
(3) T>— 
(3)/(2) 
SPD Finland 
Objective 4 "5Î61T 1ÏÏ? W IWo 1ÏÏT ~w% 
TW5 
SPD Finland WTJ 
1.227,5 84,6 
343,0 TO" 
75T TOTAL 18% 7.4 50% 
22% 37,6 ~5~F^ 
SWEDEN 
Objective 3: Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities ESF 
Integration of young people into the labour market (a) 96,6 
Combatting long-term unemployment (b) 173,1 
Integration into the labour market of people threatened with 
exclusion (c) 63,3 
Technical assistance (d) 14,0 
Total 347,0 (C) 18% (a) 28% 
Objective 3: Sweden presented its draft SPD for Objective 3 to the Commission in April 1995, and the 
Commission approved it on 6 December 1995. It did not start up until 1996 but it was agreed to grant 
ESF funding retroactively to eligible projects started after 1 July 1995. The ESF funding will be 
concentrated on the most effective and innovative integration measures targeted at those most at risk of 
exclusion from the labour market. All the measures will respect the principle of equal opportunities. 
Some 160 000 people should benefit from the programme between 1995 and 1999. 
Objective 4; Programming for 1995-99 (ECU million) 
Priorities ESF 
Forecasting, planning and development (a) 26,0 
Improving skills, guidance and advice (b) 1 12,4 
Cooperation and transfer structures, networks (e) 26,0 
Technical assistance (d) 8,6 
Total 173,0 (c) 15% (d) 5% (a) 15% 
(b) 65% 
Objective 4: The draft Objective 4 SPD was presented to the Commission by the Swedish authorities in 
April 1995, but it was not approved until February 1996. As a result, ESF financing could be allocated 
only to projects started in the period 1996-99. The programme will concentrate mainly on innovative 
adjustment measures for the staff of SMEs employing fewer than 50 people. The SPD forms a coherent 
whole, each measure leading to or opening a door to another: the macro-economic forecast is duplicated 
by a forecast and definition ofthe enterprises' professional needs. This approach comprises the drawing 
up of individual business plans, permanent training of senior staff and - the main measure - developing 
the skills of staff, in particular those threatened with unemployment. The final measure encourages the 
establishment of networks between workers, businesses and transfer structures. A maximum of 15% of 
the budget earmarked for the main measures will be reserved for projects which, at the municipality and 
county level, are aimed at staff of SMEs in the public caring sector. Concern for equal opportunities 
underlies all the measures. The total number of beneficiaries will be ofthe order of 240 000 in the period 
1996-99. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 129 
Table 76: Objective 3 - Sweden - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) 
Commitments 
1995 
(2) Programme 
and 
year of adoption 
Objective 3 
TW5 Total cost STF. 
assistance 
(1) ^55 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 
(3) ~Vo 
(3)/(2) 
SPD Sweden 771,0 14TÔ" TT% 73,0 36.5 50% 
7.4. Objective 5(a) 
Objective 5(a) agriculture 
The forecasts of expenditure in the new Member States on Objective 5(a) agriculture outside the 
Objective 1, 5(b) and 6 areas were adopted during 1995, along with the priorities by activity sector, 
category of farmer and type of area. =— 
Table 77: Objective 5(a) agriculture - Forecast implementation in the new Member States 1995-99 (ECU 
million) 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
Total Total 
385,8 
331,0 
90,1 
806,9 Production 323,5 
Processing and marketing 62,3 
Production 287,9 
Processing and marketing 43,1 
Production 67,2 
Processing and marketing 22.9 
Production 678,6 
Processing and marketing 128,3 % 
84% 
16% 
87% 
13% 
7 5 % 
2 5 % 
84% 
1 6 % 
Objective 5(a) - The Member States' options for 1995-99 
Austria 
(f)l2% (a) 11% 
(b) 3% 
(e) 57% (C) 27% 
(e) 66% Finland 
(a) 1.2% (h 
(f)7% \ •* *'' (C, 1. 
n In vestment s in the holding (a) 
r—i T i fining and support services (< r-j Pioducer group s (b) i Processing and marketing (c) 
• M ount allions and least -1 ;i\ ourcd aieas (e) I—I Younu farmers if) 
Objective 5(a) for fisheries 
After preparatory work which started in 1994, the three Objective 5(a) fisheries programmes for Austria. 
Finland and Sweden for the period 1995-99 were adopted during 1995. It should be noted that the 
Objective 6 SPDs adopted for Sweden and Finland also contain a section on fisheries. 
130 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 78: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Priorities for assistance in the new Member States (ECU million) 
Adjustment and reorientation of fishing elfort 
Other fleet measures 
Fleet renewal and modernisation 
Aquaculture 
Protected marine areas 
Port facilities 
Processing and marketing of products 
Product promotion 
Socio-economic measures (1) 
Other measures 
Total Austria 
1,05 
0,87 
0,04 
pm 
2,0 Finland 
4,1 
2,4 
6,0 
0,5 
1,0 
6,5 
2,2 
pm 
0,3 
23,0 Sweden 
4,0 
12,0 
5,1 
1,9 
2,2 
9,0 
2,2 
pm 
3,6 
40,0 S.F. total 
8,1 
0,0 
14,4 
12,2 
2,4 
3,2 
16,4 
4,4 
pm 
3,9 
65,0 
( 1 ) Since the amendment in 1 VV5 ot Regulation (EC) No J6yv/yj, such measures may be introduced by the 
Member States. The amount allocated to such measures must be determined within the overall budget. 
Table 79: Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption 
1995 
SPD Austria 
SPD Finland 
SPD Sweden 
TOTAL Total cost 
22,5 
81,9 
115,9 
220,3 S.F. 
(1) 
2,0 
23,0 
40,0 
65,0 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
2,0 
23,0 
40,0 
65,0 % 
(2)/(l) 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
0,2 
6,9 
12,0 
19,1 % 
(3)/(2) 
10% 
30% 
30% 
29% 
AUSTRIA 
The Objective 5(a) fisheries SPD (non-Objective 1) was adopted on 26 July 1995 and provides for an 
FIFG contribution of ECU 2 million for the period 1995-99. It relates mainly to the aquaculture sector 
and the processing and marketing of products. The Monitoring Committee met for the first time in 
October 1995, approving its rules of procedure and the project selection criteria. The Austrian authorities 
have already taken the first steps to implement the programme. 
FINLAND 
The Objective 5(a) fisheries SPD for Finland covers all the fisheries measures outside the Objective 6 
zone. The indicative financing plan provides for a total investment of ECU 82 million for 1995-99, 
ECU 23 million of which will come from the FIFG. The programme was approved on 28 July 1995 and 
comprises eight priorities, including the adjustment of fishing effort, fieet modernization, aquaculture 
and product processing. The first meeting ofthe Monitoring Committee, whose members include five 
representatives ofthe various fishery organizations, was held in December 1995. Although a small 
number of projects have already been approved, the method of assistance by programming is new and it 
will be a little while before the Finnish authorities and the Monitoring Committee can adopt procedures 
and monitor the implementation ofthe programme. 
SWEDEN 
The Swedish Objective 5(a) fisheries programme (non-Objective 6) was approved on 8 November 1995. 
The FIFG contribution is ECU 40 million, and its main aim is to assist the adjustment and modernization 
of the fishing fleet and the qualitative and quantitative development of the processing industry. The 
Monitoring Committee, which will cover Objective 5(a) measures throughout the country, including the 
Objective 6 zones with the exception of financial matters, held its constitutive meeting in December 
1995, where it adopted the selection criteria for projects; this enabled programme implementation to 
begin in early 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 131 
7.5. Objective 5(b) 
Before the SPDs were adopted prior appraisals of the Objective 5(b) programmes for the three new 
Member States were carried out. The appraisals covered one programme for mainland Finland and one 
for the Aland islands, seven programmes for Austria and five programmes for Sweden. The aim was to 
give the Commission a better idea ofthe needs ofthe regions, their potential and the priorities for their 
agricultural and rural development. The appraisals concentrated on these points: a clearer definition of 
the programme strategies and quantification of their aims, particularly for income and jobs; respect for 
the principle of regionalization, particularly for mainland Finland, where one programme was presented 
for all the Objective 5(b) areas; determination of the physical and performance indicators and 
measurement ofthe impact of applying the common agricultural policy on rural areas. The studies also 
proved a useful tool for the Commission during negotiations on the programmes. 
Table 80: Objective 5(b) - SPDs adopted in 1995 in the new Member States (ECU million) 
Member State/region 
Austria 
Carinthia 
Lower Austria 
Upper Austria 
Salzburg 
Styria 
Tyrol 
Vorarlberg 
Finland 
Mainland Finland 
Aland islands 
TOTAL 
% Total 
cost 
2.679,9 
404,8 
762,7 
539,3 
104,3 
629,1 
181,3 
58,3 
624,1 
613,8 
10,3 
3.304,0 S.F. 
total 
411,0 
58,0 
111,6 
98,5 
16,0 
85,3 
34,4 
7,2 
194,0 
191,4 
2,6 
605,0 
100% EAGGF 
164,2 
20,9 
44,6 
41,3 
6,4 
34,1 
13,8 
3,1 
66J 
65.5 
1.2 
230,9 
38% ERDF 
175,0 
28,9 
46,7 
41,3 
7.0 
34,1 
13,8 
3,1 
94,5 
93,4 
1,2 
269,5 
45% ESF 
11,8 
8.2 
20.3 
15,9 
2.6 
17.1 
6.9 
1.0 
32,8 
32.5 
0.3 
104,6 
17% 
AUSTRIA 
Population ('000 inhab.) I 2.276 
Area (knr) 50.040 
HCU million 
' SIJDs Total I 411,0 
Average per SPD 58,7 
BreukJow n by J'und 
EAGGF I Ï64J 
ERDF 175.0 
ESF 71,8 (f) 17% 
(e) 4% 
(d) 14% O) 1% (a) 28% 
(C) 8% (b) 28% Q Diversification and dev e lop ment 
of agriculture and forestry (a) 
• Diversification and deve lop ment 
ofthe non-agricultural sectors (b) 
^Protection ofthe environment 
(c) 
• Tourism (cl) 
g Local development and 
renovation of villages (e) 
Q Human resources (f) 
«Technical assistance (g) 
At the beginning ofthe year the Commission adopted the list of Austrian areas eligible under Objective 
5(b) and the amount of Community appropriations: ECU 411 million for the period 1995-99. The seven 
SPDs were approved on 4 December 1995. The priority under the programmes is agricultural 
diversification and aid to small firms and industries. They require a very considerable investment effort 
from the private sector. The Lander will be responsible for their implementation. With regard to 
financial execution in 1995, the Commission committed 19% and paid 9% ofthe Community allocation 
for the entire period. 
132 7lh Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 81: Objective 5(b) - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Programmes 
and 
year of adoption 
SPDCarinthia 
SPD Lower Austria 
SPD Upper Austria 
SPD Salzburg 
SPD Styria 
SPD Tyrol 
SPD Vorarlbere total cost ST 
assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
•4TJ4--C, 
762,7 
539,3 
104,3 
629,1 
181,3 
58,3 111,6 
98,5 
16,0 
85,3 
34,4 
7,2 TT7J 
21,2 
18,9 
3,1 
16,2 
6,6 
1,4 % 
(2)/(l) 
~TWo 
19% 
19% 
19% 
19% 
19% 
19% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
5,5 
10,6 
9.4 
1,5 
8,1 
3,3 
0,7 % 
(3)/(2) 
1U% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
TOTAL 2.679,9 411,0 78,3 1 9 % 39,2 50% 
FINLAND 
Population ('000 inhab.) I TÏÏ9T 
Area (km2) 95.219 
ECU million 
2 S I'D s Total I 194,0 
A verage per SPD 97,0 
Breakdown by Fund 
EAGGF I 66~7 
ERDF 94,5 
ESF 32,8 (f) 17% 
(C) 8% (9) 1% (a) 22% 
(b) 41% Q Di\ ersificalion aoiLjicvelopni ent . 
of agriculture and forestry (a) 
Q Diversification and development 
of the non-agricultural sectors (b) 
^Protection ofthe environment 
(c) 
pTourism (d) 
ff Local development and 
renovation of villages (e) 
Q Human resources (f) 
«Technical assistance (g) 
Definitions ofthe Finnish Objective 5(b) areas and the amount ofthe Community contribution, ECU 194 
million for 1995-99, were adopted by the Commission in January and February 1995. The draft SPDs 
were presented by the Finnish authorities on 8 March 1995 and the Commission adopted the two 
programmes on 13 November 1995. Each programme was designed to take account ofthe geographical 
and socio-economic characteristics ofthe area concerned, one programme being for the Aland islands, 
the other, containing fourteen regional subsections, for the mainland. The main priority is aid to small 
firms and industries. The second is agricultural and forestry diversification. For the Aland isl ds 
tourism is a major development priority. 
Responsibility for implementation has been entrusted at regional level to "regional councils" and at 
national level to the Ministry ofthe Interior. The Monitoring Committees were constituted on 1 ! 13 
December 1995 while in 1995 the Commission committed 17% and paid 8% of the Con lity 
contribution for the two programmes for the entire period. 
Table 82: Objective 5(b) - Finland - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 
Prog ram me s 
A 11 (I 
\car of adoption Total cost S.F. 
assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1995 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1995 
SP13 M amland Fin land 
SPD Aland islands 
TOTAL 6 13.8 
10.3 
6 2 4.0 1 9 1 ,4 
2.6 
I'M.1) 30.5 
3 2.8 16% 
89% 
1 7 "/,, 1x2 
0.7 
1 5.9 ."H)% 
30% 
4 9 % 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 133 
SWEDEN 
Population ('000 inhab.) 754 
Area (km2) 52.746 
ECU million 
TTPlJs îolïT] TSipr 
Average per SPD 27,6 (fl 21% 
(d) 11% (fl) 2% 
(C) 5% (a) 17% 
(b) 36% ^Diversification and development 
of agriculture and forestry (a) 
g Diversification and development 
of the non-agricultural sectors (b) 
^Protection ofthe environment (c) 
pTourism (d) 
g Local development and 
renovation of villages (e) 
£]Human resources (0 
^Technical assistance (g) 
Selection ofthe Swedish areas eligible under Objective 5(b) was adopted by the Commission on 18 
April 1995. They have a very low population density (14 inhabitants per km2). There are three mainland 
zones (South-East Sweden and Vâsterbotten/Gàvle/Dalarna, a forest area with a very scattered 
population; West Sweden, with an ageing population and a continuous out-migration of yojmg people) 
and two island zones (Skàrgârden, an archipelago of some 300 islands suffering from remoteness, an 
ageing population and out-migration of young people, and the island of Gotland, the largest Swedish 
island, with local production remote from the main markets but with an exceptional and underdeveloped 
cultural and environmental heritage). The allocation of appropriations was decided by the Commission 
on 22 March 1995 and covers ECU 138 million for the period 1995-99. The five draft SPDs were 
presented to the Commission in 1995 and were to be finalized in 1996. 
134 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
B. OTHER ASSISTANCE 
1. Community Initiatives 
1.1. Introduction 
Many programmes approved 
The main events in 1995 were the adoption of most of the Community Initiative programmes and the 
proposal for allocating the reserve available for the Initiatives. The Commission approved 263 
programmes in 1995, about two thirds ofthe total of 401 programmes submitted by the Member States. 
This represents ECU 9 540 million, or 81% ofthe total of ECU 11 729 million initially allocated to the 
Twelve for 1994-99, plus ECU 157.7 million, or 42% of the total of ECU 376 million allocated to the 
three new Member States for 1995-99. Ofthe programmes approved, 45 are in the new Member States 
(14 INTERREG programmes and 31 programmes under other Initiatives). As the allocation of resources 
between Initiatives in the new Member States was not decided until April 1995, only eight rjrogrammes 
were adopted in 1995.1 
Table 83: Number of Community Initiative programmes presented and adopted in 1995 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
N 
P 
UK 
EUR 12 
AT 
FI 
SE 
EUR 15 
Interreg/ 
Regen 
Peace 
TOTAL ADAPT 
<A> 
2 
14 
n 
17 (B) 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
14 
1 
1 
1 
17 
17 Employment 
(A) 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
3 
3 (B) 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
3 
3 LEADER 
(A) 
4 
1 
14 
1 
17 
20 
1 
21 
1 
4 
1 
5 
90 
8 
2 
2 
102 
102 w 0 
0 
13 
1 
17 
11 
1 
12 
1 
A 
1 
5 
66 
1 
0 
0 
67 
67 PESCA 
(A) 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
-
1 
0 
1 
4 
-
1 
1 
6 
6 <B) 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
4 
• 
0 
0 
4 
4 SME 
(A) 
2 
1 
16 
1 
1 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
5 
34 
1 
2 
1 
38 
38 (B) 
1 
0 
9 
1 
0 
3 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
4 
21 
0 
0 
0 
21 
21 REGIS 
(A) 
-
1 
4 
-
-
1 
-
6 
6 
6 (B) 
• 
• 
• 
1 
' 1 
-
-
-
1 
-
3 
-
3 
3 RECHAR 
(A) 
2 
• 
7 
1 
1 
7 
• 
2 
• 
1 
8 
29 
1 
30 
30 <Br 
2 
6 
1 
0 
6 
2 
-
1 
8 
26 
0 
26 
26 KONVER 
(A) 
3 
1 
16 
1 
1 
17 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
44 
-
1 
45 
45 (B) 
3 
1 
13 
1 
0 
17 
-
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
37 
-
0 
37 
37 RESIDER 
(A) 
2 
• 
9 
1 
1 
7 
-
1 
1 
1 
0 
3 
26 
1 
27 
27 (B) 
2 
-
8 
1 
0 
5 
0 
0 
1 
0 
2 
19 
0 
19 
19 RETEX* 
(A) 
2 
8 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
20 
1 
21 
21 (B, 
1 
-
4 
1 
0 
1 
0 
2 
-
1 
0 
2 
12 
0 
12 
12 URBAN 
(A) 
3 
1 
10 
1 
1 
8 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
10 
40 
1 
1 
1 
43 
43 (B) 
2 
1 
8 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
1 
1 
18 
1 
0 
0 
19 
19 TOTAL 
(A) 
20 
5 
8) 
8 
25 
69 
5 
31 
6 
12 
8 
37 
307 
15 
8 
8 
338 
62 
1 
401 (B) 
13 
3 
62 
8 
20 
46 
3 
18 
3 
11 
7 
26 
220 
4 
2 
2 
228 
34 
1 
263 
(A) Programmes presented in 1995 
(B) Programmes adopted in 1995 
* Including CIPs adopted in 1993 and amended in 1995 
The adoption ofthe programmes was a slow process, hampered at first by the sheer number of Initiatives 
(13) and hence of programmes (about 400) for the Structural Funds as a whole, which was partly due to 
certain Member States having submitted regionalized programmes under the Community Initiatives. A 
further factor in slowing down progress was the Commission's concern to adopt good programmes 
matching the specific features ofthe Initiatives, to keep them distinct from CSFs and SPDs. The purpose 
of these concerns is to: 
• implement measures of an experimental nature, transferable between regions of the same Member 
State and from one Member State to another (exchange of experience, good practice); 
• raise the local profile of the measures and clearly demonstrate the Union's interest in vulnerable 
target groups (e.g. in dealing with urban matters or equal opportunities) or sensitive subjects (e.g. 
conversion and restructuring of declining industrial regions). 
1 See below: 1.3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 3 5 
Community Initiatives and the environment: 
The environmental aspects of Community Initiatives are a recurring theme, whether environment-
friendliness is seen as a priority in its own right or as an asset for development and innovation at 
local or regional level. This concern is not new: in 1990, the Envireg Initiative was introduced, with 
an endowment of ECU 580 million, to help the less developed coastal areas through depollution of 
water and processing of waste, improvement ofthe coastline and protection of biotopes.2 Since 1994, 
measures financed under Envireg are integrated into CSFs and SPDs, a sign ofthe new approach of 
systematically taking environmental considerations into account for structural operations. 
The "second generation" Initiatives also take account of this aspect. It is difficult to estimate exactly 
how much is specifically allocated to environmental expenditure under the Initiatives from 1994-99, 
but most of them include relevant innovative and integrated measures. 
The main purpose of the industrial conversion Initiatives (RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX and 
KONVER) is to restore and find a new use for buildings (previously used for mining, steel production, 
textile production or military purposes) in seriously run-down industrial areas} The urban 
environment is one ofthe basic dimensions of the programmes adopted under the URBAN Initiative. 
Similarly, in terms ofthe rural environment, LEADER is geared in particular to improving the quality 
of life in the countryside, where it promotes integrated measures for the restoration of sites and 
villages. More specifically, REGIS includes measures in the most remote regions, such as the 
improvement of coastal areas, treatment of waste water and urban or industrial waste, or the 
prevention of natural hazards. One of the priorities ofthe SMEs Initiative is to support firms that take 
account of environmental aspects and rational use of energy, in particular through the development of 
non-polluting production procedures and technologies. Lastly, through INTERREGII, a whole series 
of cross-border cooperation measures are financed in the field of rational use of natural resources, 
from joint management of nature parks and the development of renewable energy sources to the 
combined development of infrastructure for waste water treatment, the prevention and control of 
pollution, waste disposal and the monitoring of compliance with environmental standards by new 
industries in border regions. Under REGEN, for the completion of energy networks, it is possible to 
give explicit priority to measures to introduce natural gas, which can reduce the pollution resulting 
from energy consumption. 
Proposal for the allocation ofthe reserve in 1995 
On 4 October, the Commission adopted a proposal for the allocation of the reserve available for 
Community Initiatives (ECU 1 665 million) for the period up to the end of 1999. The reserve 
corresponds to the amount still available after approval in 1994 ofthe guidelines for 13 Community 
Initiatives in the Twelve, as well as some financial adjustments in the meantime. On 2 November 1995, 
the Commission also proposed amendments to the guidelines for URBAN, EMPLOYMENT ("Integra" 
strand) and ADAPT ("Bis" strand) and a new Initiative: INTERREG II C. 
2 See Chapter IV.C. Ex post evaluation ofthe Community Initiatives. 
3 For more detail, see below the presentation of programmes adopted in 1995. 
136 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 84: Summary of Commission decisions on Community Initiatives in 1994-95 (ECU million) 
Dates 
July 1994 
October 1994 
December 1994 
April 1995 
May 1995 
January 1995 
October 1995 Decisions 
- Total for CIs (9 %) 
- Overall amount for 13 CIs 
(allocation by Member State for 9 CIs) 
(allocation by subject for 4 "industrial" CIs) 
(adjustment RETEX) 
therefore: reserve available for CIs 
- adjustment E, IRL, N, UK 
therefore: reserve available for CIs 
- Allocation by Member State for Rechar, Résider, Retex 
- Supplementary allocation for Luxembourg Résider 
therefore: reserve available for CIs 
- Allocation by Member State for Konver 
- Allocation for Spain 
therefore: reserve available for CIs 
- Council Regulation on Textile Portugal (1) 
therefore: reserve available for CIs 
- Allocation for Peace 
therefore: reserve available for CIs 
- Reserve for new Member States 
therefore: reserve available for CIs 
- Proposed distribution by CI and by Member State ofthe reserve (12 MS) 
- Proposed distribution by CI and by Member State ofthe reserve (3 MS) 
therefore: reserve available for CIs (l^°pUr?c|s) 
13.467,0 
-11.872,5 
(9.950,5) 
(1.916,8) 
(5,2) 
1.594,5 
-250,0 
1.344,5 
(1.416,8) 
-5,1 
1.339,4 
(500,0) 
-50,0 
1.289,4 
+400,0 
1.689,4 
-98,4 
1.591,0 Amounts 
(1995 prices) 
—-
1.613,7 
51,3 
1.665,0 
-1.613,7 
-51,3 
0,0 
(1)NB: the textiles and clothing programme in Portugal, adopted in 1993 by the Commission as a CI to support modernization 
of this sector in Portugal, was transferred in 1994 to heading 3 ofthe Financial perspective and is covered by a specific Council 
Regulation. As a result of this transfer, the corresponding appropriations were paid back into the reserve for the CIs. For 
information, in 1995 the budget appropriations under the heading for this programme comprised a commitment of ECU 80 
million and a payment of ECU 40 million. 
The proposed allocation of total financing was infonned by a concern to concentrate on the following 
priorities: industrial restructuring, human resources, urban and rural development and spatial planning, 
in line with the wishes ofthe European Parliament. Other factors taken into account were the guidelines 
set by the Edinburgh European Council and the overall amount set aside for Objective 1. The allocation 
ofthe reserve among the three priorities can be summarized as follows. 
• The purpose of "industrial restructuring" is to achieve greater diversification in regions highly 
dependent on the sectors of textiles and clothing, coal, steel or armaments. Under this heading, the 
Commission proposed the reinforcement of each of the four Initiatives (RETEX, RECHAR, 
RESIDER and KONVER) and their extension to 1999. 
• The purpose of "human resources" is: 
- the expansion of employment, involving the reinforcement of the EMPLOYMENT, 
ADAPT, KONVER, RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX, URBAN, LEADER and PESCA 
Initiatives; 
- the reinforcement of measures to promote equal opportunities, first of all through the 
"NOW" strand of the EMPLOYMENT Initiative and changes in the guidelines for 
URBAN, and secondly through reinforcement ofthe measures to encourage employment of 
young people through the "Youthstart" strand ofthe EMPLOYMENT Initiative; 
- combating social exclusion, which also involves working to eliminate racism and 
xenophobia, through the new "Integra" strand of EMPLOYMENT; 
- helping workers adapt to the information society, through the inclusion of a series of 
complementary measures (ADAPT "Bis"). 
• The purpose of "urban and rural development" is twofold: 
- reinforcement of measures for towns and cities, in particular medium-sized towns (it is 
planned to amend the guidelines for the URBAN Initiative accordingly, allocating a budget 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) i3 7 
of ECU 140 million), while continuing to stress rural development (a further ECU 230 
million for LEADER II); 
- a new departure in trans-national cooperation, for which the Commission has proposed the 
adoption of a new Initiative: INTERREG II "C". 
Reinforcement of URBAN : The Commission has suggested concentrating on medium-sized towns and 
on priority matters in the urban context such as long-term unemployment, equal opportunities for men 
and women, and the urban environment. 
New strand INTERREG IIC (ECU 415 million): This new Initiative relates solely to European spatial 
planning, and it is quite distinct from the cross-border cooperation promoted by the first strand of 
INTERREG. This is clear from the extent ofthe area covered: the cooperation is trans-national (rather 
than cross-border) over a wide area, well beyond border regions, involving only matters of spatial 
planning. There are three aspects to take into account: general measures of trans-national cooperation in 
the field of spatial planning; flood prevention through trans-national cooperation; combating drought. 
The first implies a global approach, while the others relate to more specific needs. The mai» point is to 
give the Member States and the regions a new incentive to work together on defining a strategy to ensure 
smooth development, i.e. balanced distribution of economic activities and human resources, within the 
major common trans-national, areas, and the practical application of joint measures. Examples ofthe 
areas concerned are the Baltic, the Alps, the Mediterranean basin, and the Atlantic seaboard. This will 
make it possible to demonstrate in concrete terms how a trans-national approach can add value. 
INTERREG IIC and the environment : spatial planning and the management of water 
The "Europe 2000+ " report stressed the link between the protection of natural resources and spatial 
planning, i.e. the distribution of activities over the territory. Spatial planning is of major importance 
to preservation, protection and improvement ofthe environment, and to the prudent and rational use 
of natural resources. Article 130s of the Treaty refers to this aspect. For example, the extremely 
uneven distribution of water resources throughout the Community has inevitable consequences for 
activities in the regions where water is in short supply. Similarly, the location and/or concei.iration of 
economic activity has affected groundwater and river basins, sometimes seriously, and trans-national 
cooperation has become necessary to ensure concerted exploitation. For sea water, a global and 
integrated territorial approach is needed to preserve both the development and the natural resources 
of coastal areas. 
In 1995, the Commission prepared a proposal for a new strand of the INTERREG II Initiative, to help 
promote concerted trans-national action. The aims of INTERREG IIC explicitly relate to drawing up 
strategies for sustainable development and seeking to restore a balanced allocation of activities over 
Community territory. There are three aspects to this: 
• trans-national cooperation in spatial planning measures, consistent with the sustainable 
development ofthe trans-national regions concerned, involving in particular the identification of 
environmentally sensitive areas and the improvement of the territorial impact of Community 
policies (especially transport policy); 
• flood prevention through trans-national cooperation, in particular in the form of joint plans for the 
improvement of river basins and flood prevention measures; 
• combating drought through sustainable development measures to limit excess water consumption 
and encourage rational allocation of water resources. 
For coastal areas, the Commission presented a communication on the subject in 1995} 
Each of the subjects mentioned above - industrial restructuring, human resources, urban and rural 
development and spatial planning - has been broken down by Initiative and by Member State, in 
accordance with Article 12 ofthe Structural Funds Framework Regulation and the criteria for the initial 
allocation ofthe total available for Community Initiatives in 1994. 
See Chapter I.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
138 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 85: Allocation ofthe reserve between Initiatives proposed by Commission in 1995 (ECU million) 
Industrial Initiatives: 380,0 
Rctex 45,0 
Rechar 45,0 
Résider 45,0 
Konver 245,0 
Employment 100,0 
Adapt-Bis 170,0 
InterregHC 415,0 
Transnational cooperation 100,0 
Drought 150,0 
Flooding 165,0 
Urban 140,0 
Leader 230,0 
Pesca 30,0 
TOTAL 1.665,0 
This proposal for allocating the reserve was presented to the European Parliament on 17 October 1995, 
and to the Management Committee for Community Initiatives at an introductory information meeting on 
12 December 1995.5 It was due to be formally approved by the Commission early in 1996.6 
1995 in the context of programming for 1994-97/99 
Table 86: Community Initiatives - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-97/99 (ECU million)' 
| ADAPT | Employment! LEADER 1 PESCA | SME | REGIS | RECHAR| KONVER| RES1DERJ RETEX" | URBAN |lNTERREG***| Total 
BJR12 
Programmed (1994 pices) 
adopted 
% adopted 
Commitments 1994-1995 
%ofaid 
Payments 1994-1995 
%ofaid 1.402,0 
1.402,3 
100% 
265,1 
19% 
132,6 
9% 1.452,0 
1.451,3 
100% 
236,0 
16% 
117,8 
8% 1.447.0' 
1.243,6* 
86% 
466,8* 
38% 
13Z4* 
11% 257,0* 
253,0* 
98% 
53,1 -
21% 
17,2* 
7% 1.027,0 * 
491,3 * 
48% 
203,5* 
41% 
67,7* 
14% 600,0 
456,5 
76% 
58,8 
13% 
22,0 
5% 406,0 
328,0 
81% 
172,5 
53% 
75,6 
23% 506,0 
352,1 
70% 
238,2 
68% 
87,3 
25°/i 520,0 
284,2 
55% 
177,1 
62% 
78,3 
28% 522,0 
512,1 
98% 
165,1 
32% 
75,5 
15% 651,0 
375,0 
58% 
150,5 
40% 
54,7 
15°/ 2.939,0 
2.390,8 
81% 
561,8 
24% 
234,4 
10% 11.729,0 
9.540,2 
81% 
2.748,7 
29% 
1.095.5 
11°/ 
EUR3 
Programmed (1994 prices) 
adopted 
% adopted 
Commitments 1994-1995 
%ofaid 
Payments 1994-1995 
% of aid 42,5 
42,5 
100% 
42,5 
100% 
20,0 
47% 72,9 
72,9 
100% 
72,9 
100% 
36,4 
50% 62,1 
2,6 
4% 
2,0 
78% 
0,3 
13% 6,5 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 36,3 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% -
. 
" 1,8 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 3,3 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
C% 5,1 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 2,6 
0,0 
0% 
0.0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 17,0 
9,8 
57% 
6,8 
70% 
3,4 
35% 125,9 
30,0 
24% 
23,5 
78% 
7,0 
23% 376,0 
157,7 
42% 
147,7 
94% 
67,3 
43% 
* Including networks 
** Including only appropriations for the period 1994-97 
*** Including Peace 
Although the adoption of programmes fell behind schedule in 1994, the lost time was largely made up in 
1995. By the end of that year, programmes accounting for 81% of financing planned up to 1999 had 
been adopted, the proportion rising to 100% or thereabouts for certain Initiatives (ADAPT, 
EMPLOYMENT, PESCA, RETEX). The least advanced Initiatives are SMEs, RESIDER and URBAN. 
This good progress is matched by rates of commitment, which are closely linked to the proportion of 
programmes adopted by the beginning ofthe programming period. However, payments are less well 
advanced, as could be expected since the programmes had hardly filtered down to final recipients by the 
end of 1995, owing to the start-up stage. 
In negotiations for the approval of the programmes and during implementation, the Commission has 
made sure that Community Initiatives add value to the action of the Structural Funds in relation to 
5 See Chapter III.A.4. Committee opinions. 
6 The allocation ofthe reserve and the amendments to the guidelines for the Urban, Interreg II, ADAPT and 
EMPLOYMENT Initiatives were adopted by the Commission on 8 May 1996. 
7 The amounts shown in the table and in the rest of this Chapter correspond to those programmed after 
adjustment but before allocation ofthe reserve for Community Initiatives, which was decided only in 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 139 
activities under CSFs and SPDs. To this end, the Commission encourages trans-national and innovative 
measures. Moreover, the Commission will have to ensure coordination and dissemination throughout the 
Community of local measures that deserve to be shared with other regions. With this in mind, the 
Commission is exploring the possibility of launching European networks in 1996 to enhance the 
usefulness of Community Initiatives. 
Table 87: Summary of Community Initiative programmes adopted in 1994 and 1995 - EUR 15 (ECU million) 
Community 
Initiatives 
(No of 
programmes) 
ADAPT (17) 
Belgium (2) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany (1) 
Greece (1) 
Spain (1) 
France (1) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (1) 
Luxembourg (1) 
Netherlands (1) 
Austria (1) 
Portugal (1) 
Finland (1) 
Sweden (1) 
United Kingdom (2) 
EMPLOYMENT (17) 
Belgium (2) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany (1) 
Greece(1) 
Spain (1) 
France (1) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (1) 
Luxembourg (1) 
Netherlands (1) 
Austria (1) 
Portugal (1)" 
Finland (1) 
Sweden (1) 
United Kingdom (2) 
LEADER (68) 
Germany (13) 
Greece (1) 
Spain (17) 
France (11) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (12) 
Luxembourg (1) 
Netherlands (4) 
Austria (1) 
Portugal ( 1 ) 
United Kingdom (5) 
PESCA(ll) 
Belgium (1) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany (1) 
Greece (1) 
Spain (1) 
France(1 ) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (1) 
Netherlands (1) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (1) Total cost 
3.010,9 
91,9 
65,7 
480,4 
44,6 
403,2 
622,5 
28,3 
360,5 
0,8 
142,8 
25,8 
29,2 
42,9 
21,7 
650,6 
2.738,7 
70,2 
20,7 
297,5 
83,1 
576,8 
384,4 
99,5 
589,1 
0,6 
90,9 
49,4 
55,6 
66,3 
39,9 
314,9 
3.092,1 
382,4 
263,6 
1.161,9 
319,0 
165,6 
436,0 
4,8 
35,2 
6,5 
156,8 
160,4 
605,9 
4,3 
48,6 
62,0 
54,6 
95,7 
81,3 
12,2 
81,2 
34,2 
47,2 
84,7 Structural Fund assistance 
Total 
1.444,9 
31,2 
29,5 
228,8 
30,1 
256,4 
249,7 
21,2 
190,0 
0,3 
57,6 
11,6 
21,0 
19,7 
11,3 
286,6 
1.524,2 
32,1 
10,6 
156,8 
64,4 
386,6 
146,5 
76,1 
348,7 
0,3 
42,4 
23,0 
40,3 
29,2 
20,7 
146,5 
1.242,4 
169,8 
148,0 
354,8 
122,9 
67,9 
183,2 
1,0 
8,5 
2,6 
117,6 
66,2 
253,0 
2.0 
16,4 
23,0 
27,1 
41,5 
28,3 
6,7 
34,2 
10,8 
25.6 
37,4 ERDF 
52,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
3,5 
25,6 
23,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
55,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,8 
38,7 
0,6 
4,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,1 
0,0 
0,0 
1,0 
554,8 
59,9 
68,2 
162,8 
59,5 
41,0 
68,7 
0,5 
4,4 
0,9 
47,4 
41,5 
116,9 
0,0 
5,0 
18,0 
18,2 
11,9 
2,4 
2,4 
26,5 
4,8 
5,8 
22,0 ESF 
1.392,4 
31.2 
29,5 
228,8 
26,6 
230,8 
226,4 
21,2 
190,0 
0,3 
57,6 
11,6 
21,0 
19,7 
11,3 
286,6 
1.469,0 
32,1 
10,6 
156,8 
58,6 
347,9 
145,9 
72,1 
348,7 
0,3 
42,4 
23,0 
35,2 
29,2 
20,7 
145,5 
120,4 
16,9 
7,0 
29,3 
15,3 
8,7 
24,6 
0,0 
0,3 
0,6 
5,7 
11,9 
33,8 
0,0 
4,1 
2,4 
0,3 
8,4 
7,1 
0,7 
1,4 
0,1 
2,1 
7,1 EAGGF 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
567,3 
93,0 
72,7 
162,7 
48,1 
18,2 
89,9 
0,5 
3,8 
1,1 
64,5 
12,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 FIFG 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
o.o 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
102,3 
2,0 
7,3 
2,6 
8,5 
21,3 
18,8 
3,7 
6,3 
5.8 
17,7 
8.4 to areas 
covered 
by Obj. 1-6 
413,5 
3,8 
0,0 
63,1 
30,1 
151,7 
"77 
21,2 
76,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,4 
21,0 
3,0 
0,5 
34,9 
925,2 
9,5 
0,0 
68,9 
64,4 
386,6 
5,9 
76,1 
246,8 
0,0 
1,2 
0,8 
40,3 
0,0 
1,0 
23,7 
886,1 
82,1 
148,0 
296,0 
3.0 
67,9 
143,5 
0,0 
2,1 
2,6 
117,6 
23,3 
129,0 
0,0 
0,0 
13,1 
27,1 
29,1 
0,3 
6,7 
19,0 
2,0 
25,6 
6,1 % to areas 
covered 
by Obj. 1-6 
29V. 
12% 
0% 
28% 
100% 
59% 
3% 
100% 
40% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
100% 
15% 
4% 
12% 
61% 
30% 
0% 
44% 
100% 
1 00% 
4% 
100% 
71% 
0% 
3% 
3% 
1 00% 
0% 
5% 
16% 
71% 
48% 
100% 
83% 
2% 
100% 
78% 
0% 
25% 
100% 
100% 
35% 
51% 
0% 
0% 
57% 
100% 
70% 
1% 
100% 
56% 
19% 
100% 
16% 
140 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Community 
Initiatives 
(No of 
programmes) 
SMEs (21) 
Belgium (1) 
Germany (9) 
Greece (1) 
France (3) 
Ireland (1) 
Netherlands (1) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (4) 
REGIS (3) 
Spain (1) 
France (1) 
Portugal (1) 
RECHAR (26) 
Belgium (2) 
Germany (6) 
Greece (1) 
France (6) 
Italy (2) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (8) 
KONVER (37) 
Belgium (3) 
Denmark (!) 
Germany (13) 
Greece (1) 
France (17) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (1) 
RESIDER (20) 
Belgium (2) 
Germany (8) 
Greece (1) 
France (5) 
Netherlands (1) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (2) 
RETEX (18) * 
Belgium (1) 
Germany (7) 
Greece (1 ) 
Spain (1) 
France (1) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (2) 
Netherlands (1) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (2) 
URBAN (19) 
Belgium (2) 
Denmark (1 ) 
Germany (8) 
Greece (1 ) 
Spain (1) 
Luxembourg (1) 
Netherlands (2) 
Austria (1) 
Portugal (!) 
United Kingdom (1) 
PEACE (1) 
INTERREG/REGEN (34) Total cost 
1.025,5 
14,2 
356,3 
156,9 
139,2 
53,2 
26,9 
235,9 
43,0 
751,5 
385,5 
209,2 
156,8 
900,2 
58,1 
400,8 
2,0 
39,4 
34,1 
1.1 
364,6 
883,7 
30,4 
5,3 
342,3 
20,3 
244,1 
10,7 
230,6 
840,6 
52,9 
558,3 
8,9 
105,8 
51,5 
10,8 
52,5 
1.756,2 
6,0 
284,3 
145,3 
361,1 
79,3 
22,5 
249,2 
3,5 
526,8 
78,2 
822,9 
26,6 
3,0 
270,1 
67,2 
248,7 
1,( 
87,9 
31,9 
62,f 
24,5 
415,5 
3.888,3 Structural Fund assistance 
Total 
491,3 
9,4 
156,8 
83,3 
58,5 
28,8 
10,3 
124,0 
20,1 
456,5 
216,9 
115,6 
124,0 
328,0 
15,7 
128,4 
1,5 
16,7 
1,7 
0,9 
163,2 
352,1 
11,5 
2,4 
144,5 
12,9 
71,0 
7,9 
101,9 
284,2 
24,4 
164,3 
4,7 
42,6 
18,1 
6,9 
23,2 
592,7 
3,0 
65,9 
87,5 
90,4 
28,9 
11,4 
79,0 
1,0 
189,0 
36,6 
384,8 
8,2 
1,5 
86,4 
45,2 
162,6 
0,5 
9,3 
9,8 
44,3 
17,0 
300,0 
2.120,8 
TOTAL (291) | 20.732,4| 9.774,8 ERDF 
445,4 
7,5 
139,0 
74,4 
56,0 
26,5 
9,5 
113,7 
18,8 
384,4 
205,0 
63,4 
116,0 
266,0 
11,6 
101,7 
1,4 
15,5 
1,7 
0,9 
133,2 
299,8 
9,9 
1,6 
122,9 
11,5 
64,4 
7,9 
81,6 
234,4 
24,4 
127,0 
4,1 
38,1 
14,7 
6,9 
19,1 
559,5 
2,0 
59,8 
78,0 
87,3 
24,3 
9,2 
79,0 
1,0 
189,0 
30,0 
320,0 
6,3 
1,3 
74,8 
34,1 
144,9 
0,4 
7,9 
6,8 
35,3 
8,1 
148,3 
1.904,3 ESF 
45,9 
1,9 
17,8 
9,0 
2,5 
2,3 
0,8 
10,3 
1,3 
28,7 
0,0 
28,7 
0,0 
62,1 
4,1 
26,6 
0,2 
1,2 
0,0 
0,0 
30,1 
52,4 
1,6 
0,8 
21,6 
1,4 
6,6 
0,0 
20,4 
49,8 
0,0 
37,3 
0,6 
4,5 
3,4 
0,0 
4,1 
33,2 
1,0 
6,1 
9,5 
3,1 
4,6 
2,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
6,6 
64,8 
2,0 
0,2 
11,6 
11,1 
17,7 
0,1 
1,4 
2,9 
9,C 
8,8 
127,8 
105,C EAGGF 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
42,9 
12,0 
22,9 
8,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
o,r 
o,c 
o,c 
22,4 
108,; FIFG 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,6 
0,0 
0,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
o.o 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,5 
2,6 
5.341,3| 3.585,l| 741.SJ 107,0 to areas 
covered 
by Obj. 1-6 
402,1 
8,5 
136,7 
83,3 
9,3 
28,8 
2,2 
124,0 
9,2 
456,5 
216,9 
115,6 
124,0 
61,0 
0,9 
5ÏTJ 
1,5 
0,0 
0,8 
0,9 
2,9 
87,5 
0,0 
0,0 
59:0 
12,9 
0,0 
7,9 
7,7 
46,6 
9,0 
26,0 
4,7 
0,0 
0,0 
6,9 
0.0 
437,4 
3,0 
51,4 
87.5 
50,7 
0,0 
1 1,4 
39,4 
0,0 
189.0 
5,0 
315,0 
5,7 
0,0 
70.3 
45,2 
132,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
44,3 
I7.C 
3oo,e 
1.825,7 % to areas 
covered 
by Obj. 1-6 
82% 
90% 
87% 
100% 
16% 
100% 
22% 
100% 
46% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
19% 
6% 
42% 
100% 
0% 
46% 
100% 
2% 
25% 
0% 
0% 
41% 
100% 
0% 
100% 
8% 
16% 
37% 
16% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
74% 
100% 
78% 
100% 
56% 
0% 
100% 
50% 
0% 
100% 
14% 
82% 
60% 
0% 
81% 
100% 
82% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
86% 
6.285,6| 64% 
* Including 1 1 CIPs adopted in 1993, 5 of which were amended in 1995 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 141 
1.2. The individual Initiatives in the Twelve Member States 
ADAPT(1994-99) 
ADAPT (ECU 1 402 million): Under the new Objective 4, the purpose of ADAPT is to encourage the 
adaptation of the workforce to industrial change, to help firms increase their productivity, and to encourage 
the emergence of new activities. The measures cover the following fields: training, counselling and guidance, 
anticipation and promotion of new employment opportunities, adaptation of support structures and systems; 
information, dissemination and increasing awareness. The average amount of financing available for each 
measure and each country means that 43% ofthe total allocated to all the Member States will be absorbed by 
counselling and guidance measures. The main beneficiaries are workers affected by industrial change and 
those whose jobs are in danger or have disappeared following reorganization ofthe firm that employs them. 
In May 1995 the Commission adopted the first 14 ADAPT programmes; the programmes ofthe three 
new Member States were adopted in December 1995.8 Among the measures financed, those relating to 
anticipation, promotion of networking and job creation will account for 25%. The other measures relate 
to the adaptation of support structures and systems (20%) and information, dissemination and awareness 
(12%). In the first phase of project selection, a total of 3 600 applications were received. It is estimated 
that 1 400 ADAPT projects would be approved, and started by February 1996. 
Table 88: ADAPT Programmes adopted in 1995 -EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 
Belgium (2) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany (1) 
Greece (1) 
Spain (1) 
France ( 1) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (1) 
Luxembourg (1) 
Netherlands (1) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (2) 
Total (14) Total cost 
91,9 
65,7 
480,4 
44,6 
403,2 
622,5 
28,3 
360,5 
0,8 
142,8 
29,2 
650,6 
2.920,5 S.F. assistance 
(1) 
31,2 
29,5 
228,8 
30,1 
256,4 
249,7 
21,2 
190,0 
0,3 
57,6 
21,0 
286,6 
1.402,3 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
5,7 
5,3 
42,9 
7,1 
48,1 
46,9 
3,9 
36,1 
0,1 
11,5 
4,0 
53,5 
265,1 % 
(2)/(l) 
18% 
18% 
19% 
24% 
19% 
19% 
18% 
19% 
18% 
20% 
19% 
19% 
19% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
2.8 
2,7 
21,5 
3,6 
24,0 
23,5 
1,9 
18,1 
0,0 
5,8 
2,0 
26,7 
132,6 %of 
(3)/(2) 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
Belgium: The Flemish authorities emphasize the improvement of employees' skills rather than the more 
technical aspects of adjustment to change. The priorities defined by the French-speaking authorities 
comprise the improvement ofthe general level of skills and competitiveness of firms, and devising new 
measures for job creation. 
Denmark: The programme concentrates on the introduction of new technologies, new materials and new 
ways of organizing work, and on new systems of quality management and flexible working 
arrangements. 
Germany: The programme tackles two main subjects: improvement of basic skills and the way these 
skills can contribute to reinforcing the competitiveness of SMEs. In the new Lander, priority will go to 
the building industry, distribution, environment protection and training, and to new business start-ups. 
Greece: The aim of the programme is to train management personnel in setting up and using shared 
services, training instructors, encouraging high-quality information for groups of companies, assisting 
with the development projects of small businesses and with business-type initiatives able to share 
product development, raw material supplies and training. 
8 See below: 1.3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 
142 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Spain: The programme targets workers who need to up-date their skills or prepare themselves for new or 
newly-created jobs, newly-recruited workers needing training, workers in jobs for which a quality 
management scheme has been introduced, workers in danger of losing their jobs or temporarily 
unemployed, managers and owners of small businesses, and self-employed workers and members of 
cooperatives. 
France: The programme provides for an intensification of the effort to anticipate industrial change at 
local level, to assist the training of workers in small businesses and to create new forms of work. 
Italy: A feature of the Italian programme approach is the responsibility of the regions, not only for 
selecting projects, but also for implementing ADAPT. The main point is to support a national plan to 
introduce a modern and efficient further training scheme. The first stage (1994-96) is intended to 
encourage training within firms, to re-focus public capacity for vocational training, to set up regional 
monitoring units to assist training groups and the retraining of unskilled workers. 
Ireland: The purpose ofthe programme is to remedy the inadequate level of investment jrj_ training in 
Irish firms, their unsuitable training schemes, the need for multi-purpose and innovative approaches to 
training, the lack of training in very small firms and the lack of links between firms and teaching and 
training institutions. 
Luxembourg: The programme is expected to improve human resource development schemes for SMEs 
and provide new data bases and networks giving them better access to and use of information. 
Netherlands: The accent is on small firms, which are potential job-creators, with priority to new 
business start-ups. 
Portugal: The programme targets an improvement in the still weak level of basic training and labour 
skills, modernization of production capacity, the reinforcement of education and vocational training 
systems, aid for the modernization and adjustment of firms, and consequently job creation. 
United Kingdom: The two UK programmes (for Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively) 
concentrate on small businesses. They highlight the steady decline in the manpower of large companies, 
and the increase in the number of jobs in small firms (especially those with fewer than 50 employees), 
particularly in expanding sectors like services, tourism and culture. 
EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES (1994-99) 
EMPLOYMENT and HUMAN RESOURCES (ECU 1 452 million): Through the development of human 
resources, and an integrated approach, this Initiative is intended to back up the recovery of employment and 
promote solidarity and equal opportunity on the labour market. It comprises three strands, each with its own 
budget: 
• Now (ECU 361 million) supports the development of innovative and more effective instruments for the 
training of women and their entry into working life; 
• HORIZON (ECU 731.1 million) encourages the disabled and other disadvantaged groups to enter working 
life, as part ofthe effort to combat exclusion; 
• YODTHSTART (ECU 319.3 million) helps young people without qualifications to enter working life. 
Each strand is organized around four main types of measure: 
(i) measures to improve the quality of schemes for training, guidance, counselling and employment; 
(ii) training measures, aiming not only at the target groups but also at those who influence the quality of access 
by those groups to the labour market; 
(iii) measures to aid job creation and new activities; 
(iv) measures to raise the profile of the problems dealt with and the action taken under the EMPLOYMENT 
Initiative. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 143 
For EMPLOYMENT, as indeed for ADAPT, there were almost two years of negotiation and preparation 
between the Commission's original guidelines in February 1994 and the presentation of projects by the 
Member States at the end of 1995, followed by the launching of measures. The major events of 1995 
were the negotiation ofthe programmes for the new Member States, approved by the Commission on 8 
December,9 and the first stage in selecting projects for the whole of the Union (programmes for the 
Twelve, including two in Belgium, two in the UK and one in each of the other Member States having 
been approved by the end of 1994). Over 2 364 projects were selected altogether: 763 for NOW, 1 133 
for Horizon (some 930 projects for the disabled and about 200 for the disadvantaged), and 464 for 
Youthstart. These are tentative figures, as the information had not been fully confirmed by the national 
authorities responsible for selection when this report was drafted. Projects are selected on the basis of 
priorities defined in the programmes of each Member State, which combine the general priorities and 
objectives of EMPLOYMENT with each country's specific circumstances. They indicate the priority 
objectives and show how the results of the projects will be fitted into general policy and its 
implementation. 
A major trans-national technical assistance programme was launched in 1995 to assist the-Commission 
and the national and regional authorities in implementing the Initiatives, and especially in developing the 
trans-national aspects. National support structures for both EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT were set up in 
all the Member States early in 1995. A technical assistance body at Community level, known as Europs, 
was appointed from 1 May 1995 following a public call for tenders.10 These technical assistance 
structures at national and Community level are now up and running with a full staff. 
Programme Monitoring Committees were set up in 1995 in each Member State; most ofthe Member 
States have separate committees for EMPLOYMENT and for ADAPT, but some have combined 
monitoring of the two Initiatives, and others have Monitoring Committees dealing with the main 
Objective 3 and 4 programmes as well as these Initiatives. Over 50 Monitoring Committee meetings 
have already been held. 
Table 89: Implementation of EMPLOYMENT programmes - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) Total cost S.F. assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 
(3) %of 
(3)/(2) 
Programmes adopted in 1994 
Belgium (2) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany (1) 
Greece ( 1 ) 
Spain (1) 
France ( 1 ) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (1) 
Luxembourg (1) 
Netherlands (1) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (2) 
Total (14) 70,2 
20,7 
297,5 
83,1 
576,8 
384,4 
99,5 
589,1 
0,6 
90,9 
55,6 
314,9 
2.583,2 32,1 
10,6 
156,8 
64,4 
386,6 
146,5 
76,1 
348,7 
0,3 
42,4 
40,3 
146,5 
1.451,3 21,7 
1,6 
23,1 
8,0 
58,6 
22,3 
7,6 
51,5 
0,3 
4,2 
5,7 
31,4 
236,0 68% 
15% 
15% 
12% 
15% 
15% 
10% 
15% 
100% 
10% 
14% 
21% 
16% 10,8 
0,8 
11,6 
4,0 
29.3 
11,1 
3,6 
25.7 
0,2 
2,1 
2,8 
15,7 
117,8 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
47% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
NOW: NOW mainly concerns authorities and bodies involved in training, employment and the 
occupational integration of women, i.e. regional or local authorities, organizations promoting equal 
opportunities, training and information centres, trade unions, private associations and women's 
organizations. Measures financed under the NOW strand ofthe EMPLOYMENT Initiative are designed 
to achieve four objectives: 
9 See below: 1.3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 
10 See Chapter l.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
144 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
• to reduce horizontal and vertical segregation on the labour market by improving women's access to 
the sectors with good job prospects and strong growth potential. In the Danish programme, priority is 
given to combating the growing trend towards marginalization of women on the labour market. In 
Greece, one of the priority objectives is to encourage participation by women in non-traditional 
sectors of the economy. The programme of the Flemish authorities in Belgium provides incentives 
for young women to choose training programmes that are likely to lead to jobs with good prospects. 
The programme in the United Kingdom gives priority to training methods, concentrating on women's 
careers within the labour market rather than on their access to it; 
• to reconcile working life and family life. The German programme gives priority to reconciling a job 
with family responsibilities through innovative work organization, child-care and measures to help 
women come back on to the labour market after a period spent bringing up children; 
• to promote enterprise and job creation by women, in particular through financial instruments to 
support new business start-ups. This is the main thrust ofthe French programme; 
• to raise awareness among firms, trade unions and others with influence. This approach leads the 
Netherlands programme to promote the presence of women in trade union and professional 
organizations, while the Portuguese programme aims at raising awareness among public and private 
bodies ofthe equal opportunities aspects of a changing society. 
Horizon: The purpose of Horizon is to improve the quality of training and create jobs for the disabled 
and those threatened with social exclusion. In many cases, this twofold aim has led Member States to 
introduce strategies adapted to the specific needs of these categories of persons. 
Horizon measures for the disabled: The programmes ofthe Member States reflect the disparity of 
national strategies and priorities. The areas for action can be divided into two: 
• development of schemes for training, guidance, counselling and employment, and the organization of 
further vocational training. In Denmark, priority is given to projects to help disabled persons 
undertake vocational training (particularly higher education and further training), with the emphasis 
on the use of new technologies, the adaptation of jobs and improving conditions for general 
education and vocational training; 
• job creation and support for new business start-ups, cooperatives and partnerships between the 
public and private sectors. The French and Italian programmes, for example, stress the integration of 
disabled persons into the labour market, through personalized access to employment, with the help of 
local authorities. Belgium's Flemish programme concentrates on suitable jobs and the use of new 
technology, and the development of distance working, with special attention to individual approaches 
to preparatory training, vocational skills and assistance in the early stages of a new job. In Germany, 
where women were under-represented in the earlier Horizon programme, the programme gives 
priority to projects meeting the needs of disabled women wishing to enter the labour market. In 
Greece, a special effort will be made towards trans-national cooperation to establish standards and 
procedures for distance working for specific tasks. 
Horizon measures for the disadvantaged: The EMPLOYMENT programmes include a separate list of 
priority measures for disadvantaged groups in all the Member States except Finland, Sweden and 
Luxembourg. As the guidelines of Horizon for the disadvantaged cover a wide range of target groups, 
the Member States have usually decided not to limit the choice of target categories. Measures planned 
therefore involve target populations and innovation in methods. 
• A number of Member States give clear priority, among target groups, to immigrants, especially in the 
Netherlands, Denmark and Portugal, while drug addiction is a growing priority in Italy, Spain, the 
Netherlands and Portugal. Many Member States also give priority to training for instructors, 
including the training of those responsible for human resources, the organization of courses for 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) j 45 
specialists (social workers, career counsellors, etc.) and the drawing up of new career profiles (local 
development workers, social and educational officers, etc.). 
• Some approaches provide a context conducive to innovation and the trans-national exchange of 
know-how. The idea of structured access to employment is now generally accepted. Emphasis is on a 
tailor-made approach or, as in Belgium, on setting up structures to give the target groups increasing 
access to employment. In France and Portugal, acquiring basic skills (literacy and language) is of 
major importance, while in Germany, Greece and the Netherlands various types of preparatory 
training are offered, providing guidance and work experience, to improve job-seeking ability (the 
UK) or the ability to cope in a real work situation (France). It should also be possible to undertake 
major experimental work in the sphere of job creation. Some Member States have given priority to 
developing partnership between projects and local employment or to setting up local partnerships 
between private and public sectors. For example, local firms have been involved in helping ex-
prisoners return to working life after training provided through a project. Companies may also be 
associated in setting up firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector, or local bodies 
providing start-up aid. Another popular approach is to prepare disadvantaged groups to_work in the 
sectors providing new employment opportunities. Training programmes are geared in particular to 
the environment, leisure and tourism, health, and social services. There is also a concern to prepare 
people for adjustment to new types of jobs, while raising levels of skills. Certain Member States, 
such as Denmark, offer preparation for flexible working, distance working, job-sharing, etc. 
Although trend analyses for target categories show concern linked to the concentration of disadvantage 
in certain geographical areas, especially in towns and cities, the Member States do not use location as a 
criterion for priority. However, the method of local partnership is implicitly necessary to organize 
structured lines of assistance for firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector, or for micro-
business start-ups. It is clear from the first set of projects approved that very many of them are managed 
by local partnerships. 
Youthstart: The Youthstart strand of the EMPLOYMENT Initiative is intended to stimulate the 
implementation of measures for young people in all the Member States. To attain this objective, 
Youthstart must provide efficient services to ensure that all young people have access to appropriate 
training and to the labour market. To this end, the Member States have adopted two approaches: 
• innovation with a view to improving vocational training in general, so as to make it more accessible 
to young people, especially the least skilled, and better adapted to the labour market, with special 
emphasis on work experience. For example, the French programme tries to strengthen and improve 
the quality of sandwich courses, by establishing closer links between theoretical training and 
practical on-the-job training, and to develop the skills ofthose responsible for training within firms. It 
is also intended to widen the scope of sandwich courses to the whole of Europe, by offering work 
experience in other Member States; 
• personalized training: Ireland emphasizes pre-training projects, while the Danish programme is 
intended to develop and test remedial training outside the formal school framework in order to 
stimulate individual motivation and personal initiative in relation to training. In Greece, the accent is 
on new teaching methods, training instructors in guidance and support, self-assessment, team-
working and methods of communication. The programme of the Flemish authorities in Belgium 
involves training instructors to identify youngsters with problems at an early stage. 
Several programmes hope to deal with the cultural and linguistic barriers facing ethnic minorities and 
young immigrants in their access to vocational training and their progress in it. The German programme, 
for example, gives priority to projects such as informing and counselling young immigrants in their 
mother tongue. Most programmes also highlight improving the quality of guidance and counselling, so 
as to provide a more coherent and better coordinated service centring on individual needs and abilities. 
In Denmark, counselling and guidance for young people in the final years of compulsory school 
attendance is to be improved and extended, concentrating on the interaction between education, training 
146 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
and the labour market, and on the integration of local support facilities such as joint counselling and 
guidance centres. 
The Youthstart guidelines fonnally call on the Member States to examine means of helping young 
people to become self-employed. In Belgium, for example, management training and legal advice are 
available for young people who wish to start up in business. Greece will concentrate assistance on local 
employment initiatives developed and managed by young people themselves. The programme for 
Northern Ireland is intended to tap into young people's ability to create jobs in rural areas with the 
support of local resources. 
The various programmes show a wide range of initiatives intended to reduce the institutional and 
administrative barriers to an innovative use of Youthstart. Setting up networks between public and 
private sectors at local and regional level is a priority in Italy, while the Netherlands concentrates efforts 
on cooperation between education, training and the authorities (police and organizations representing 
ethnic minorities). 
LEADER II (1994-99) 
LEADER (ECU 1 447 million) is intended to support rural development projects designed and managed by local 
partners in country areas, with emphasis on measures that are innovative, have a demonstration value and are 
transferable. The LEADER Initiative should stimulate close involvement by the local population, associations 
and communities, which should together define and implement a coherent strategy suitable for the characteristics 
of the area concerned. This is reflected in the fact that financing under LEADER II is available to only two 
categories: local action groups (public and private partners jointly devising a development strategy) or other rural 
collective bodies (local authorities, chambers of agriculture, commerce and industry, cooperatives, etc.) on 
condition their action fits in with a development strategy at a local level. LEADER II also supports trans-national 
cooperation projects and encourages exchanges of experience and the transfer of know-how through a European 
rural development network (an indicative amount of 2.5% is intended to finance the activities ofthe Community 
network and the national networks). LEADER II applies in the rural areas covered by Objectives 1, 5(b) and 6 
(with ECU 900 million set aside for Objective 1 regions). 
The Commission received 102 proposals for programmes for LEADER II from the fifteen Member 
States (90 from the Twelve). It made sure that the proposals resulted from wide agreement between local 
operators, as required under the guidelines for LEADER II. Of these proposals, 67 programmes and 
global grants have been approved (66 for the Twelve), and another 35 are awaiting adoption (comprising 
24 from the Twelve, and 11 from the new Member States). 
Table 90: LEADER IIprogrammes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 
Germany (13) 
Greece ( 1 ) 
Spain (17) 
France (11) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (12) 
Luxembourg ( 1 ) 
Netherlands (4) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (5) 
Networking 
Total (66) Total cost 
382,4 
263,6 
1.161,9 
319,0 
165,6 
436,0 
4,8 
35,2 
156,8 
160,4 
3.085,6 S.F. assistance 
(1) 
169,8 
148,0 
354,8 
122,9 
67,9 
183,2 
1,0 
8,5 
117,6 
66,2 
1.239,9 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
124,6 
22,6 
112,1 
95,6 
7,5 
28,6 
1,0 
8,2 
6,7 
56,2 
3,7 
466,8 % 
(2)/(I) 
73% 
15% 
32% 
78% 
11% 
16% 
100% 
97% 
6% 
85% 
38% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
38,8 
11,3 
34,9 
15,5 
3,8 
14,0 
0,4 
2,5 
3,6 
4,8 
2,9 
132,4 %of 
(3)/(2) 
31% 
50% 
31% 
16% 
50% 
49% 
40% 
30% 
53% 
9% 
77% 
28% 
Most of these programmes include the three measures provided for in the notice setting out the 
Commission's guidelines for LEADER II: 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 47 
• acquiring skills: where the practice of local development is new, this measure provides financing for 
informing and motivating local people, analysing the area's strong and weak points and drawing up a 
development strategy; 
• rural innovation programmes: this measure provides financing for the development strategy drawn up 
by local operators for the area concerned; 
• trans-national cooperation: this measure helps with joint projects undertaken by local action groups 
or other potential beneficiaries from more than one Member State. 
The operations planned can be divided into three main types: 
• reinforcing territorial identity: this includes such operations as the renovation of the architectural 
heritage (Asturias) and small urban centres (Ireland), promotion of traditional know-how (Portugal, 
Aragon), the development of local products or the natural heritage (East Anglia, Italy, Luxembourg, 
Greece, Portugal), or, more broadly, supporting local communities (United Kingdom); 
• networking: this relates to the supply of tourist facilities (Burgundy) or associations (Limousin), 
farmers and distribution companies (Hesse), public services, associating small urban centres and the 
surrounding countryside (Languedoc-Roussillon), setting up business service centres (Luxembourg); 
• support for new forms of activity, which may be based on the use of new communications 
technologies, such as distance working (Northern Uplands) or reservation systems for rural tourist 
facilities (Greece, Portugal). 
LEADER and the rural environment: 
LEADER had to integrate environmental considerations into a sustainable development policy. 
Economic development must take account ofthe natural heritage, which is an essential asset of such 
areas, especially the least-favoured. A number of measures with an impact on the environment at 
local level are being undertaken in the countryside. One essential factor in keeping the inhabitants in 
the countryside, or attracting new residents, is to preserve an agreeable living environment. Several 
ofthe major categories of funding under LEADER programmes have an environmental impact: 
• ecological management of the countryside: this involves protecting or restoring the natural 
heritage. In Denmark, the Danish Islands group has supported a "villages in bloom " operation; in 
Belgium, the Hageland group has organized the ecological improvement and management of 
natural landscape features (hedge planting, creation of marshes, upkeep of trees, etc.); 
• waste management through the reduction of pollution, exploitation of waste, or production of 
energy from biomass. In France, the Buech-Durance group took part in the installation of a mobile 
treatment plant for household waste. In Ireland, the Cavan and Monaghan group recovers the 
waste from mushroom production to make compost. In Spain, the Sierra de Béjar-Francia group 
has perfected a new system for complete purification of oil mill waste, the residue being used as 
fuel or fertilizer. In Greece, the Thebes group supports operations for the production of biomass 
energy for heating; 
• protection of ecosystems: improved management of natural resources, protection for fauna and 
flora and sensitive natural spaces. Many groups have given priority to planting woodland: Orense 
and Sierra de Gâta in Spain, Tuscany in Italy, etc. In Greece, the Thessaloniki group is helping to 
improve a bio tope for the reproduction of herons; the Mytilene group has begun work on the 
protection of a fossilized forest; 
• ecotourism: the natural heritage is a basic factor in the development of tourism in the countryside; 
but facilities and activities are also needed. In Germany, the group from the Daun region has 
established a geological discovery route around the volcanos of the Eifel In Ireland, the Bally 
Houra group is developing recreational activities in the region's mountains. 
Also important is the development of organic farming, and of measures for training, outreach and 
counselling. In France, the Haut-Allier group is supporting an information and study centre dealing 
with the ecology and environment of rivers, and the Est-Magnus group is organising a permanent 
centre for initiation to environmental studies. In Scotland, the Loch Aber group is taking part in the 
establishment of a natural heritage observation centre near a bird sanctuary. 
148 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Following an invitation to tender, the Commission also selected the body responsible for organization 
and running of the European Observatory of Rural Innovation and Development, whose role is to 
identify, classify, validate and facilitate the transfer of innovations introduced in the countryside. 
PESCA (1994-99) 
PESCA (ECU 257 million) provides financing to complement the structural aid available under CSFs, helping 
fishermen to retrain and firms in the sector to diversify. The operations planned relate to diversification in the 
fisheries sector (into tourism and crafts), improvement of occupational skills of fishermen, or upgrading of 
fisheries products and improvement of distribution channels. PESCA mainly applies in areas dependent on 
fisheries situated in Objective 1,2 and 5(b) areas, with half the financing being earmarked for Objective 1. 
Four PESCA programmes (Italy, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) were adopted during 
1995, seven programmes having already been adopted by the end of 1994. The late adoption ofthe 
programmes, and the somewhat complicated system of management, explain the level oTtake-up of 
financing. On the commitments side, 64% of the appropriations entered in the 1995 budget were 
committed (ECU 28.3 million out of ECU 45 million, divided among France, Italy and the United 
Kingdom), while only 17% of appropriations provided were paid (ECU 5.3 million out of ECU 31.9 
million, divided among the Netherlands, Italy and the United Kingdom). 
Table 91 : PESCA programmes adopted in 1995 and 1994 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) Total cost S.F. assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1995 
(3) %of 
(3)/(2) 
Programmes adopted in 1995 
France (1) 
Italy (1) 
Netherlands ( 1 ) 
United Kingdom (1) 81,3 
81,2 
34,2 
84,7 28,3 
34,2 
10,8 
37,4 18,8 
4,4 
1,2 
5,1 66% 
13% 
11% 
14% 0.0 
2,2 
0,6 
2.5 0% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
Programmes adopted in 1994 
Belgium (1) 
Denmark ( 1 ) 
Germany ( 1 ) 
Greece (1) 
Spain (1) 
Ireland (1) 
Portugal (1) 
Total (11) 4,3 
48,6 
62,0 
54,6 
95,7 
12,2 
' 47,2 
605,9 2,0 
16,4 
23,0 
27,1 
41,5 
6,7 
25,6 
253,0 0,3 
2,7 
3,8 
4.5 
6,9 
• 1,1 
4,3 
53,1 17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
21% 0.2 
1,4 
1.9 
2,3 
3,5 
0,6 
2,1 
17,2 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
32% 
In most ofthe Member States, the selection of projects had just started or was about to start at the end of 
1995, except in Ireland, where 22 projects had already been approved by the national authorities. In 
Greece, the authorities decided to appoint an intermediary to manage the programme, because of the 
great complexity of planned operations due to the involvement of a number of different Funds. In the 
French overseas departments, where PESCA operations are covered by the REGIS programmes, only 
the programme for Réunion had been adopted by December 1995. The Swedish and Finnish 
programmes were presented to the Commission towards the end of 1995.' ' 
11 See below: 1.3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 149 
SME (1994-99) 
SME (ECU 1 027 million) responds to the need for SMEs to adapt to the constraints ofthe internal market and 
the globalization of economies. This Initiative also continues, with adjustments, the earlier Initiatives, STRIDE 
(strengthening technological potential in less-favoured regions), Prisma (improvement of business services) and 
TELEMATIQUE (use of advanced telecommunications services). The SMEs Initiative is intended in particular 
for Objective 1 regions, where 80% ofthe appropriations will be spent. The measures promoted are intended to 
improve the system of production and organization of firms, to take better account of environmental 
considerations, to develop cooperation and networking between SMEs, or to reinforce cooperation between 
research centres, technology transfer centres, universities and SMEs. 
As the SME Initiative is a new Initiative for 1994-99, the proposals for programmes from the Member 
States were considerably adjusted to ensure that the guidelines were followed. The adjustments related 
in particular to innovative aspects and internationalization of SMEs, and they increased the time needed 
for negotiations. Ofthe 38 programmes presented by the Fifteen, 21 were approved in 1995; the others 
comprised one in Belgium, six in Germany, one in the United Kingdom, the non=regionalized 
programmes in Denmark, Spain, Italy and Luxembourg, and four programmes in the three new Member 
States. 
Table 92 : SME programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 
Belgium (1) 
Gennany(9) 
Greece ( 1 ) 
France (3) 
Ireland (1) 
Netherlands (1) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (4) 
Total (21) Total cost 
14,2 
356,3 
156,9 
139,2 
53,2 
26,9 
235,9 
43,0 
1.025,5 S.F. assistance 
(1) 
9,4 
156,8 
83,3 
58,5 
28,8 
10,3 
124,0 
20,1 
491,3 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
7,5 
101,2 
10,5 
15,4 
26,5 
9,5 
13,2 
19,7 
203,5 % 
(2)/(l) 
80% 
65% 
13% 
26% 
92% 
92% 
11% 
98% 
41% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
2,2 
30,9 
5,2 
4,6 
7,9 
2,9 
6,6 
7,3 
67,7 %of 
(3)/(2) 
30% 
30% 
50% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
50% 
37% 
33% 
Belgium: The programme adopted concerns Wallonia (a programme for Flanders will also be 
approved). It is designed around two central ideas: strengthening coordination and support networks for 
SMEs, and strengthening joint services to SMEs. 
Accent on networking and services to SMEs: 
Wallonia's programme is organized around two main themes: 
. the coordination of support and networking through: 
measures to integrate bodies providing services to SMEs so as to promote 
exchanges of experience and synergies; 
establishment of coordination centres; 
. joint services to SMEs through: 
setting up a financial forum to study conditions of access to sources of 
financing; 
technological measures, with a view in particular to coordinating and 
assessing certain measures for SMEs; 
stimulating SMEs, taking account of the need to seek partners, of 
environmental constraints, of information technology, and of quality 
requirements. 
Germany: Nine programmes have been adopted to support SMEs in the sectors of industry and services. 
Five programmes relate to the western Lander (a further five have not yet been approved), and four to 
the new Lander. It has proved difficult to draw up these programmes for German SMEs, because of 
difficulties of harmonization and coordination at national level; this has seriously delayed matters. An 
example of planned projects is management ofthe environment and of energy sources (Berlin, Structural 
Funds contribution of ECU 615 000). This involves, first, developing strategies to inform firms of ways 
150 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
of conserving energy and reducing C02 emissions, and secondly, making the "Eco-Audit" instrument 
available to firms. 
Greece: The main objective of the programme is to promote the internationalization of Greek SMEs 
through a policy of "clusters", and to facilitate their access to the capital market by promoting financial 
engineering instruments (venture capital, mutual guarantees) and by introducing quality policy 
(certification, standards and standardization). 
France: Three programmes were adopted. Under the two Objective 1 programmes (Corsica and 
Nord/Pas-de-Calais), investment of ECU 40.9 million will be supported by Community assistance of 
ECU 9.3 million, to contribute, in Nord/Pas-de-Calais, to intangible investment by SMEs, support for 
collective measures, and the improvement of the technological environment. The operations to be 
carried out in Corsica involve setting up innovative new businesses, developing new forms of 
cooperation and communication between firms to facilitate access to new markets, and developing 
expertise in economic conversion. The programme for the Objective 2 and 5(b) areas (Community 
assistance: ECU 49.2 million; total cost: ECU 98.3 million) will enable a guarantee fund to be set up for 
SMEs with projects for partnership or innovation, contribute to collective modernization and innovation 
projects following up the STRIDE programme and constitute partnerships between European businesses 
in various fields. 
Ireland: The programme is specifically directed towards SMEs with fewer than 50 employees, or with a 
turnover under ECU 3.7 million. It concentrates on access to financing and credit, access to public 
contracts, the adjustment of service companies to the internal market, the dissemination of good practice, 
and the improvement of know-how and ofthe business environment. 
Netherlands: The programme covers all the Netherlands regions under Objectives 1 and 2, and is 
intended to improve the competitiveness of SMEs in order to reinforce regional production structures. 
To this end, it comprises five priorities: the development of systems of production and technological 
innovation; cooperation between SMEs and research centres; setting up networks of SMEs; job skills; 
technical assistance and trans-national exchanges. 
Portugal: In terms of financing, the Portuguese programme is the biggest SME programme adopted in 
1995. It covers the whole of Portugal and includes measures intended, first, to improve competitiveness 
and to modernize Portuguese SMEs, the basis of the country's productive economy, and secondly, to 
improve the business environment, in particular through training and financial engineering. 
United Kingdom: Four programmes have been approved: Highlands and Islands, Lowland Scotland, 
Wales, Northern Ireland; the programme for England is yet to be adopted. As an example, the 
programme for the Highlands and Islands accounts for Structural Fund aid of almost ECU 3 million for 
SMEs; the geographical features of the region are particularly difficult for small businesses, and the 
problems arising are very different from those encountered in most European regions. The aim of the 
programme is thus to counter the risk of isolation from the main economic current of Europe, through 
assistance with services to SMEs, a high standard of training, and cooperation between firms. 
REGIS (1994-99) 
REGIS (ECU 600 million) is intended to improve integration into the Community of the most distant 
regions. It includes some ofthe measures under the former Poseidom, Poseima and Poseican programmes, 
and measure from other CIs in the most remote regions, to enable them to take a full part in trans-national 
cooperation networks. The measures are intended to achieve diversification of economic activity, 
consolidation of links with the rest of the Union, cooperation between remote regions, natural risk 
prevention and vocational training. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 151 
Three Member States take part in the REGIS Initiative: Portugal, Spain and France. In 1995, Portugal 
presented a programme for Madeira and the Azores, Spain presented one for the Canary Islands, and 
France presented four programmes for the overseas departments. The Spanish and Portuguese 
programmes were approved in 1995, as was France's programme for Réunion; at the end of 1995, 
therefore, the programmes for Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana were still awaiting approval. 
Table 93: REGIS programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 
Spain (1) 
France (1) 
Portugal ( 1 ) 
Total (3) Total cost 
385,5 
209,2 
156,8 
751,5 S.F. assistance 
(1) 
216,9 
115,6 
124,0 
456,5 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
28,0 
8,8 
22,0 
58,8 % 
(2)/(l) 
13% 
8% 
18% 
13% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
0,0 
4,4 
17,6 
22,0 %of 
(3)/(2) 
0% 
50% 
80% 
37% 
Spain: The programme provides for Community financing of ECU 216.9 million. 
A programme for the Canary Islands: 
The main objectives of the REGIS programme are to diversify economic 
activity, promote technological development and remedy spatial and economic 
imbalance through the development of tourism without threatening the 
environment and the cultural heritage, consolidation of links with the rest of the 
Community and the other remote regions, and vocational training and 
employment. 
Ten measures are planned: local development (14%); encouragement of tourism 
(21%); infrastructure to support economic activity (22%); development ofthe 
economic fabric (11%); URBAN Las Palmas (4%); URBAN Santa Cruz de 
Tenerife (4%); regional cooperation (0.3%); SMEs industrial development plan 
(19%); assessment, monitoring and technical assistance (0.7%). The Structural 
Funds finance 56% ofthe programme. 
France: The programme for Réunion concentrates on the promotion of economic activity, the 
development of communications and regional and interregional cooperation, local development, control 
of the environment and prevention of natural hazards,and training for improved skills and equal 
opportunities. 
Portugal: The purpose ofthe programme is promotion of a series of priority measures concerning basic 
infrastructure (Madeira airport, etc.), the development of local potential (e.g. energy production in the 
Azores), inter-regional cooperation and agricultural promotion. 
RECHAR II (1994-97) 
RECHAR II (ECU 406 million) still supports conversion in the areas worst affected by the decline ofthe coal 
industry, but it gives higher priority to environmental protection, new economic activity and human resources. 
The planned measures are thus intended to rehabilitate the environment and former mining buildings, promote 
new activities (especially in SMEs), support economic conversion agencies and regional development bodies, 
and contribute to training and employment (especially in SMEs). 
The Member States have submitted 30 programmes under the RECHAR Initiative. The experience ofthe 
preceding programming period (1990-93) was useful during the negotiation and approval of 
programmes. Consequently, 26 programmes, almost all those submitted, were approved, with only four 
still to be adopted in 1996 (one in Germany, one in France, one in Austria and the non-regionalized 
programme in Spain). 
152 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 94: RECHAR IIprogrammes adopted In 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 
Belgium (2) 
Germany (6) 
Greece (1) 
France (6) 
Italy (2) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (8) 
Total (26) Total cost 
58,1 
400,8 
2,0 
39,4 
34,1 
1,1 
364,6 
900,2 S.F. assistance 
(1) 
15,7 
128,4 
1,5 
16,7 
1,7 
0,9 
163,2 
328,0 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
15,7 
55,9 
1,4 
15,5 
1,7 
0,9 
81,6 
172,5 % 
(2)/(l) 
100% 
44% 
90% 
93% 
100% 
100% 
50% 
53% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
7,8 
26,8 
0,7 
1,8 
0,4 
0,3 
37,8 
75,6 %of 
(3)/(2) 
50% 
48% 
50% 
12% 
23% 
30% 
46% 
44% 
Belgium: The two programmes, for Wallonia and Flanders, concern respectively the Charleroi area 
(Châtelet) and Limburg. The Châtelet programme comprises measures to restructure water supply 
networks, which have been damaged by intensive coal mining. These measures continue those already 
carried out under RECHAR I. The priorities in Limburg are conversion of economic infrastructure, 
modernization of social structures, and economic and social integration of labour. — 
Germany: Six programmes were adopted, with only one, that for Brandenburg, still awaiting adoption at 
the end of the year. Three programmes concern the new Lander, and three the western Lander, that for 
North Rhine-Westphalia being the largest RECHAR programme in financial terms. The measures in the 
programmes mainly concern improving the environment, fostering new economic activity and 
maintaining existing human capital. The programme for North Rhine-Westphalia is intended to diversify 
sectors of activity and reinforce intermediary economic activity. To strengthen the competitiveness of 
SMEs, the programme will support the creation of new markets through the development of new 
procedures and the sale of new products, and the improvement of opportunities for access to the latest 
technologies. It is hoped that the implementation of this programme in North Rhine-Westphalia will 
safeguard some 5 400 jobs. 
Greece: The main purpose ofthe RECHAR programme, which covers the industrial area around Kozani 
and Ptolemaida in northern Greece, is to improve the environment in areas damaged by lignite mining. 
A further measure will help the occupational conversion of workers who are unemployed or threatened 
with unemployment. 
France: The six programmes approved for France involve Community assistance of about ECU 17 
million, including ECU 11 million in Lorraine (districts of Boulay, Forbach and Sarreguemines), 
intended especially for the promotion ofthe mining areas concerned. Among the planned operations, it 
is worth noting the development of industrial tourism through the enhancement ofthe industrial heritage, 
in particular further improvement ofthe Blanzy mining museum (Montceau-les-Mines mining area, in 
Burgundy). Other mining areas to be promoted are those of Gardane (Bouches-du-Rhône), Albi-
Carmeaux (Tarn) and Lorraine (recovery of derelict land, urban restructuring, tourism, etc.), while 
measures in the areas of Aies (Gard) and La Mure (Isère) should create an environment and reception 
facilities conducive to conversion. 
Italy: Two programmes were adopted in 1995: Sardinia and Tuscany. The programme for Sardinia, 
which provides for investment of ECU 1.6 million, concerns the coal-mining area of Sulcis-Iglesiente, 
and comprises a single environmental improvement measure for the installation of SMEs. In Tuscany, 
the mining area concerned is Santa Barbara, and the main feature ofthe programme is the very close 
involvement of the private sector, which is contributing almost 95% of the financing (ECU 35.6 
million). This programme too comprises a single measure, relating to the diversification ofthe local 
small business fabric, through interest-rate subsidies to firms presenting investment projects for 
technological innovation, energy or environment protection. 
Portugal: The programme is intended to finance operations in the Castelo de Paiva area (in the Nord 
region), which has been adversely affected by the closure of coal mines. Besides aid to provide the 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 153 
infrastructure needed for the development of replacement activities, the objectives of this programme are 
to improve the environmental situation and to provide technical assistance for economic activity. 
United Kingdom: Eight RECHAR programmes were adopted in 1995. The programmes for Yorkshire 
and the East Midlands are the largest, accounting for about half the financing, but other coal-mining 
areas in England and Scotland are also eligible. The other major programmes are those for Wales and for 
North-East England. 
KONVER (1994-97) 
KONVER (ECU 506 million) follows on from the Perifra I and II action programmes (support for demonstration 
projects for conversion from military activity) and from an initial year of implementation in 1993. It is now being 
implemented on a multi-annual basis, with the aim of supporting economic diversification in areas highly 
dependent on the defence sector, through conversion of industries related to that sector, and the encouragement 
of viable commercial activities in all industrial sectors, excluding activities with possible military applications. At 
least 50% ofthe financing is earmarked for regions covered by Objectives 1, 2 or 5(b). 
Because ofthe delay in allocating finance among the Member States and drawing up the list of areas 
eligible under this Initiative,12 the presentation of programmes by the Member States was also delayed. 
In 1995, 37 programmes were approved, mostly at the end of December, and eight were still to be 
adopted by the end ofthe year (three in Germany, and the non-regionalized programmes in Spain, Italy, 
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden). They account for 70% of total funding for this Initiative. 
Table 95: KONVER programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 
Belgium (3) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany (13) 
Greece (1) 
France (17) 
Portugal ( 1 ) 
United Kingdom (1) 
Total (37) Total cost 
30,4 
5,3 
342,3 
20,3 
244,1 
10,7 
230,6 
883,7 S.F. assistance 
(1) 
11,5 
2,4 
144,5 
12,9 
71,0 
7,9 
101,9 
352,1 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
11,5 
2,4 
130,6 
11,5 
64,4 
7,9 
10,0 
238,2 % 
(2)/(l) 
100% 
100% 
90% 
89% 
91% 
100% 
10% 
68% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
5,7 
1,2 
38,7 
5,7 
32.0 
3.9 
0,0 
87,3 % of 
(3)/(2) 
50% 
50% 
30% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
0% 
37% 
Belgium: The three Belgian regions each have a programme. In Flanders (Bruges, Louvain, Turnhout, 
Tongeren and Hasselt), the planned measures concern economic promotion and environmental support. 
In the Brussels-Capital region, a barracks is to be restored and converted for the installation of new 
economic activities (crafts, small shops, arts centre). In Wallonia, the programme covers part of the 
areas eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b), and is intended to encourage small businesses, develop 
tourist activity after restoring derelict sites and re-skill workers employed in the sector. 
Denmark: The programme covers two areas: Karup in the centre of Jutland, and Copenhagen, both of 
which are outside the areas covered by Objectives. The measures concern services and support for the 
technological development of SMEs, the promotion of tourism and the environment, and training to re-
skill workers. 
Germany: With ECU 144.5 million in Structural Fund appropriations adopted in 1995 and 13 
programmes, Germany is the largest recipient under the KONVER Initiative. To give an example, under 
the priority for converting sites, the programme for North Rhine-Westphalia, the main programme in the 
western Lander, includes the construction of the Cartec technological centre on the site of the former 
Churchill barracks at Lippstadt. At Rôdinghausen, the Birdwood military barracks, which is now empty, 
12 Completed in 1994; see 1994 Annual Report. 
154 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
will be converted into a shopping area, and in the town of Minden a former army college will be 
converted into training premises for commercial studies. 
Greece: The main purpose of the programme is the conversion of economic activities linked to the 
armaments industry and the adaptation of commercially viable businesses in all industrial sectors. 
France: The 17 French programmes concern 57 travel-to-work areas, 23 of which are outside the areas 
eligible under Objectives 2 and 5(b). In general, individual programmes receive less than ECU 5 million, 
although the largest, that for Aquitaine, has available financing of ECU 13.2 million. Vocational training 
measures account for 9% of Structural Fund financing, while 31% of total investment is for restoring 
military sites and areas adversely affected by the reduction in military activity, in order to encourage the 
installation of SMEs. The next aspect is renovation and modernization of social and economic 
infrastructure (14%>). The bulk of the aid (46%) concerns measures for SMEs, with priority for 
operations to improve the business environment. On the whole, these programmes reinforce the 
Objective 2 programmes in the same area or a neighbouring area (except those for Île-de-France, 
Limousin and Aquitaine). . . 
Portugal: The main objectives ofthe programme are to help the economy ofthe regions dependent on 
the defence sector (e.g. the Azores, Alentejo or Lisbon), to contribute to the rehabilitation of military 
zones with a view to developing new activities and to improve the environment around military training 
grounds. 
United Kingdom: A single programme was adopted, for Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. 
Almost 50%o of the financing is for investment outside areas covered by the Objectives, so as to take 
account of specific problems due to the decline in the defence industry. Operations will be aimed at 
diversification ofthe economic base in the areas covered, concentrating on improving the environment. 
Another aspect is technology transfer, which should enable the vast system of expertise in the defence 
sector to be used for diversification and innovation in industrial SMEs. The programme, for which a 
Monitoring Committee will be established, will be divided into 14 area sub-programmes, each one to be 
managed by a working party of representatives of ministries, local bodies and the Commission. 
RESIDER II (1994-97) 
RESIDER //(ECU 520 million) is a continuation of RESIDER I; it supports conversion in steel-producing areas. 
Like RECHAR II, this Initiative gives priority to environmental protection, new economic activities and human 
resources, in order to speed up adjusfrnent to radical change in the economic conditions in the areas concerned. 
The measures planned are ofthe same type as those under RECHAR II. 
In 1995, 27 programmes were submitted by the Member States for the RESIDER II Initiative (including 
one programme by Austria). Thanks to experience gained between 1990 and 1993, it was possible to 
approve virtually all the programmes by the end of 1995: 19 programmes were adopted in the course of 
the year (the programme for Portugal having already been adopted in 1994), which left only eight 
programmes still to be approved at the end of 1995 (one in Germany, two in France, one in the United 
Kingdom, and the non-regionalized programmes for Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and Austria). 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 155 
Table 96: RESIDER IIprogrammes adopted in 1994 and 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) Total cost S.F. assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1995 
(3) %of 
(3)/(2) 
Programmes adopted in 1995 
Belgium (2) 
Germany (8) 
Greece (1) 
France (5) 
Netherlands (1) 
United Kingdom (2) 52,9 
558,3 
8,9 
105,8 
51,5 
52,5 24,4 
164,3 
4,7 
42,6 
18,1 
23,2 23,7 
62,5 
4,1 
38,6 
18,1 
23,2 97% 
38% 
88% 
91% 
100% 
100% 5,6 
31,2 
2,1 
17,5 
7,4 
11,6 24% 
50% 
50% 
45% 
41% 
50% 
Programme adopted in 1994 
Portugal (1) 
Total (20) 10,8 
840,6 6,9 
284,2 6,9 
177,1 100% 
62% 2,9 
78,3 42% 
44% 
Belgium: Two programmes were approved, for the areas of Charleroi and Liège, both of which have 
been seriously affected by the decline of the steel industry (unemployment running at over 20% in 
Charleroi in 1994, and over 10 000 jobs lost in Liège between 1978 and 1993). Both programmes 
include a measure for environmental improvement and/or site rehabilitation. Measures are"aIso planned 
for diversification of the economic fabric, creation of a business start-up fund for new or restructured 
firms, aid for the provision of reception infrastructure, amenities and access roads to business parks for 
craft and service firms, better equipped research centres and promotion of technological innovation. 
Germany: Eight programmes were adopted, with only one, that for Brandenburg, still awaiting adoption 
in 1996. One ofthe main priorities is the reclamation of derelict industrial sites and their conversion to 
new economic purposes. The aid planned will make available new land for industrial and commercial 
firms, and also integrate areas of industrial and commercial activity into town planning while improving 
the environment. For example, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia is carrying out general urban 
renovation, through the Internazionale Bauausstellung-IBA-"Emscher Park", of a particularly run-down 
area of the Ruhr, in line with very strict environmental and urban development standards (Structural 
Fund financing of ECU 25.9 million). The programme should prevent the loss of a total of 6 500 jobs. 
Greece: The programme covers three areas, in the vicinities of Thessaloniki, Volos and Athens; its main 
purpose is to repair damage to the environment and to redeploy economic activity in the steel-producing 
areas. It also provides for a measure for the retraining of workers who are unemployed or threatened by 
unemployment. 
France: Five programmes were approved, and two, those for Nord-Pas de Calais and for Normandy, 
were still awaiting approval at the end of 1995. The programmes adopted concentrate over 70%> ofthe 
available financing in the departments of Meurthe-et-Moselle and Moselle, and three districts in Meuse 
(Etain, Spincourt and Verdun-Est), in the region of Lorraine. The main objective is industrial conversion 
of these areas to a dynamic process of job-creation and improved living environment. The programmes 
provide for measures to develop public amenities, such as setting up a meeting and training centre for 
industry in premises formerly used for steel production (Le Creusot), or transforming a former steel 
works into an exhibition park (Ugine). Another priority is to enhance environmental and urban 
attractiveness, through such measures as treatment of pit water (Lorraine) or setting up a "centre of 
excellence" for technical expertise and know-how (Lorraine). Support for the creation and development 
of new businesses by improving amenities and joint services is also available through a number of 
measures such as the provision of logistic amenities for harbour and on-shore activities (Fos-sur-Mer), 
or the reclamation of derelict industrial land for new activities to develop technological networks and 
technology transfer (Picardy). 
Netherlands: There is a programme for IJmond, an area affected by the decline in steel and other 
industries, especially fisheries. Its main purpose is to broaden the economic base ofthe region and it 
should lead to the creation of 2 000 permanent jobs. The measures relate to cleaning up industrial sites 
and developing new sites and installations, developing logistic infrastructure (port facilities), business 
innovation (aid plans for SMEs, risk capital, start-up aids, small business networks), training and the 
156 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
labour market (guidance, monitoring centres, transfer of expertise), and an action plan to encourage 
tourism. 
Portugal: The RESIDER programme for Portugal was adopted in 1994, the first programme adopted 
under this Initiative. Its objectives are to speed up economic conversion in the region of Setubal, 
particularly hard hit by restructuring in the steel industry, to help unemployed workers and those 
threatened with unemployment back on to the labour market and to promote the creation and 
development of new economic activities with good job-creating potential, alongside the development of 
human and material resources. By the end of 1995, 69%> of public expenditure programmed for 1994-95 
had actually been incurred. 
United Kingdom: The programmes for Wales and for Western Scotland were adopted in 1995; the 
programme for England was still awaiting adoption. The two programmes supplement the other 
Community programmes in these regions, and the Objective 2 SPD for Western Scotland. 
RETEX (1994-97) 
RETEX (ECU 522 million) was launched in 1992 to support economic diversification in areas heavily dependent 
on textiles and clothing; in 1994, it was extended to 1997, taking in new areas that had become eligible under 
Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b). The measures supported involve such things as counselling and non-productive 
equipment to improve firms' expertise, support for local groups of firms and cooperation measures, and staff 
training and business services. 
The increase in financing for RETEX from 1994 for Objective 1, 2 and 5(b) areas was accompanied by 
major adjustments to most of the programmes adopted in 1993. New programmes have also been 
submitted. In 1995, 21 RETEX programmes were presented to the Commission, seven new programmes 
were approved, and five existing programmes were amended. Altogether, therefore, 12 programmes 
were adopted or amended in 1995. The total of 18 programmes adopted for RETEX represent 98% of 
the total amount allocated to the Initiative for the period 1994-97. 
Table 9 7: Situation of RETEX programmes in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Programmes adopted 
in 1995 
Gennany 
Saxony 
Thuringia 
Lower Saxony 
Belgium - Wallonia 
Netherlands - Twente 
United Kingdom 
Northern Ireland 
Great Britain 
Programmes adopted 
in 1993 
and amended in 1995 
Gennany - Bavaria 
France 
Italy 
Objective I areas 
Objective 2 and 5(b) areas 
Greece 
Programmes adopted 
in 1993 
Gennany 
North Rhine- Westphalia 
Baden- Wurttemhcrg 
Hesse 
Spain 
Ireland 
Portugal Assistance 
for 1994-97 
0) 
53,2 
41,') 
9.6 
l.fi 
3,0 
1,0 
36,6 
4,2 
32,4 
Assistance 
1993 
(1993 prices) Assistance 
1994-97 Assistance 
1993-97 
0) 
1,3 7,6 8,8 
4,0 24,9 28,9 
12,1 66,9 79,0 
'.9 31,5 39,4 
4,2 35,5 39.6 
12,1 75,4 87.5 
Assistance 
1993 
(1993 prices) Assistance 
1994-97 
(1993 prices) Assistance 
1993-97 
(1993 prices) 
(1) 
0,7 3,1 3,7 
0,2 1,4 1,6 
0,2 0,6 0,H 
0.3 1,1 1,4 
18,1 72,3 90,4 
2,3 9,1 11,4 
30,0 159,0 189,0 Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) 
13.1 25% 
3, - 9% 
H.2 S6% 
1,2 6'% 
3,0 100% 
1,0 100% 
30,0 82% 
3,H H'J%, 
26.2 SJ% 
Commitments 
1993-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) 
8,8 100% 
7,0 24% 
12,1 15% 
~,9 20%, 
4,2 10%, 
11,8 13% 
Commitments 
1993-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) 
0,9 25% 
0,2 11%, 
0.2 2H%, 
0,5 40%, 
38,5 43% 
6,9 61% 
111,4 59% Payments 
1995 
(3) "A, 
(3)/(2) 
6,6 50% 
/,<S" 50% 
4.1 50% 
0.6 50% 
1,5 50% 
0,5 50% 
14.1 47% 
1,9 50% 
12.2 4'% 
Payments 
1993-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
1,0 11% 
3,4 49% 
6.0 50% 
3,9 50% 
2.1 50% 
9.1 78% 
Payments 
1993-95 
(3) "A, 
(3)/(2) 
0,6 59% 
0.1 50%, 
0.1 50%, 
0,4 65% 
34,2 89% 
4,1 59% 
63,1 57% 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 57 
Belgium: The RETEX programme adopted in 1995 concerns Wallonia (Hainaut); a second programme 
is planned for Flanders. The two main priorities are diversification of activity for SMEs through the 
development of locally-generated potential (assistance and information provided by a new economic 
development team, recruitment of management staff, recourse to external consultants to enhance 
openness to markets) and the improvement of skills (training in new technologies, internal and external 
mobility and collaboration between training centres and businesses). 
Germany: Four RETEX programmes, for Bavaria, Baden-Wurttemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia and 
Hesse, were adopted in 1993. The programme for Bavaria was granted extra financing in 1995 for the 
period 1995-97. A decision to increase financing was also expected to be taken in 1996 for 
Baden-Wurttemberg, but not for Hesse or North Rhine-Westphalia. In 1995, three new programmes 
were approved for the period 1994-97: Lower Saxony, Thuringia and Saxony. Altogether, there are thus 
seven RETEX programmes in progress in Germany, with Structural Fund financing totalling ECU 63.8 
million from 1994 to 1997. 
Spain: The RETEX programme, which covers the period 1993-97, was adopted in 1993j_.lt concerns 
parts of the areas covered by Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) in eleven regions. Additional Community 
financing of ECU 800 000 is to be granted for the period 1994-97. 
Diversification of regions dependent on the textile and clothing sector in 
Spain: 
The RETEX programme in Spain covers areas in eleven regions: Andalusia, 
Aragon, Castile-Leon, Castile-La Mancha. Catalonia, Extremadura, Galicia, 
Rioja, Madrid, Murcia and Valencia; its distinguishing feature is the level of 
partnership achieved (measures within the competence of regional and local 
authorities represent 59% of Community financing). It comprises five sub-
programmes: 
• "business competitiveness" (41%), on a multi-regional scale, implemented 
by the Industry Ministry in the framework of measures for adjustment to 
international competition and diversification of areas dependent on the 
textiles and clothing sector; 
• "improvement of the industrial fabric" (54%), on a regional or local scale, 
aiming at the constitution of development and consultancy teams and groups 
of firms, consultancy and diagnostic reports, modernization plans and the 
dissemination of new production methods; 
• "access by businesses to risk capital and loans" (4%), also on a regional or 
local scale; 
• "vocational training" (1%) on a regional or local scale; 
• monitorins, and assessment 
France: The RETEX programme for 1994-97 is a programme adopted in 1993, amended to 
considerably extend the area covered, from 21 employment areas in 1993 to 53 in 1994-97, and to 
channel more finance into diversification projects, while maintaining a maximum of 30% of Structural 
Fund financing to assist firms in the textile sector. 
Ireland: The programme, adopted in 1993, covers the whole period from 1993 to 1997. It is specifically 
designed to deal with a certain number of structural weaknesses in the Irish textile industry. 
Italy: Two programmes, one for the Objective 1 Italian regions and the other for the Objectives 2 and 
5(b) areas, were adopted in 1995. They amend the two programmes that began in 1993 by changing the 
content of several regional measures and the annual breakdown of Community assistance. A special 
feature of both programmes is the participation ofthe private sector, which accounts for almost 30% in 
the Objective 1 regions and 52% in the Objective 2 and 5(b) areas. 
Netherlands: The programme, adopted in 1995, covers the period 1994-97 and concerns the region of 
Twente. The aim is to reinforce the competitiveness of SMEs in the region both within and outside the 
15 8 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
textiles and clothing sector; consequently, the programme has a single priority: to introduce innovative 
business organization, with special attention to quality management, environmental management, 
working conditions and strategic management. 
Portugal: The programme, which was adopted in 1993, is the largest RETEX programme in financial 
terms. It is intended to diversify the production structure in regions affected by restructuring in the 
textile sector, and to modernize the sector in regions where it is highly concentrated. By the end of 1995, 
51% ofthe programmed public expenditure had actually been incurred. 
United Kingdom: Two programmes were approved in 1995, for Northern Ireland and for Great Britain. 
The programme for Great Britain covers nine areas eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b), in some of 
which the programme will be supplemented by specific regional strategies. Measures are concentrated 
on diversification ofthe economic base ofthe regions through the introduction of new technologies and 
new products. A training and re-skilling programme has been set up to facilitate the move towards self-
employment and new business start-ups. Special measures for the environment are also planned, for 
example liquid waste treatment projects in Yorkshire and Humberside and in the East Midlands are 
expected to improve the image ofthose areas. 
URBAN (1994-99) 
URBAN (ECU 651 million) is intended to help solve the crisis in a number of urban areas, by supporting 
measures for economic and social revitalization through the launching of new economic activities; measures for 
the renewal of social, health and safety infrastructure and facilities; ensuring employment for local people; and 
improvement of the environment in connection with these measures. The projects must have a demonstration 
effect for other urban areas, and they should be part of longer-term urban integration strategies. Two thirds ofthe 
financing is eannarked for Objective 1 regions, the remaining third for Objective 2 areas. 
The Member States put forward some 130 towns and cities for assistance under the URBAN Initiative, 
of which 86 were chosen. Some programmes were presented by national authorities, and cover several 
towns and cities in the Member State. Consequently, there are only 43 programmes, 18 of which had 
been approved by the end of 1995. By the end ofthe year, there were thus 24 programmes still to be 
adopted, comprising one in Belgium, two in Germany, the eight French programmes, the Irish and the 
Italian programmes, which are not regionalized, nine UK programmes and two programmes in the new 
Member States. 
Urban and the urban environment: 
The URBAN Initiative is intended to benefit neighbourhoods facing particularly difficult 
environmental conditions. This may be reflected, for example, in derelict or contaminated sites, a lack 
of green spaces and basic infrastructure, or lack of mobility on the part ofthe local population. The 
environmental and sustainable development aspects of URBAN's integrated approach are clear. The 
Initiative clearly declared the environment to be one ofthe keys to dealing with problems in the areas 
covered. Many of the measures in the URBAN integrated programmes are therefore geared to 
improving infrastructure and the environment, for example, renovation of buildings to adapt them to 
new economic and social activities, reclamation of public open spaces, particularly green spaces, 
energy conservation, or the supply of cultural or recreational services that respect the living 
environment. Under the new guidelines to improve the URBAN Initiative, using part of the reserve 
available for the Community Initiatives,^ the problem ofthe urban environment will receive much 
greater attention. 
13 See above 1.1: Introduction - Proposal for the allocation ofthe reserve in 1995. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 159 
Table 98: URBAN programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 
Belgium (2) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany (8) 
Greece ( 1 ) 
Spain (1) 
Luxembourg ( 1 ) 
Netherlands (2) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (1) 
Total (18) Total cost 
26,6 
3,0 
270,1 
67,2 
248,7 
1,0 
87,9 
62,0 
24,5 
791,0 S.F. assistance 
(1) 
8,2 
1,5 
86,4 
45,2 
162,6 
0,5 
9,3 
44,3 
17,0 
375,0 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
8,2 
1,3 
79,0 
4,5 
22,8 
0,5 
7,9 
9,2 
17,0 
150,5 % 
(2)/(l) 
100% 
88% 
91% 
10% 
14% 
100% 
85% 
21% 
100% 
40% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
4,1 
0,4 
23,2 
1,7 
11,4 
0,0 
2,4 
4,6 
6,9 
54,7 %of 
(3)/(2) 
50% 
30% 
29% 
38% 
50% 
8% 
30% 
50% 
40% 
36% 
Belgium: Two programmes were adopted, with that for Brussels still awaiting approval. The area of 
Antwerp covered by the programme is the north-eastern section ofthe 19th century neighbourhood 
around the main railway station. The programme aims at new job creation, better security, training, 
education and town planning. The programme for Charleroi covers the Foucault quartérT where the 
educational level is low, housing is dilapidated, unemployment is high, and crime and drugsare a 
problem. The measures are intended to enhance the attractiveness ofthe neighbourhood (by establishing 
a permanent conference centre, and an exhibition stand to present the city and its products), to encourage 
development in a new sector by setting up a comic-strip institute, to benefit the whole neighbourhood, in 
particular by improving traffic conditions for both vehicles and pedestrians, and to change the social 
standing ofthe neighbourhood through a series of measures part-financed by the ESF and carried out in 
partnership with the Charleroi CPAS (public social welfare centre) and the MIREC (regional mission for 
employment and integration). 
Denmark: The programme concerns the town of Aalborg (suburb of Thistedvej) in northern Jutland, an 
area eligible under Objective 2. The town is facing a high level of unemployment, traffic problems and 
inadequate social and cultural services. The programme will concentrate on a single project, a 
sustainable urban development centre, intended to modernize the Thistedvej suburb by encouraging 
sustainable and financially stable industrial growth and by encouraging the local inhabitants. 
Germany: Eight programmes were adopted: Berlin, Brandenburg, Rostock, Magdeburg, Chemnitz, 
Erfurt, Bremen and Duisburg; six are in the new Lander and two in the western Lander. A third 
programme for Saarland was to be adopted in 1996. In the framework ofthe programme for Duisburg-
Marxloh, for example, a Stadtteilwirtschaft development project will be drawn up, along with aid and 
outreach measures to safeguard the potential of the area and encourage new business start-ups. The 
prime objective is to stop the out-migration of small firms and to identify opportunities for setting up 
new innovative businesses. 
Greece: The programme covers six projects: Drapetsona-Keratsini and Peristeri in Attiki, Nea-Ionia in 
Volos, Patras (south-east), Thessaloniki (east) and Syros (Ermoupolis), each of which constitutes a sub-
programme. These are all demonstration projects for other urban areas, involving innovative measures 
within a long-term urban integration strategy. The objective in each case is to launch new local 
economic activity, which should in return encourage the measures, both social (jobs for local people, 
sanitation infrastructure) and urban (infrastructure and environmental measures related to economic 
activity) required to improve living conditions for the areas and people concerned. 
Spain: In terms of financing, the Spanish programme is the largest programme adopted under the 
URBAN Initiative in 1995. It covers 17 neighbourhood projects in cities with a population of over 
100 000 (see table below), which relate to economic and social revitalization, renovation of buildings, 
and the improvement of infrastructure, including environmental infrastructure. The projects also attempt 
to include innovative measures to deal with social exclusion and crime. Associations of citizens will 
participate in implementing the programme, and technical assistance will concentrate on the exchange of 
experience within Spain and throughout Europe. Day-to-day management ofthe programme will be the 
160 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
responsibility ofthe local and regional authorities, in close cooperation with the Ministry of Finance, 
which has overall responsibility for the programme. 
Table 99: URBAN - Detailed financing of the programme in Spain (ECU million) 
Total cost SJruct. Funds ERDF ESF 
Objective 1 regions 
Cadiz 
Malaga 
Hueiva 
Seville 
Badajoz 
Cartagena 
Valencia 
Toledo 
Valladoiid 
Salamanca 
Langreo 
La Corufla 
Vigo 14,3 
14,3 
14,4 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 7,0 
10,0 
8,0 
9,1 
7,6 
9,0 
10,0 
8,0 
10,0 
9,9 
8,8 
9,1 
8,1 3,0 
0,0 
2,0 
0,9 
2,4 
1,0 
2,0 
0,1 
1,2 
0,9 
1,9 
Objective 2 areas 
Sabadell 
Badalona 
Baracaldo 13,4 
6,6 
20,0 6,7 
3,3 
10,0 6,1 
2,3 
9,4 0,6 
1,0 
0,6 
not covered by an Objective 
Madrid 
Total towns and cities 
Assessment, management 
TOTAL 20,0 
245,8 
2,9 
248,7 10,0 
160,0 
2,6 
162,6 10,0 
142,3 
2,6 
144,9 -
17,7 
0,0 
17,7 
Netherlands: Two programmes were adopted in 1995. The URBAN programme for the Hague is 
intended to benefit the Schilderswijk quarter, which was built in the second half of the nineteenth 
century and covers 149 hectares. Its purpose is to strengthen the local economy, create new job 
opportunities for the local inhabitants and improve safety. The URBAN programme for Amsterdam 
covers Amsterdam-Bijlmermeer, an area of 7 km in Amsterdam Zuidoost. The purpose of the 
programme is to give the area a boost through measures for territorial innovation and socio-economic 
and administrative renewal. 
Portugal: The URBAN programme for Portugal was established nationally rather than for individual 
cities; it provides for four projects in the Lisbon area and two in the Oporto area. Measures include not 
only small infrastructure projects but also a set of measures to stimulate local initiatives and involve the 
community. It cannot be expected to have a major impact on creating and safeguarding jobs, but it 
should contribute to considerably improving the living environment. Some ofthe measures will have a 
high profile, such at that in the Casal Ventoso neighbourhood of Lisbon. 
United Kingdom: Only the programme for Northern Ireland was adopted in 1995, nine other projects 
having also been presented by the UK authorities with applications for Structural Fund assistance of 
almost ECU 80 million. At the end of 1995, the Commission was awaiting revised programmes. The 
Northern Ireland programme relates to Belfast and Londonderry. In both cases, the Catholic and 
Protestant areas concerned will combine their efforts to launch a process of renewal. In Belfast the 
emphasis is on job creation for parents, especially mothers, and on helping young unemployed people 
get back to work. In Londonderry, urban reclamation and economic recovery projects on the initiative of 
the local community will be granted financial assistance and help with training measures. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 161 
INTERREG II (1994-99) 
INTERREG II (ECU 2 939 million) has two strands corresponding to the INTERREG I and REGEN Initiatives: 
cross-border cooperation and aid to areas on the Union's internal and external borders (ECU 2.4 billion, 75% of 
which is for Objective 1 regions); and the completion of energy networks to link them up to wider European 
networks (ECU 500 million). For the borders with the countries of central and eastern Europe, a cross-border 
cooperation programme between those countries and the Community Member States was adopted in 1994 in the 
framework ofthe Phare programme. 
Of 62 INTERREG II programmes presented by the fifteen Member States, a total of 34 were approved, 
three under the REGEN strand and 31 under cross-border cooperation. This corresponds to about 77% of 
the total amount presented. The programmes approved in 1995 are the largest in financial terms. The 
forms of cross-border cooperation have progressed since the first programming period, in 1990-93, and 
the Commission has financed some measures developed by the Association of European Border 
Regions. In September, a practical guide to the organization of cross-border cooperation was published. 
REGEN strand: 
Table 100: INTERREG/REGENprogrammes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
INTERREG/REG EN 
Spain/Portugal 
Greece/Italy (electricity) 
Greece: Completion of energy 
networks 
Total Total cost 
548,2 
189,4 
450,0 
1.187,6 S.F. assistance 
(1) 
220,0 
75,8 
180,0 
475,8 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
61,9 
4,3 
45,0 
111,2 % 
(2)/(l) 
28% 
6% 
25% 
23% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
43,5 
2.1 
4,5 
50,2 %of 
(3)/(2) 
70% 
50% 
10% 
45% 
REGEN Spain and Portugal: The objective ofthe programme is to finance the last stage of work on the 
system to receive and transport natural gas to Portugal and to interconnect systems for the transport of 
natural gas in Spain and Portugal. These projects are part ofthe development of trans-European energy 
networks with a view to diversifying energy supplies in the two Member States, which will have a 
favourable impact on the environment and improve the competitiveness ofthe economies concerned. By 
the end of 1995, 42% ofthe public expenditure planned for this programme for 1994-95 will have been 
incurred. 
REGEN Greece and Italy (electricity): This programme completes the interconnection ofthe Italian and 
Greek electricity supply networks and continues the achievements of the REGEN programme of the 
earlier period. Financing is entirely allocated to Objective 1 regions. 
A project within the context ofthe completion ofthe internal market: 
The INTERREG/REGEN programme between Italy and Greece to interconnect 
the electricity networks of the two countries provides for total investment of 
ECU 204 million and Community financing (ERDF) of ECU 75.8 million (with 
ECU 189.4 million covered by the programme). It involves: 
• the construction of two stations for conversion between alternating and direct 
current; 
• installing an overhead direct current cable to connect the two stations; 
• laying a 160 km cable on the sea-bed to transport 600 MW between Porto 
Badisco (Italy) and Aetos (Greece). 
This programme thus contributes not only to cross-border cooperation between 
Greece and Italy, but also to the completion ofthe internal market, especially for 
energy and reduction of dependence on oil, as well as to the Community's 
environmental policy (reduction of SQ2 and CQ2). 
REGEN Greece: "completion of energy networks": This programme concerns the completion of work 
on reception and transport facilities for the introduction of natural gas into Greece; it follows on from the 
162 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
measures financed under REGEN between 1989 and 1993. The project as a whole was covered by 
ERDF financing as a "natural gas" major project under the first Greek CSF between 1989 and 1993. The 
programme relates to the main high-pressure pipeline bringing Russian gas from the Bulgarian frontier 
to Athens, the main high-pressure branches, and work on the reception, processing and transport by 
pipeline of Algerian liquefied gas (LNG). 
Table 101: INTERREG II cross-border cooperation programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 
Total cost S.F. assistance 
0) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2V0) Payments 
1995 
0) •/.of 
(3)/(2) 
Between Member States 
Belgium/Netherlands: Euregio Scheldemond 
Belgium/Netherlands: Middengebied 
Germany/Netherlands/Belgium: Euregio Meuse-Rhin 
Denmark/Germany: Fyns Amt/KERN 
Denmark/Germany: S.Jutland/Planungsraum V 
Denmark/Germany: Storstrom/Ostholstein/Lubeck 
Germany/France: Rhineland-Palatinate/Saarland/Lorraine 
France/Germany: PAMINA 
Germany/Luxembourg: Euregio 
Germany/Netherlands: Ems-Dollard 
Germany/Netherlands: Euregio 
Germany/Netherlands: Euregio Rhine-Meuse-North 
Germany/Netherlands: Euregio Rhine-Waal 
Ireland/United Kingdom: Northern Ireland 
Ireland/United Kingdom: Wales 
Spain/Portugal 22,8 
66,3 
71,9 
3,6 
22,2 
10,4 
46,5 
22,1 
30,9 
62,7 
53,6 
12,8 
23,1 
261,7 
142,8 
755,3 11,1 
32,4 
35,7 
1.8 
11,1 
5,2 
23,3 
11,1 
8,0 
22,5 
22,0 
6,4 
11,5 
157,0 
84,1 
552,0 9,8 
29,2 
33,5 
1,4 
8,3 
4,1 
22,3 
10,1 
8,0 
22,5 
22,0 
6,4 
11,5 
26,9 
10,9 
75,0 88% 
90% 
94% 
80% 
74% 
79% 
96% 
91% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
17% 
13% 
14% 2,9 
8,8 
10,0 
0,4 
2,5 
1,2 
6,7 
3,0 
2,4 
6,7 
6,6 
1,9 
3,5 
13,4 
5,5 
44,6 30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
50% 
50% 
59% 
Between Member States and non-member countries 
Denmark/Baltic Sea 
Germany/Czech Republic: Bavaria 
Germany/Poland: Brandenburg 
Germany/Poland: Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 
Germany/Poland/Czech Republic: Saxony 
Greece/Albania/Bulgaria 
Germany/France/Switzerland: Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud 
Germany/Switzerland : Lake Constance 
France/Switzerland: Franche-Comté 
France/Switzerland: Rhône-Alpes 
United Kingdom/Morocco: Gibraltar 4,6 
42,2 
120,0 
84,1 
215,7 
459,4 
49,9 
9,7 
14,2 
11,6 
1,7 2,0 
16,8 
72,0 
63,1 
146,5 
277,0 
24,6 
4,9 
7,1 
5,4 
0,7 1,8 
16,8 
10,1 
8,0 
16,6 
28,1 
23,4 
4,9 
7,1 
0,6 
0,5 90% 
100% 
14% 
13% 
11% 
10% 
95% 
100% 
100% 
11% 
66% 0,5 
5,4 
5,0 
4,0 
8,3 
14,0 
7,0 
2,4 
2,2 
0,2 
0,0 30% 
32% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
30% 
50% 
31% 
30% 
0% 
Total I 2.621,9| 1.615,0| 419,6] 26%| 169,41 40% 
Cross-border cooperation strand 
A large proportion ofthe programmes adopted in 1995 were part ofthe cross-border cooperation strand 
of INTERREG II. Altogether, 59 were presented and 31 adopted, leaving 27 still to be adopted at the end 
of the year, including ten from the new Member States. The introduction of INTERREG II and the 
enlargement of the European Union to three new Member States has considerably enhanced the 
importance of cross-border cooperation. In particular, on the eastern borders of the Union, the 
Commission, the Member States and the countries of central and eastern Europe involved in joint "cross-
border" measures under INTERREG II and the Phare programme have introduced joint mechanisms and 
instruments to improve their cooperation. 
The programmes adopted in 1995 between the Member States 
Between Belgium and the Netherlands: Two programmes were adopted with a total Structural Fund 
contribution of ECU 43.5 million (total investment: ECU 89.1 million). The two programmes concern 
respectively the Scheldemond Euregio (Zeeland (NL)/ East Flanders and part of West Flanders (B)) and 
the Middengebied area (Antwerp, Limburg and part of Louvain (B)/ North-Brabant and Limburg (NL). 
As well as reinforcing cross-border cooperation, each programme has a development objective: the first 
aims at stimulating sustainable, high-quality social and economic development and the second at 
strengthening the economic base ofthe border area. 
Between Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany: The regions concerned by a programme for the 
Meuse-Rhine Euregio are partly eligible under Objectives 2 and 5(b). This programme is coordinated by 
the Meuse-Rhine Euregio, a body established under Netherlands law with long experience of cross-
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) i ^ 
border cooperation, by the governments of the Lander and the federal authorities on the German side, 
and by national ministries in the Netherlands and Belgium. The programme is organized around five 
priorities: economic and technological development and innovation (28%), environment, nature and sites 
(27%>), regional planning (15%), socio-cultural integration (15%) and development of skills and the 
labour market (11%); technical assistance accounts for the remaining 5%. 
Between Denmark and Germany: There are three programmes in receipt of Structural Fund financing 
totalling ECU 18.1 million (total cost: ECU 36.2 million). The programmes cover three regions with 
different geographical features: the Planungsraum V (Nordfriesland, Schleswig-Flensburg, Flensburg) 
and Sonderjyllands Amt, the only land border between Germany and Denmark, for which the 
Community had financed several successful cross-border projects in recent years; the 
Ostholstein/Liibeck area and Storstroms Amt, a maritime region encountering structural difficulties, 
which was already eligible under INTERREG I; and the so-called KERN (Kiel, Eckernfbrde, 
Rendsburg, Neumunster) and Fyns Amt, which is now eligible under INTERREG for the first time. The 
strategies for these three programmes are slightly different, first because cross-border structures are 
well-established in some cases but fairly new in others, and secondly because the border concerned is a 
land border in some cases, and a sea crossing in others. Among other things, the measures aim at the 
development of SMEs, and research and development and training; the first two programmes are also 
intended to help reconcile the needs of the environment with energy consumption, and the last two 
provide for the development of tourism. 
Between France and Germany: Two programmes have been adopted, with total assistance of ECU 34.3 
million. The programme for Saarland, Lorraine and the Palatinate, in cooperation with the INTERREG 
programme between Germany and Luxembourg, provides for the construction of a "Euro-Management 
Centre", which will offer European seminars to businessmen interested in the European Market. In 
1991-93, a joint Franco-German financial institution, the Saarlàndische Investitionskredietbank (SIKB), 
was set up on the basis of an agreement between the three regions and France, and this agreement has 
been renewed for the present period. The other programme concerns the regions of southern Palatinate, 
Mittlerer Oberrhein and northern Alsace (PAMINA); it is intended to intensify integration over this area 
through measures for economic development, regional planning, development of natural resources and 
the environment, social cohesion, and culture and training. For the first time, the ESF is contributing to 
the financing of measures, under the last two headings. 
Between Luxembourg and Germany: There is a programme for areas that are partly eligible under 
Objectives 2 or 5(b). Joint management and financial resources for the projects was introduced under 
INTERREG I and continued under this programme. Measures relate to protection of the environment 
(32%), economic and technological development and innovation (19%), and tourism (19%). 
Between the Netherlands and Germany: Four programmes were adopted, for a total of ECU 62.4 
million. The Ems-Dollard programme complements the Objective 2 or Objective 5(b) SPDs in the 
regions. While the INTERREG I programme concentrated on tourism, the present programme aims at 
improving business competitiveness and attracting new investment, especially in infrastructure (35%), 
tourism (29%) and economic development (15%). The other three programmes, Euregio, Euregio Rhine-
Waal and Euregio Rhine-northern Meuse, concern areas partly eligible under Objectives 2 or 5(b). They 
provide for a limited series of measures: economic and technological development and innovation 
(35%), the development of skills and the labour market (17%), regional planning (14%) and socio-
cultural integration (13%). Each ofthe programmes is managed independently. They were drawn up by 
the Euregios, with ten years' experience of cross-border collaboration, the governments of the Lander 
and the federal authorities on the German side, and the national ministries on the Netherlands side. 
Between Ireland and the United Kingdom: Two programmes were approved in 1995, involving total 
Structural Fund financing of ECU 241 million. The first concerns cooperation between Ireland and 
Northern Ireland, and follows on from an INTERREG I programme; it will concentrate more than its 
predecessor on locally-generated cross-border projects and small infrastructure of direct benefit to the 
area. The other programme concerns areas not previously eligible under INTERREG, the east coast of 
164 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Ireland and the areas of Gwynedd and Dyfed in Wales. It is aimed at the maritime development of these 
areas, with special attention to ports and access to ports (especially in Ireland), and also their genera! 
economic development, supporting only joint projects relating to the economic and commercial field, 
tourism and culture and human resources. 
Ad hoc cooperation structures between Ireland and the United Kingdom: 
Each INTERREG programme provides for the establishment of ad hoc 
cooperation structures. A responsible authority has been designated for the 
Ireland-Northern Ireland programme, to raise the programme's profile and act as 
a link between local groups, central authorities in the two Member States, and 
authorities responsible for other Structural Fund programmes in the area. 
Similarly, for the Ireland-Wales programme, a local coordination team 
(comprising two coordinators for Wales and representatives ofthe three regional 
authorities concerned in Ireland) was set up to encourage partnerships and 
economic development projects. 
Between Portugal and Spain: The INTERREG II programme includes measures to remedy-the specific 
difficulties ofthe border region, due to its relative isolation from the national economies and the rest of 
the European Union. The strategy concentrates on locally-generated cross-border development, and the 
reinforcement of economic and environmental infrastructure. The projects considered are also intended 
to promote balanced economic and social development on both sides ofthe border, to keep people from 
leaving, to achieve cross-border regional planning and to support the setting up of cross-border 
cooperation arrangements. At the end of 1995, 38% ofthe public expenditure programmed had actually 
been incurred in 1994-95. 
Programmes adopted in 1995 with non-member countries 
With the Baltic countries: A programme was adopted between Denmark and the regions of the Baltic 
sea, with the aim of continuing to develop cooperation between the county of Bornholm (Denmark) and 
other Baltic regions. 
INTERREG cooperation on the Baltic sea: 
The programme adopted in November 1995 supports cross-border cooperation 
between the county of Bornholm (eligible under Objective 5(b)) and the Baltic 
regions, mainly in Poland and the Baltic States. The measures are aimed at: 
• developing SMEs through the activities of a commercial and industrial 
consultancy body; 
• establishing cross-border structures, involving working parties and 
conferences to encourage both bilateral and multilateral cooperation; 
• ensuring cooperation in the field of communications and media, in order to 
develop new activities at the Baltic Media Centre in Bornholm; 
• providing the vocational training needed to establish and develop 
cooperation. 
With the countries of central and eastern Europe : Four programmes involving German regions were 
adopted in 1995, with Structural Fund financing totalling ECU 298.3 million. These programmes are 
coordinated with Phare operations. There are two programmes for the German-Polish border 
(Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania/Poland and Brandenburg/Poland), O\\Q that involves three countries 
(the German Land of Saxony, Poland and the Czech Republic), and one for the border between Bavaria 
and the Czech Republic. The first three are intended to reduce the structural weaknesses specific to the 
border regions of Poland and the Czech Republic. Appropriations are concentrated on infrastructure and 
the environment, on economic development (including the development of tourism) and agricultural 
development, on human resources and on technical assistance. Many projects got under way in 1995. 
The programme involving Bavaria and the Czech Republic concentrates on socio-economic 
development, especially tourism and economic cooperation (44%), transport, infrastructure and 
protection ofthe environment (34%), human resources (12%), and regional planning and technical 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 65 
assistance (10%). The Monitoring Committee includes representatives of the Czech Republic, which 
means that for the first time, representatives of a central European country are closely involved in 
implementing a programme in a shared area. It is interesting to note that the programme was designed as 
a function both of the cross-border cooperation strand of Phare for the Czech Republic, and of the 
INTERREG II programme in Saxony, Poland and the Czech Republic. This made it possible to define a 
standard line from Pomerania to Passau for the composition of monitoring and steering committees. 
A programme linking Greece and Albania with Bulgaria was adopted under the protocols on cross-
border collaboration agreed with the Albanian and Bulgarian authorities, also financed under Phare.14 
The measures in this programme concern not only transport, telecommunications and energy 
infrastructure, which are essential to link these non-member countries to trans-European networks (e.g. 
the Via Egnatia), but also industry, tourism, the environment, agriculture, local development and human 
resources. The programme also includes cooperation (exchange of experience on education, 
management of water resources, etc.) with Cyprus and some countries ofthe Middle East (Egypt, Israel, 
etc.). 
With Switzerland: Four programmes were adopted, involving France, Germany and Austria, with a 
Community contribution totalling ECU 41.9 million. The programme for the Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud, 
between France, Germany and Switzerland, concentrates, as it did in the first stage of INTERREG, on 
cooperation on questions relating to the economy, the environment, training and tourism. Moreover, it 
will include measures to encourage collaboration in the fields of vocational training and health. The 
Monitoring Committee decided, at one of its early meetings, to establish a new information and 
consultancy bureau at the border, at Breisach/Neuf Brisach (to supplement the two existing information 
bureaux, one in the north and the other in the south). The purpose of these bureaux is to inform and 
advise private and public bodies and individuals about the neighbouring country. Between Germany and 
Switzerland, the Hochrhein-Bodensee programme launched under INTERREG I has now been extended, 
following enlargement, to an Austrian border region, the Voralberg, thus forming a new Alpenrhein-
Bodensee-Hochrhein programme with an internal and an external component. In 1995, only the German 
side ofthe programme was adopted, for an amount of ECU 4.9 million. Two programmes were adopted 
between France and Switzerland, one involving the French region of Franche-Comté and the other the 
region of Rhône-Alpes. 
With Morocco: The programme with Gibraltar is additional and complementary to Objective 2 
operations in Gibraltar. The measures under this programme - infrastructure, cooperation studies and 
pilot projects, cooperation in the fields of vocational education and training - are intended to add value to 
cooperation between businesses in Gibraltar and those in Morocco, which is expected to have a 
multiplier effect on cross-border trade in the medium term. The Monitoring Committee for the 
programme, on which the Moroccan Government will have observer status, will be responsible for 
supervising provisions for the selection of individual projects. 
PEACE (1994-97) 
On 28 July, the Commission approved the PEACE Initiative for peace and reconciliation, involving 
Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland. In the spring of 1995, three major conferences were 
held for local consultations with interested parties and people with experience of restoring dialogue and 
mutual understanding, which facilitated rapid adoption ofthe programme. Structural Fund participation 
in the programme amounts to ECU 300 million out of a total cost of about ECU 416 million between 
1995 and 1997, with supplementary aid to be decided later for 1998-99. The whole of Northern Ireland 
and the six border counties of Ireland are eligible for assistance under this programme. 
14 The aid approved in 1995 (ECU 277 million) should be supplemented in 1996 by EAGGF assistance 
(ECU 32.8 million). 
166 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 101 bis: PEA CE programme (ECU million) 
PEACE 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
Total 
Northern Ireland 
Ireland Total cost 
-
415,9 
. S.F. assistance 
(1) 
148,3 
127,8 
22,4 
1,5 
300,0 
240,0 
60,0 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
18,7 
11,0 
1,3 
0,1 
31,1 
-% 
(2)/(D 
13% 
9% 
6% 
9% 
10% 
. Payments 
1995 
(3) 
8,6 
5,5 
0,6 
0,07 
14,8 
. %of 
(3)/(2) 
46% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
48% 
. 
The aim of the programme is to help consolidate the cease-fire in Northern Ireland by providing those 
involved in local economic and social life with the resources needed to transform these developments 
into a lasting peace. The objective is to promote the social integration of people on the margins of 
economic and social life, and to restore economic growth in the areas that have suffered most from the 
conflict. This involves seven sub-programmes: the regeneration of urban and rural sites; employment; 
cross-border cooperation; combating social exclusion; the promotion of productive investment and 
industrial development; establishing partnerships, and technical assistance. In order to involve as many 
people as possible in the decision and implementation process, the distribution of resources is very 
decentralized, with 43% being distributed by non-governmental agencies (trusts and cooperatives), 
including one cross-border organization, which will have a major role in selecting projects and 
allocating funds. Moreover, 15% of resources are under the responsibility of 26 newly created district 
partnerships, which must include elected representatives of district councils, representatives of local or 
voluntary bodies, and representatives ofthe private and other sectors, including local statutory agencies. 
The main achievement of 1995 was to set up these new structures. The contracts between the 
Commission and the eight intermediaries were signed in December, and a political stumbling block to 
the establishment of district partnerships was eliminated. Moreover, the necessary coordination between 
the various financing bodies and the authorities was set up. All this made for rapid progress towards the 
first grants, the green light for district partnerships, and a major information and promotion campaign. 
1.3. Community Initiatives in the three new Member States 
In April 1995, the Commission adopted a communication on the implementation ofthe Community 
Initiatives in the three new Member States, setting out an indicative allocation of appropriations between 
Initiatives and Member States. 
Table 102: Community Initiatives in the new Member States 
(ECU million) Indicative allocation of appropriations 1995-99 
ADAPT 
EMPLOYMENT 
LEADER 
PESCA 
Industrial change 
- of which: RECHAR 
- of which: RESIDER 
- of which: RETEX 
- of which: KONVER 
- of which: SMEs 
URBAN 
INTERREG 
Reserve 
TOTAL Austria 
11,6 
23,0 
23,3 
18,2 
1,8 
5,1 
2,6 
8,7 
9,8 
42,7 
17,5 
146,1 Finland 
19,7 
29,2 
24,7 
3,0 
10,8 
10,8 
3,9 
43,7 
18,4 
153,4 Sweden 
11,3 
20,7 
14,2 
3,5 
20,0 
3,3 
16,8 
3,4 
39,5 
15,3 
127,8 Total 
42,5 
72,9 
62,1 
6,5 
49,1 
1,8 
5,1 
2,6 
3.3 
36,3 
17,0 
125,9 
51,3 
427,2 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 167 
Each ofthe new Member States will participate in a different way in the Community Initiatives. Austria 
will not take part in KONVER, PESCA or REGIS; Finland will not take part in RECHAR, RESIDER, 
RETEX, KONVER or REGIS; Sweden will not take part in RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX or REGIS. 
The three new Member States also differ as to progress with approval of their programmes. Of its 15 
programmes presented (half of them under LEADER), Austria has had four adopted; Finland has had 
two out of eight adopted, and Sweden two out of seven. 
Table 103: Community Initiatives in the new Member States - Programmes adopted in 1995 (ECU million) 
Community 
Initiatives 
(No of CIPs) Total cost S.F. assitance 
(1) Commitments 
1995 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1995 
(3) %of 
(3)/(2) 
ADAPT 
Austria (1) 
Finland (1) 
Sweden (1) 
Total 25,8 
42,9 
21,7 
90,4 11,6 
19,7 
11,3 
42,5 11,6 
19,7 
11,3 
42,5 100% 
100% 
100% 
100% .5,8 
8,6 
5,6 
20,0 50% 
44% 
50% 
47% 
EMPLOYMENT 
Austria (1) 
Finland (1) 
Sweden (1) 
Total 49,4 
66,3 
39,9 
755,5 23,0 
29,2 
20,7 
72,9 23,0 
29,2 
20,7 
72,9 100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 11,5 
14,6 
10,3 
36,4 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
LEADER 
Austria (1) | 6,5| 2,6| 2,0| 78%| 0,3 j 16% 
URBAN 
Austria (1) | 31,9| 9,8| 6,8| 70%| 3,4| 50% 
INTERREG 
Austria/Hungary 
Austria/Czech Rep. 
Austria/Slovakia 
Austria/Slovenia 
Total 28,2 
12,1 
16,0 
22,6 
78,9 11,0 
4,5 
5,5 
9,0 
30,0 8,8 
3,9 
4,9 
5,9 
23,5 80% 
88% 
88% 
65% 
78% 2,6 
1,2 
1,5 
1,8 
7,0 30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
ADAPT 
The three programmes, one for each of the three new Member States, were prepared with the 
Commission in the second half of the year and adopted in December, which enabled the promoters in 
these Member States to play a full part in the ADAPT Initiative from the outset. For example, Finland 
has concentrated on aid to increase productivity and employment. The accent will be on the 
internationalization of firms (especially SMEs), the promotion of distance and flexible working, 
improved programming of training, distance learning, promoting the introduction of new technologies 
into firms, and the creation of data bases for employment services. The priority under the Austrian 
programme will be to establish local networks associating SMEs and public and private training bodies. 
Sweden's programme aims at finding new means and structures to enable employees and their firms to 
anticipate the changes facing them. As in Austria, the emphasis is on joint work by complementary 
bodies (firms, research centres, local agencies, etc.), on taking account ofthe specific needs of women in 
the working world, and on the potential of information technologies. 
EMPLOYMENT 
The programmes ofthe three new Member States under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative were adopted in 
1995. Each national programme describes specific priorities for each strand ofthe Initiative. Under the 
Horizon strand for the disabled, the Austrian programme will support the introduction of flexible 
training schemes (training instructors in the use of multimedia aids, distance learning, computer-assisted 
learning); while one of the priorities under the Swedish programme will be to devise models for the 
integration of measures for counselling, training, employment and working in the firm, so as to organise 
a continuous chain of ability and experience which can be transformed into jobs. Under the Horizon 
strand for the disadvantaged, neither Sweden nor Finland has opted for a specific target population, 
168 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
although Sweden gives clear priority to immigrants while Finland proposes various forms of preparatory 
training on guidance or working experience. Finland gives priority to developing partnership between 
projects and local employment, while Austria stresses employment programmes combined with support 
services to improve self-confidence in the target groups. 
Under the NOW strand, Sweden has provided for a wide range of measures including new business 
start-up incentives for women and incentives to choose careers in areas perceived as "masculine". 
Finland shares this priority, where the accent is also placed, as in Austria, on reconciling work and 
family life, e.g. through flexible working hours and high-quality child-care services. 
Under the Youthstart strand, all three Member States emphasize a varied series of measures to respond 
to the range of difficulties encountered by young people. The priorities relate both to training and to 
experience within firms. The Austrian and Swedish programmes aim to open ways into work that take 
account of young people's problems on the training and on the social fronts, encouraging cooperation 
between all those involved at local level. The Finnish programme highlights, among other things, 
opportunities for practical experience within the "young people's workshops" that already exist in 
Finland. It pays special attention to young people with "multiple disadvantages", while the Swedish 
programme refers in particular to young immigrants as one ofthe priority target groups. 
LEADER 
Only one LEADER programme (the Austrian programme for Burgenland) was approved in 1995 for the 
new Member States, out of the total of twelve that were presented (eight for Austria, two for Finland, 
two for Sweden). The programme for Burgenland was approved by the Commission on 21 December, 
and was to have been followed by the seven other programmes for Austria. Projects selected should be 
innovative, have demonstration value and be transferable. Stress is placed on motivating the local 
population. 
PESCA 
The PESCA programmes for the new Member States (i.e. for Sweden and Finland, since Austria is not 
taking part in PESCA) could not be adopted in 1995, but progress was made with preparations and it was 
planned to adopt them early in 1996. 
URBAN 
Austria, with only one programme under the URBAN Initiative, is the only new Member State to have 
had an URBAN programme adopted. On 17 July the Austrian authorities presented a proposal for a 
programme for the city of Vienna, which was adopted by the Commission on 21 December. The 
programme concerns an inner-city area with a population of 130 000. It will finance an integrated 
package of economic, social and infrastructure measures. The programme is based on quantified 
objectives, comprising the creation of 400 new jobs, renovation and refurbishing of 7 000 to 10 000 m 
of business premises and the training or retraining of 3 000 people. 
INTERREG II 
Austria is the only one ofthe three new Member States to have had programmes adopted in 1995 under 
INTERREG II. About one third of total resources available for Community Initiatives in Austria is for 
INTERREG. Austria has a long border with Germany and Italy, but also with four central European 
countries, and, like the Community, it attaches great importance to these new external borders. It has 
therefore decided to concentrate the major share of INTERREG II resources (ECU 30 million) on the 
four programmes concerning external borders. Proposals for these four programmes were presented on 
17 July and adopted by the Commission on 21 December. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 69 
The main aim is to work in conjunction with Phare to help the common borders ofthe new framework of 
Europe to adapt, encouraging bilateral cooperation at local and regional level through the creation of 
cooperation networks. Almost 60% of total financing under these four programmes is to be spent on 
improving cooperation and economic development. Other priorities are technical infrastructure, human 
resources, protection of the environment and cross-border studies. INTERREG II programmes are of 
major strategic importance with a view to the preparation ofthe future enlargement ofthe Union. Even if 
available resources are fairly modest, the measures in receipt of financing are an expression of the 
commitment of all partners concerned to improve cooperation and cross-border contacts. 
Community Initiatives and the environment in Austria: 
All the Community Initiative Programmes adopted for Austria in 1995 include direct or indirect 
environmental measures. 
LEADER: The preservation and enhancement of the environment is one of the priorities in the 
programme for Burgenland; in the south of Burgenland, it is planned to set up a centre for marketing 
organic products. 
URBAN: There are no explicitly environmental measures in the programme, but many of+hem have a 
strong "environmental orientation": in the priority "requalification and job creation", one ofthe main 
projects to be funded is the redevelopment of a derelict building block to house a business centre for 
companies involved in solar energy (training will be provided in solar technology and other 
environmental techniques); the "urbion" priority is directly aimed at improving the physical 
environment in the area (renovation of Stadtbahnbôgen, improving public spaces, including green 
areas). The environmental component of the programme could probably be estimated at at least one 
quarter ofthe total EU budget available (or at around ECU 2.5 million of Structural Fund resources). 
INTERREG: All the programmes contain explicit measures for environmental protection. The reason 
is twofold: the special geographical situation caused by the former "Iron Curtain" left nature almost 
untouched in large parts ofthe border regions; environmental pollution in the neighbouring countries 
is a serious threat for the development of new economic activities, in particular of soft tourism, for 
which expectations are high in the border regions. The measures are the following: 
• INTERREG Austria-Slovenia: cooperation in cross-border nature preservation and environmental 
programmes (studies, surveys and pilot measures e.g. to modernize Alpine huts écologie .'ly, 
protect water reserves and prevent flooding); water saving and hydraulic engineering; cross-
border nature protection and nature parks. 
• INTERREG Austria-Czech Republic: environment and energy, including environmental / how 
transfer and counselling, use of renewable energy; tourism will be developed in the foi m soft 
tourism, including provision to increase understanding of nature and the environmental context: 
agricultural measures include the restoration of damaged forests. 
• INTERREG Austria-Slovak Republic: the priority "environment" includes measures for technical 
environmental protection, environmental and energy counselling, and nature protection. 
• INTERREG Austria-Hungary: the priority "environment and nature" supports the enlargement 
and creation of cross-border national parks. 
170 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
1.4. Summary by Member State - EUR 1215 
Table 104: Community Initiatives - Summary of financial allocations by Member State 1994-99 (before 
allocation ofthe reserve, after adjustment- 1994 prices) 
(ECU million) 
Member State 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
N 
P 
UK 
Networking 
TOTAL INTERREG* 
82 
18 
402 
595 
565 
246 
160 
347 
4 
72 
340 
109 
0 
2.939 ADAPT 
31 
30 
229 
30 
256 
250 
21 
190 
0 
58 
21 
287 
0 
1.402 Employment 
32 
11 
157 
64 
387 
147 
76 
349 
0 
42 
40 
147 
0 
1.452 LEADER 
8 
8 
174 
146 
350 
187 
67 
282 
1 
8 
116 
65 
34 
1.447 PESCA 
2 
16 
23 
27 
42 
28 
7 
34 
0 
11 
26 
37 
5 
257 SME 
12 
3 
183 
82 
248 
58 
28 
188 
0 
10 
122 
67 
25 
1.027 REGIS 
0 
0 
0 
0 
214 
262 
0 
0 
0 
0 
124 
0 
0 
600 RECHAR 
16 
0 
159 
2 
34 
33 
0 
2 
0 
0 
1 
161 
0 
406 KONVER 
11 
2 
219 
13 
23 
70 
0 
45 
0 
12 
8 
101 
0 
506 RESIDER 
24 
0 
191 
5 
72 
62 
0 
84 
12 
18 
7 
45 
0 
520 RETEX 
4 
0 
68 
75 
75 
25 
9 
67 
0 
1 
162 
36 
0 
522 URBAN 
11 
2 
97 
45 
160 
55 
16 
115 
1 
9 
44 
97 
0 
651 TOTAL 
234 
89 
1.902 
1.083 
2.425 
1.421 
384 
1.703 
19 
242 
1.010 
1.152 
64 
11.729 
•including Peace 
BELGIUM 
Belgium is participating in all the Community Initiatives except REGIS, with a total of 16 national 
programmes approved in 1994 and 1995, and three INTERREG Programmes. At the end of 1995, there 
was still one programme awaiting approval for each of the following Initiatives: URBAN, RETEX, 
SMEs, INTERREG (with France) and LEADER. 
DENMARK 
Between 1994 and 1995, five programmes were adopted at national level in Denmark, as well as four 
INTERREG programmes. Three programmes were awaiting approval: those under the SMEs Initiative, 
LEADER and an INTERREG programme with Sweden. This means that Denmark will be taking part in 
seven Community Initiatives: URBAN, KONVER, EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT, SMEs, PESCA, 
LEADER and INTERREG. 
GERMANY 
Most ofthe programmes were approved by the Commission in the course of 1995. It was sometimes 
difficult to approve these programmes, since the measures were not described in sufficient detail (in 
particular, there was not enough information about how they complemented Objective 2 programmes) 
and the indicators for assessing them were somewhat vague. Altogether, 67 programmes for 
implementation at national level were adopted, for all the Community Initiatives except REGIS, plus 17 
INTERREG programmes. By the end of 1995, there were still 19 programmes awaiting approval, for the 
LEADER, URBAN, RECHAR, RESIDER, RETEX, SME and KONVER Initiatives. In the new Lander, 
entirely eligible under Objective 1, eight Community Initiatives - KONVER, RESIDER, RECHAR, 
RETEX, SME, URBAN, LEADER and INTERREG - are being implemented according to regionalized 
arrangements, mainly using ERDF appropriations. They involve 38 programmes and Structural Fund 
financing of ECU 817 million (80% from the ERDF). In 1995, 31 ofthe 38 programmes were adopted 
(28 national programmes and 3 INTERREG programmes). The remaining seven concern Brandenburg 
(5), Saxony-Anhalt (1) and Saxony (1). 
As a rule, payments could be made under programmes for 1991-94 until the end of 1995, and it is worth 
recalling that a substantial number of programmes from the first programming period were still being 
financed in 1995. In the western Lander, the situation varies quite widely from one Initiative to another, 
some programmes having been completed in 1995, while payment deadlines have been extended for 
15 For a more detailed presentation ofthe Community Initiatives in each Member State, see Annex 3, Table 2. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 7 ] 
others. On the whole, the volume of payments for these programmes is fairly limited. For INTERREG I, 
the payment period expired at the end of 1995, but an extension was granted for three programmes (to 
31 December 1996 for Pamina and Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud, and to 30 June 1996 for 
Germany/Switzerland/Austria/ex-Czechoslovakia). Payments under the STRIDE Initiative were fairly 
modest, at ECU 117 000, but results were considerable in terms of improved potential for research, 
technology and innovation in the regions concerned, and thus in terms of wider use of modern 
technology. One of the two programmes under RECHAR I, that for North Rhine-Westphalia, was 
completed in 1995 (an application for payment of the balance of ECU 23.1 million was made in 
February). Altogether North Rhine-Westphalia will have received ECU 54.1 million from the ERDF for 
this programme. The RECHAR I programme for Saarland was still under way, with a balance still to be 
paid of ECU 1.4 million (out of total assistance of ECU 7.5 million). The RESIDER I programme for 
North Rhine-Westphalia was also completed in 1995. The balance paid in 1995 amounted to ECU 15.7 
million and the total ERDF contribution was ECU 31.1 million. 
There was more of a delay for KONVER I programmes, due to their having been approved only at the 
end of 1993 so that commitments were postponed until 30 June 1994. Consequently, after long and 
difficult programming procedures, the deadline for payments was extended to 31 December 1995 for ten 
programmes16 and to 1996 for a further six.17 Some interesting projects were carried out in Germany 
involving the conversion of military buildings and sites to mainly economic use, which is one of 
KONVER's main priorities. In Rhineland-Palatinate, for example, part of the former Zweibrucken air 
base has been converted into a civil airport, with the remainder being transformed into a centre for 
industry and crafts. A municipal grouping was set up to deal with conversion work on the aerodrome; 
the runway has been kept in service, and several training services for air traffic careers have been 
introduced alongside the industry and crafts centre. 
GREECE 
Greece participates in all the Initiatives with the exception of REGIS; all the programmes (one for each 
Initiative) were adopted in 1995, with the exception ofthose for EMPLOYMENT and PESCA, which 
were adopted in 1994. Ten programmes are therefore in the course of implementation at national level, 
alongside three INTERREG programmes (two for REGEN and one for cross-border cooperation). 
SPAIN. 
Spain is taking part in all the Community Initiatives for the period 1994-99. Each operation is 
implemented through a single programme at national level, except LEADER (17 programmes, including 
ten in Objective 1 regions). Three programmes were approved in 1993-94, for the RETEX, PESCA and 
EMPLOYMENT Initiatives, and 22 in 1995, comprising two INTERREG programmes (one for cross-
border cooperation and one for REGEN), one each for URBAN, ADAPT and REGIS, and 17 LEADER 
programmes. Altogether, this makes 23 programmes implemented nationally, and two INTERREG 
programmes. Six programmes were still awaiting a decision (INTERREG Spain-France, INTERREG 
Spain-Morocco, RECHAR, RESIDER, SME and KONVER) and were under consideration at the end of 
1995. 
FRANCE 
The French authorities presented 85 proposals for programmes under all the Initiatives in 1994 and 
1995, all but five regionalized (the exceptions being programmes under EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT, 
RETEX, SME Objectives 2 and 5(b) and PESCA). Of these 85 proposals, the Commission had already 
approved the programme under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative in 1994, and 51 programmes were 
16 Hamburg, Saarland, Baden-Wurttemberg, Berlin, Bremen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Brandenburg, Saxony, 
Saxony-Anthalt, Thuringia. 
17 Rhineland-Palatinate, Bavaria, Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. 
172 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
adopted in 1995 (46 at national level), with 33 still awaiting a decision, for most of which the procedure 
was in the final stages by the end ofthe year. The 51 programmes comprise five under INTERREG, six 
under RECHAR II, five under RESIDER, the amendment of the RETEX programme, three under the 
SME Initiative, one under REGIS, all the KONVER programmes, the PESCA programme, the ADAPT 
programme and 11 programmes under LEADER. 
IRELAND 
All but one of Ireland's programmes were approved in 1995, the exception being URBAN (with a 
planned Structural Fund contribution of ECU 15.8 million). The programmes approved in 1995 involve 
the SME, ADAPT and LEADER Initiatives, the RETEX programme having been adopted in 1993 and 
the EMPLOYMENT and PESCA programmes in 1994, along with the PEACE programme and the two 
INTERREG programmes involving Ireland. Ireland does not take part in RECHAR, RESIDER, 
KONVER or REGIS. 
ITALY — 
Eighteen programmes were adopted in 1995 for Italy, the programme under the EMPLOYMENT 
Initiative having been adopted in 1994. The programmes adopted involve RECHAR, RETEX 
(amendments to the programme adopted in 1993), ADAPT, LEADER and PESCA; programmes under 
URBAN, RESIDER, SME and KONVER are scheduled for adoption in 1996. Alongside the national 
programmes, there are two INTERREG programmes under the REGEN strand, also adopted in 1995. 
Italy takes part in all the Community Initiatives except REGIS. 
LUXEMBOURG 
Only three programmes were adopted for Luxembourg in 1995 (under URBAN, ADAPT and LEADER) 
but a programme under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative was approved in 1994. There were three 
programmes still awaiting approval, those under RESIDER, SME and KONVER. Luxembou is also 
involved in an INTERREG programme, but does not take part in the RECHAR, RETEX, RJDGJ r 
PESCA Initiatives. 
NETHERLANDS 
Eleven programmes in the Netherlands were adopted in 1995, under all the Initiatives except 
EMPLOYMENT (programme adopted in 1994), RECHAR and REGIS (in which the Netherlands does 
not take part). There are seven INTERREG programmes involving the Netherlands. By the end of 1995, 
only the KONVER programme was still awaiting approval. 
PORTUGAL 
Portugal takes part in all the Initiatives, and all the programmes have now been adopted: RETEX in 
1993, RESIDER, EMPLOYMENT and PESCA in 1994, and the rest in 1995. Altogether, 11 
programmes are being implemented at national level, one for each Initiative, plus two INTERREG 
programmes, one under REGEN and the other under cross-border cooperation. 
UNITED KINGDOM 
The United Kingdom takes part in all the Community Initiatives except REGIS, and also participate in 
the PEACE programme for Northern Ireland. Altogether, 28 national programmes were approved in 
1995, two programmes under the EMPLOYMENT Initiative having been adopted in 1994. Moreover, 
three INTERREG programmes were adopted in 1995. A further 11 programmes were presented, one for 
RESIDER, one for the SME Initiative, and nine for the URBAN Initiative, with projects that were later 
amended after negotiations between the UK authorities and the Commission. By the end of 1995, 
progress had been made towards their adoption.All the regionalized programmes for Northern Ireland 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 73 
(which is eligible under Objective 1) were adopted in 1995; they comprise programmes under PEACE, 
RETEX, SME, EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT and LEADER. Northern Ireland also benefits from KONVER 
and PESCA programmes for the United Kingdom as a whole. 
Arrangements have already been introduced for the implementation of some of the Initiatives in the 
United Kingdom. In certain cases, the management committees have adopted new procedures such as 
the approval of projects in groups. There is a distinction to be made here between programmes for which 
an ad hoc Monitoring Committee has been set up (national Monitoring Committees for KONVER, 
RETEX, EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT, PESCA), and the programmes for which a specific Monitoring 
Committee was not needed, since the SPD Monitoring Committees (Objectives 1 or 2) were also 
responsible for monitoring Community Initiatives. The RECHAR programmes are in the second 
category; since each programme follows on from a priority under the SPD for these regions, the 
corresponding Monitoring Committees have the general task of supervising the implementation of the 
various Community programmes in the region concerned, including Community Initiative programmes. 
Actual implementation on the ground is the responsibility of the RECHAR management committees, 
which reflect local partnership in the mining areas. Similarly, for RESIDER, a partnership structure like 
that for the RECHAR programmes has been introduced, with stress on involving local communities and 
bodies. In Western Scotland, for example (Lanarkshire), the strategy was designed in partnership 
between groups managing the programme, which include the Lanarkshire Development Agency, local 
authorities, the Strathclyde regional council, the East Kilbride Development Corporation, Scottish 
Enterprise National and the Scottish Office. 
174 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
2. Innovative measures and technical assistance 
Each of the Structural Funds and the FIFG may finance measures on its own initiative concerning 
studies, pilot schemes or technical assistance. A ceiling is imposed on the maximum amounts for 
financing such measures for each Fund: 1.5% ofthe ERDFs annual budget, 1% for the EAGGF, 0.5% 
for the ESF and 2% for the FIFG18. 
2.1. Innovative measures and technical assistance under Articles 7 and 10 ofthe ERDF 
Regulation 
Innovative measures under Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation 
Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation provides for the financing, in particular, of innovative studies and 
pilot schemes to promote economic and social development. Priorities for this type of measure were 
defined and rationalized in 199419, and a total of ECU 395 million was allocated for 1995-99. Measures 
were launched in 1995. 
Table 105: Innovative measures (Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation) - priorities for assistance, 1995-99 (ECU 
million) 
Priorities I 
Inter-regional cooperation 180,0 
- within the Union 110,0 
- with non-member countries 70,0 
Innovative regional development 90,0 
measures 
- promotion of technological innovation 
- information sociey 
- culture and economic development 
- new employment areas (particularly 
local jobs) 
Physical planning 45,0 
Urban pilot projects 80,0 
Total J 395,0 
The Commission has opted for three main priorities in its approach to innovative measures under 
Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation for the new period: 
• improving the transparency of project selection through systematic use of calls for proposals; 
• closer collaboration between those responsible at the political level, the different levels of local 
authorities and the economic and social partners; 
• greater involvement ofthe Member States in the monitoring and assessment of pilot projects so that 
their innovative character can influence the operational programming ofthe regional policies. 
During the autumn of 1995 the Commission published a series of calls for proposals with a view to 
implementing measures financed under Article 10. These calls for proposals, concerning the priorities 
listed above, cover five domains: the information society, technology transfer, new employment areas, 
economic development networks in the cultural area and urban pilot projects. 
Innovative measures in regional development: The calls for proposals under Article 10 in the fields of 
the information society and technology transfers were prepared by two sets of pilot projects. The first, 
18 For the principles and the changes made by the 1993 amendments to the Regulations, see the 1994 Annual 
Report. 
19 See the 1994 Annual Report. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 75 
jointly financed by the ERDF and the ESF20, is a programme of pilot schemes, with financing of 
ECU 20 million, to prepare regional strategies for the development of the information society in six 
regions (Nord-Pas de Calais, Saxony, North-West England, Central Greece-Macedonia, Piedmont and 
Valencia). The chief objective is to make the concept ofthe information society a reality in the everyday 
life ofthe regions through demonstration services and innovative applications, strongly encouraging the 
participation of users and disseminating good practice, particularly in less-favoured regions. Following 
this series of calls for proposals, it is planned to select some 150 pilot projects in 1996. The second series 
consists of eight pilot projects launched as regional technology plans, concerning regional innovation 
strategies in Lorraine, Saxony, Wales, Limburg, Norte (Portugal), Abruzzi, Central Greece-Macedonia 
and Castile-Leôn and with a budget of ECU 15 million. These regional innovation strategies will seek 
the best methods for promoting cooperation between SMEs, research institutes and public authorities 
with a view to assessing the local technological requirements of firms and the skills and potential 
existing locally for improving a region's capacity for innovation. 
Regional planning and the sustainable integrated development of coastal areas 
The "Europe 2000+ " report and the Report on implementation of the Fifth European Community 
Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment - "Towards Sustainability"21 reveal 
the threats to the environment and the sustainable development ofthe Community's coastal areas. On 
31 October 1995, in order to propose ways of acting in the spirit of integrated development and 
preservation of national resources, the Commission adopted a communication on the integrated 
management of coastal zones12 reviewing the situation in these areas, reiterating the reasons for 
Community action and laying the foundations for a demonstration programme. This programme fits 
into the context ofthe Fifth programme of action in relation to the environment and the preparation 
of a European approach to spatial planning and has two objectives: 
• to demonstrate the conditions for the sustainable development of coastal zones in all their 
diversity, giving special attention to innovative models and mechanisms for collaboration between 
the different levels of responsibility and to structures facilitating coordination between the 
different sectoral policies; 
• to stimulate debate between those mainly involved in the development of these areas in order to 
facilitate the emergence of a consensus at the different levels of decision-making. 
The selection of demonstration projects is planned for 1996 and great importance will be attached to 
disseminating the lessons learned from the programme, particularly for the least favoured regions. 
ERDF financing could be arranged in two ways: through Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation, under 
the regional development section; or through the new strand of the Community Initiative 
InterregllC23, since the integrated management of coastal areas could be an important aspect of 
programmes for trans-national cooperation between the coastal Member States. 
Urban pilot projects: As in the case of innovative local development measures, in 1995 the Commission 
launched the new programme for urban pilot projects for 1995-99, under which 25-30 projects will be 
financed in the Member States. The call for proposals was published in November 1995 and was 
presented in December at Directoria (see below). The closing date for submission of proposals was April 
1996. It should be noted that the possible themes proposed in the call for proposals included 
environmental improvement, giving as examples the creation of green spaces, the treatment of waste, 
recycling and use of renewable sources of energy. Also, 32 projects from the 1989-93 programming 
period were still running in 1995, with the Commission continuing to provide technical assistance and 
monitoring. Some of these projects should be wound up at the end ofthe year, while others will need to 
be extended because of unexpected difficulties (flooding, archaeological finds, changes in legislation, 
etc.). However, all the projects are now in the last phase of implementation and most should be 
completed in 1996. 
20 See below, 2.2 Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation. 
21 COM(95) 624 final of 10 January 1996. 
22COM(95)511. 
23 See Chapter I.B.I Community Initiatives. 
176 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Economic cooperation measures: In December 1995 the Commission organized the Directoria event in 
Brussels, in which more than 500 delegations from local and regional authorities in the European Union 
participated. The objective was to enable those involved in economic development and inter-regional 
cooperation to identify partners with whom to set up pilot projects. This event was a follow-up to an 
initial Directoria encounter held in March 1995, at which the Community programmes specifically 
concerning local authorities were presented. 
In addition, as in previous years, two Europartenariat events were organized in 1995 and financed under 
Article 1024. This measure for SMEs was supplemented by the launch in 1995 of 14 new European 
Business Innovation Centres (BICs) in the eligible areas, including the new Member States, giving 
SMEs easier access to all the advisory services needed for their establishment and development. The 
Commission also launched a pilot experiment concerning four monitoring and management centres at 
large construction sites (Belgium, France, Greece and Portugal) to promote local development and 
capitalize on economic spin-offs at local level. 
Technical assistance under Article 7 ofthe ERDF Regulation -— 
Under Article 7 of this Regulation the ERDF may finance preparatory, appraisal, monitoring and 
evaluation measures, as well as studies and information measures concerning Community regional 
action. In 1995 expenditure on accompanying measures carried out on the Commission's initiative under 
Article 7 ofthe ERDF Regulation was greater than in 1994, at ECU 14 million in commitments (0.11% 
ofthe ERDF budget) as against ECU 12 million in 1994 (also 0.11% ofthe ERDF budget). 
Table 106: Measures financed under Article 7 ofthe ERDF Regulation in 1995 - commitments (ECU million) 
ERDF I% 
Preparation and monitoring 1,0 7% 
Assessment 3,0 21% 
Regional studies 1,3 9% 
Conferences, symposia, seminars 0,4 3% 
Information and publicity 4,9 35% 
Technical assistance and equipment 3,4 24% 
TôtâT lT^T 100% 
The assessment exercises (21%) launched during 1995 concern Structural Fund assistance imp^ Tented 
during the 1989-93 programming period and certain Community Initiatives. The regional studies (9%) 
added some useful knowledge to understanding ofthe regional question and will be used in particular as 
the basis for preparing the first three-yearly report on economic and social cohesion. The various 
conferences and symposia part-financed (3%) included the conference organized with the Council of 
Europe in Prague on European integration and regional planning in greater Europe. The various publicity 
measures and the creation of an information and communication strategy (35%) enabled the 
Commission to continue its efforts to improve the visibility of Community regional policy2^. As in 
previous years, most ofthe measures benefited several or all Member States. 
2.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation 
Article 6 of this Regulation permits the ESF to finance different types of innovative measure, technical 
assistance and pilot and demonstration projects in the field of vocational training and the development of 
employment as well as the monitoring and evaluation of measures it has part-financed. 
There were two parallel innovative operations in 1995: the launch ofthe projects selected in 1994 and 
the selection ofthe projects to be financed in 1995. In March 1995 32 projects from the 1994 call for 
24 See Chapter II.D.4. Structural Funds and SMEs. 
25 See Chapter III.D. Information and communication, dissemination of good practice. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 177 
proposals were approved for the twelve Member States. The projects cover three main themes: seeking a 
model of growth which generates more employment; improving the operation ofthe labour market and 
strengthening training systems. The vast majority of projects concern strengthening training systems and 
range from the establishment of mobile local training centres (Greece) to partnerships to improve 
employment for the disabled. The total cost of these projects for the Twelve amounts to ECU 32 million, 
with the ESF contributing ECU 18 million (56%). The first payments (50% ofthe ESF commitment) 
were made in August 1995. 
Calls for proposals for 1995 were issued in May and June 1995. By October, the closing date for 
submission of proposals, the Commission had received 169 proposals. These were assessed by external 
experts selected from candidates put forward by the Member States and the Commission's internal 
assessors. After assessment, a provisional list of 61 projects was drawn up. The total budget estimate 
totals ECU 62 million, with an ESF contribution of ECU 27 million. 
Among the innovative regional development measures financed under Article 10 of the ERDF 
Regulation, the measure to integrate the concept of the information society into the regional 
development policies of the least-favoured areas is jointly financed under Article 6 of the ESF 
Regulation and Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation.26 Total available funding for this measure will 
therefore amount to ECU 20 million (ECU 15 million from the ERDF and ECU 5 million from the ESF), 
with two sections: the preparation of regional strategies for the information society (comprising aspects 
linked to employment and human resources) and the launch of multiregional applications with an 
innovative effect and demonstration value in the less-favoured regions. The ESF will focus on networks 
running projects related to employment, training and management of the labour market. Applications 
could thus concern distance education using information and communications technology or using these 
technologies more effectively to link institutions and other parties involved in the local labour market on 
the one hand and job seekers on the other hand. The projects will be launched during the second half of 
1996. 
Most of the technical assistance measures are included in the programmes financed under the different 
Objectives or Community Initiatives. Appropriations for the Commission's initiative are used to help it 
to carry out its activities, and particularly to implement the Community Initiatives Employment and 
Adapt, for which an external support structure called Europs, managed by a firm under contract, was set 
up in May 1995. This structure was selected on the basis of an invitation to tender and has an annual 
budget of ECU 5 573 000. Its main role in 1995 was to help the Commission select programme 
proposals. The chief mission of Europs is to analyse the contents ofthe Employment and Adapt CIPs 
and to help prepare and circulate information on these Initiatives. In addition, an intermediary support 
structure specialized in public relations and communication was selected following a tendering 
procedure to run information and communication measures concerning the ESF. 
Table 107: Measures financed under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation in 1995 (ECU million) 
Innovative measures, studies 
Technical assistance 
TOTAL Commitments 
18,0 
8,0 
26,0 % 
69% 
31% 
100% Payments 
9.0 
9.9 
18,9 
26 See above, 2.1 Innovative measures under Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation - Innovative measures in regional 
development. 
178 7lh Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
2.3. Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 8 ofthe EAGGF Regulation. 
Under Article 8 of its Regulation, the EAGGF may finance: 
• preparatory and monitoring measures, technical assistance and general studies. Technical assistance 
may be implemented on the initiative of the Commission or a competent national or regional 
authority. Studies may be proposed only by the Commission, in accordance with the priority 
requirements of its departments; 
• pilot projects for adjusting agricultural structures and promoting rural development. Pilot projects 
concern the small-scale application in real conditions of promising research results; 
• demonstration projects to show the real possibilities of systems, methods and techniques of 
production and management which are in accordance with the objectives ofthe common agricultural 
policy. Demonstration projects are applied at almost full scale and must be based on results which 
have already been validated at research level; 
• measures needed for the circulation of experience and results of the work on rural development and 
improving agricultural structures. 
Summary of measures financed between 1989 and 1995 
Since previous Annual Reports have made no mention of measures implemented under Article 8 ofthe 
EAGGF Regulation since 1989, it was decided to include them at this point because some ofthe first-
generation projects were continued in 1995 and second-generation projects were launched. 
Table 108: Measures financed under Article 8 ofthe EA GGF Regulation, 1989-95 (ECU million) 
Technical assistance, assessment, studies 
Pilot and demonstration projects 
Dissemination 
Total Number of 
projects 
51 
78 
8 
137 EAGGF 
19,2 
51,6 
1,8 
72,6 % 
26% 
71% 
2% 
100% 
Assessment, monitoring, technical assistance and studies: Between 1989 and 1995, six projects 
concerned prior appraisal and seven expost evaluation of specific Regulations. Most of the technical 
assistance measures (19 projects) concerned assistance in the implementation and monitoring of 
Community Regulations. Lastly, 19 general studies were launched on the Commission's initiative. 
Pilot and demonstration projects were implemented in the context of various sectors of agriculture and 
rural society. Most of the projects concerning diversification in farming and product development 
focused on non-food products (development of forestry, rural tourism and regional planning), but also 
included the promotion of high-quality regional products. 
Agri-en vironmental pilot projects: 
EAGGF pilot and demonstration projects are an excellent vehicle for testing different methods of 
reconciling agricultural production with sustainable rural development and environmental 
protection. Measures financed in 1989-95 included the demonstration of more environmentally 
friendly techniques and the setting up of pilot farms to demonstrate the viability of farming systems 
taking account of environmental concerns and management ofthe countryside. 
Dissemination measures mainly concerned the financing of booklets and the organization of seminars to 
circulate information on the Community's rural development policy and on the knowledge and results of 
experience in improving agricultural structures. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 179 
1995: a year of transition for EAGGF pilot and demonstration projects 
In order to ensure more widespread circulation of information about the pilot and demonstration projects 
financed under Article 8 ofthe EAGGF Regulation, a call for proposals was published in October 1994 
(closing date for presentation of projects: 31 March 1995) relating to four priorityareas: non-food 
products, agri-environmental aspects, forestry and rural development. 583 proposals were received and 
assessed by independent experts and the Commission's departments during 1995. The selected projects 
will be financed under the 1996 budget. It should be noted that this call for proposals concerned only 
pilot and demonstration projects. Assessment, technical assistance, monitoring and dissemination 
measures and studies (projects presented on the initiative of the Commission or national, regional or 
local authorities) are financed outside this procedure (six projects and technical assistance measures in 
1995). 
2.4. Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation 
Like the other Structural Funds, the FIFG may finance studies, pilot projects and demonstration projects, 
the provision of services and technical assistance, information campaigns, etc. on the basis of Article 4 
of its Regulation. In 1995 a total of ECU 2 050 000 was spent on measures of this type. 
Table 109: Measures financed under Article 4 ofthe FIFG Regulation in 1995 (ECU million) 
| FIFG %" 
Studies TJ TP%" 
Publications 0,0 2% 
Technical assistance 0,6 27% 
TôtàT IT 100% 
Thirteen studies were launched following a call for proposals, mainly collecting data for biological 
purposes or dealing with the links between fisheries and the environment, socio-economic aspects, 
fisheries technology, the quality of water for the production of bivalve molluscs and quality certification 
for fisheries products. Appropriations for technical assistance went towards updating and demonstrating 
the Community register of fishing vessels, preparing the MGP IV (multiannual guidance programme for 
the adjustment of fishing effort, 1997-2000) and launching the Infosys system for computerizing the 
monitoring and assessment of structural measures financed by the FIFG. Lastly, publications financed 
under Article 4 include the report on Aquaculture and the Environment, and information booklets on 
structural measures for fisheries and aquaculture, which were distributed in each Member State. 
lriA% 
CHAPTER II 
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION, 
CHECKS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 
COORDINATION OF THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, 
COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 183 
A. BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS 
The financial year was marked by adoption of a supplementary and amending budget to make available 
the appropriations in the reserve for the three new Member States and introduce specific budget 
headings for CSFs/SPDs under Objective 6. This supplementary and amending budget provided the 
ERDF with ECU 261 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 130 million in payment 
appropriations, an increase of 2% on the original total. 
1. Budget implementation in 1995 
1.1. General implementation in 1995 
The aim of this section is to look at implementation of the 1995 budget as a whole, that is, of 
appropriations for 1994-99 and those for previous periods. However, it distinguishes between 
implementation of appropriations newly entered in the 1995 budget and that of appropriations carried 
over to the 1995 budget from the previous year. 
Table 110: Origin and implementation of commitment appropriations in 1995 (ECU million) 
I CSFCSF CSF CSF Community Transitional TOTAL 
ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG Initiatives measures 
Initial budget 10.592,70 6.443,80 3.315,80 438,95 2.144,00 242,00 23.177,25 
Transfer of appropriations -129,70 -54,80 -192,80 0,05 378,00 0,00 0,75 
Supplementary and amending budget 221,41 317,11 251,10 12,28 80,20 8,90 891,00 
Total appropriations 1995 10.684,41 6.706,11 3.374,10 451,28 2.602,20 250,90 24.069,00 
Appropriations reconstituted 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 
Appropriations carried over OfiO <M>3 0^00 (^00 313,58 20,90 339,11 (1) 
Appropriations availabe 10.684,41 6.710,74 3.374,10 451,28 2.915,78 271,80 24.408,11 (2) 
Implementation " " 10.566,05 5.125,25 3.348,33 451,23 2.666,65 111,92 22.269,43 
Rate of implementation 99% '6% 99% 100% 91% 41% 91% 
Appropriations not implemented 118,36 1.585,49 25,77 ôfil 249,13 159,88 2.138,68 
Appropriations carried over early 1996 0,00 4,32 0,00 0,00 20,41 45,88 70,63 
Decommitments without reconstitutions 5,44 
Appropriations reentered in the budget for 
subsequent years 118,06 1.584,79 25,58 0,22 228,71 115,42 2.072,78 
Decommitments 283,75 99,28 28,66 48,49 31,34 42,03 533,56 
(1) including ECU 7.5 million blocked at 31 March 1995. 
(2) ECU 24 400.6 million after deduction ofthe ECU 7.5 million blocked. 
Table 111: Implementation of appropriations in 1995 (excluding carry-overs from 1994 to 1995 and 
appropriations made available again - ECU million) 
liiaget lietuBngs Approprierions available (A) 
Comnitments Payments] Utilizatiin tfappmpriatUms (It) 
Commitments Payments! Appmpriatùm carried met to 1996 (Q 
Commit mats Payments! Ajipnipriaûiins nu inpleniattal 
Commitments Payments] 
Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objective 3 
Objective 4 
Objective 5(a) agriculture (excluding Objectives I 
&5(b)) 
Objective 5(a) agriculture (in Objective 5(b)) 
Objective 5(a) fisheries 
Objective 5(b) 
Objective 6 
Transitional and innovative measures 
Community Initiatives 
Anti-fraud 
Former GDR 15190,83 12550,17 
1.978,20 2252,60 
2013,51 1756,76 
365,39 188,20 
296,76 
384,72 
178,97 
680,80 
125.92 
250,90 
2 602,20 
0,75 462,03 
295,50 
134,60 
948,90 
76,24 
376,65 
2.107,15 
0,77 
52,00 14.517,77 
1 734,74 
1606,59 
94,50 
282,60 
373,31 
178,97 
571,86 
125,92 
93,90 
2.357,71 
0,06 
0,00 11877,54 
1091,05 
1.474,72 
54,11 
316,64 
288.26 
91,63 
437,85 
62,96 
183,87 
1.320.06 
0,13 
16,01 0,00 
0,00 
4,32 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 
38,74 
20,41 
0,00 
0,00 116,00 
20,50 
73,00 
0,00 
44,50 
IZ39 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
10,00 
184,36 
0,00 
113,06 673,11 
243,46 
402,59 
270,89 
14,16 
11,41 
0,00 
108,94 
0,00 
118,26 
224,08 
0,69 
0,00 556,62 
1.141,05 
209,03 
134,08 
100,89 
-5,15 
42,97 
511,05 
13,28 
182,78 
602,73 
0,64 
-77,07 
TOTAL 24.069,00 21.201,55 21.937,92 63,47 57331 2.067,61 3.412,90 
Taking all the assistance and all the Funds together, during 1995 the Commission committed ECU 
21 938 million and paid ECU 17 215 million from the 1995 appropriations. In addition, ECU 
331.6 million was committed from appropriations carried over from the previous year. These figures 
should be compared with the ECU 24 069 million available for commitment appropriations (ECU 
24 408 million including carryovers) and the ECU 21 202 million available for payment appropriations. 
184 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
In all, ECU 2 131 million in commitment appropriations (ECU 2 139 million including carryovers) and 
ECU 3 987 million in payment appropriations remained unused. Of these appropriations, ECU 
63.5 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 573.8 million in payment appropriations were 
carried over to the 1996 budget and ECU 2 072 million in commitment appropriations will be entered in 
budgets for later years. 
Table 112: Implementation of appropriations in 1995 by budget heading (excluding carry-overs and 
appropriations made available again) 
Number Heading Commitments Payments 
CSF 
tu 
O o < B2-100 
B2-1000 
B2-1001 
B2-1002 
B2-1003 
B2-1004 
B2-1010 CSF 
Objective 1 
Objective 5(a) (excluding 1 and 5(b) areas) 
Objective 5(a) (in 5(b) areas) 
Objective 5(b) 
Objective 6 
Anti-fraud 2.395.179.999 
282.599.220 
373.305.787 
249.500.000 
47.740.000 
10.000 
Total EAGGF 3.348.335.006 1.694.819.384 
316.643.872 
288.255.362 
207.015.401 
23.870.000 
7.500 
2.530.611.520 
o B2-110 
B2-1100 
B2-1101 
B2-I102 
B2-1110 CSF 
Objective 1 
Objective 5(a) 
Objective 6 
Anti-fraud 
Total FIFG 270.833.000 
178.967.000 
1.430.000 
451.230.000 155.710.334 
91.628.181 
715.000 
248.053.514 
Q B2-120 
B2-1200 
B2-1201 
B2-1202 
B2-1203 
B2-1210 CSF 
Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objective 5(b) 
Objective 6 
Anti-fraud 8.960.795.036 
1.332.611.700 
228.388.044 
44.260.000 
30.000 
Total ERDF 10.566.084.780 7.379.713.350 
815.617.460 
156.122.460 
22.130.000 
37.106 
8.373.620.376 
C/5 B2-130 
B2-1300 
B2-1301 
B2-I302 
B2-1303 
B2-1304 
B2-1305 
B2-131 CSF 
Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objective 3 
Objective 4 
Objective 5(b) 
Objective 6 
Anti-fraud 2.890.964.235 
402.127.449 
1.606.593.025 
94.500.000 
93.970.958 
32.490.000 
19.000 2.647.301.618 
275.434.338 
1.474.721.111 
54.111.428 
74.715.824 
16.245.000 
81.000 
Total ESF 5.120.664.667 4.542.610.319 
COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 
B21400 
B21400 
B21400 
B21400 Pesca (restructuring the fisheries sector) 
ESF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
Total Pesca 964.000 
20.760.036 
6.552.899 
28.276.935 482.000 
1.564.518 
3.276.449 
5.322.967 
B2141 
B21410 
B21410 
B21410 
B21410 Inter-rcgional cooperation 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
Total INTERREG 4.745.000 
7.010.000 
334.460.500 
346.215.500 2.372.500 
4.030.200 
218.259.850 
224.662.550 
7th Annual Report on the Structural "unds (1995) 185 
Number Heading Commitments Payments 
53 
E « 
E :•= 
r i « B21412 
B21412 
B21412 
B21412 
B2142 
B21420 
B21420 
B21421 
B21421 
B21422 
B21422 
B21423 
B21423 
B2143 
B21430 
B21430 
B21431 
B21431 
B21432 
B21432 
B21433 
B21433 
B2144 
B21440 
B21440 
B21440 
B2145 
B21450 
B21450 
B2146 
B21460 
B21460 
B21460 
B2147 
B21470 
B21470 ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
Total PEACE 
Employment and the development of human resources 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total NOW 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total HORIZON 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total YOUTHSTART 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total ADAPT 
Industrial restructuring 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total RECHAR 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total RESIDER 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total KONVER 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total RETEX 
REGIS II (most remote regions) 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
Total REGIS 
URBAN (rural aeras) 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total URBAN 
LEADER II (rural development) 
ESF 
EAGGF 
ERDF 
Total LEADER 
SME Initiative 
ESF 
ERDF 
Total PME 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
Total Community Initiatives 10.963.000 
1.271.000 
137.000 
15.014.000 
27.385.000 
26.728.815 
1.626.298 
28.355.113 
51.908.658 
3.110.964 
55.019.622 
22.813.724 
1.463.454 
24.277.178 
297.622.306 
10.041.768 
307.664.074 
23.002.000 
148.660.161 
171.662.161 
11.258.000 
143.470.500 
154.728.500 
10.654.000 
227.568.000 
238.222.000 
2.047.000 
162.776.410 
164.823.410 
36.777.000 
36.777.000 
14.285.177 
121.611.382 
135.896.559 
2.965.637 
221.085.705 
217.026.189 
441.077.531 
13.937.000 
183.390.000 
197.327.000 
493.894.317 
229.366.705 
20.897.036 
1.613.549.525 
2.357.707.583 5.481.500 
635.500 
68.500 
7.507.000 
13.692.500 
13.364.407 
713.149 
14.077.556 
25.954.329 
1.455.482 
27.409.811 
11.406.861 
731.727 
12.138.588 
147.600.000 
5.020.884 
152.620.884 
11.501.000 
63.672.168 
75.173.168 
5.629.000 
71.390.850 
77.019.850 
5.327.000 
82.004.885 
87.331.885 
1.023.500 
74.335.571 
75.359.071 
22.020.400 
22.020.400 
7.142.588 
46.574.610 
53.717.198 
2.882.818 
67.106.871 
62.719.602 
132.709.291 
6.968.500 
60.739.701 
67.708.20l] 
247.136.003 
71.772.571 
1.633.018 
720.422.327 
1.040.963.920 
186 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Number Heading Commitments Payments 
11 B2148 
B2148 
B2148 
B2148 
B2-180 
B2-181 
B2-182 
B2-183 
B21900 
B21900 
B21900 
B21900 
B21900 OTHER ASSISTANCE 
ESF 
EAGGF 
ERDF 
Reserve 
Total Earlier measures (*) 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
ESF 10.867.167 
13.371.419 
30.980.969 
38.677.505 
Total Transitional and innovative measures 93.897.060 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
Reserve 
Total Former GDR 
(*) Payments for 1989-93 51.654.647 
19.827.041 
207.616.049 
0 
279.097.737 
42.062.926 
12.772.210 
82.322.392 
46.709.165 
183.866.694 
0 
14.938.560 
1.073.579 
0 
0 
16.012.139 
Table 113: Commitments in 1995 (excluding carry-overs and appropriations made available again 
million) ECU 
Total available 
Total implemented 
% 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG TOTAL 
24.068,25 (1) 
21.937,86 (2) 
91,15% 
12.210,59 (2) 
5.653,22 (2) 
3.588,56 (2) 
485,50 
100% CSF 
Obj. 1 
15.190,88 
14.517,77 
96% 
8 960,80 
2.890,96 
2.395,18 
270,83 
66% Obj. 2 
1.978,20 
1.734,74 
SS% 
1.332,61 
402,13 
K% Obj. 3 
2013,51 
1.606,59 
S0% 
1.606,59 
'% Obj. 4 
365,39 
94,50 
26% 
94,50 
0% Obj. 5(a) 
860,45 
834,87 
<)-% 
655,91 
178,97 
4% Obj. 5(b) 
680,80 
571,86 
S4% 
228,39 
93,97 
249,50 
3% Obj. 6 
125,92 
125,92 
100% 
44,26 
32,49 
47,74 
1,43 
1% Total 
CSF 
21.215,15 (1) 
19.486,26 (2) 
92% 
10 566,05 (2) 
5.120,65 (2) 
3.348,33 (2) 
451,23 
H9% Transitional 
measures 
250,90 
93,90 
S'% 
30,98 
38,68 
10,87 
13.37 
0% Community 
Initiatives 
2602,20 
2.357,71 
91% 
1.613,55 
493,89 
229,37 
20,90 
Tl% % 
100%, 
56% 
26% 
16% 
2% 
( 1 ) Not including ECU 750 000 available for anti-fraud measures 
(2) Not including ECU 59 000 committed for anti-fraud measures (ERDF: ECU 30 000, ESF: ECU 19 000; EAGGF: ECU 10 000) 
In terms of programming, 1995 saw the adoption ofthe Community Initiative programmes, programmes 
for the new Member States and a few programmes still to be adopted for the various Objectives. 
However, these new commitments did not account for the bulk of budget implementation in 1995, which 
was rather the reflection of the implementation of the national initiative assistance programmes 
(CSFs/SPDs) decided on in 1994. The fact that implementation was spread over two years explains the 
failure to use all the commitment appropriations, with 91% (ECU 21 938 million) ofthe appropriations 
available used in the current programming period. The preparation and adoption of the programming 
documents towards the end of 1994 had an impact on budget implementation in 1995, since the 
requirement that 40% of the annual instalment for the previous year has to be used before the next 
annual instalment can be committed generates a degree of inertia, with lack of implementation in 1994 
acting as a drag on 1995. This inertia is amplified by the system of SPDs under which, while it is true 
that the first annual instalment can be committed more quickly, the amounts in question are greater than 
those in CSF operational programmes so that a higher level of implementation has to be achieved before 
the next instalment can be committed. 
Implementation varies considerably from one Objective to another. Only Objective 6 was fully 
implemented, through the adoption of a very small number of programmes. Over 95% of the 
appropriations for Objectives 1 and 5(a) were committed and Objectives 2 and 5(b) were around the 
85% mark. Only Objectives 3 and 4 encountered substantial difficulties in implementing the 
commitment appropriations (80% and 26% respectively). However, in general terms these were largely 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 187 
offset by the fact that Objective 1, for which the rate of commitment in 1995 was fairly satisfactory with 
ECU 673 million out of ECU 15 190 million remaining unused, by itself accounts for two thirds of 
commitments for 1995, with the share taken by the other Objectives ranging from 0.4% (Objective 4) to 
8% (Objective 2). 
Turning to other assistance, total commitment appropriations for the Community Initiatives (excluding 
appropriations carried over and made available again) totalled ECU 2 358 million, leaving ECU 
244.5 million (9% ofthe appropriations available in 1995) unused. This made up to a considerable 
extent for the delay in 1994, as can be seen from the proportion of commitments for 1995 represented by 
the Community Initiatives (almost 11%). 
Table 114: Payments in 1995 (excluding carry-overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) 
Total available 
Total implemented 
% 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG TOTAL 
20.678,79 (1) 
16.919,60 (2) 
81,82% 
9.176,33 (2) 
4.836,37 (2) 
2.644,44 (2) 
262,46 
100% CSF 
Obj. 1 
12 550,17 
11.877,54 
95% 
7.379,71 
2.647,30 
1.694,82 
155,71 
70% Obj. 2 
2 252,60 
1.091,05 
48% 
815,62 
275,43 
6% Obj. 3 
1.756,76 
1.474,72 
84% 
1.474,72 
9% Obj. 4 
188,20 
54,11 
29% 
54,11 
0% Obj. 5(a) 
892,13 
696,53 
'8% 
604,90 
91,63 
4% Obj. 5(b) 
948,90 
437,85 
46% 
156,12 
74,72 
207,02 
}% Obj. 6 
76,24 
62,96 
83% 
22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 
0% Total 
CSF 
18.664,99(1) 
15.694,77 (2) 
84% 
8 373,58 (2) 
4.542,53 (2) 
2.530,60 (2) 
248,05 
93%, Transitional 
measures 
376,65 
183,87 
49% 
82,32 
46,7! 
42,06 
12,77 
1%, Community 
Initiatives 
1.585,15 
1.040,96 
66%, 
720,42 
247,14 
71,77 
1,63 
6% % 
100% 
54%, 
29% 
16% 
2% 
(1) Excluding ECU 765 000 for anti-fraud measures and ECU 522 million in the reserve for earlier measures 
(2) Excluding ECU 126 000 for anti-fraud measures (ERDF: ECU 37 000; ESF: ECU 81 000; EAGGF: ECU 8 000), ECU 279 098 000 in the reserve for earlier measures 
and ECU 16 012 000 for the former GDR. 
Payment appropriations implemented in 1995 totalled ECU 16 920 million, 82% of the ECU 
20 679 million available. Appropriations unused therefore totalled ECU 3 759 million. This means that 
implementation of programmes is still fairly poor in view ofthe fact that they had only been adopted 
over the period end-1994 to 1995. It should be stressed that Community payments reflect the 
implementation of programmes at national level since, when the programme has been adopted, the 
corresponding annual instalment committed and the first advance paid, the Commission cannot make a 
second payment until the Member State can certify that expenditure amounting to at least half the first 
advance has actually been incurred by the final beneficiaries. In the case of programmes adopted in mid-
1995 or at the end ofthe year it was therefore difficult to make the payments originally entered in the 
budget. 
Rates of payment vary much more between the various Objectives than do rates of commitment. Only in 
the case of Objective 1 did the rate of implementation of available appropriations approach 95%. Those 
for the other Objectives either hovered around 80% (Objectives 3, 5(a) and 6) or fell below 50% 
(Objectives 2 and 5(b)) or even 30% (Objective 4). Once again, the fact that Objective 1 accounts for 
70% of all payment appropriations explains the overall rate of implementation of 82%. Implementation 
of payment appropriations for the Community Initiatives (66%) reflects the fact that 1995 was the year 
when the programmes were approved and actual implementation had not yet begun fully. 
The above paragraphs refer to the implementation of appropriations for the second programming period 
entered in the 1995 budget for the first time, that is, excluding appropriations carried over and made 
available again. However, appropriations carried over and made available again from 1994 to 1995 ' 
represent only a limited proportion of total budget implementation (ECU 339.1 million). They comprise 
1 Usually, commitment or payment appropriations not implemented at the end ofthe financial year for which they 
have been entered are cancelled. However, a decision to carry them over, to the next financial year only, may be 
taken in the following cases: for commitment appropriations, when they relate to commitments which are going 
to be made before 31 March of the following year; for payment appropriations, when the appropriations 
authorized are exhausted. Furthermore, commitments not used in a particular year are normally decommitted, 
which means they are cancelled. However, commitment appropriations may be made available again in order to 
carry out the programme originally planned. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
ECU 4.6 million for the ESF under Objective 2 (fully implemented) and, more importantly, ECU 
313.6 million for the Community Initiatives (ERDF: ECU 268.9 million; ESF: ECU 18.3 million; 
EAGGF: ECU 20.6 million; FIFG: ECU 1.2 million) with ECU 20.9 million (ESF: ECU 18 million) for 
innovative and transitional measures. In total, during 1995 ECU 331.6 million out of a total of ECU 
339.1 million (98%) was committed from appropriations carried over or made available again. 
A considerable volume of payments was also made for assistance decided on before 1994, i.e. 
corresponding to the first programming period (1989-93) or even earlier. These totalled ECU 
1 835 million, of which ECU 1 551 million corresponds to commitments for 1989-93. These are 
payments still being made normally for the completion of assistance under the first period. It should be 
noted that, while commitments for that assistance had to be made before the end of 1993 (unless the 
programmes were extended), the Member States normally had two years (up to 31 December 1995) to 
make payments to the final beneficiaries and a further six months (up to 30 June 1996) to send 
certificates of expenditure to the Commission. The Commission's payments in 1995 reflect the closure 
of programmes from the first programming period. 
Table 115: Payments in 1995 in respect of assistance prior to the second programming period (including carry­
overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) 
< 1994 
1989-1993 
B 
DK. 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
1 
L 
N 
P 
UK OBJECTIVE! r% . 
ERDF 
' 736,81 
549,09 
0,00 
34,84 
80,05 
50,83 
0,03 
242,74 
139,73 
0,86 ES F 
279,99 
278,00 
5,20 (3) 
0,00 
90,88 
13,14 
0,27 
91,49 
77,03 
0,00 EAGGF 
(D 
133,40 
30,00 (3 
25,90 
41,80 
13,40 
9,50 
8,60 
2,30 
1,90 Fisheries 
75,50 
15,88 
1,10 (3) 
0,92 
6,83 
0,00 
4,71 
0,75 
1,25 
0,34 cTolilsï 
1.68é,3ô (ij 
976,37 
36,30 
61,65 
219,55 
77,37 
14,50 
343,58 
220,31 
3,10 ,Ï OBJECTIVE 1 
3ER&.E2; 
524,25 
224,25 
15,41 
0,44 
80,65 
17,85 
23,25 
14,73 
5,19 
9,19 
57,53 tiï.-ESF.;;. 
21,06 
20,53 
3,39 
0,29 
5,21 
0,15 
11,01 
0,49 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 Total. 
245,25 
244,78 
18,80 
0,73 
85,86 
18,01 
34,26 
15,21 
5,19 
9,19 
57,53 OBJ. 3 
ESF 
198,11 
198,11 
16,89 
17,36 
27,22 
14,1 1 
0,00 
83,84 
0,00 
0,00 
38,70 OBJECTIVE 5(a) 
EAGGF 
0) 
49,5 
4,2 
0,0 
5,9 
1,1 
20,7 
1 1,6 
0,1 
2,8 
3,1 Fiiherie 
8,56 
8,05 
0,07 
0,10 
1,27 
1,80 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
1,28 
3,53 : Total 
8,50 (2) 
57,55 
4,27 
0,10 
7,17 
2,90 
20,70 
1 1,60 
0,10 
4,08 
6,63 
OBJECTIVE 5(b) TOTAL <4> 
1989-
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
N 
P 
UK T99"T ERDF 
20,86 
20,86 
1,05 
0,21 
0,45 
0,28 
2,93 
12,46 
0,00 
0,90 
2,57 "EST-
TTJT 
17,3i 
0,96 
0,00 
10,70 
1,26 
3,78 
0,62 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 EAGGF 
(i) 
36,16 
2,80 
0,00 
3,60 
2,20 
17,80 
8,10 
0,00 
1,60 
0,00 Total 
38,17 (2) 
T4TTT 
4,81 
0,21 
14,76 
3,73 
24,51 
21,18 
0,00 
2,50 
2,57 ERDF 
975,92 
794,19 
16,47 
0,65 
81,1 1 
34,84 
98,18 
77,01 
0,03 
269,93 
5,19 
10,10 
139,73 
60,96 "EST" 
516,42 
513,96 
21,23 
17,65 
48,33 
0,00 
106,39 
27,93 
0,27 
176,43 
0,00 
0,00 
77,03 
38,70 
(I ) It is not p ossible to break down by O bjective EAGGF p ay ment s in resp ect of com m it ment s before 1989. 
(2) Excluding EAGGF payments (see above). 
(3) Former GDR (heading B 2-1 900). 
(4) No payment was made under O bjective 4. EAGGF IFisherie 
221,76 
219,66 
7,00 
0,00 
39,50 
25,90 
45,10 
51,90 
9,50 
28,30 
0,10 
4,40 
2,30 
5,00 82,92 
1TJT 
0,07 
0,10 
2,37 
0,92 
8,63 
0,00 
4,71 
0,75 
0,00 
1,2 8 
1,25 
3,87 Total 
1.835,13 
1.551,09 
44,77 
18,40 
171,31 
61,65 
258,31 
156,84 
14,50 
475,41 
5,29 
15,78 
220,31 
108,52 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 189 
Table 116: Appropriations outstanding at 31 December 1995 (ECU million) 
Total aéstanàng 
comtitncnts 
end 1995 
1995 commtncnts 
outstanding 
1994contritments 
outstanding 
Comnitmcntsfrom 
hrforel994 
outstanding ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG Obj.l 
13.776^6 
8.723,20 
2.631,38 
1.828,05 
593,72 
7.539,44 
4.682,46 
1.345,99 
1.262,87 
248,12 
1021,43 
1.415,48 
367,73 
174,78 
63,45 
4.215,49 
2625,26 
917,67 
390,40 
282,16 ObjJ 
2.694,83 
2.202,91 
491,92 
1.092,77 
838,39 
254,38 
828,% 
718,46 
110,51 
773,10 
646,06 
127,03 ObjJ 
1.484,88 
1.484,88 
635,63 
635,63 
313,84 
313,84 
535,41 
535,41 Obj.4 
174,95 
174,95 
6802 
68,22 
106,74 
106,74 
0,00 
0,00 Obj.5(a) 
974,19 
784,73 
189,46 
617,29 
491,83 
125,46 
192,49 
151,81 
40,68 
164,41 
141,09 
23,32 0bj.5(b) 
923,10 
377,22 
143,44 
402,44 
332,00 
136,31 
50,85 
144,84 
118,89 
90,00 
28,89 
472,22 
150,91 
63,70 
257,61 
0,00 Obj.6 
62,96 
22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 
62,96 
22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 
-
-
-Total 
Objectives 
20.091,27 
11.325,46 
4.942,83 
3.039,09 
783,90 
10.34831 
5679,29 
2.371,31 
1923,41 
374,29 
3.582,34 
2.223,93 
927,70 
326,58 
104,13 
6.160,63 
3.422,24 
1.643,82 
789,10 
305,48 Community 
Initiatives 
2.704,155 Transit 
measures 
377,58 
1.608,77| 51,46 
120,22 
975,66 86,69 
239,42 Former 
COR 
254,32 
0,00 
0,00 
254,32 Anti-
fraud 
0,05 
0,02 
0,03 
0,00 TOTAL 
end 1995 
23.427,87 
11008,56 
3.789,28 
7.630,03 % 
100°/. 
51% 
16% 
33% 
The increase in commitment appropriations available arising both from the Edinburgh undertakings and 
carryovers from 1994, and the failure to use all the payment appropriations has an immediate impact on 
the payment appropriations outstanding at the end ofthe year. The rate of settlement in 1995 was 46%, 
as compared with 54% in 1994, which means that total appropriations outstanding rose from ECU 
15 000 million in 1993 to ECU 23 428 million in 1995. However, the increase was due to a lower rate of 
settlement during the current year (1995, but this is also true for 1994) rather than a slowdown in the 
settlement of appropriations committed in previous years. At the end of 1995, when the programmes 
were being closed, outstanding appropriations relating to the first programming period amounted to one 
third. As a result ofthe closure in 1995 of a very large number of programmes from the first period, the 
rate of settlement of appropriations committed in previous years has increased. Taking all Objectives 
and Funds together, payments have been made in respect of 85% of the appropriations committed in 
1992 and 1993. 
The shares of each Fund in the total appropriations outstanding at the end of 1995 are as follows: ERDF: 
56%; ESF: 25%; EAGGF: 15%; FIFG 4%. These figures are fairly similar to those for 1994 (ERDF: 
56%; ESF: 27%; EAGGF: 13%; FIFG 4%). They differ, however, from those for the first programming 
period in that the share ofthe ERDF has fallen considerably (from 68% in 1989 and 56% in 1993) while 
that ofthe EAGGF has increased (from 11% in 1989 and 13% in 1993). The share ofthe ESF rose 
between 1989 and 1995 but fell between 1993 and 1995 (20% in 1989, 27% in 1993); this was also true 
of appropriations for fisheries (0.5% in 1989, 5% in 1993). 
1.2. Implementation of each Fund in 1995 in the context of 1994-99 
The aim of this section is to look at the implementation of appropriations for 1994-99 excluding 
implementation for previous years. It therefore includes appropriations not implemented in 1994 and 
carried over to the 1995 budget. 
The share of each Fund in the total implementation ofthe Structural Funds varies slightly depending on 
the type of appropriations even though the proportions remain the same (see Tables 113 and 114). The 
share ofthe ERDF is about 55%) but is slightly higher in the case of commitment appropriations (55.7%) 
and slightly lower for payment appropriations (54.2%). The position with regard to the EAGGF is 
similar: its share in the work of the Structural Funds is about 16%, 16.4% for commitment 
appropriations and 15.6% for payment appropriations. The same is true of the FIFG (2.2% for 
commitment appropriations, 1.5% for payment appropriations). By contrast, the ESF has proved more 
dynamic in implementing payments (28.6% ofthe Funds as a whole) than commitments (25.8% ofthe 
Funds as a whole). 
190 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Table 117: Implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made 
available again - ECU million) 
Total 
•/. (2)/(l) Available 
1995(1) (a) 
21.219,78 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
IT 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
FI 
SE 
UK Commitments 1995 
Obj.l Obj.2 Obj.3 Obj.4 Obj.5(a)A Obj.5(a)F Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
14.513,10 1.739,37 1.567,90 94,50 655,07 177,02 571,86 125,92 
8,97 4,63 33,39 - 30,23 - 9,16 
6,00 41,00 5,00 16,73 23,28 3,36 
2.022,55 38,01 48,22 - 165,14 12,46 135,77 
2.653,04 ....... 
4.778,90 659,21 206,97 62,70 21,09 19,90 88,58' 
222,47 313,09 396,80 - 252,08 31,62 110,46 
954,21 ....... 
2.228,63 .... 22,37 31,50 
3,29 0,27 5,47 0,89 
17,20 9,15 143,83 - 4,88 1,40 7,31 
28,80 54,15 64,06 11,70 61,50 2,00 78,33 
1.379,72 - - - -
31,10 60,33 14,83 61,42 23,00 32,81 81,00 
105,78 73,00 - 13,73 40,00 - 44,92 
218,60 518,25 497,00 - 22,80 0,11 74,59 Total (2) (b) 
19.444,74 
92% 
86,38 
95,37 
2.422,15 
2.653,04 
5.837,35 
1.326,52 
954,21 
2.282,50 
9,92 
183,77 
300,54 
1.379,72 
304,49 
277,43 
1.331,35 
Total 
%(2)/(l) Available 
1995 (l)(c) 
18.932,14 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
IT 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
FI 
SE 
UK Payments 1995 
Obj.l Obj.2 Obj.3 Obj.4 0bj.5(a)A Obj.5(a)F Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
10.794,61 885,91 1.349,82 54,11 554,63 81,02 363,41 62,96 
29,57 11,75 42,33 - 12,74 1,29 4,58 
8,35 39,04 2,50 16,49 18,63 2,45 
1.251,97 32,52 104,48 - 160,90 9,93 71,21 
1.705,79 ....... 
3.779,30 447,96 169,65 38,13 27,64 - 81,69 
140,37 145,06 312,88 - 242,14 25,31 76,57 
856,47 ....... 
1.176,13 ..... 15,75 
4,00 0,21 2,01 - 0.21 
9,56 12,30 142,57 - 1,96 2,33 9,45 
14,40 21,42 32,03 5,85 30,75 0,20 39,16 
1.667,23 ....... 
15,55 30,17 7,42 30,71 6,90 15.94 40,50 
38,06 36,50 - 6,86 12,00 - 22,46 
163,81 152,96 436,17 - 22,43 4,43 46.39 Total (2) (d) 
14.146,47 
75% 
102,26 
87,46 
1.631,01 
1.705,79 
4.544,37 
942,33 
856,47 
1.191,88 
6,43 
178,17 
143,81 
1.667,23 
147,19 
115,88 
826,18 
(a) Not including ECU 750 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures. 
(b) Not including ECU 59 000 in commitment appropriations for anti-fraud measures. 
(c) Not including ECU 765 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures and a reserve of ECU 522 million for prior measures. 
(d) Not including ECU 126 000 in payment appropriations for anti-fraud measures, a reserve of ECU 279 098 000 for prior measures 
and ECU 16 012 000 for the former GDR. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 191 
ERDF 
Table 118: ERDF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations 
made available again - ECU million) 
Obj.l 
Obj.2 
0bj.5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total (*) Commitments 1995 
Available (1) 
9.021,26 
1.332,64 
285,95 
44,26 
10.684,11 Obj.l Obj.2 Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
8.960,80 
- 1.332,61 
- 228,39 
- 44,26 Total (2) 
8.960,80 
1.332,61 
228,39 
44,26 
10.566,06 /o 
(2)/(l) 
99% 
100% 
80% 
100% 
99% Payments 1995 
Obj.l Obj.2 Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
6.651,15 
- 611,01 
- 135,13 
- 22,13 Total 
6.651,15 
611,01 
135,13 
22,13 
7.419,42 
1,97 
921,90 
1.812,99 
3.202,10 
96,22 
498,13 
1.558,98 
10,00 
19,96 
709,83 
128,71 0,00 
6,00 
20,33 
545,10 
261,90 
0,00 
0,00 
0,09 
38,91 
24,80 
83.22 
352,26 4,82 
3,36 
49,48 
25,22 
45,02 
12,41 
0,00 
1,94 
33,34 
16,03 
0,00 
36,78 22,40 
21,86 6,79 
9,36 
991,71 
1.812,99 
3.772,42 
403,14 
498,13 
1.571,39 
0,00 
12,03 
92,21 
709,83 
63,23 
105,08 
517,75 20,77 
452,44 
1.131,50 
2.517,66 
37,65 
391,45 
878,35 
4,29 
9,98 
1.123.93 
83,14 9,43 
8,35 
15,63 
395,86 
98,97 
0,00 
0,00 
7,77 
13.80 
12,40 
26,78 
22,03 2,41 
2,45 
15,54 
26,00 
27,77 
6,20 
0,21 
7,40 
16,67 
7,78 11,20 
0,00 10,93 
22,68 
(*) Not including ECU 300 000 in available appropriations ECU 30 000 in commitments and ECU 37 000 in payments for anti-fraud measures 32,61 
10,80, 
483,61 
1.131,50 
2.939,51 
164,38 
391,45 
884,55 
0,21 
19,46 
40,45 
1.123,93 
31,38 
37,71 
127.85 
Total implementation of ERDF appropriations in 1995 amounted to ECU 12 211 million in 
commitments and ECU 9 176 million in payments (see Tables 113 and 114). For the CSFs/SPDs (budget 
heading B2-120), it amounted to ECU 10 566 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 
8 374 million in payment appropriations, rates of implementation of 99% and 87% of the total 
allocations (after adoption ofthe supplementary and amending budget and transfers of appropriations). 
Some of these payment appropriations relate to periods prior to 1994. Payments for 1994-99 alone 
amounted to ECU 7 419 million. The operations concerning the CSFs/SPDs accounted for 87% ofthe 
commitment appropriations and 91%» ofthe payment appropriations in the ERDF. 
A significant proportion ofthe commitments in 1995 arose directly from the adoption of new forms of 
assistance, mainly in Italy and the three new Member States. However, by the end of 1995 virtually all 
the assistance planned for Objectives 1, 2 and 6 had been adopted. Implementation of Objective 1 had 
made good progress, as reflected by a high capacity to absorb commitment appropriations (over 99% of 
the available appropriations). The initial allocation of commitment appropriations (including the 
supplementary budget) to the heading for the ERDF (B2-1200) was boosted by a further ECU 
627 million from ERDF allocations available in the headings for other Objectives (2, 5(b) and 6). In 
contrast, the original allocations for the ERDF under the other Objectives proved excessive. Hence, 
besides the transfer for Objective 1 mentioned above, a transfer of ECU 130 million was made from 
Objective 2 to the Leader Initiative as part ofthe annual general transfer process. 
In the case of payment appropriations, Objective 1 accounted for ECU 6 651 million during the period 
1994-99; there too, the implementation rate was 99% ofthe appropriations available. However, the 
lower capacity for absorption of payment appropriations of Objectives 2 and 5(b) and the lack of 
alternative outlets meant that ECU 1 253 remained unused at the end ofthe year. 
In the case ofthe Community Initiatives, implementation of ERDF appropriations (budget heading B2-
14), including appropriations carried over and made available again, amounted to ECU 1 882 million in 
commitments and ECU 928 million in payments, 96% and 70% respectively ofthe total allocations after 
the supplementary and amending budget and transfers. Taking appropriations for 1995 alone (excluding 
appropriations carried over and made available again), the Community Initiatives represented ECU 
1 614 million in commitments (13% ofthe activity ofthe ERDF) and ECU 720.4 million in payments 
(8%). 
192 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
All the commitment appropriations in the ERDF allocations for regional Initiatives (Interreg, Peace, 
Regis, the industrial conversion Initiatives, Urban, SMEs) were implemented and, with a few exceptions, 
all the commitments reflected the adoption of new programmes. A large volume of these commitments 
arose from assistance for which a single commitment was made (programmes for which assistance 
amounted to less than the prescribed limit of ECU 40 million). This significantly increased the capacity 
to absorb commitment appropriations and resulted in an increase in the ERDF allocation of ECU 
552 million, partly through the annual general transfer which released appropriations from the headings 
for the CSFs/SPDs but mainly through transfers within the Community Initiatives chapter from 
allocations to the ESF. In the case of the Employment and Adapt Initiatives, it should be noted that 
ERDF participation in these programmes was lower than expected when the budget was drawn up so 
that ERDF allocations in both commitment and payment appropriations proved excessive. 
The initial allocation of payment appropriations for the Community Initiatives in 1995 was too high 
because very few programmes were adopted in 1994 so that commitment appropriations were underused 
in that year. This meant that only part ofthe commitment appropriations for 1994 could be used and this 
had an effect on the payment appropriations for 1995. 
Implementation of transitional measures and ERDF innovative measures in 1995 (budget heading B2-
1820) amounted to ECU 31 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 82.3 million in payment 
appropriations, 23% and 40% respectively of the original allocation (after the amending budget and 
transfers). This budget heading finances measures adopted by the Commission under Articles 7 and 10 
ofthe ERDF Regulation and Article 16 ofthe Coordination Regulation. To ensure the greatest possible 
transparency in the adoption of these measures, the Commission decided in 1995 to apply a specific 
procedure.2 However, late adoption ofthe procedure meant that the calls for projects had to be held over 
to 1996 and so the appropriations for those measures could not be used in 1995. 
ESF 
Table 119: ESF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made 
available again - ECU million) 
Obj.l 
Obj. 2 
Obj. 3 
Obj 4 
Obj 5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total (*) Commitments 1995 
Available (1) 
3503,61 
650,19 
2013,51 
365,39 
145,35 
32,49 
6710,54 Obj.l Obj.2 Obj 3 Obj.4 Obj 5(b) Obj.6 
2.886,29 -. . -
- 406,76 
- 1 567,90 -
- 94,50 
93,97 
- 32,49 Total (2) 
2.886,29 
406,76 
1.567,90 
94,50 
93,97 
32,49 
5.081,91 % 
(2)/(1) 
82% 
63% 
78% 
26% 
65% 
100% 
76% Payments 1995 
Obj.l Obj 2 Obj 3 Obj.4 Obj 5(b) Obj 6 
2.470,76 - .... 
- 274,90 .... 
- 1.349,82 
- 54,11 
57.40 
- 16,25 Total 
2.470,76 
274,90 
1.349,82 
54,11 
57,40 
16,25 
4.223,24 
4,63 33,39 0,00 
0,00 41,00 5,00 
17,68 48.22 0,00 
114,11 
51,19 206,97 62,70 
396,80 0,00 1,55 
0,00 
5,10 
5,30 
29,73 
5.00 
5,04 
370,86 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,27 
0,00 3,29 0,27 0,00 
9,06 143,83 0,00 0,92 
15,24 64,06 11,70 13,68 
6,30 60,33 14,83 5,18 21,10 
22,56 73,00 0,00 0,00 11,39 
165,99 497,00 - 29,24 39,57 
46,00 
677,05 
368,56 
226,83 
593,36 
295,13 
226,66 
3,56 
158,81 
109,72 
370,86 
107,74 
106,95 
751,10 7.41 
476,56 
253,46 
765,90 
95,74 
293,97 
80,79 
3,46 
2,52 
437,67 2,32 
0,00 
16,89 
52,10 
46.09 
0,00 
0,00 
4,53 
7,62 
3,15 
11,28 
130.93 42,33 
39.04 
104,48 
169,65 
312.88 
0.00 
4.00 
142,57 
32,03 
30.17 
36.50 
436.17 00 0,77 
50 0,00 
00 4.26 
13 3.21 
,00 18,21 
00 1,64 
.21 0,00 
,00 0,46 
,85 6,84 
2,59 10,55 
0,00 5,70 
19,42 52,83 
41,54 
602,19 
253,46 
1 028,99 
472,92 
293,97 
82,43 
4,21 
151,02 
54,86 
437,67 
53,88 
53,48 
639,79 
(*) Not including ECU 200 000 in available appropriations, ECU 19 000 in commitments and ECU 81 000 in payments for anti-fraud measures 
During 1995 the ESF implemented ECU 5 653 million in commitment appropriations and ECU 
4 836 million in payment appropriations (see Tables 113 and 114). In the case of commitment 
appropriations, this represents a rate of 76% ofthe total available of ECU 6 710 million. The CSFs/SPDs 
for 1994-99 (budget heading B2-130) contain ECU 5 082 million in commitment appropriations (90% of 
the ESF's commitments in 1995). Ofthe total committed, ECU 4.6 million corresponds to commitments 
carried over from 1994 to 1995, all of which were implemented. This substantial under-implementation, 
2 See Chapter I.B.2 Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 93 
which varies depending on the Objective and the Member State, may be explained by the following 
factors: 
• under-implementation ofthe instalment of commitments for 1995 (ECU 1 448 million) was caused 
primarily by delays in taking a large number of decisions and hence in implementation with 
consequent reprogramming to later years. In some cases, the situation was also aggravated by local 
problems of coordinating assistance from different Funds to multi-fund programmes; 
• taking all the Objectives together, the total 1995 instalments ofthe original financing plans, which 
constitute what the ESF should have implemented without any reprogramming, amounted to ECU 
6 529 million. This meant that the ECU 6 710 million entered in the 1995 budget represented a 
surplus of some ECU 181 million. 
Under-implementation was particularly marked in Italy (28% of commitments for the 1995 instalment 
were implemented), Belgium (35%) and Germany (66%). These rates vary considerably from one 
Objective to another: only 24% ofthe 1995 instalment of appropriations for Objective 4 was committed 
in that year while the rate for Objective 1 was 86%, for Objective 3 76%, for Objective 2 74% and for 
Objective 5(b) 57% despite the fact that a single instalment for certain SPDs and OPs adopted in 1995 
under Objectives 2 and 5(b) was committed. Only in the case of Objective 6 were the appropriations 
fully committed. 
ECU 4 223 million in payment appropriations was committed in respect of 1994-99 (94% of total ESF 
payments). The overall implementation rate for the CSFs/SPDs, including payments for periods before 
1994,was 81% ofthe appropriations available. ECU 1117 million was not implemented. 
The Community Initiatives (B2-140) contained ECU 493.9 million in ESF commitments (9% ofthe 
total) and ECU 247.1 million in payment appropriations (5%). The rate of implementation was 82% for 
commitment appropriations and 46% for payment appropriations. Here too, the situation varied 
depending on the Initiative. Among the "human resources" Initiatives, commitment appropriations for 
Adapt were fully implemented and payment appropriations implemented at 86% because all the 
programmes were adopted in 1995. In the case of Employment, only 80%) of the commitment 
appropriations available and 32% of the payment appropriations were used, leaving ECU 26 million 
unused at the end of 1995. The main reason was that five programme decisions were carried over to 
1996. For the other Initiatives in which the ESF was involved, the rate of implementation was only 56% 
for commitment appropriations and 33% for payment appropriations. The reasons are as follows: 
• there are some 300 Community Initiative programmes; the ESF participates in 230 of them. With 
such a large number of programmes, some holdups in management and monitoring are inevitable; 
• these problems are aggravated by the fact that, despite the Commission's efforts, the programmes 
were adopted at the end of 1995 (it proved very difficult to plan activities); 
• unlike the other two Funds, the ESF Regulation requires the Member States to submit applications 
for assistance electronically. The departments responsible for the ESF in the Member States were 
informed of this late or proved reluctant to accept this requirement. 
In the case ofthe innovative measures under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation (ECU 38.7 million, or 
0.6%) of total commitments), all the ECU 18 million in commitment appropriations carried over from 
1994 was implemented. However, it was impossible to take the decisions required on 61 projects 
representing a total of ECU 26.8 million by the end of 1995 so this amount had to be carried over to 
1996. 
194 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
EAGGF 
Table 120: EAGGF implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations 
made available again - ECU million) 
Obj.l 
Obj. 5(a) 
0bj.5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total (*) Commitments 1995 
Available (1) 
2395,18 
681,48 
249,50 
47,74 
3373,90 Obj.l Obj.5(a) Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
2.395,18 
655,07 
- 249,50 
- 47,74 Total (2) 
2.395,18 
655,07 
249,50 
47,74 
3.347,49 % 
(2)/(l) 
100% 
96% 
100% 
100% 
99% Payments 1995 
Obj.l Obj.5(a) Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
1.591,42 
554,63 
- 170,89 
- 23,87 Total 
1.591,42 
554,63 
170,89 
23,87 
2.340,81 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
FI 
SE 
UK 7,00 30,23 2,79 
16,73 0,00 
482,60 165,13 81,19 
452,19 
571,12 21,10 58,06 
9,50 252,08 35,70 
154,76 
411,69 0,00 15,83 
5,47 0,00 
0,00 4,89 4,45 
3,80 61,50 31,30 
275,10 
61,42 11,60 36,80 
13,72 0,00 10,94 
27,42 22,80 8,57 40,02 
16,73 
728,92 
452,19 
650,28 
297,28 
154,76 
427,52 
5,47 
9,34 
96,60 
275,10 
109,82 
24,66 
58,79 1,39 12,74 1,40 
16,49 0,00 
314,87 160,90 51,41 
315,50 
454,79 27,64 52,48 
6,12 242,14 30,59 
167,06 
216,99 0,00 7,91 
2.01 0,00 
0,53 1,96 1,59 
1,90 30,75 15,65 
86,53 
30,71 5,56 18,40 
6,86 0,00 5,47 
25,75 22,43 4,29 15,53 
16,49 
527,18 
315,50 
534,91 
278,85 
167,06 
224,90 
2,01 
4,08 
48,30 
86,53 
54,67 
12,33 
52,47 
(*) Not including ECU 200 000 in available appropriations, ECU 10 000 in commitments and ECU 8 000 in payments for anti-fraud 
measures. 
Commitment appropriations under the EAGGF Guidance Section implemented in 1995 amounted to 
ECU 3 589 million and payment appropriations to ECU 2 644 million (see Tables 113 and 114) - the 
implementation rates were 97% and 83%> ofthe appropriations available. During 1995 ECU 183 million 
in commitment appropriations was transferred from the EAGGF to the other Funds. This concerned 
primarily the Community Initiatives, which had needs arising from programmes approved during the 
year but not known when appropriations were entered in the budget. Only a small amount (ECU 
32.5 million) of payment appropriations was transferred from the EAGGF to the other Funds. Of the 
appropriations implemented in 1995, those for the CSFs/SPDs (B2-100) amounted to ECU 3 347 million 
for commitments (93%o ofthe total for the EAGGF) and to ECU 2 530 million for payments (96%). 99% 
of these appropriations was committed. 
Implementation left ECU 94.9 million unused. This amount concerns: 
• Objective 5(a), with ECU 25.6 million (4% ofthe appropriations available) not used because of late 
approval of two marketing programmes for Austria and Italy; 
• the Community Initiatives, with ECU 49 million unused including ECU 29.8 million (16% ofthe 
available appropriations) for Leader, where the rate of implementation is the consequence of certain 
Member States preferring to use the system of commitments in annual instalments rather than a 
single commitment ofthe whole amount although the appropriations available had been calculated on 
the basis of single instalments for all the Member States. In the case of the other Initiatives with 
which the EAGGF is concerned, appropriations allocated outstripped needs in the financing plans 
and, in any case, there was a delay in adopting the programmes; 
• transitional ineasures (ECU 20.3 million or 65% of the appropriations available unused). 
Commitments for measures under Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation were virtually zero (ECU 
600 000 compared with forecasts of over ECU 20 million) because of delays in the prior appraisal of 
projects. 
The rate of implementation of payment appropriations (83%, leaving ECU 553 million unused) was due 
to the low level of implementation of programmes in the first period, which were not closed as planned. 
This was true of Objective 5(b) (ECU 36.1 million paid or 16% ofthe ECU 228 million outstanding at 
the beginning of 1995) and of programmes for marketing and processing under Objective 5(a) (ECU 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) \ 95 
94 million paid or 22% ofthe ECU 431 million outstanding at the beginning of 1995). Because of this 
situation, the Commission approved an extension to the deadline for payments for these programmes. 
Implementation ofthe EAGGF varied considerably from one Objective to another. Objective 1 is still 
the most important (72% of commitments under the CSFs/SPDs and 68% of payments) and overall it 
demonstrates a certain dynamism in the absorption of appropriations (all but two of the programmes 
under the CSFs were adopted in 1995), although the situation varied from one Member State to another. 
During 1995, the Objective 1 CSFs set the pace for implementation of EAGGF appropriations since 
certain Member States (Greece, Spain and Germany) submitted applications to commit the 1996 
instalments, which meant that part of the unused appropriations for Objectives 5(a) and 5(b) could be 
committed. Implementation therefore amounted to ECU 2 395 million as against ECU 2 250 million 
programmed for the year. 
As stated above, the Objectives with the lowest rates of implementation were Objectives 5(a) and 5(b). 
This was due to the fact that most ofthe programmes were approved in November and December 1994 
and so the remainder were approved in 1995 (by the end of that year all but two programmes had been 
approved in the twelve Member States). This meant that the Member States could not apply for 
commitments and payments in respect ofthe 1995 instalment. 
In the case of Objective 5(a), commitment appropriations amounted to ECU 655.1 million, 62% ofthe 
ECU 1 057 million in the budget. However, this rate should be seen in context since the appropriations 
available were calculated on the assumption that part ofthe EAGGF reimbursements for expenditure by 
the Member States in 1993 (the former programming period) would be made in 1995. In fact, all these 
reimbursements were made in 1994 and implementation ofthe 1995 budget therefore concerned only 
commitments for the new period. This means that implementation amounting to' ECU 655.9 million 
should be compared with the ECU 958 million programmed for the 1995 instalment of the new 
programmes. This raises the rate of implementation to 68%. 
This ECU 655.9 million comprises commitments under "indirect programming" (mainly Regulation 
(EEC) No 2328/91), which accounted for ECU 578 million, and commitments for marketing and 
processing measures (Regulation (EEC) No 866/90), which amounted to ECU 78 million. In the first 
case, appropriations for the three new Member States totalled ECU 129.7 million (22%) and those for 
the twelve to ECU 448.3 million (78%), or 75% of the ECU 594 million available for the twelve in 
1995. The reason for this was that implementation in 1994 was lower than programmed in Spain, 
France, Italy and the Netherlands. Ofthe ECU 78 million in commitments for marketing and processing 
measures, only ECU 8.4 million (11%) related to commitments from the 1995 instalment (including 
ECU 6.9 million for Finland), while the remainder comprised commitments from the 1994 instalments 
for the new period which had not been approved in 1994 but were approved at the beginning of 1995. 
The position with regard to the appropriations for Objective 5(b) is similar, with implementation of ECU 
249.5 million (49%) ofthe ECU 507.5 million originally entered. Of this amount, only ECU 170 million 
(68%) related to commitments programmed for 1995 and ECU 42.9 million (25%) of this amount went 
to Austria and Finland. The remaining ECU 79.5 million committed in 1995 related to instalments 
programmed for 1994 and committed at the beginning of 1995 following delays in approving the 
programmes. The only Member States which committed the 1995 instalments were Spain, Germany 
(Bavaria, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate and Schleswig-Holstein), France (a very small 
number of programmes: Auvergne, Burgundy, Limousin) and the Netherlands (Friesland and Zeeland). 
Implementation varies considerably from one Member State to another. Consumption of commitments 
was highest in Germany (ECU 728.9 million) followed by Spain (ECU 650.3 million) while in terms of 
payments the order was reversed (Germany: ECU 527.2 million; Spain: 534.9 million). It would, 
however, be premature to draw conclusions because 1994 and 1995 were years when programmes were 
approved at different rates depending on the Objectives and the Member States. Nevertheless, it is 
important to stress that the time lost in certain Member States (France for Objectives 1 and 5(b), Italy 
and the United Kingdom for Objective 5(b)) may well prove hard to make up in later years. A large 
196 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
number of programmes for the new Member States were approved and appropriations committed in 
1995 totalled ECU 231.1 million. Hence all the SPDs for Objectives 1 and 6 and all the "indirect 
programming" under Objective 5(a) were approved and committed while under Regulation (EEC) No 
866/90 only appropriations for Finland were committed in 1995 and under Objective 5(b) commitments 
were made for Austria and Finland. 
A large number of programmes were approved under the Leader Community Initiative; these amounted 
to ECU 236 million in commitments (ECU 221 million excluding appropriations carried over and made 
available again). 
FIFG 
Table 121: FIFG implementation in 1995 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations 
made available again - ECU million) 
Obj.l 
Obj. 5(a) 
Obj.6 
Total (*) Commitments 1995 
Available (1) 
270,83 
178,97 
1,43 
451,23 Obj.l Obj.5(a) Obj.6 
270,83 
177,02 
1,43 Total (2) 
270,83 
177,02 
1,43 
449,28 % 
(2)/(l) 
100% 
99% 
100% 
100% Payments 1995 
Obj.l Obj. 5(a) Obj.6 
81,27 
81,02 
0,72 Total 
81,27 
81,02 
0,72 
163,01 
I • . 1 . 1 
(*) Not including ECU 50 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures 
1995 was the second year of programming for the FIFG, except in the three new Member States. In 
order to monitor carefully the actual implementation of programmes on the spot, the Commission 
adopted Regulation (EC) No 1796/95 of 25 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the implementation 
of assistance granted by the FIFG. All the commitment appropriations entered in the budget were used 
and some commitments had to be held over to the 1996 budget. Total commitments for the FIFG 
amounted to ECU 485.5 million (see Table 113), including ECU 449.3 under the CSFs/SPDs (93% of 
the work ofthe FIFG). Payments in 1995 amounted to ECU 262.5 million, including ECU 163 million 
for the CSFs/SPDs for 1994-99, 94% of FIFG payments. 
In the case ofthe Pesca Initiative, 1995 was the second year of programming for the seven programmes 
adopted at the end of 1994 and the first for the others (Netherlands, France, Italy, United Kingdom). In 
1995 ECU 28.2 million ofthe ECU 45 million in the budget was committed. The appropriations not 
implemented in 1995 concerned the ERDF and the ESF while those for the FIFG were committed in full 
(ECU 20.7 million). Only ECU 5.3 million out of ECU 31.9 million in payment appropriations was paid 
out (ECU 600 000 to the Netherlands, ECU 2.2 million to Italy and ECU 2.5 million to the United 
Kingdom). Late adoption of the programmes and complex management mechanisms may explain the 
low level of consumption of Pesca appropriations compared with the previous period. A solution should 
be found to these problems in 1996. The shortfall of ECU 24 million in commitment appropriations will 
have to be recovered in the budgets for 1997-99. 
To simplify management, the three Objective 5(a) FIFG programmes for the new Member States were 
committed in a single instalment. Decisions for two other programmes were amended to permit 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 197 
commitment in a single instalment. Six programmes had to be reprogrammed to take account of delays 
in implementing 1994. These concerned Italy (Objectives 1 and 5(a)), the United Kingdom (Objective 
5(a)) and the Netherlands (Objective 5(a)). The Objective 1 programme in Germany was reprogrammed 
because appropriations were used more quickly than had originally been expected. 
2. Implementation of programming for 1994-99 
2.1. Implementation 1994-95 
Table 122: Implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made 
available again in 1995 - ECU million) 
Total 
V. (2)/(l) Available 
1994-95(1) (a) 
40.266,37 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
IT 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
FI 
SE 
UK Commitments 1994-95 
Obj.l Obj.2 Obj.3 Obj.4 Obj.5(a)A Obj.5(a)F Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
27.268,56 3.796,91 3.357,11 363,63 1.387,32 313,45 1.181,25 125,92 
107,00 62,16 97,76 4,63 53,03 4,08 9,16 
30,29 85,00 6,00 38,67 46,59 9,79 
3.892,08 286,85 307,77 29,61 322,72 24,87 261,74 
4.572,22 ....... 
8.317,41 659,21 426,59 118,10 77,41 39,83 162,09 
497,67 904,39 778,40 95,39 518,73 63,27 373,18 
1.709,66 ....... 
3.024,80 299,95 200,47 60,61 117,47 44,77 107,00 
7,97 6,46 0,53 12,22 1,10 0,84 
37,20 105,02 282,27 22,23 25,27 9,16 25,61 
28,80 54,15 64,06 11,70 61,50 2,00 78,33 
4.549,40 - - -
31,10 60,33 14,83 61,42 23,00 32,81 81,00 
105,78 73,00 - 13,72 40,00 - 44,92 
532,32 1.250,05 975,00 - 85,16 14,78 120,70 Total (2)(b) 
37.794,15 
94% 
337,82 
216,34 
5.125,65 
4.572,22 
9.800,64 
3.231,03 
1.709,66 
3.855,07 
29,12 
506,76 
300,54 
4.549,40 
304,49 
277,42 
2.978,01 
Available 
1994-95 (l)(c) Payments 1994-95 
Obj.l Obj.2 Obj.3 Obj.4 Obj.5(a)A Obj.5(a)F Obj.5(b) Obj.6| Total (2) (d) 
Total 
%(2)/(D 35.529,48 17.754,80 1.877,84 2.407,64 188,68 730,60 149,28 661,85 62,96 23.833,64 
67% 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
IT 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
FI 
SE 
UK 79,77 
2.470,05 
2.791,66 
5.549,60 
279,66 
1.399,16 
1.555,47 
19,63 
14,40 
3.264,05 
331,36 29,31 
19,99 
156,94 
447,96 
423,29 
149,97 
3,99 
52,51 
21,42 
15,55 
38,06 
518,85 74,51 
74,24 
234,26 
244,54 
503,68 
100,23 
5,59 
253,32 
32,03 
30,17 
36,50 
818,57 2,32 
3,00 
14,81 
65,83 
47,70 
30,31 
0,34 
11,12 
5,85 
7,42 16,51 
19,19 
209,82 
55,81 
242,97 
58,73 
5,37 
12,15 
30,75 
30,71 
6,86 
41,73 3,33 
30,29 
16,13 
9,97 
41,13 
11,20 
0,11 
6,21 
0,20 
6,90 
12,00 
11,82 4,58 
5,66 
134,20 
118,44 
207,93 
53,50 
0,42 
12,56 
39,16 
15,94 
69,45 40,50 
22,46 210,34 
152,37 
3.236,20 
2.791,66 
6.492,14 
1.746,36 
1.399,16 
1.959,41 
15,81 
367,50 
143,81 
3.264,05 
147,19 
115,88 
1.791,78 
(a) Not including ECU 1 500 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures and ECU 44 232 000 under heading B2-1000 
(Structural actions directly linked to markets policy) not allocated by Objective in 1994. 
(b) Not including ECU 174 000 in commitment appropriations for anti-fraud measures, and for Objective 5(a) for agriculture, ECU 43,65 
million under heading B2-1000 and ECU 356,6 million of reimbursements under reg.(EEC) No 2328/91 (in 1994 only). 
(c) Not including ECU 990 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures, ECU 61 million under heading B2-1000 not 
allocated by Objective in 1994 and a reserve of ECU 522 million for prior measures. 
(d) Not including ECU 126 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures, a reserve of ECU 279,098 million for prior 
measures, ECU 16,012 million for the former GDR, and for Objective 5(a), ECU 43,65 million under heading B2-1000 and ECU 417,02 
million of reimbursements under reg.(EEC) No 2328/91 (in 1994 only). 
For the Funds as a whole, budgetary implementation of commitment appropriations for the new 
programming period stood at 90% in 1994 and 91% in 1995, which means ECU 2 billion was not 
implemented in 1994 and ECU 2.1 billion in 1995. However, for the two years 1994 and 1995, the rate 
of implementation ofthe appropriations available for the CSFs/SPDs alone under the various Objectives 
was 94%). If these first two years are compared with the period 1989-93, the results are less good. 
However, implementation of appropriations was very good between 1989 and 1993 with rates of over 
99% in 1989 and 1991 to 1993 (although only 93.7% in 1990). 
198 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
In 1994 commitments of appropriations for the CSFs/SPDs stood at virtually 99% for all funds wim 
only the ESF using no more than 95% of its allocation (ECU 272 million unused). The main reason why 
appropriations remained unused was the delay in adopting the Community Initiatives in 1994 when only 
12% of appropriations was committed. This left ECU 1 697 million unused of which ECU 339.1 million 
was carried over and ECU 311.6 implemented in 1995. 
The rate of implementation of payment appropriations was 75% in 1994 with ECU 4.8 million unused. 
1995 therefore represented an improvement with a rate of implementation of 82% and ECU 
3 759 million unused. This corresponds to the beginning of effective implementation ofthe programmes 
in 1995. 
2.2. Implementation of each Fund in 1994-95 in the context of 1994-99 
ERDF 
Table 123: ERDF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations 
made available again in 1995 - ECU million) 
Obj.l 
Obj.2 
Obj. 5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total (*) Commitments 1994-95 
Available (1) 
16.766,42 
2.932,64 
581,95 
44,26 
20.325,27 Obj.l Obj.2 Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
16.705,60 
- 2.931.52 
- 485,60 
- 44,26 Total (2) 
16.705,60 
2.931,52 
485,60 
44,26 
20.166,97 % 
(2V(D 
100% 
100% 
83% 
100% 
99% Payments 1994-95 
Obj.l Obj.2 Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
10.626,76 
- 1.375.72 
- 257,48 
- 22,13 Total 
10.626,76 
1.375,72 
257,48 
22,13 
12.282,09 
53,75 
1.027,06 
1.847,77 
3.582,35 
107,89 
568,45 
1.087,57 
11,44 
9,98 
2.161,09 
169,41 24,39 
17,77 
104,49 
395.86 
326,44 
119.65 
3.01 
33,48 
13,80 
12.40 
26,78 
297,66 2,41 
3,74 
40,32 
35,72 
83,81 
21.93 
0.21 
7,40 
16,67 
7,78 
0,00 
37,48 11.20 
10,93 80,55 
21,51 
1.171,87 
1.847,77 
4.013,93 
518,14 
568,45 
1.229,15 
3,22 
52,32 
40,45 
2.161,09 
31,38 
37,71 
504,55 
(*) Not including ECU 600 000 in available appropriations, ECU 45 000 in commitments and ECU 37 000 in payments for anti-fraud measures. 
In the case ofthe ERDF, progress in commitments under the CSFs/SPDs at the end of 1995 shows a 
slight backlog of 1.3% (ECU 265 million) compared with the instalments for 1994 and 1995 shown in 
the financing tables. However, this is due to a variety of situations. Generally, for the ERDF Objective 1 
shows commitments running ahead of the financing plans by ECU 526 million (3%), to the greatest 
degree in Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal, where extra implementation totalled ECU 1 071 million. 
By contrast, under-implementation in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom 
amounted to a total of ECU 1 178 million. 
Overall, Objective 2 showed ERDF commitments lagging behind the financing plans by ECU 
650 million (18%). The main reason was that most assistance was adopted at the end of 1994 and during 
1995. This rate of adoption did not permit programmes to advance sufficiently for the second 
instalments to be committed. A number of operations were the subject of a single commitment, in 
accordance with Article 20(3) of the Coordination Regulation, which helped improve slightly the 
utilization of commitment appropriations. Lags in implementation, totalling ECU 709 million, affected 
mainly Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom while only Austria, 
Luxembourg and Sweden outstripped their plans since single commitments were made there. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 199 
In the case of Objective 5(b), ERDF commitments fell 39% (ECU 305 million) short ofthe financing 
plans. The reason was similar to that affecting Objective 2. Most Member States were affected, but 
mainly France, Italy and the United Kingdom, where under-implementation totalled ECU 244 million. 
The Member States where programme implementation proceeded satisfactorily were Spain and 
Denmark. Operations in Austria and Finland were adopted in 1995. 
Operations under Objective 6 were adopted in 1995. Commitments for the first instalments were made 
as programmed. 
In the case of the Community Initiative programmes, very few of which were adopted in 1994, 
budgetary implementation for the ERDF reflects their progress in 1994 and 1995. There was a general 
delay in implementing all the regional Initiatives which resulted in a total shortfall as compared with 
expectations of ECU 833 million (32%). Since financial implementation of these Initiatives is directly 
linked to the adoption of the programmes, utilization of commitment appropriations was strongly 
affected by the number of new programmes which were the subject of a single commitment. This means 
that no firm conclusion about progress in the financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives can 
be drawn from implementation of commitment appropriations. 
ESF 
Table 124: ESF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations 
made available again in 1995 - ECU million) 
Obj.l 
Obj .2 
Obj 3 
Obj .4 
Obj 5(b) 
Obj 6 
Total (*) Commitments 1994-95 
Available (1) 
6572,80 
1187,19 
3822,31 
634,59 
256,95 
32,49 
12506,33 Obj 1 Obj.2 Obj.3 Obj.4 Obj.5(b) Obj 6 
5.780,37 - -
- 865,39 -
- 3.357,11 
- 363,63 
- 180,31 
- 32,49 Total (2) 
5.780,37 
865,39 
3.357,11 
363,63 
18031 
32,49 
10.579,31 % 
(2)/(l) 
88% 
73% 
88% 
57% 
70% 
100% 
85% Payments 1994-1995 
Obj.l Obj.2 Obj 3 Obj 4 Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
4.084,30 - .... 
- 502,13 .... 
- 2.407,64 
- 188,68 
- 100,57 
- 16,25 Total 
4.084,30 
502,13 
2.407,64 
188,68 
100,57 
16,25 
7.299,57 
(*) Not including ECU 400 000 in available appropriations, ECU 119 000 in commitments and ECU 81 000 in payments for anti-fraud measures 
The general situation relating to implementation in 1994 and 1995 shows better results than those for 
1995 alone. The rate of implementation of commitment appropriations was 85% taking all the 
Objectives together, which demonstrates the multi-annual nature ofthe programmes. 
The situations of the various Objectives and Member States do not differ substantially from those in 
1995. Apart from Objective 6, which was fully implemented, utilization was highest for Objective 1, 
whether in terms of available appropriations (83%), the 1995 instalment (86%) or the 1994-95 
instalment (91%). However, this conceals substantial backlogs in two Member States (Italy and the 
United Kingdom). Implementation of Objective 3 was clearly lagging in Germany (18% ofthe financing 
plan for 1995 and 58%) of that for 1994-95) and, to'a lesser extent, in Belgium (53%) ofthe financing 
plan for 1995). There was a complete failure to use the 1995 instalment for Objective 4 in Belgium, 
Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Despite the assistance provided by the adoption in 
1995 of a number of single-instalment decisions for the SPDs and OPs under Objectives 2 and 5(b), 
implementation remains particularly weak, or indeed zero, in Denmark (Objectives 2 and 5(b)), 
Germany (Objectives 2 and 5(b)), Spain (Objective 5(b)), France (Objective 2), Italy (Objectives 2 and 
5(b), Luxembourg (Objective 5(b)) and the Netherlands (Objectives 2 and 5(b)). 
200 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Since programmes under the Employment Community Initiative were approved in December 1994 and 
those under Adapt in May 1995, the Member States used the following months to seek partners in other 
countries. Hence the first contracts with project promoters were not signed until mid-1995 with the result 
that no appropriations were used in 1994 and only a limited amount in 1995. 
EAGGF 
Table 125: EAGGF implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and 
appropriations made available again in 1995 - ECU million) 
Obj.l 
Obj.5(a) 
Obj.5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total * Commitments 1994-95 
Available (1) 
4275,92 
1769,48 
515,41 
47,74 
6608,55 Obj.l Obj.5a** Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
4.275,75 
- 1.387,32 
- 515,34 
- 47,74 Total (2) 
4.275,75 
1.387,32 
515,34 
47,74 
6.226,15 % 
(2)/(D 
100% 
78% 
100% 
100% 
94% Payments 1994-1995 
Obj.l Obj.5a**» Obj.5(b) Obj.6 
2.844,47 
730,60 
- 303,81 
- 23,87 Total 
2.844,47 
730,60 
303,81 
23,87 
3.902,74 
14,00 
861,60 
699,19 
979,67 
69,21 
332,56 
477,78 
1,90 
3,80 
776,14 
59,91 53,03 
38,67 
322,72 
77,41 
518,73 
117,47 
12,22 
25,27 
61,50 
61,42 
13,72 
85,16 2,79 
2,57 
135,24 
104,15 
151,36 
48,78 
0,30 
9,37 
31,30 
11,60 
0,00 
17,87 36,80 
10,94 69,82 
41,24 
1.319,56 
699,19 
1.161,23 
739,30 
332,56 
644,03 
12,52 
36,54 
96,60 
776,14 
109,82 
24,66 
162,94 
Not including ECU 400 000 in available appropriations, ECU 10 000 in comrrrtments and ECU 8 000 in payments for anti-fraud 
measures. 
* Not including ECU 43,65 million under heading B2-1000 (Structural actions directly linked to markets policy) and ECU 356,6 
million of reimbursements under reg.(EEC) N°2328/91 (in 1994 only). 
** Not including ECU 43.65 million under heading B2-1000 and ECU 417,02 million of reimbursements under reg.(EEC) N°2328/91 
(in 1994 only). 
At the end of 1995, progress in using CSF/SPD commitment appropriations for the EAGGF Guidance 
Section lagged slightly behind (by 0.4% or ECU 25.6 million) the 1994 and 1995 instalments shown in 
the financing tables. This was, however, the result of a variety of situations. Overall, commitments under 
Objective 1 were ahead of the financing plans by ECU 790 million (23%). This was most marked in 
Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal. However, France and Italy were lagging behind. Commitments 
under Objective 5(a) were lagging behind the financing plans by ECU 115 million (8%) mainly because 
of under-implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (agricultural structures) everywhere, but 
most notably in Italy, and a lag of one year everywhere except Spain and Luxembourg in implementing 
OPs under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 (marketing and processing). EAGGF commitment 
appropriations for Objective 5(b) lagged behind the financing plans by ECU 25 million (32%) because 
of delays in implementing the OPs everywhere except Spain and Germany. Assistance under Objective 6 
was adopted in 1995. Commitments for the first instalments were adopted, so there was no divergence 
from what had been programmed. Since very few programmes under the Community Initiatives (mainly 
Leader) had been adopted in 1994, implementation in 1995 reflected progress during the two years 1994 
and 1995. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 201 
FIFG 
Table 126: FIFG implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations 
made available again in 1995 - ECU million) 
Obj.l 
Obj. 5(a) 
Obj.6 
Total (*) Commitments 1994-95 
Available (1) 
506,84 
317,97 
1,43 
826,23 Obj.l Obj.5(a) Obj.6 
506,84 
313,45 
1,43 Total (2) 
506,84 
313,45 
1,43 
821,71 % 
(2)/(D 
100% 
99% 
100% 
99% Payments 1994-95 
Obj.l Obj.5(a) Obj.6 
199,28 
149,28 
0,72 Total 
199,28 
149,28 
0,72 
349,28 
(*) Not including ECU 100 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud measures. 
The rate of implementation of FIFG appropriations for the two years 1994-95 was satisfactory, 
amounting to 99%) ofthe appropriations available for the CSFs/SPDs (ECU 4.5 million unused). With 
regard to payments, at the end of 1995, ECU 199.3 million (39%) had paid for Objective 1 out ofthe 
ECU 506.8 million committed in 1994 and 1995. This is a reasonable rate in view ofthe fact that the 
programming period was reduced by approving programmes at the end of 1994. Similarly, in the case of 
Objective 5(a) fisheries, by the end of 1995 ECU 151.6 million (48%) had been paid out ofthe ECU 
317.8 million committed in 1994-95, which is satisfactory. 1995 was the first year of programming for 
Objective 6 and the figures for 1995 remain reasonable (ECU 720 000, or 50%, paid out of ECU 1.43 
million committed). In the case of Pesca, ECU 53.1 million (65% of ECU 81 million) was committed 
and ECU 17.2 million (32% ofthe ECU 53.1 million committed) paid out. 
202 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
B. CHECKS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 
Under Article 205 of the Treaty, the Commission is responsible for implementation of the Community 
budget as a whole, and therefore ofthe Structural Funds budget. It ensures that implementation is correct 
and effective, since this is essential for the effectiveness and credibility of Community structural 
measures. However, in doing so, it must take account of the fact that on-the-spot management of 
Structural Fund programmes and projects is the responsibility of the Member States, in line with the 
principle of subsidiarity and partnership which governs the Structural Funds. Nevertheless, with the 
launching of the second programming period (1994-99) and the increase in Structural Fund 
appropriations, the Commission is keeping a closer watch on the quality ofthe management and control 
system employed both by itself and by the Member States. All those involved are aware of this need: at 
the informal ministerial meeting in Strasbourg in March 1995, for example, the Commission and 
Member States agreed on the need to improve and strengthen the control and management of the 
Structural Funds. Following that, in May 1995 Mrs Wulf-Mathies, the Member with special 
responsibility for regional policies and cohesion, wrote to the Member States stressing once again the 
importance of improving the financial management system for Community appropriations, and control 
and assessment, and requesting the Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that these 
requirements are met. As for the Commission itself, in 1995 its attention was directed towards the 
stepping up of on-the-spot checks, which it had been pursuing since 1994 and continued in 1995, and, at 
a more fundamental level, the launching of an exercise to rationalize and improve financial 
management. 
1. Checks 
1.1. Checks carried out by the Commission's Structural Funds departments 
The Commission's role is to ensure that appropriate systems for financial monitoring and management of 
programmes have been put in place in the Member States. To do this, it makes on-the-spot checks and 
systems audits to ensure that Structural Fund appropriations are put to proper use. However, under 
Article 23(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, it is primarily the Member States that are responsible for 
ensuring that proper use is made of Community funds and preventing irregularities. For example, they 
are responsible for the reliability of certificates of expenditure submitted to the Commission, and the 
eligibility of expenditure incurred in implementing programmes. In this way, each of the Structural 
Funds is subject to specific checks by the departments responsible for them. All these checks are 
intended to verify the reliability of the control and management systems in the Member States, and to 
check the regularity of expenditure incurred under the programmes. 1995 saw greater coordination of 
these monitoring activities among themselves, and greater coordination with the checks made by 
Financial Control, the UCLAF1 and the Court of Auditors. 
ERDF: For the ERDF, 20 on-the-spot inspections were carried out in 1995 (one in Denmark, one in the 
Netherlands, two in France, Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom, three in Spain and Portugal, and four 
in .Germany). As required by Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended, the inspection 
programmes are communicated to the Member States concerned. Firstly, these checks are intended to 
verify the existence and effectiveness of a system for the management and control of operations, and the 
reliability ofthe information forwarded to the Commission (in particular certifications of expenditure). 
Secondly, they are intended to check on proper use of ERDF funds, accounting accuracy, legality, 
regularity and sound financial management in the light ofthe objectives of each form of assistance and 
of Community rules and policies. Each programme of inspection visits was drawn up to take account, 
inter alia, ofthe checks made by Financial Control and the Court of Auditors and the results ofthe risk 
analysis and previous checks. 
1 The Commission's Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 203 
The checks show that individual or system irregularities frequently occurred in operations on the ground. 
In general, these relate to the unreliability of certifications of expenditure, which are the basis for 
Community payments and advances, and the weakness of certain internal checking procedures, which do 
not adequately reflect Community rules. The declarations of expenditure often include expenditure not 
eligible for financing by the ERDF (such as the salaries or operating expenditure of ministries or other 
public bodies), and expenditure declared as actually incurred sometimes includes estimates of future 
expenditure. The beneficiaries' declarations of expenditure are in some instances submitted to the 
Commission and certified by the authorities appointed by the Member States without any internal 
checks, which can lead to incorrect submissions and formal irregularities. In addition, in many regions 
Community rules on public procurement are not fully complied with and the programming of assistance 
is not monitored or assessed with sufficient precision. For example, in some cases the legal and financial 
commitments and payments are not established by the deadlines laid down in the decisions to grant 
assistance. 
ESF: As with the ERDF, and as is done each year, a coordinated control programme was sent to the 
Member States before the beginning of 1995. The programme was implemented as planned: a total of 73 
inspection visits were made, 10% of which were unscheduled visits in coordination with the Unit on 
Coordination of Fraud Prevention. In general the checks covered the management systems and revealed 
a number of weaknesses in the national, regional and local administrations. These were analysed in 
partnership and solutions to ensure the proper administration of Community and national funds are 
under consideration. More specifically, the checks revealed problems with ineligible expenditure 
(financing costs, for example), operations not eligible under the ESF, accounting documents not 
acceptable for tax purposes, non-compliance with the VAT rules of the Member State, non-compliance 
with the principle of sound financial management (disproportionate costs), etc. The checks also revealed 
a few cases of fraud, which are being pursued by the national authorities. 
EAGGF: In 1995, 35 inspection visits were made to check the use made of EAGGF appropriations, a 
considerably larger number than in 1994 (21). These were organized on the initiative ofthe departments 
responsible for the EAGGF or the Financial Control of the Member States concerned. The audits 
focused on the systems used and on the entries in the accounts, which were checked for compliance with 
Community rules. Priority was given to programmes and operations covered by the first programming 
period, 1989-93, funds for which should have been committed by the end of 1993 or, where an extension 
was granted, in 1994 or 1995. Once again, in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 
4253/88, as amended, the Member States were requested to increase the number of their own inspection 
visits and keep the Commission informed ofthe results of these audits. 
As a rule, the systems introduced by the majority of Member States to check declared expenditure 
function well. Nevertheless a number of weaknesses and irregularities were revealed in almost all the 
Member States and measures. Examples of these include: uncertainty as to the validity of some 
commitments made before the end of the prescribed period, the lack of publicity and information on 
EAGGF part-financing, non-compliance with Community rules on public procurement, the award of aid 
for ineligible expenditure, unsuitable and inadequate control measures, major delays in payments to the 
final beneficiaries, incorrect application of conversion rates, and a risk of duplicate Community funding 
from different sources. 
FIFG: In 1995 the departments responsible for the FIFG made six inspection visits (one in Greece, 
France, Italy and the United Kingdom, and two in Spain) to check 20 projects financed under the old 
rules (Regulations (EEC) No 4028/86 and 4042/89), since checks on the FIFG are not due to begin until 
1996. The inspections revealed irregularities in four Member States. In France (La Seyne-sur-Mer and 
Saint-André), one aquaculture project had been stopped by the beneficiary himself (a decision on 
possible suspension is pending), and ineligible expenditure was detected for another. In Greece 
(Thessaloniki, Khalkidiki and Athens), a processing plant had not yet started operation (a report was 
requested from the Member State for 1996) and, in the case of an eel farm project, the Member State has 
been requested to make a thorough check ofthe beneficiary company and the construction company. In 
Spain (Madrid), a small amount of ineligible expenditure was discovered in a processing project. 
204 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Finally, in Italy (Naples and Bari), in one of the three processing/marketing projects inspected, a 
considerable delay in implementation was discovered. The Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention 
took part in the inspection visits to Greece and Madrid. No major irregularities were detected during the 
other inspection visits, to Lugo (Galicia, Spain), relating to vessel construction projects, and in Scotland, 
relating to six aquaculture projects. 
All Funds: In most cases the results of each inspection are communicated to the Member State 
concerned, drawing its attention to shortcomings and requesting changes to bring the procedures in line 
with current rules and in most cases the Commission also requests the designated authority in the 
Member State to submit a new, duly corrected declaration of expenditure, and makes the necessary 
financial adjustments. However, the Commission departments may - where the situation warrants - stop 
any further funding. They then propose to the Member State (pursuant to Community rules) a number of 
general or specific solutions to permit compliance with Community rules and national provisions, and 
then monitor their implementation. When judicial inquiries are opened (in cases of suspected fraud), the 
Commission suspends payments until the procedure is closed, so that it can then take the necessary steps 
(payment, reduction or discontinuation). However, the most important effect of these inspections is their 
role in instructing the regional authorities and bodies responsible for the administration and internal 
auditing ofthe Structural Funds how to adjust their practices and procedures where they do not comply 
with the rules. 
The Commission departments regularly remind the authorities ofthe Member States ofthe need to apply 
the provisions on financial implementation contained in the Commission decisions approving the 
programmes at all administrative levels. In 1995, the departments responsible for the Funds focused 
more closely on monitoring the results of inspection visits by the Court of Auditors (sector letters, 
annual report) and Financial Control, and intensified their cooperation with the Unit on Coordination of 
Fraud Prevention. In addition, all departments took part in discussion meetings held at the Commission 
on the problems linked to the eligibility of expenditure2. 
Inspection activities were also intensified by the introduction of Commission Regulation (EC) No 
1681/94 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the 
structural policies. On the whole, the situation resulting from the information forwarded by the Member 
States is far from satisfactory3, since the Commission continues to discover a large number of cases of 
irregularity which are not reported. 
Finally, at the request ofthe European Parliament, in October 1995 the Commission presented a report 
on irregularities in the management of Community Structural Funds in the new German Lander4 for the 
period 1991-93. The report highlights the irregularities and suspected cases of fraud detected, the 
weaknesses in the management and control systems, inadequate knowledge of Community rules and the 
lack of administrative organization, due to the exceptional political, economic and administrative 
situation in the new German Lander during that transitional period. It also describes the measures taken 
by the Commission and the Member State to correct and prevent such irregularities. 
1.2. Inspections carried out by Financial Control 
In 1995 Financial Control carried out its Structural Fund inspection activities in line with the current 
discussions on improving financial management5. The main aim was to rationalize the inspections, 
partly by investigating whether random sampling could be used to grant approval within the 
Commission and partly by increased use of systems audits in the Member States. 
2 See 1.2 below - Inspections carried out by Financial Control. 
3 See 1995 Annual Report "Protecting the Community's financial interests" (COM(96) 173 final). 
4OJNoL353, 17.12.1995. 
5 See below: 2. Improving financial management. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 205 
In 1995, Financial Control made 86 on-the-spot inspections in which expenditure totalling around ECU 
7 250 million under the forms of assistance audited was checked. The main aim of the control 
programme was to check the legality, regularity and effectiveness of transactions under the Structural 
Funds and, at the same time, to complete the audit records for each Fund and each Member State 
available to Financial Control and update the 1994 systems audit report. To that end, the checks 
concentrated on an audit of the administration and control systems in the Member States for all the 
Funds, in accordance with the audit methods developed by Financial Control. One of the more general 
findings was that the certifications of expenditure by the authorities designated in the Member State are 
not always based on a reliable or adequate control system. This is particularly the case with the lack of 
checks on the eligibility of expenditure at the various stages of processing of the financial information 
forwarded by the final beneficiaries, resulting in some expenditure being rejected as ineligible in a large 
number of spot checks on projects. These cases involve the purchase of second-hand equipment, general 
or personnel costs incurred outside the eligibility periods, non-entry into the accounts of revenue to be 
deducted from declared expenditure, methods of converting expenditure into ecus not complying with 
the rules (ESF), the purchase of land, financial commitments not complying with the rules or outside the 
time limits laid down in the programmes (EAGGF), etc. 
In order to make better use ofthe resources ofthe various authorities involved in checks, and in line with 
the guidelines adopted by the Commission under the SEM 2000 exercise, negotiations continued in 1995 
with a view to extending the cooperation protocols concluded between the Commission and the relevant 
national inspection authorities to other Member States. For example, following the establishment of a 
special inspection coordination body within the Greek Ministry of Finance, a protocol was signed with 
Greece (April 1995), and thorough discussions with the Netherlands will make it possible to adapt the 
formula ofthe protocols to the decentralized or distributed inspection systems ofthose Member States 
with a similar structure (in particular the United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland) and those with a federal 
structure (Belgium, Germany and Austria). As far as the existing protocols are concerned, coordination 
of inspections with France, Italy and Spain was put into practice in line with the coordinated plans drawn 
up and discussed at the beginning ofthe year. 
Finally, following the systems audit programme carried out between 1992 and 1994, and the report 
mentioned above, it became apparent that there was a special problem with expenditure eligibility. The 
reason is that the regulations governing the Structural Funds do not give any detailed definition of 
eligible expenditure, and that, although the texts approving the various forms of assistance contain 
standard clauses for certain general aspects (expenditure committed and paid, supporting documents, 
definition ofthe final beneficiary and eligibility dates), they do not provide any specific guidelines on 
certain items or particular types of expenditure. Therefore a detailed discussion within the Commission 
was launched in 1995 to clarify some of these complex eligibility problems. The inter-departmental 
working party set up to that end in September 1994 and chaired by Financial Control produced an initial 
set of datasheets describing and harmonizing the approach of the Structural Funds to certain items of 
expenditure, such as second-hand equipment, depreciation, VAT, bank interest, eligibility periods and 
the concept of final beneficiary. The work centred on the establishment of transparent and monitorable 
methods of implementing financial engineering measures - venture capital funds (guidelines laid down 
by the Commission in July 1995) and guarantee funds. Several eligibility issues remain to be studied for 
1996 (investments in land and property, for example). Subsequently, the question of eligibility was put 
on the agenda for the group of personal representatives ofthe European Finance Ministers set up as part 
ofthe exercise for improving financial management described below. 
2. Improving financial management 
When it took up office, the new Commission decided to launch an internal discussion on ways of 
strengthening financial management within the Commission. The discussion began in 1995 as a three-
stage process and are of vital concern to the departments responsible for the Structural Funds. The first 
stage consisted in consolidating the internal administration system within the existing framework by 
rationalizing the Commission's financial procedures and departments. The idea was to give the budget 
206 7tn Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
and financial units a more effective structure, provide better training for staff and modernize 
management tools, in order to rationalize financial management procedures, improve assessment of 
Community programmes and improve the effectiveness of the action taken in response to the 
observations of the other Community institutions on budget issues. The second stage was aimed at a 
more substantial reform of internal procedures and organization, in particular to introduce greater 
transparency into budget decision-making and initiate an assessment process for the measures adopted. 
These two stages were introduced successively in the course of 1995 and continued in parallel 
throughout the year. 
The third stage ofthe exercise was launched at the end of 1995 and is to continue in 1996. It is aimed at 
strengthening and developing the partnership with the Member States in those areas in which they are 
responsible for administering Community appropriations. This therefore very much concerns the 
Structural Funds. For example, discussions began at ministerial level in various areas relating to the 
organization and administration of Community appropriations in the Member States to ensure that their 
administration is proper and effective. These discussions, which are intended to improve cooperation 
between the Commission and the Member States, concern in particular, as far as the Structural Funds are 
concerned, the question of finding a common, transparent and universally agreed definition of 
expenditure eligible for Structural Fund part-financing. The discussions will therefore be decisive for the 
immediate future of the programmes, both as regards their monitoring and in terms of their proper 
economic and administrative implementation. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 207 
C. COORDINATION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS 
!• Cohesion Fund 
Cohesion Fund, Structural Funds and environment: 
Like the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund provides major financial support for environmental 
projects. The Regulation establishing it specifies that a suitable balance must be struck between 
transport infrastructure and environmental projects, the two sectors for which it was set up. From its 
ECU 16 million budget for the period 1993-99, 45% of appropriations in its first two years of 
operation (1993-94) were allocated to environmental projects. For the period as a whole, a 50/50 
balance between environment and transport will be sought. Projects cover, for example, water 
management, waste water treatment and waste disposal. In all cases the Commission seeks maximum 
coherence and coordination between Cohesion Fund and Structural Fund financing. 
The need to coordinate assistance from the Cohesion Fund, the Structural Funds, the EIB and other 
financial instruments for environmental and trans-European transport network projects is mentioned in 
the preamble to the Council Regulation establishing the Cohesion Fund1. Article 1 ofthe Regulation 
states that the Fund may contribute to financing project stages that are technically and financially 
independent. The Commission must accordingly ensure that an item of expenditure relating to a project 
in several stages financed from the Cohesion Fund is not granted assistance at the same time from the 
Structural Funds, and Article 9 ofthe Regulation (on cumulation and overlapping) states that no item of 
expenditure may benefit from both the Cohesion ¥\md and the Structural Funds and that combined 
Cohesion Fund and other Community aid for a project may not exceed 90% of total expenditure thereon. 
This does not rule out separate contributions to a large project from several instruments provided that 
expenditure on the individual stages can be clearly identified in terms of either time or the nature ofthe 
stages. 
The purpose is to allow financing in tandem, with the ERDF in particular, of large projects comprising 
several stages. Such coordination of the available Community financial instruments helps increase the 
impact of assistance, particularly where trans-European transport networks are concerned, and so 
accelerates their establishment. Separation into project stages requires close coordination between 
financial instruments and both physical and financial monitoring. Aid for environment and trans-
European transport infrastructure projects can in fact be granted from the Structural Funds, mainly the 
ERDF but also, to a lesser extent, the EAGGF. Action is therefore taken to prevent double financing. 
This involves in the first place organizational arrangements for coordinated financing. When the CSFs 
were being drawn up, the Commission mounted a general coordination exercise to implement the 
doubling in real terms of commitment appropriations for Objective 1 regions in the countries benefitting 
from the Cohesion Fund as envisaged by the Edinburgh European Council. The CSF financing plans 
accordingly explicitly mention the resources allocated from the Cohesion Fund2. In the case of Spain for 
example, where only some regions are eligible under Objective 1, ECU 7.95 billion from the Cohesion 
Fund for the period 1993-99 was entered in the Objective 1 CSF. This amount was determined on the 
basis of the Edinburgh target. Under the principles of subsidiarity and partnership, the submission of 
suitable projects to achieve the doubling in real terms of Structural Fund appropriations in the less 
prosperous parts of Spain is the responsibility of the national government and the Objective 1 CSF 
Monitoring Committee. As a "non-regional" fund, the Cohesion Fund does not normally collect 
regionalized data. 
In the second place, even closer attention has to be paid to coordinating the projects themselves given 
that Structural Fund assistance is principally for programmes whereas the Cohesion Fund finances 
individual projects or groups of projects. Coordination procedures were introduced when the cohesion 
1 Council Regulation (EC) 1164/94 of 16 May 1994, OJ No L 130, 25.5.1994. 
2 See 1994 Annual Report. 
208 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
financial instrument, which preceded the Cohesion Fund, came into operation in order to ensure that 
project or project stages submitted had not already been presented for Structural Fund assistance. The 
departments responsible for Structural Fund management have to be consulted before the Commission 
takes a decision to grant assistance from the Cohesion Fund. Checking procedures were also introduced 
to ensure that no item of expenditure can be simultaneously financed from the Structural Funds and the 
Cohesion Fund. These procedures have so far functioned effectively. There has been neither 
disagreement between the departments responsible for managing the Structural Funds and the Cohesion 
Fund nor any case of double financing. In certain cases Member States have applied for financing from 
different instruments for various stages of a single project; this is in accordance with the rules. 
A major project in Portugal: 
The Cruz-Braga motorway was initially included in the 1994-99 CSF for ERDF 
financing. After the Cohesion Fund started to operate, it was considered that, as 
an element of the trans-European transport networks, it should be financed by 
the Cohesion Fund, so allowing more ERDF aid to be devoted to transport. The 
second stage of construction was therefore taken out ofthe ERDF OP and given 
Cohesion Fund financing at a higher rate under Article 7 of the Cohesion Fund 
Regulation. To prevent any overlapping of Community aid, Commission 
officials, in cooperation with the national authorities, identified two distinct 
stages of the project using physical indicators. Then, for financial management 
purposes, a date was set from which payment applications and supporting 
documents were to be sent to the Fund. The Commission also stepped up 
monitoring at the time when aid was transferred from the ERDF to the Cohesion 
Fund, two inspections visits being made in four months. Obviously, the 
administrative burden of managing projects in several stages is lighter if stages 
are clearly separate. 
The Commission is examining how the four Member States concerned (Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal) 
could be more closely involved in this coordination, given that under the OPs selection of individual 
projects is generally done at regional programming level. 
2. EIB 
The EIB confirmed in 1995 that economic and social cohesion remains its priority, an objective in any 
case assigned to it by the Treaty on European Union. In 4995 out of a total of ECU 21.4 billion in loans 
granted (a 7.5% increase on 1994, which' itself represented an increase of 1.6% on 1993), ECU 18 782 
million was granted in the Community (a 5.2% increase on 1994 compared with a fall of 2%> from 
1993). A total of ECU 12 144 million was granted to regions lagging behind in development or suffering 
from industrial decline. 
Table 127: EIB - Financing for regional development (ECU million) 
Total activity in the EU (1) 
Regional development 
Objective 1 
Countries eligible underthe Cohesion Fund 1995 
18.782 
12.144 
68% 
5.881 
48% 
4648 
38% 1994 
17.682 
12.035 
72% 
5.748 
48% 
4.746 
39% 1993 
16.779 
12.462 
74% 
7.228 
58% 
6.142 
34% 
(1) Amount of finance granted, i.e. individual loans signed and appropriations 
allocated for current global loans. 
The concentration of financing in favour of investment located in regional development zones, which 
had eased in 1993 (72% in 1994 against 74% in 1993), again lessened in 1995 (68%). In contrast to the 
upward trend ofthe period 1989-93, the bank's activity in promoting regional development, although 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 209 
greater in absolute terms, is in relative terms lower than the level attained in 1992. Despite this 
slackening, economic and social cohesion remains the EIB's priority. 
In the regions where development is lagging behind (Objective 1), EIB loans amounted to ECU 5 881 
million, i.e. 48% ofthe total for regional development (48% in 1994, 58% in 1993), again a lower 
proportion than in 1993 or for the period 1989-93. Assistance in the four Cohesion Fund countries 
(Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal) amounted to ECU 4 648 million, 26% of total financing in the 
Community (28%) in 1994, 37%o in 1993) and 38% of total regional development financing (39% in 
1994). 
Table 128: EIB - Breakdown by sector of financing for regional development (ECU million) 
Regional development I TOTAL I Vo 
Energy : 2TÏÏÏÏ9" \^S% 
Transport 4.385 36,1% 
Telecommunications 885 7,3% 
Environment and other infrastructure 1.614 13,3% 
Industry, agriculture and services 3.251 26,8% 
TOTAL| 12.144 ÎWW 
The breakdown between individual and global loans confirms the upswing in global loans (sharply down 
in 1993). Individual loans were slightly down. 
3. ECSC 
Under Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty, the Commission has at its disposal a loan instrument for 
conversion investment to create jobs in areas affected by the reduction of activity and employment in the 
coal and steel sector. These can be accompanied by interest-rate subsidies (calculated on the number of 
jobs to be created) of up to 3% for five years. The regional orientation of these loans and their 
coordination with the Structural Funds have been progressively strengthened by operational provisions 
adopted by the Commission since 19903 which have increased their concentration in zones eligible 
under the regional objectives ofthe CSFs and the Community Rechar and Résider Initiatives. 
The total volume of new ECSC conversion loans approved by the Commission in 1995 and given 
Council assent in February 1996 was ECU 394.4 million with the number of jobs to be created around 
27 000. The sum of ECU 11.45 million was committed under the ECSC budget for 1995 for interest-rate 
subsidies on current loans. During 1995 the Commission made 102 conversion loans, 95 global loans 
totalling ECU 196 million and seven direct loans totalling ECU 64.2 million. 
4. European Investment Fund 
The purpose ofthe Fund, established in June 1994, is to support medium and long-term investment by 
providing long-term guarantees for loans taken out for investment in trans-European networks and 
SMEs. 
The loan volume guaranteed in 1995 was ECU 686.8 million, of which ECU 116.46 million was for 
transactions actually signed. Trans-European network projects amounted to 94% of the total volume 
signed: 17% in transport, 26% in telecommunications and 51% in energy. SMEs projects accounted for 
6% of operations. 
3 OJNoC 188/9, 28.7.1990, OJ No C 59/4, 6.3.1992, Commission Decision E/l967/94 of 12 December 1994. 
210 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
5. The financial mechanism ofthe European Economic Area 
The Agreement on the European Economic Area provided for a financial mechanism, paid for by the 
EFTA countries and managed by the EIB, to help promote economic and social cohesion in the 
Community. Its scope is defined in Protocol 38 to the Agreement: grants totalling ECU 500 million 
between 1994 and 1998 and 10-year interest-rate subsidies of 2% on a total loan volume of ECU 1.5 
billion. Assistance is given for projects in Greece, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Portugal and, for 1989-93, 
the Spanish Objective 1 regions. 
Following enlargement, the contributions of Austria, Finland and Sweden have been taken over by the 
Community budget and the Commission is accordingly represented on the Financial Mechanism 
Committee, which approves projects. 
In 1995 the Committee approved interest-rate subsidies on ECU 302.4 million in loans for seven projects 
in Spain and one in Greece and ECU 68 million in grants for four projects in Greece and three in Spain. 
These were in the three eligible sectors: transport, environment and education and training. 
Piraeus container terminal, an example of assistance from the Community 
instruments: 
The port of Piraeus is the principal cargo entry point to Attica, the region which 
is home to some 50% ofthe population of Greece, a country where sea transport 
has recently grown in importance, more than 90% of goods arriving by sea. 
Piraeus is one ofthe two Greek ports to have a specialized container terminal. 
One of its three sections, Ikonion, already has a teiminal and a second, Ikonion 
II, is partly complete. Under the EEA Financial Mechanism, ECU 12.1 million 
has been granted to complete the second terminal, which will substantially 
increase the port's container traffic capacity. A loan of ECU 42.9 million from 
the EIB has also been granted plus an interest-rate subsidy of 2% a year for ten 
years. The Cohesion Fund is also contributing ECU 15 million for completion 
ofthe quay wall and purchase of cranes, tractors and other specific equipment. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 211 
D. COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES 
Introduction 
Endeavours to achieve the complementarity between structural measures and other sector-specific 
Community policies required under the regulations on the Structural Funds (Article 7 ofthe Framework 
Regulation), which is a matter for this Annual Report, were stepped up in 1995. Selecting the 
environment as the theme for this Report illustrates those endeavours, which are evident in various ways 
and at various levels. In terms of legislation and regulations, attention to coordination and forecasting 
continued to increase in 1995 with a view to preventing and penalizing infringements of the rules on 
competition and public procurement, particularly in environmental fields. In terms of financial support, 
the Structural Funds supplement Community Initiatives in certain sectors, like equal opportunities, 
support for SMEs, trans-European networks, and research and technological development. 
Within the Commission, a start has been made on assessing possible ways of enhancing synergy 
between the various Community policies and the Structural Funds. The Commission also urges the 
Member States and authorities responsible for implementing programmes to take account of these 
guidelines at their level. Complementarity between Community policies must apply both in the drawing-
up of programmes, guaranteed since the review of the Regulations in 1993, and in their practical 
implementation. The Commission therefore urges the Member States to make a special effort, at all 
administrative levels and stages of implementation (in particular within the Monitoring Committees and 
when awarding public contracts or applying aid schemes), to reduce the risks of infringing Community 
rules. In 1995 the Commission also gave consideration to the drafting of recommendations incorporating 
certain concerns stemming from other Community policies in the current programming ofthe Structural 
Funds. This consideration gave rise to several Commission communications on cohesion policy and the 
environment, the integrated management of coastal zones1, structural assistance and employment2 and 
encouraging local development and employment initiatives, while further communications were being 
prepared, in particular on incorporating equal opportunities in Community policies. As the environment 
is touched on throughout this Report, this section will not deal with the topic. 
Complementarity with employment policy 
With more specific reference to employment, the Structural Funds are, as already stressed in this Report, 
the Community's prime weapon in the fight against unemployment. Of the five priority measures 
advocated by the Essen European Council, three, improved vocational training, a more effective 
employment market and measures to facilitate the integration into the labour market of groups 
particularly affected by unemployment, are the direct concern ofthe Structural Funds. The priority to be 
given to these measures was confirmed by the European Councils in Cannes and Madrid, which also 
supported the Commission's proposals on local development and employment initiatives. 
The Structural Funds are the main instrument used for these ends, particularly under Objectives 3 and 4 
for the ESF but also under the regional Objectives (Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b)) for all the Funds. During 
the year, the Commission tabled a series of documents containing suggestions on how to implement the 
employment priorities of the European Councils. In June 1995 it adopted a communication on a 
European strategy to encourage local development and employment initiatives, which includes a strategy 
to support this process and distribute the results through the Monitoring Committees for the Structural 
Funds. Its October communication on the European employment strategy has the Structural Funds at its 
1 For these two communications see Chapter I. A. 1.2. Greater integration ofthe "environment" factor and Chapter 
I.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
2 Communication first presented at the informal ministerial meeting in Madrid (30 November-1 December 1995) 
and subsequently published in 1996 (COM(96) 109 final of 30 March 1996) - See Introduction. C. Employment, 
a major challenge for the Union. 
212 7 th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
centre and this is spelt out in detail in the communication "Community Structural Policies and 
Employment" referred to above. 
However, the very nature ofthe operations, which are directly aimed at making the employment market 
more effective (e.g. support for vocational training), makes any attempt at quantification difficult. 
Nevertheless, the Structural Funds have made a considerable effort to adapt themselves to the situations 
which the Essen summit identified as priorities. 
1. The Structural Funds, equal opportunities and combatting social exclusion 
Combatting social exclusion and promoting equal opportunities are among the Community policy 
priorities set in Essen and endorsed in Cannes and Madrid. In this area the ESF intervenes mainly with 
regard to Objective 3, but also, albeit less identifiably, with regard to the regionalized objectives 
(Objectives 1,2 and 5(b)). 
The Structural Funds and combatting social exclusion 
Combatting social exclusion is a clear Objective 3 priority ofthe ESF, with ECU 5.6 billion to be spent 
on achieving the goal in 1994-99. At variance with past practice, the approach adopted will involve 
tackling the phenomenon of social exclusion in an integrated fashion and not as an appendage to other 
policies. Priority will thus be given to facilitating the return to the labour market and consequently to 
training measures. For the first time, the ESF regards setting up integration pathways to employment as 
eligible, whether they target employment or social integration. In this respect Community funding 
supports both social accompanying measures and training measures proper. 
The Structural Funds and equal opportunities 
The amendments to the regulations governing Structural Fund assistance in 1993 extend the obligation 
to observe the principle of equal opportunities to all assistance from the Funds. In decisions approving 
programmes, a standard clause has been specially inserted to ensure compliance with this new 
obligation. Two approaches have been adopted in programmes, varying according to the Member States. 
Some Member States (the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain) have adopted specific measures 
targeting women while others have preferred a broader approach, which entails checking the impact of 
the equal opportunities policy by means of precise assessment indicators. This is the case in particular in 
France. The Objective 1 and Objective 3 appropriations allocated to this priority are estimated at at least 
2% ofthe total, or ECU 785 million for the period 1994-99. In Objective 5(b) measures relating to rural 
society, there is increasing emphasis on equal opportunities for men and women, given the fact that in 
many regions over 40%> of farm income comes from activities outside the holding, which are almost 
always carried out by women. Such activity creates wealth and employment and contributes towards 
maintaining and developing a dynamic economy. The NOW programme (1991-93) was renewed and 
strengthened within the framework ofthe EMPLOYMENT Community Initiative (1994-99). With ESF 
funds amounting to ECU 361 million, NOW focuses on devising, testing and implementing new training 
and employment ideas for women3. One of the priority objectives of EMPLOYMENT-NOW is the 
uptake of positive results from projects financed under the CSFs. 
In 1995 a working GROUP on equal opportunities comprising Members ofthe Commission was set up 
under the chairmanship of Mr Santer and an interdepartmental working party prepared a draft 
communication from the Commission to Parliament and the Council entitled "Incorporating equal 
opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities". The document contains a 
section on the Structural Funds, the main financial instrument able to play a part in implementing this 
Union priority. Considerations covering indicators and ways of measuring the degree to which the 
See Chapter I.B.I Community initiatives, analysis of programmes in the Member States. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 213 
principle of equality is taken into account in current programming must nevertheless be pursued. The 
document proposes the establishment of basic indicators for certain types of positive measures in the 
field of equal opportunities with a view to defining criteria to be applied by programme Monitoring 
Committees in selecting projects. A cross-sector assessment study has been undertaken to throw light on 
the way this aspect is actually implemented by the Structural Funds. The Commission is also to draw up 
methodological guidelines for the Monitoring Committees. Work carried out to date supports the view 
that cohesion and the complementarity between various types of Community assistance should be 
enhanced. 
2. The Structural funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development 
The Structural Funds and the common agricultural policy 
Since agriculture is still one of the main activities for many regions of the Community, most of the 
programmes for 1994-99 include measures relating to the sector. It is therefore essential, on the one 
hand, to ensure that the measures proposed by the Member States in development plans for rural areas 
under Objective 1 or Objective 5(b) are compatible with the guidelines of the CAP and, on the other 
hand, to take into consideration the contribution which agricultural measures make to the development 
of economic activity. With regard to the more specific case of Objective 5(b), measures relating to 
agriculture in the SPDs were devised with an eye to the necessary complementarity between the reform 
of the CAP and rural development. Those measures take account of the diversity of agriculture in 
Objective 5(b) areas (in terms of structures, forms of collective organization, traditions and know-how, 
geographical situation, and relative distance from markets). Matching this diversity in structures is a 
variety of solutions to allow each agricultural holding to adapt to the market and extend the range of 
products or services offered (farm tourism, environment), while endeavouring to control production 
costs. 
The measures planned allow a sufficient number of farmers to stay in farming to contribute towards the 
socio-economic development of rural areas and the Commission has ensured that certain guarantees are 
forthcoming. Generally speaking, each time a national aid scheme is proposed, a check is made to ensure 
that it is compatible with the existing rules of the CAP and those on State aid. The measures given 
priority have included the application of new technologies, energy saving and quality promotion. In the 
case of irrigation, for example, priority has been given to measures to improve existing structures to 
avoid water losses (through evaporation, leaks, etc.) without affecting the area irrigated. If it was found 
that new areas were being irrigated, the Commission placed severe restrictions on the extension and 
asked to be informed ofthe crops which it was intended to grow there. 
The same approach was followed under Objective 5(a) with regard to structures for both production and 
marketing. In order to maintain market balance in certain products, investment aid which would have 
increased production was banned (pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat). Restrictions were imposed on 
beef/veal. For the processing and marketing of agricultural products, the Commission laid down 
selection criteria following the guidelines set by Community policies, and in particular the CAP. In some 
sectors, investment aid was prohibited or authorized subject to strict limits and an accompanying 
reduction in existing capacity, the aim being to modernize and rationalize the sectors concerned 
(beef/veal, pigmeat, etc., and some processed fruit and vegetables). 
The challenges facing rural society 
More generally, since the 1988 reform ofthe Structural Funds, the Commission has introduced a specific 
policy for rural areas. Rural society is undergoing far-reaching changes and is increasingly subject to 
pressures which threaten an already delicate balance. Predominantly rural areas account for more than 
80%o of Community territory and over one quarter of its population. The prosperity and environment of 
rural communities are increasingly threatened while agriculture, the main activity in a large number of 
rural areas, is going through a crisis which calls into question the very basis of their existence. Economic 
214 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
decline, an ageing population, the drift of young people to the towns, the disappearance of services vital 
for the quality of life due to a lack of sufficient population, and desertification are some of the risks 
facing certain rural areas. 
In order to strengthen economic and social cohesion, Article 130a ofthe Treaty on European Union 
provides that the Community should reduce "disparities between the levels of development of the 
various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions, including rural areas." To assist 
rural areas, their advantages should be turned to account, taking all aspects of economic and social life 
into consideration by giving thought to agriculture and all other aspects of rural society which are vital 
for an integrated and viable rural economy and satisfactory "quality of life". Maintaining agriculture in 
some rural areas is often a condition of their survival and calls for the coordination of various measures, 
such as the common organization of markets, diversification of production, improving product quality, 
and implementing policies relating to plant health and research. At the same time, efforts to modernize 
and adapt agricultural structures must be pursued in order to make agricultural holdings competitive and 
to preserve the natural environment through an appropriate protection policy. 
However, for many years jobs in agriculture have constantly declined. Agriculture now accounts for 
only 5.5% ofthe total working population whereas this figure stood at over 20% in the early 1960s. The 
drift to large conurbations holds no solution since, on the one hand, persistent unemployment curbs the 
recruitment of labour and aggravates existing problems and, on the other hand, the flight from the land is 
likely to lead to its abandonment, thereby jeopardizing the overall equilibrium of the territory of the 
Union. A Community policy for multi-sector rural development must therefore help to preserve the 
social fabric and develop viable rural communities. Accordingly, alternative solutions must be found to 
keep the population in the countryside, wherever possible, by creating new jobs outside agriculture in 
sectors like tourism, craft trades, SMEs, farm relief services, the renovation of villages, and maintaining 
the residential environment and the historic heritage. 
This development policy for rural areas must be put into effect throughout the Community. The financial 
measures under Objective 5(a) play a part in achieving this, as do the ineasures accompanying the 
reform ofthe CAP. However, efforts must focus as a priority on regions economically most affected or 
least developed. Accordingly, appropriations must be concentrated on Objective 1 and 6 regions and 
Objective 5(b) areas within both the CSFs/SPDs and the Community Initiatives, in particular LEADER. 
For the period 1989-93, approximately ECU 15 billion has been allocated to rural development. That 
figure is expected to double in 1994-99. 
3. The Structural Funds and the common fisheries policy 
Since 1994, the year marking the incorporation of the CFP into the Structural Fund mechanisms, the 
instruments mobilized to assist fisheries structures (both the CSFs/SPDs and the PESCA Initiative) have 
a dual purpose in so far as they seek to ensure the survival and sustainable development of the policy by 
helping the fishing effort to adapt to dwindling stocks. These instruments also help strengthen economic 
and social cohesion through aid to reinforce structures in the fishing industry as a whole - the fleet, 
aquaculture, processing and marketing of products and port facilities. Furthermore, measures financed 
by the FIFG in relation to the fishing fleet must comply with the objectives ofthe Multiannual Guidance 
Programmes (MGPs), which place restrictions on the fishing effort of each Member State. In particular, 
aid for the construction of new fishing vessels is authorized only where the annual intermediate 
objectives ofthe MGP, and subsequently the final objectives, are observed. 
4. The Structural Funds and SMEs 
As far as assistance to SMEs and the craft sector is concerned, the OPs adopted for 1994-99 reflect the 
importance which the Community attaches to SMEs. Thus an average of 10% ofthe ERDF's resources is 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 215 
allocated specifically to measures for SMEs4. Furthermore, the SME Community Initiative helps raise 
the level of know-how in small firms while ADAPT promotes employment and the adaptation of the 
labour force to industrial change and should also benefit small firms. 
During 1995, most of the programmes relating to the SME Community Initiative (ECU 1 billion, 
including ECU 800 million for Objective 1 regions) were adopted. Through the Monitoring Committees, 
the Commission will ensure that the economic and social partners invited to take part in the 
implementation ofthe programmes include representatives of SMEs so they are more closely associated 
with the Community programmes, as recommended in the report which the Commission sent to the 
Madrid European Council,5 which stressed the importance of SMEs as a dynamic source of 
employment, growth and competitiveness in the European Union. It should be noted that the 
Commission staff responsible for enterprise policy attend Monitoring Committee meetings for 
programmes relating more specifically to SMEs, like those on industry and services, particularly in the 
Objective 1 countries (Ireland, Portugal and Greece), and those ofthe SME Initiative. 
EUROPARTENARIAT - events fostering contacts between European firms: 
Two EUROPARTENARIAT events were organized in Germany and Portugal 
in 1995. They were intended to stimulate cooperation and foster contacts 
between firms in eligible regions (Objectives 1, 2, 5(b) and 6) and those in other 
Member States or non-member countries. 
EUROPARTENARIAT North Rhineland-Westphalia (Dortmund, 20 and 21 
March 1995) drew around 5 000 visitors from 54 countries. The 357 Gennan 
firms had around 10 000 business meetings with the 2 000 visiting SMEs, 200 
of which came from countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States. 
EUROPARTENARIAT Portugal (Lisbon, 24 and 25 November 1995) was also 
a great success. The 406 Portuguese firms established contact with around 2 000 
SMEs in the course of 13 000 meetings. 
The Commission also supports participation in such events by firms from the 
central and eastern European countries, the Commonwealth of Independent 
States and the Mediterranean. 
5. The Structural Funds, research and technological development 
Measures undertaken since 1993 in connection with the Commission Communication on Cohesion and 
RTD Policy6 were continued in 1995. In the wake ofthe Communication, greater account was taken 
from 1994 on of economic and social cohesion in the Fourth Framework Programme for Research and 
of research and technological development in the Structural Funds. In particular, spending on actions 
relating to RTD financed by the Structural Funds increased substantially in absolute terms (partly owing 
to the fact that global funding for the Structural Funds almost doubled for 1994-99) and as a percentage 
compared with the previous period7. For the record, those measures account for nearly 5% of the 
Community contribution under Objective 1 and 12% under Objective 2. In addition, the revised ESF 
Regulation provides for the Fund to support, under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b), measures covering training 
in research, science and technology. 
In 1995 most ofthe programmes under the SME and ADAPT Community Initiatives were launched. 
The SME Initiative provides for financing to promote cooperation for RTD between SMEs themselves 
and between SMEs and research centres, technology transfer centres, universities and training centres. 
The ADAPT Initiative (ECU 1.5 billion, including ECU 400 million for Objective 1 regions) encourages 
4 See 1994 Annual Report. 
5 Commission Report on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A dynamic source of employment, growth and 
competitiveness in the European Union (SEC(95) 2087). 
6 COM(93) 203 of 12 May 1993. 
7 See 1994 Annual Report. 
216 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
inter alia cooperation and exchanges between firms and research in technology transfer to firms and 
vocational training bodies. Added to this are innovative measures under Article 10 of the ERDF 
Regulation, for which calls for proposals were issued in the second half of 1995 covering the 
development of innovative regional strategies, regional strategies for the development ofthe information 
society and inter-regional networks for the development of specific applications concerning the 
information society8. Funds set aside for these measures in 1995-99 amount to ECU 20 million for the 
information society and ECU 15 million for cooperation measures to encourage innovation and 
technology transfer. 
Furthermore, in accordance with the 1993 Communication, the Fourth Framework Research Programme 
takes account of economic and social cohesion, mainly under the third activity (disseminating research 
results and turning them to account) and fourth activity (training and mobility of research workers). 
Within the former, 18 innovation centres (of a total of 52) are currently operating in Objective 1 regions 
and one in an Objective 6 region. Most ofthe Objective 2 and 5(b) areas are covered by the network of 
innovation centres. The measure for research workers offers them many opportunities in less-favoured 
regions, and in particular in Objective 1 and 6 regions, through additional one-year grants to encourage 
researchers to return to their laboratories of origin; grants for high-level scientists to spend time in those 
regions; facilities for networks linking less-favoured regions and more prosperous regions; the selection 
of applications for access to major installations taking account of the impact on the scientific and 
technical potential of less-favoured regions; encouragement for less-favoured regions to participate in 
Euroconferences and regular assessment of the progress of the programme in the field of cohesion (a 
working party responsible for monitoring was set up to that end in 1995). 
6. The Structural Funds and trans-European networks 
Generally speaking, the Structural Funds continue to devote a large part of their budget to financing the 
series of trans-European networks9. With the establishment of a "progress chart" for monitoring 
financial assistance from the various Community instruments and a procedure for multiannual 
programming for the TENs for transport, better coordination and cohesion could be established between 
the various instruments. More specifically, the salient fact in 1995 as regards the implementation ofthe 
TENs was the adoption ofthe financial Regulation10, which lays down the conditions and procedures for 
the grant of Community financial assistance to projects of common interest within the framework ofthe 
TENs for transport, telecommunications and energy. That Regulation provides for a budget of ECU 
2 345 million for the period 1995-99. 
Trans-European transport networks 
The development of trans-European transport networks, which should make up for some shortcomings 
in outlying regions in terms of infrastructures and connections with the central regions of the 
Community, is bound up closely with the common transport policy11. The Community's contribution in 
this area takes the form of guidelines to help to achieve two fundamental objectives, namely the internal 
market and economic and social cohesion. The main purpose ofthe networks is to link isolated, island 
and peripheral regions with the centre ofthe Community. In accordance with the Treaty provisions on 
the subject (Articles 129b, 129c and 129d), the guidelines define the objectives, priorities and broad 
lines of measures envisaged. They are also to identify projects of common interest. All these proposals 
are included in the Community guidelines for the development ofthe trans-European transport network 
8 See Chapter l.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
9 See 1994 Annual Report. 
10 Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995. 
"This is set out in the Commission communication "The future development ofthe common transport policy" 
(COM(92) 494). Its chief points are the trans-European network policy and the need to take account of 
environmental protection in transport policy. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 217 
to which Parliament gave a second reading in December 1995. These consider multimodal transport as 
one of the solutions to be adopted to strengthen environmental protection and also identify the various 
components ofthe trans-European transport networks: 
• the road network (75 000 km): 20 000 km of road is to be built or improved in the next ten years and 
around 40%> ofthe work will be carried out in outlying regions; 
• the railway network (73 000 km by the year 2010), where the objective is to eliminate bottlenecks in 
the central regions and improve the quality of the network in peripheral regions (plant and 
equipment, electrification, new access lines, etc.); 
• ports, which are vital for the outlying Member States, as is the information and management network 
for shipping, the future development of which (improved safety and efficiency plus greater 
environmental protection in ecologically sensitive areas) directly concerns outlying countries; 
• the airport network, which acts more specifically as a gateway, in particular in outlying areas, and the 
progressive introduction of an air traffic management network, the current lack of which is a real 
handicap in certain outlying areas. 
The Community provides financial assistance through the financial Regulation mentioned above. Such 
assistance involves part-financing feasibility studies, loan guarantees and interest-rate subsidies and, in 
duly justified cases, direct grants for investment to supplement resources committed by the Member 
States. The financial perspective approved includes ECU 1.8 billion to finance transport projects, in 
particular the 14 projects given priority at the Essen European Council12. ECU 240 million was allocated 
in 1995. To optimize the effectiveness of Community assistance, the Commission proposed an indicative 
multiannual programme for 1996-99. The budget for the TENs for transport supplements financing 
under the Structural Funds (in particular under the CSFs), which funds some sections ofthe TENs for 
transport (in Spain, Ireland and Italy), and the Cohesion Fund, which also funds sections of TENs in the 
eligible Member States. These measures are moulded into a coherent whole through inter-departmental 
consultation procedures within the Commission. The ERDF and the Cohesion Fund contribute very 
substantially to the implementation of projects of common interest within the trans-European transport 
networks, thereby helping to make up for shortcomings in infrastructure, which constitute one of the 
barriers to the free movement of persons and goods towards or from the outlying regions. The ERDF 
also part-finances work covering access to the TENs. By their efforts to support projects relating to 
various modes of transport, the two Funds are one ofthe Community's main instruments for developing 
the trans-European network and achieving its objective, namely lasting mobility in line with the 
Community policy on the environment. 
Trans-European energy networks 
The guidelines on the TEN for gas and electricity were given a second reading by Parliament on 26 
October 1995, as were the specific measures relating to the TENs for energy. Through the CSFs/SPDs 
and also INTERREG II, the Structural Funds contribute substantially to the development ofthe trans-
European energy networks. In 1995 the Commission granted a substantial contribution under 
INTERREG (REGEN) for the development of gas networks in Greece and the Iberian peninsula13. 
These projects form part of the ten energy projects given priority by the Essen European Council in 
December 1994. Furthermore, one ofthe fundamental objectives ofthe policy on the TENs for energy 
(Article 129b ofthe Treaty) is to contribute towards economic and social cohesion and in particular to 
linking the outlying regions with the central regions ofthe Community. To implement that policy, in 
1995 the Commission granted ECU 12.2 million from the budget heading for trans-European networks 
to part-finance studies on energy networks, including ECU 6.5 million (53%) for projects in regions 
whose development is lagging behind. 
12 See 1994 Annual Report. 
13 See Chapter I.B.I. Community initiatives. 
218 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Trans-European telecommunications networks 
Lastly, in the telecommunications field, the guidelines for the ISDN TENs were adopted on 19 October 
1995 and set out a general framework for the financing of Community measures relating to the ISDN. 
7. The Structural Funds and the transparency of public contracts 
Observance of the Community rules on the award of public contracts is one of the requirements 
explicitly mentioned in Article 7 of the Framework Regulation on the Structural Funds. The 
Commission monitors compliance with the provisions applicable on the subject by two means, firstly 
when part-financing applications are made and secondly when it acts to oversee the Funds and verify 
compliance with those provisions. In the former case, and in particular by virtue of the principle of 
partnership and programming, observance ofthe provisions applicable to public procurement (Treaty 
and directives) is verified beforehand solely in respect of major projects of a value in excess of ECU 
25 million. During the implementation ofthe programmes, the Commission may verify compliance with 
the rules on public contracts through the Monitoring Committees. However, given the large number of 
projects concerned, the Commission's checks are not comprehensive. It is the task first and foremost of 
the authorities responsible in the Member States systematically to verify compliance with the rules on 
public procurement when public contracts are awarded in connection with the implementation of 
programmes. During each on-the-spot inspection visit14, compliance with the rules on public contracts is 
one ofthe points verified systematically. Furthermore, when disputes arising from infringements ofthe 
rules on public procurement are investigated, the Commission takes action where Community part-
financing is concerned. Thus in 1995 some major cases of dispute showed that Community financing 
was involved. 
Despite these various sources of information, chance still remains a significant factor and the risks of 
discrimination are high. The way the system works, by part-financing programmes and not projects, 
implies that verification of compliance with the rules on public procurement is essentially the task ofthe 
national authorities responsible for implementing the programmes and selecting the projects. 
Nonetheless the Commission is giving thought to improving the situation. This involves ensuring firstly 
that national legislation to implement Community directives is properly adopted. Furthermore, a solution 
which should be considered and discussed in partnership with the Member States could entail issuing a 
certificate of compliance with the rules on public procurement to the awarding authorities, setting up a 
body to verify observance ofthe provisions applicable on the subject and increasing the responsibility of 
the authority awarding contracts part-financed by the Community. It would be based on subsidiarity and 
partnership. At all events further progress must be made to improve the system of controls so that the 
situation regarding public contracts is clearer and there are controls which lay more stress on prevention 
and less on penalization after the event. 
8. The Structural Funds and competition policy 
Under Articles 92 and 93 ofthe Treaty, the Commission keeps under review public aid to firms in so far 
as it distorts competition and affects trade between Member States. Among its criteria for assessing aid, 
the Commission gives prominence to economic and social cohesion, as the general texts adopted in 1995 
show. Thus the Guidelines on aid to employment15 state that the Commission will be favourably 
disposed towards aid to create new jobs in less-favoured regions. Similarly, the Community Framework 
for State aid for research and development16 provides for higher rates where subsidized projects are 
carried out in an assisted region. Conversely, it is important for the Commission to ensure that its 
14 See Chapter II.B. Checks and financial management. 
,5OJNoC334, 12.12.1995. 
16OJNoC45, 17.2.1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 219 
structural policy is consistent with competition policy as aid to firms accounts for a considerable part of 
structural intervention. To ensure such consistency, the Commission examines aid measures set out in 
programming documents and verifies in particular that national payments to Community part-financed 
projects fall within the framework of schemes approved by the Commission in accordance with Articles 
92 and 93 ofthe Treaty. 
In 1995, the efforts begun in 199417 to improve consistency between competition policy and structural 
policy continued. Firstly, the revision of maps of regions eligible for regional aid at national level in 
Spain and Belgium was completed. Apart from the fact that such maps meet the timetable for 
programming of the various Structural Fund Objectives, they improve consistency between regions 
assisted nationally and those eligible under the Structural Funds. Secondly, the list of schemes part-
financed by the Community was forwarded to the Commission by the three new Member States 
(Austria, Finland and Sweden). Some ofthose schemes were accepted as such as they had been adopted 
in 1994 under the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Others, which had been implemented 
before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, were adjusted in accordance with the Community 
rules on competition. The maps relating to regional aid in the new Member States were thus adopted in 
1995. The fact that there remain some areas eligible under Objectives 1, 2, 5(b) and 6 but not included 
by a Member State in its regional aid map is not incompatible with part-financing by the Structural 
Funds of schemes for aid to firms. The aid schemes which are authorized in such eligible areas must 
comply with the provisions on aid to SMEs or the de minimis aid rules, or else should fall under 
horizontal aid schemes for the environment or aid for research and development. Lastly, better 
coordination of decision-making procedures covering, on the one hand, the granting of assistance from 
the Structural Funds and, on the other hand, State aids continues to bear fruit in so far as it has enabled 
decisions on the granting of Structural Fund assistance to be approved more quickly. 
9. Structural policy and education and training 
1995 was the first year ofthe new generation of Community action programmes in the field of 
education and vocational training. These new action programmes, namely SOCRATES^ and 
LEONARDO DA VINCI19 have been adopted by the Council on the basis of Articles 126 and 127 of 
the Treaty on European Union. Both programmes call for a consistent or complementary 
implementation with other Community programmes and initiatives. In addition, Art. 8 ofthe Council 
Decision establishing LEONARDO DA VINCI stipulates that "in the context of their responsibility 
for implementing Community support frameworks, the Member States shall be free to establish 
consistency between this programme and the Structural Funds". 
This emphasis on consistency and complementarity is evident against the background of the 
development after the European Council in Essen, that put education and training on the top of the 
political agenda as keys to employment and competitiveness. It is necessary that the results of 
innovative education and training projects are transferred into mainstream funding ofthe Structural 
Funds. 
Practical steps has been taken to ensure complementarity between the Community Initiatives ADAPT 
and EMPLOYMENT and the LEONARDO DA VINCI programme. Commission services responsible 
for these programmes issued a framework paper on complementarity in March 1995 which 
demonstrated the scope for measures to be taken. These ineasures aimed to avoid double funding on 
17 See 1994 Annual Report. 
18 Decision 819/95/EC ofthe European Parliament and ofthe Council of 14 March 1995 establishing the 
Community action programme "Socrates". 
19 Council Decision 94/819/EC of 6 December 1994 establishing an action programme for the implementation 
of a European Community vocational training policy. 
220 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
the on hand and to benefit from a complementary implementation of both sets of programmes on the 
other hand. 
^aaa 
ÇHAFTERffl 
INTER-INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE, REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP, 
DIALOGUE WITH THE SOCIAL PARTNERS 
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 223 
A. INTER-INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE 
Implementation of the Structural Funds entails a constant and wide-ranging dialogue between the 
Commission and the other Community institutions. Both the number of partners involved and the 
subjects under discussion are constantly growing. The form of these discussions ranges from the now 
systematic exchange of information between the Commission, the European Parliament, the Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions to the adoption of official texts addressed to 
the other institutions in the form of communications from the Commission and opinions and resolutions 
from the other institutions. These exchanges take the fonn principally of meetings, whether formal (e.g. 
meetings of Parliament or its Committees, ministerial meetings) or informal (seminars or joint working 
parties) at political or technical level (inter-departmental or within the Structural Funds committees). 
These varied contacts naturally cover a very wide range of subjects. During 1995, these included the 
main topics which affected the Structural Funds and economic and social cohesion during the year: the 
adoption ofthe programmes for the new Member States and the new PEACE Initiative for reconciliation 
and peace in Northern Ireland, preparation ofthe Commission Decision on the allocation ofthe reserve 
for the Community Initiatives and the consultations which that entailed, preparation of the second phase 
of programmes under Objective 2 for 1997-99 and responses to the Fifth Periodic Report on the Social 
and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions in the Community, which was adopted in 
1994. They also embraced topics relating to the implementation ofthe Structural Funds such as their 
effectiveness and assessment, progress in implementing operational programmes and the finance they 
involve and the inclusion of the economic and social partners. Other topics discussed include subjects 
relating to the context of the Structural Funds such as their links with the development of a spatial 
planning policy on a European scale or the contribution of the Structural Funds to promoting job-
creation. 
1. Dialogue with the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee 
1.1. The European Parliament 
The Commission and Parliament maintained a continuous and fruitful dialogue during 1995. Pursuant to 
the code of conduct signed by the two bodies in July 1993, all programming documents concerning 
structural measures are sent to Parliament. The dialogue between the Commission and Parliament takes 
the fonn of the adoption of resolutions and opinions on structural policies proposed by Parliament's 
specialist committees and regular attendance by Commission representatives at meetings of those 
committees. 
During the year, Parliament issued opinions on a number of operations by the Structural Funds: financial 
assistance to Portugal for a specific programme to modernize the textiles and clothing industry,1 the 
special programme of aid for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland (PEACE Initiative)2, the 
Commission's proposal on emergency Community aid for the reconstruction ofthe areas devastated by 
the hurricane which hit Madeira in October 1993 and the proposal for a Decision on the reduced rate of 
excise duties on traditional rum produced in the overseas departments. 
Parliament also issued an opinion on the Fifth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and 
Development of the Regions in the Community. It noted that, despite a general improvement in the 
situation in the regions ofthe Community, economic and social disparities were still considerable and 
asked for the factors which have a negative impact and help increase imbalances to be identified, for an 
assessment to be made of structural and financial assistance and for further measures to be taken and 
1 Originally adopted in 1993 as the Textiles and Clothing in Portugal Initiative and then transferred to Heading 3 of 
the Financial Perspective (see 1994 Annual Report and Chapter I.B.I - Community Initiatives - of this Report). 
2 See Chapter I.B. 1 Community Initiatives. 
224 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
penalties introduced to prevent poor utilization of appropriations. It also asked for a study on the criteria 
for eligibility under the Structural Funds to ensure greater effectiveness and for consideration to be given 
to future enlargement ofthe Union. Parliament also adopted a resolution on "Europe 2000+" in which it 
asked the Inter-governmental Conference beginning in 1996 to incorporate in the Union Treaty the basis 
of a Europe-wide policy on spatial planning, including the adoption of common guidelines to ensure the 
coherence and complementarity of the various Community policies, the strengthening of the trans-
European networks and a legal framework to facilitate cross-border and inter-regional cooperation. 
The Commission demonstrated complete willingness to keep the Committee on Regional Policy 
informed about developments in the implementation of the structural policies. Mrs Wulf-Mathies, the 
Member with special responsibility for regional policy and cohesion, presented the regional aspects of 
the 1995 work programme and informed members of Parliament about the follow up to the informal 
ministerial meeting in Strasbourg on 30 and 31 March3 and the Commission's proposal on the allocation 
ofthe reserve for the Community Initiatives.4 In addition, she covered cross-border cooperation and the 
link between economic and social cohesion and economic and monetary union, a topic also dealt with by 
Mr de Silguy, the Member with special responsibility for economic and monetary matters. Before the 
end of the year, Mrs Wulf-Mathies presented the Commission's work programme for 1996, the 
guidelines for assistance to Objective 2 areas for 1997-99 and the communication on "Cohesion policy 
and the environment."5 The Director-General for Regional Policy and Cohesion presented the work of 
the cohesion financial instrument, the predecessor to the Cohesion Fund, in 1993 and 1994 and the 
communication on the new regional programmes under Objectives 1 and 2 ofthe Structural Funds. 
With more specific reference to the ESF, the working party set up at the end of 1994 with members from 
Parliament's Committee on Social Affairs and the ESF continued its work throughout 1995. This flexible 
structure comprises five members of the Committee on Social Affairs and the Director and Heads of 
Division responsible for the ESF. On average, it met once a month during 1995 and dealt with horizontal 
matters, such as implementation of the budget, implementation of the OPs, assessment and the 
Community Initiatives, and more specific topics, such as innovative ineasures under Article 6 ofthe ESF 
Regulation, the information society, the report of the Court of Auditors, etc. The working party also 
went to Italy to take an on-the-spot look at measures part-financed by the ESF. 
Turning to agriculture and rural development, as part ofthe preparation of an opinion on the Fifth 
Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1993), a discussion was held on implementation of a rural 
development policy in the European Union under the various Objectives concerned (1, 5(a) and 5(b)) 
and the Leader Community Initiative. Topics included the maintenance of jobs in rural areas, the 
diversification of economic activity both in agriculture and in other sectors, the problems of protecting 
the countryside and the defence of the environment as well as more administrative matters such as 
payment channels and the participation ofthe economic and social partners. Opinions were also issued 
on the definition in the three new Member States of mountain and less-favoured agricultural areas 
pursuant to Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming 
in certain less-favoured areas. Opinions were issued on the implementation ofthe Community Initiatives 
in the three new Member States and in particular on the allocation of appropriations between the 
Initiatives and the allocation ofthe reserve for the twelve original Member States. 
Dialogue between the Commission and Parliament's Committee on Fisheries was also continuous. 
Parliament had requested socio-economic measures for fishermen and gave a very warm welcome to 
their adoption during the year.6 Mrs Bonino, the Member with special responsibility for Fisheries, 
explained the Commission's point of view on this matter to Parliament's September 1995 part-session. 
Dialogue between the Commission and Parliament's Committee on Fisheries continued in 1995 with 
3 See Chapter III.A.3 Informal meetings ofthe ministers responsible for regional policies and spatial planning. 
4 See Chapter I.B.I Community Initiatives. 
5 See Chapter I.A.I .2 Greater integration ofthe "environment" factor. 
6 See Chapter I.A.5.2. Objective 5(a) for Fisheries. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 225 
subject-based seminars, one of which was devoted to structural policy in the sector (Santiago de 
Compostela, 2-3 October 1995). 
1.2. The Economic and Social Committee 
The Commission follows the work ofthe Economic and Social Committee attentively and makes policy 
and technical contributions at all levels. In 1995 contacts continued and the Commission considered all 
the opinions issued by the Committee. These included three opinions on Commission reports: the Fifth 
Report on the Implementation ofthe Structural Funds (1993), the Fifth Periodic Report on the Social and 
Economic Situation and Development ofthe Regions in the Community and the Annual Report on the 
cohesion financial instrument (1993-94). In each case, the Commission took note ofthe Committee's 
remarks and suggestions and gave its reactions. The Committee also adopted an opinion on the PEACE 
Initiative. 
The Committee chose to deliver an own-initiative opinion on "the future of cohesion" with reference to 
further enlargement. On local development initiatives, it stressed their advantages from the economic, 
spatial and social points of view. In the case of planning, it issued an opinion on "Europe 2000+" and on 
"Spatial planning and inter-regional cooperation in the Mediterranean area" with a view to greater 
economic and social cohesion. The Committee broadly shared the points of view expressed by the 
Commission in "Europe 2000+" and stressed the need for a Community view on spatial planning. It 
therefore supported vigorously the development of cross-border cooperation under the revised 
INTERREG II Initiative7 and the work of the Committee on Spatial Development in drawing up the 
European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). The Committee also expressed the desire to see 
planning policy brought within the scope ofthe Union Treaty. 
At the same time, the dialogue on the ESF continued in 1995 with Commission representatives 
contributing to the work ofthe Committee on aspects ofthe labour market and the implementation ofthe 
Structural Funds. This was also true of fisheries, where the Committee unanimously adopted two further 
opinions8 on two amendments to the FIFG Regulation (changing the unit of tonnage and socio-economic 
ineasures for sea fishermen). 
2. Relations with the Committee ofthe Regions 
During 1995 the Commission laid the basis for an intensive dialogue with the Committee ofthe Regions 
by proposing wide-ranging cooperation based on an annual programme of consultations extending 
beyond the five areas laid down in the Treaty and concerning both proposals for legislation and the 
preliminary consultation process. When she addressed the Committee's September meeting, Mrs Wulf-
Mathies expressed her views on the information society as a means of increasing cohesion within the 
Community and stressed the role to be played by the Member States and local authorities to ensure 
equitable participation in all the regions. 
The Committee also expressed its views on a number of current topics which influence regional policy 
and cohesion directly or indirectly. These included the PEACE Initiative, urban development, innovative 
measures under Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation and the Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund (1994). 
In its own-initiative "Opinion on the role of regional and local authorities in the partnership principle of 
the structural funds," the Committee noted that progress had been made in this field but asked for the 
local authorities to be more closely associated with the implementation of structural measures. It asked 
7 See Chapter I.B.I Community Initiatives. 
8 See Chapter I.A.5.2. Objective 5(a) for Fisheries. 
226 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
for Article 4 ofthe Structural Funds Regulation to be amended so that regional and local authorities are 
expressly included in the partnership.9 
The Committee of the Regions also issued a reasoned opinion on the Commission's "Europe 2000+" 
communication, which it welcomed warmly. The Committee agreed with the main conclusions and 
came out in favour of a Community policy on spatial planning, to be expressed first of all in the ESDP. 
It confirmed the proposal it had already made in its opinion on the revision of the Treaty on European 
Union, that spatial planning, like inter-regional, cross-border and trans-national cooperation, should be 
included in the treaty. 
Two ofthe opinions directly concerned rural society. One, on the development of rural tourism, called 
for "greater consistency in Community intervention and a harmonization ofthe different Member States' 
policies." The second concerned the European Charter on Mountain Areas drawn up by the Council of 
Europe's Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, to which the Committee recommended 
that the European Union and the Member States should accede. Other opinions, particularly those on 
"Europe 2000+" and on "Measures to combat the socio-economic and environmental impact of drought 
in southern Europe" dealt with the problem ofthe countryside. 
3. Informal meetings ofthe ministers responsible for regional policies and spatial planning 
The ministers responsible for regional policy and spatial planning held two informal meetings in 1995, 
one in Strasbourg on 30 and 31 March under the French Presidency and one in Madrid on 30 November 
and 1 December under the Spanish Presidency. 
The Strasbourg meeting considered the implementation of regional policies between 1994 and 1999, 
specifically the results of work in 1994 on drawing up the programmes under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) 
and the conditions required for the successful implementation of assistance from the Structural Funds in 
the years to come. Agreement was reached on a number of points: the priority to be given to promoting 
lasting jobs, which should involve all the partners and sectors concerned, the general need to concentrate 
assistance on a number of major priorities which took full account ofthe Union's policy guidelines, and 
the over-riding need to ensure the effectiveness of Structural Fund expenditure, whether through 
rigorous monitoring, the most exhaustive possible independent assessment or more rigorous financial 
controls. Greater effectiveness ofthe Structural Funds was a matter for both the Member States and the 
Commission. It was agreed at Strasbourg to hold a further meeting to consider how the Structural Funds 
could have a greater impact on employment. Further consideration would also be given to improving 
and strengthening the partnership so as to give still greater priority to employment. 
At their meeting on 30 November and 1 December in Madrid, the Ministers discussed preparation ofthe 
new Objective 2 programmes for 1997-99.10 Most ofthe ministers favoured an approach constituting a 
continuation ofthe first phase (1994-96). However, they acknowledged that efforts needed to be made to 
improve the effectiveness ofthe Structural Funds by concentrating resources on areas where the need is 
greatest. The ministers and the Commission also agreed that measures part-financed by the Structural 
Funds should make a significant contribution to promoting employment in Objective 2 areas. They 
considered that the new Objective 2 programmes should cover research and development, the protection 
ofthe environment and the promotion of equal opportunities while also taking account ofthe specific 
situations and needs of each area. 
9 See Chapter III. B Regional partnership. 
10 Under Article 9 ofthe Structural Funds Framework Regulation, Objective 2 is programmed in two consecutive 
three-year phases (1994-96 and 1997-99). At the end ofthe first phase, the Commission, in close consultation 
with the Member States, will propose a revised list ofthe eligible areas. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 227 
These meetings continued the consideration of spatial planning matters begun in earlier years.11 They 
concentrated on three major and related aspects: preparation of the ESDP, the launch of trans-national 
cooperation projects concerned with planning and the scope which a European planning strategy should 
have. Trend scenarios for Europe were presented at the Strasbourg meeting comprising maps setting out 
likely future developments if policies remained unchanged. Further consideration was given to this point 
at Madrid. The initial policy options suggested by the Member States were presented as a prelude to the 
application on their territories ofthe principles agreed at the Leipzig meeting in 1994. The minsters also 
agreed to consider a first official draft ofthe ESDP in 1997. 
On the question of cross-border cooperation on planning the minsters agreed at both meetings on the 
importance they attached to the new strand C of the INTERREG II Initiative.12 Mrs Wulf-Mathies 
presented two documents setting out considerations on the future of spatial planning policy at 
Community level, one based on the policy and institutional perspectives for the planning of the 
European territory and the other on the European dimension of planning. 
4. Committee opinions 
The five Committees which assist the Commission in implementing the Structural Funds13 continued to 
have a heavy work load in 1995. This took two main forms: the adoption of programming for the new 
Member States and the implementation ofthe Structural Funds. 
The Advisory Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions met three times, was 
consulted by written procedure twice and issued a total of 16 opinions, three of them by written 
procedure and all unanimously favourable. They concerned the programmes for the new Member States, 
firstly, the list of areas eligible under Objective 2 and then the SPDs as such for Objectives 1, 2 and 6. 
As regards the implementation ofthe Structural Funds, the Commission informed the Committee of its 
guidelines for launching activities under Article 10 ofthe ERDF Regulation,14 following which a guide 
to innovative measures was distributed to the members of the Committee. European planning 
perspectives were discussed with particular reference to the conclusions ofthe informal meetings ofthe 
ministers responsible15. There were useful discussions on various matters relating to the implementation 
of principles and programmes such as the assessment of regional policies, the verification of 
additionality, internal Commission procedures for the approval of programmes, financial irregularities in 
the management of the Structural Funds and the implementation of the provisions on information and 
publicity. These discussions enabled the Commission and the Member States to make each other aware 
of their aims and the challenges they faced and so to identify better the points requiring improvement if 
assistance, particularly from the ERDF, was to be implemented effectively. 
The ESF Committee was also very busy during 1995. Since its members' three-year term of office 
expired, its composition was renewed in October by a Council Decision. It held five meetings at which, 
in accordance with the rules, it issued opinions on the draft Commission Decisions on the CSFs/SPDs, 
mainly for the new Member States. Like the Advisory Committee on the Development and Conversion 
of Regions, the ESF Committee considered in partnership matters of a horizontal nature relating to the 
implementation of the Structural Funds, including budgetary implementation, irregularities notified by 
the Member States and the identification of final beneficiaries. Other, more forward-looking, discussions 
covered the PEACE. Community Initiative, progress on the Community Initiatives, the guidelines for 
employment aid and the implementation of social dialogue measures and innovative measures under 
1 ] See in particular the Corfu and Leipzig meetings in 1994 referred to in the 6th Annual Report (1994). 
12 See Chapter I.B.I Community Initiatives. 
13 Pursuant to Article 17 ofthe Framework Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as amended). 
14 See Chapter I.B.2 Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
15 See paragraph 3 above. 
228 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation. The Committee also branched out in a new direction when it considered 
drawing up a work programme for 1996. In order to encourage more active participation by its members, 
it began to discuss setting up an ad hoc working party to contribute to work arising from the conclusions 
ofthe Essen European Council and action plans for employment. 
The Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development (STAR Committee) also met 
frequently in 1995 and considered all the structural measures in the sector. It issued 180 favourable 
opinions. The Committee was closely associated with work on the new phase of Objective 5(b) and each 
meeting included a specific agenda item to report progress on the SPDs under that Objective. The 
Committee also issued unanimously favourable opinions on all the summary programme documents for 
Objective 5(b) submitted in 1995 and on the draft decisions approving them. It issued many other 
opinions on measures concerning Objective 5(a) including the new programmes on the processing and 
marketing of agricultural products and measures to accompany the reform ofthe CAP (particularly those 
with reference to the environment). 
The Standing Management Committee on Fisheries Structures met six times in 1995 and considered all 
the structural ineasures in the sector. It issued a total of six favourable opinions, five unanimously on the 
SPDs for Objective 5(a) fisheries and Objective 6 in the new Member States and one on the new 
regulation on the implementation of assistance from the FIFG.16 
The Management Committee for Community Initiatives met at the end of 1995 to hold an initial 
discussion on the allocation of the reserve for the Community Initiatives and amendments to the 
guidelines for INTERREG II, URBAN, EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT. This was a discussion for 
guidance prior to Parliament issuing its opinion early in 1996, after which the Committee adopted its 
formal opinion. The meeting provided an opportunity for the Commission to set out the priorities on 
which it had based its proposal to allocate appropriations from the reserve17 and for the Member States 
to give their reactions, which the Commission undertook to take into account as far as possible. At that 
meeting, the Commission explained to the Member States its guidelines for the part-financing of 
national networks under LEADER II. 
16 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1796/95 of 25 July 1995, OJ No L 174, 26.7.1995. 
17 See Chapter I.B.I. Community Initiatives. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 229 
B. REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP 
1. Overview 
With the actual physical commencement ofthe programmes in 1995, the monitoring of assistance in 
partnership at regional level entered its active phase (in the case of Objective 5(b), for example, 86 
meetings of regional Monitoring Committees were held in 1995). It was accordingly felt appropriate to 
report here how the partnership and programme monitoring are organized at regional level. The 
information on the preparation of the new programmes presented in the previous Annual Report 
illustrates how greatly the administrative structures ofthe regions and States ofthe European Union and 
their operation differ from one to another. The effective operation of the regional partnership in the 
context of the Structural Funds is influenced of course by this institutional and political diversity. The 
information currently available on the establishment of bodies to manage and monitor assistance testifies 
first and foremost to a broad level of participation by the regional authorities. This is an improvement on 
the previous programming period. The situation is more complex as regards the other regional, 
especially local, partners, depending on their institutional and financial responsibilities. However, in 
some cases, these bodies bring together or represent local authorities involved in monitoring assistance. 
Participation of the environmental authorities: The review of the Structural Funds Regulation in 
1993 made participation by the environmental authorities in preparing and implementing the 
programmes compulsory. Their role is particularly important in ensuring compliance with the 
Community rules on the environment. In particular, the rules governing their involvement must be 
laid down in the programming documents. The Commission communication on "Cohesion Policy 
and the Environment"^ also stressed the importance of the environmental authorities when 
implementing structural assistance. This stems in particular from the provisions making the 
environmental authorities members of the Monitoring Committees for various programmes, 
especially where they include measures with an environmental impact. 
In the implementation of structural assistance, the Monitoring Committees are the principal mechanism 
for conducting the partnership at national, regional or even subregional level. The Committees, which 
meet at least twice a year for each form of assistance (SPD, OP, global grant, etc), are functioning well 
in general and their operating procedure allows the various regional and local partners to be fully 
involved. However, it must be acknowledged that a certain amount of complexity in national and 
Community procedures is one ofthe regulatory constraints under which the partnership has to develop 
(various levels of co-operation, time limits, a multiplicity of sectors aided, etc). 
This complexity can sometimes discourage the full and active participation of all the partners concerned. 
The Commission believes that the management ofthe Structural Funds can be simplified. However, the 
requirement to use the Structural Fund appropriations properly warrants procedures that ensure both 
effectiveness and supervision. A large part ofthe work of these Committees usually involves financial 
monitoring and following the physical implementation of assistance. The general analyses of the 
strategies, the results and the impact ofthe assistance should-also be improved. Moreover, the working 
procedures of the Committees, given their highlyoperational task, do not always lend themselves to 
promoting the new guidelines or suggested new departures that might be adopted by the Community 
institutions during the lifetime of the programmes (for example, the communications on employment, 
the environment, equal opportunities). 
The review ofthe regional partnership2 and the opinion expressed on it by the Committee ofthe Regions 
support this analysis in the main. The Committee notes in particular that "with a few exceptions local 
and regional authorities are more involved at present than in the last programme period" (point 17). It 
1 See Chapter I.A.I.2. Greater integration ofthe "environment" factor. 
2 Own-initiative Opinion No 234/95 of 20 July 1995 on the role of regional and local authorities in the partnership 
principle ofthe Structural Funds. 
230 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
stresses that the partnership needs a "political will" to be in place beforehand and points to the "benefits 
flowing from the close involvement ofthe partners" (point 36). However, it also feels that the rules on 
the Structural Funds should be less complicated (point 23). Ofthe Committee's proposals, the following 
merit particular mention: 
• the programming documents should be jointly signed by the various partners concerned (State, 
region, Commission). This was the practice formerly with the Integrated Mediterranean 
Programmes and is obviously of particular political interest, but it would prove rather hard to 
implement; 
• the "current partnership provisions in the Structural Funds Regulations are vague" and this needs to 
be remedied. This interesting proposal may not be immediately applicable, perhaps, but the 
Commission recognizes its cogency. Indeed, a certain regulatory lack of clarity in the allocation of 
responsibilities when implementing assistance is likely in some instances to harm both its visibility 
and its proper implementation on the ground; 
• the formal inclusion in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2052/88, as amended, of the local and 
regional authorities "since they are the ones with the democratic legitimacy to represent the regional 
and local need and priorities." Article 4 already mentions the "competent authorities and bodies [...] 
designated by the Member State at national, regional, local or other level". 
While sharing this concern to improve the operation of the regional partnership, the Commission is 
aware ofthe limits placed on it by considerations of subsidiarity and the institutional, legal or financial 
responsibilities of each partner. 
2. Implementation ofthe regional partnership in the Member States3 
Belgium: Under the federal structure of this country, programmes are managed, implemented and 
monitored by both the Walloon and Flemish Regions. The Monitoring Committees meet under the 
presidency ofthe federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The projects, their conformity to the eligibility 
criteria and compliance with Community rules are examined by the technical committees. The 
Commission can be present and, while unable to vote, it can make technical comments. In the case of 
Wallonia alone, Commission participation in these technical committees is laid down in the provisions 
for implementing the programmes. A preliminary choice of projects is done by another body, the 
selection committee, on which the Commission is not represented. The technical committees, which 
meet twice a year before the meetings of the Monitoring Committees, act on the basis of this initial 
selection. Both the Flemish and Walloon regions are represented on the Objective 5(b) fisheries 
Monitoring Committee. 
Denmark: Like Belgium, Denmark organizes technical committees alongside the Monitoring 
Committees. The technical committees met seven times in 1995. The Commission can attend - although 
it has not yet done so - but only as an observer. 
Germany: For the new Lander and Eastern Berlin (Objective 1), the CSF is implemented by an inter­
regional, multifund Monitoring Committee, by horizontal monitoring sub-committees, and in each Land 
by a multifund monitoring sub-committee. The inter-regional, multifund Monitoring Committee met 
twice in 1995 to discuss general topics concerning the implementation of the CSF. It set up the 
sub-committees for each Land and adopted guidelines on the technical assistance measures. The Lander 
sub-committees met in all the Lander in 1995 and in June of that year the Commission organized an 
information seminar at which certain aspects of practical and financial implementation were discussed, 
as were measures to ensure that Community policies were taken into account more fully. 
3 It should be noted that in the case ofthe fisheries sector under Objective 5(a), which is not regionalized, regional 
representatives are full members ofthe relevant Monitoring Committees in several Member States. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 231 
Specific arrangements were also made for Objective 2. Beside the Monitoring Committee at federal 
level, which covers all the Lander and all the Funds, the Commission proposed awarding responsibility 
for programmes receiving more than ECU 40 million in Community aid to sub-committees in each 
Land. These will ensure effective regional monitoring of these programmes and are in line with the 
principle of partnership. Negotiations with the national authorities on this subject were still ongoing at 
the end of 1995. It should be noted that the Objective 2 Monitoring Committee and the sub-committees 
(where involved) are responsible for the Objective 2 programmes and for those under the Community 
Initiatives (except for the INTERREG programmes, for which specific Monitoring Committees were set 
up, given their particular aim). In the individual case of Berlin, a single sub-committee, which met at the 
end of 1995, is responsible for the Objective 2 (Western Berlin) programmes and the Objective 1 
(Eastern Berlin) programmes, including the Community Initiatives which concern Berlin. 
Lastly, the responsibility for implementing each Objective 5(b) programme was given to the Lander. 
The Lander are represented on both Monitoring Committees dealing with fisheries aid, i.e. nine Lander 
are represented on the Objective 5(a) Committee and six Lander plus Eastern Berlin are on the Objective 
1 committee. 
Spain: Two regional Monitoring Committee meetings took place in each region in 1995 for the 
Objective 1 programmes and one meeting in each for the Objective 2 and 5(b) programmes. The 
regional authorities took part in preparing the CSF priorities for Objectives 1 and 2 and in drawing up 
the regional OPs. The amount of Structural Fund assistance allocated to them differs depending on their 
responsibilities, the Structural Finds involved and the types of ineasures implemented. A more limited 
share ofthe Community aid is also allocated to the local authorities, even though they were not involved 
in preparing the CSFs. Thus, as regards assistance approved and/or planned under Objective 1, measures 
for which the Autonomous Communities or the local authorities are responsible account for respectively 
35% and 10% of total ERDF assistance in the CSF, percentages which reach 48% and 16% respectively 
in the case of Objective 2 assistance. The regional authorities are also represented on the multifund 
regional Monitoring Committees for Objectives 1 and 2. On the other hand, the local authorities are not 
always represented, except for the Objective 2 Basque Country programme (the three Diputaciones 
F or ales sit on it) and the Balearic Islands programme (three members represent all eleven beneficiary 
municipalities) and on the Monitoring Committees for the Objective 1 "local environment" and "local 
development" OPs. 
The desire to involve the local authorities in the implementation ofthe Objective 5(b) programmes also 
resulted in certain regions in the full involvement of the* district councils and mountain and hill farming 
associations in the programming process. Lastly, where fisheries measures are concerned, each 
Autonomous Community is represented either on the Objective 5(a) Monitoring Committee (six 
Communities) or on the Objective 1 Monitoring Committee for the fisheries programme (eleven 
Communities). 
France: The Monitoring Committees for Objectives 1 and 2 are chaired by the regional prefect and 
include representatives of the local authorities (regional Council, general Council, municipality), the 
national departments in the region and the Commission. All these Committees (five for Objective 1, 19 
for Objective 2) were established and met in 1995. Responsibility for implementing the Objective 5(b) 
programmes was given to the regional representatives of the State, but the local authorities and the 
economic and social partners are also represented on each Monitoring Committee. To take account of 
the great internal heterogeneity of certain regions which cover an extensive area eligible under Objective 
5(b), some programmes include ineasures (or sub-measures) that are programmed on an sub-regional 
(department) level, the aim being to increase local authority involvement. Lastly, all the coastal regions 
are full members ofthe Pesca Monitoring Committee. 
Ireland: Ireland is regarded as a single "region" for the purposes of managing and administering the 
Structural Funds. However, the eight regional authorities have responsibility for monitoring Structural 
Fund expenditure in their respective regions. To this end, meetings are regularly organized between 
them and the national administration to discuss progress. They will also be involved in the mid-term 
232 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
review ofthe CSF, which must take place in 1996. The regional authorities also attend a special meeting 
that takes place after the ordinary meetings of the CSF Monitoring Committee. The Monitoring 
Committee at regional level includes elected local representatives, and representatives of voluntary 
organizations, local authorities, the public authorities and the social partners. 
Italy: The Italian regional authorities play an important role in the implementation of the operations 
part-funded by the Structural Funds, especially as regards Objective 1 (the Mezzogiorno), since they are 
the organizations mainly responsible for carrying out the OP. Approximately half the Community funds 
provided for under the Objective 1 CSF are managed by the regional administrations. Regions also take 
part in centrally-managed programmes. Similarly, the regions are responsible for implementing 
Objective 2 programmes, while for Objective 5(b) both the regions and the autonomous provinces are 
responsible. With regard to fisheries aid under the FIFG, six regions (Abruzzi, Basilicata, Calabria, 
Apulia, Sicily, Sardinia) sit on the Objective 1 FIFG Monitoring Committee, while the autonomous 
province of Trento takes part in the Objective 5(a) Monitoring Committee. 
The dialogue between the Commission, the State and the regions has developed satisfactorily in 
general. The quality of the information provided by the regional authorities responsible for the 
implementation of the programmes is on the whole good, and the Monitoring Committees are 
appropriately consulted. Moreover, considerable efforts have been made to improve the organization 
of the regional bodies implementing the aid, in line with the agreement negotiated between the 
Commission and the Italian Government in July 19954 . Thus, regional coordinating units ("cabine di 
regia") to liaise with the national coordinating unit ^ cabine di regia") were established in each 
region, at both political and administrative level, to coordinate the various departments involved in 
implementing the priorities or specific measures under the various programmes. These coordinating 
units were established quicker in the Objective 2 areas than elsewhere. 
Netherlands: The programmes for all the eligible Objective 1 and 2 areas are administered and 
monitored by the national agency for the development of trade and industry, a body that operates under 
the auspices of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. This agency issues final approval to the projects 
part-funded by the ERDF in particular. The projects are selected in advance by a technical Committee 
which the Commission can attend as an observer. At the meetings ofthe Monitoring Committees, which 
it does attend, the Commission is informed in particular of the projects which were selected for part-
fuliding- and those which were rejected through a document listing both categories and the financial 
impact. By contrast, responsibility for implementing Objective 5(b) programmes was given to the 
regions. 
Austria: The regional partnership in Austria continued to prepare the new programmes in 1995. The 
Objective 1 and 2 programmes were prepared by a partnership comprising the national, regional and 
local authorities. An extended partnership including the Commission and the social partners will 
subsequently operate in the SPD Monitoring Committees. 
Portugal: In the case of this Member State, which is entirely eligible for Objective 1 but in which there 
is little regional ization, the Commission stressed to the Portuguese authorities the great importance that 
. it attaches to the implementation of the partnership with the regional authorities. With the creation in 
1995 of regional advisory subcommittees whose task it is to monitor the implementation of regional 
OPs, the situation should now improve. It should be noted that representatives of the autonomous 
regions ofthe Azores and Madeira attend meetings ofthe Monitoring Committee for the Fisheries OP, 
as observers. 
Finland: A very extensive partnership has developed in Finland for the preparation of the new 
programming documents. A pyramidal approach was adopted to the preparation and implementation of 
the SPDs for Objectives 2 and 6. The first stage was the preparation ofthe programmes in each ofthe 
4 See Chapter I.A.2. Objective 1 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 233 
regions concerned. The central authorities then gathered the regional projects into a single programme 
adopted by the Commission in the form of an SPD for each Objective covering the entire country and 
including estimated allocations ofthe appropriations between the activities and various regions. The two 
SPDs are monitored by a Monitoring Committee made up of representatives of all the regions, the 
funding ministries, the Commission and the social partners. Management ofthe programme is entrusted 
in each region to a management Committee comprising representatives ofthe region, the local offices of 
the national ministries and the social partners. The regional management Committee draws up its own 
plan for implementing the programme in its region based on the plan initially submitted to the central 
authorities. Project funding is to a large extent decided by the local offices ofthe central ministries or by 
the ministries themselves, but the regional management Committee examines and must adopt all the 
projects, thereby giving it control over implementation and enabling it to decide to a very large extent on 
how the SPD is implemented in its region. 
Implementation ofthe programmes under Objectives 3 and 4 is similarly very decentralized. The Finnish 
Ministry of Employment coordinates the assistance relating to human resources for all the Objectives 
and is also responsible for implementing most of the horizontal ESF programmes. Other Ministries, 
Education and Trade and Industry in particular, also assume responsibilities, while the municipal 
authorities, social partners and non-governmental organizations take part in carrying out the ESF 
measures at regional and local level. At project level, the adoption ofthe budget and national legislation 
ensure that the decision-making procedures on the projects part-funded by the ESF are widely shared. 
Under the horizontal programmes, the decision-making process is decentralized within the Ministry of 
Employment and within the other Ministries concerned (Trade and Industry, Agriculture). At regional 
level, the advisory committees for the employment areas and the regional management committees 
ensure that the activities are integrated by scrutinizing all the projects in the regional aid programmes 
before the competent authorities take the final decision. Lastly, the ESF lays stress on the need to ensure 
practical cooperation between the administrators in the interest groups, the regions, the municipalities, 
the universities and other educational establishments, the employment agencies and the representatives 
of trade and industry. Most ofthe projects in the programmes are therefore carried out in partnership. 
Sweden: The Swedish regional partners were fully involved in the preparation of the programmes 
submitted to the Commission. They include representatives of local and regional government, county 
councils, the employers, the trade unions, the financial organizations, the agricultural and environmental 
lobby and local or other associations. They will be represented on the SPD Monitoring Committees 
alongside the national government and the Commission. In addition, most of the programme budget 
(80%) will be implemented by the regional management committees that derive from the local and 
regional structures in place. Some measures, those under Objective 5(a) for example, will be managed 
by central agencies, while the Sami people will receive a global grant. 
United Kingdom: The regional partnership was strengthened in the programmes adopted in 1994. For 
each Objective 1, Objective 2 or Objective 5(b) SPD a Monitoring Committee was established at 
regional level, chaired by the regional manager of the relevant Government Office, including 
representatives of all the main interested partners, in particular the Ministries concerned 
(Environment, Trade and Industry, Transport, Education, Employment and Agriculture) and the 
Commission. The local authorities, the training, education and private sectors are also represented on 
the Monitoring Committees. The number of Monitoring Committee members range in number from 
five or six (Gibraltar) to close on forty in other regions (East Midlands for example). The local 
authorities are heavily represented. They usually account for about a third of the seats on the 
Committees and are ordinarily represented by officials, although elected representatives also sit in 
certain cases. More specifically, in the case of the Objective 2 programmes, the Commission made 
strong representations to the United Kingdom authorities that the lack of participation by elected 
members (participating in four ofthe sixteen Objective 1 and 2 Monitoring Committees) and by the 
economic and social partners, whose involvement ran into central government resistance, should be 
remedied. This expanded partnership was able to play a modest role in a number of cases, thanks to 
ad hoc meetings organized by the chairmen ofthe Monitoring Committees. 
234 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
The urban development associations and the regional and local development offices are also 
represented. Mention should also be made ofthe lesser role played by collective and environmental 
bodies (e.g. the National Rivers Authority or Scottish Natural Heritage) and sometimes major local 
companies. The private sector is often asked to participate through the involvement of the Chambers 
of Commerce or other bodies like Railtrack, Training and Enterprise Councils (which play a major 
role in England and Wales) and Local Enterprise Councils (the competent authorities in Scotland). 
The involvement of local higher education establishments (universities) and the post secondary 
schooling (over 16 years) sector was also ensured. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 235 
C. DIALOGUE WITH THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PARTNERS 
1. The socio-economic partnership in monitoring structural assistance 
In monitoring the Structural Fund programmes, and most notably at meetings of the Monitoring 
Committees, the Commission stresses the importance of greater participation by the socio-economic 
partners, who, since they too are working towards social and economic development, can usefully 
contribute to the implementation of the programmes in their regions. The involvement of the social 
partners varies from one Member State to the next depending on the institutional, legal or financial 
responsibilities delegated to them. This involvement also varies depending on the Objectives of the 
Structural Funds. 
1.1. Overview 
In 1995, the Commission concluded its analyses ofthe involvement ofthe economic and social partners 
in implementing and monitoring structural measures. In general, four scenarios can be distinguished: 
• the social and economic partners are directly involved in the Monitoring Committees. Only a small 
amount of Community assistance is dealt with in this manner, but almost all ESF assistance under 
Objectives 3 and 4 is monitored with social partner participation; 
• the socio-economic partners are not directly involved in the Monitoring Committees but are 
represented, for example, through national or regional economic and social councils; 
• the economic and social partners are not directly or indirectly involved in the Monitoring 
Committees. However, additional activities (information sessions, advisory committees, seminars, 
etc.) are provided for, sometimes on a regular basis, to keep them informed about implementation 
and to allow them to voice their concerns and put forward suggestions; 
• no particular provision has been made to involve the economic and social partners in implementing 
and monitoring structural assistance. A significant amount of Community assistance falls into this 
category. 
Recent trends indicate that the authorities responsible for implementing structural assistance are now 
more willing to involve a greater number of partners and actors in monitoring Community structural 
ineasures. To this end, the Commission supports all the additional information, consultative or 
cooperative activities organized by the competent authorities that allow the various partners to be 
involved as effectively as possible, with due regard to their real responsibilities and their technical and 
operating capabilities. 
1.2. Implementation ofthe socio-economic partnership in the Member States 
A description ofthe different situations in the Member States, broken down by region-based Structural 
Fund Objectives and then the non-regional Objectives, is useful for illustrating the above. 
Region-based programming (Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) ) 
Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark: Provision is made in these four Member States to 
supply the social partners (trade unions and representatives of employers' associations in particular) with 
information on the progress of the programmes. The social partners are full members of the SPD and 
Community Initiative Monitoring Committees and their presence is a necessary condition. For example, 
for Objective 5(b) in Belgium and Denmark, the representatives ofthe social partners number four, there 
are two employers' representatives and two workers' representatives in Belgium while in Denmark there 
236 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
are two union representatives, one employers' representative and one representing the Chamber of 
Agriculture. In the Netherlands they are five in number: one employers' representative, three workus' 
representatives and one agriculture representative. 
Germany: The social partners are involved in different ways depending on the Objectives. In the case of 
Objective 1 (the new Lander), meetings of the horizontal Monitoring Committees1 are preceded by 
preparatory meetings with the economic and social partners. In the case of Objective 2, the economic 
and social partners should be involved in the Land subcommittees proposed by the Commission for the 
programmes in receipt of the most significant funding, but discussions in this regard were still 
continuing at the end of 1995. As for Objective 5(b), the economic and social partners (local chambers 
and organizations party to collective agreements) are informed at meetings held before and after the 
Monitoring Committee. 
Spain: The social partners are not members of the Monitoring Committees for the Objective 1 and 2 
CSFs and OPs. They are instead informed of the progress of the CSF, the programmes, projects and 
related global grants through the Spanish Economic and Social Committee after each CSF Monitoring 
Committee. The Commission has for the first time persuaded the Spanish authorities to hold a meeting 
with the social partners within the Economic and Social Committee (ESC). One purpose ofthe meeting 
was to inform the ESC ofthe conclusions ofthe Committee monitoring the Objective 1 CSF for the 
second half of the year. By contrast, the involvement ofthe social partners in Objective 5(b) differs more 
widely from region to region. Two regional Monitoring Committees include trades union and Economic 
and Social Committee representatives, the other regions organize only specific information meetings. 
France: The economic and social partners' involvement in programme monitoring, which is quite 
extensive in terms of the number of interests represented, varies depending on the Objective and the 
region. In the case of Objective 1 programmes, the social partners are represented on Monitoring 
Committees by a representative ofthe regional Economic and Social Council in the case of Corsica and 
Nord Pas-de-Calais, while in the overseas departments (Réunion, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, 
Martinique) the local chambers (chambers of trade and industry, agriculture and trades) are formally 
involved in the Monitoring Committees, although the arrangements vaiy. They are either members of 
the actual Monitoring Committee or are invited to information meetings held after the Committee meets. 
Furthermore, when the SPDs were adopted for the overseas departments, formal meetings including not 
only the local chambers but also employers' or professional groiups and trades union representatives 
were held with all representatives ofthe social partners in each region. It should also be noted that, when 
Commission officials undertake missions to each region, they regularly meet the local chambers to 
discuss aspects of programme implementation. 
In the case of Objective 2 and all these SPDs, the social partners are represented in the Monitoring 
Committees by a representative ofthe regional Economic and Social Council. By contrast, the Objective 
5(b) Monitoring Committees include, in addition to the local partners, representatives of the regional 
chambers of agriculture, trades, commerce and industry, as well as members ofthe regional Economic 
and Social Council. Some Monitoring Committees also include representatives of environmental 
protection associations. 
Ireland: The social partners have been fully involved in the management of Structural Fund expenditure 
since the reform ofthe Funds in 1989. Their representatives are full members ofthe OP Monitoring 
Committees and take part in the decision-making process on Structural Fund assistance. This 
involvement is highly regarded and provides very important sectoral experience at the various 
Monitoring Committee meetings. Furthermore, the social partners are represented on each of the 
regional Monitoring Committees2. Lastly, the social partners attend a special meeting organized after 
1 See Chapter II1.B. Regional partnership. 
2 See Chapter III.B. Regional partnership. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 237 
each ordinary meeting of the CSF Monitoring Committee. They are thus fully integrated into the 
Structural Funds management structure in Ireland. 
Italy: The enlargement of the partnership to include the economic and social partners was a genuine 
innovation compared to the previous period. Representatives of the main trades union and employers' 
organizations contribute to the work of the Objective 1 Monitoring Committees in a regular manner 
through attendance at technical meetings preparatory to the Monitoring Committees and at an 
information meeting on the decisions taken there. Objective 2 saw a more complete approach in that the 
economic and social partners participated in the drawing up of the conversion plans and in the SPD 
negotiations in 1994 and this participation gained formal recognition through their full membership of 
the Objective 2 SPD Monitoring Committees, made up of one trades union representative, one 
representative of the employers' associations and one representative of the local authorities. The 
socio-economic partners were also represented on all the Monitoring Committees for Objective 5(b), but 
only in an advisory capacity. 
Austria: The social partners (employers' organizations, trades unions, chambers of commerce and, in the 
case of Objective 1, farming organizations) are represented on the Monitoring Committees. Their precise 
role in these committees was still being discussed at the beginning of 1996, however. 
Portugal: As in the case of the regional partnership, the Commission attaches great importance to 
implementing the partnership with the socio-economic partners in Portugal and it has stressed this fact to 
the Portuguese authorities. The Commission has ensured that the national Economic and Social 
Committee is informed about four times a year of progress in implementing the Objective 1 CSF. 
Finland and Sweden: The representatives of the social partners (employers' organizations, trades 
unions, chambers of commerce and, in the case of Objective 6, representatives of the farming 
organizations) are full members of the Monitoring Committees in Finland and Sweden. These 
organizations are also consulted when decisions are being taken on important projects. It should be noted 
that efforts have been made to extend the partnership to include in the Monitoring Committees other 
organizations representing the local residents (for example, the popular movements in Sweden). 
United Kingdom: The social dialogue in the UK programmes is not as well developed as in the other 
Member States. No single programme fully involves all the social partners in assuming responsibility for 
its regional implementation. The social partners are sometimes included as part of an enlarged regional 
partnership, but not in the Monitoring Committees. They are given information on the programmes but 
how this information is communicated to them varies from region to region. The chairman of the 
Monitoring Committee sometimes provides reports after the event to the social partners involved (in the 
case of Objective 5(b), specific information meetings are held after the Monitoring Committee meetings 
for the local authorities and associated bodies). In other instances, the social partners are informed in so 
far as this is deemed useful. There is no regular advance consultation ofthe social partners in any region. 
Non-regional programming (Objectives 3, 4 and 5(a)) 
In the case of Objective 3, the social and economic partners are represented on the Monitoring 
Committees of all Member States, except for the United Kingdom. The situation is virtually the same for 
the Objective 4 Monitoring Committees where the social partners are full members. It differs, however, 
in that the economic partners (the local chambers, for example) are more often represented than is the 
case under other Objectives. Thus, in Germany, the Objective 4 Monitoring Committees include in an 
advisory capacity the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHT) and the 
Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks (ZdH - German union of craft industries). This is equally true 
of Finland, France, the Netherlands, Austria and Italy. 
In the case of structural measures in the fisheries sector (Objective 5(a)), the economic and social 
partners (fishing and/or aquaculture enterprises, those employed in the industry, fishing organizations) 
take a direct part in the Monitoring Committees in six Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, 
238 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Greece, Ireland, Sweden), while in two others (France and the Netherlands) their involvement is only 
indirect, i.e. prior to meetings ofthe committee. 
2. The economic and social partners at Community level 
The Commission has consolidated the statutory practice of consulting annually the social partners 
organized at Community level. The working group proposed by the Commission at the December 1994 
meeting was established in 1995. This group made it possible to by-pass the strictly annual nature of this 
consultation procedure and turn it into an on-going cooperative process. Two meetings ofthe group in 
1995 helped to improve the preparation ofthe formal annual consultation procedure which, for technical 
reasons, took place at the beginning of 1996. During this procedure, the Commission presented the Sixth 
Annual Report on the Implementation ofthe Structural Funds in 1994. It also gave an early progress 
report on Structural Funds activities in 1995 and described the work under way on the first three-yearly 
report on economic and social cohesion. Notable among the social partners' comments were: 
• their desire, shared by the Commission, to demonstrate the results and impact of the structural 
measures and in particular their contribution to economic and social cohesion. To this end, the social 
partners showed a marked interest in preparing the three-yearly report on cohesion. They felt that this 
report should also identify the first steps to be taken in redirecting structural policies after 1999 with 
a view to increasing their effectiveness; 
• the concerns of certain sectors: the on-going problems in the agriculture and fisheries sectors, the 
desire of bodies such as the chambers of commerce and industry to participate actively in structural 
operations, the difficulties of SMEs in gaining access to Community aid; 
• the desire to see the Commission analyse practical issues such as the participation ofthe social and 
economic partners in monitoring the implementation ofthe aid measures in greater detail in future 
reports; 
• while acknowledging a gradual improvement, the need to make significant progress in involving the 
social partners in monitoring the implementation of the structural measures. The social partners do 
however recognize the technical difficulties inherent in their participation when this involves, for 
example, evaluating or estimating the potential impact ofthe projects in creating dynamic regional 
development or even in job creation. As a result, they also wish to see targeted technical assistance 
measures to strengthen their technical and operational capabilities. 
The Commission echoes most of the social partners' wishes. It is aware that their participation can be 
effective only where the partners involved have the necessary technical and operational capabilities. For 
this reason, the ERDF funded 15 seminars in 1995 organized by the ESC to prepare regional and 
national representatives of its member confederations for attendance at the Objective 1 Monitoring 
Committees. An introductory seminar was held in Luxembourg, with Commission participation, to 
establish the aims, policies and working methods. The results, conclusions and proposals of each ofthe 
15 seminars organized in the regions whose development is lagging behind in the Member States were 
submitted to a joint session at Lisbon, from which the ESC was able to produce a general progress report 
and submit its conclusions to the Commission. The ESC notes that trades union participation in the 
Monitoring Committees is rather limited and feels that its member organizations should continue to 
insist on participating in the Committees to ensure that the programmes and projects create dynamic 
regional development that in turn creates jobs. The ESC has noted that the technical capabilities needed 
to monitor structural operations are lacking. The Committee feels that the technical assistance provided 
for under the Structural Funds Regulations should be used to improve these capabilities. With this in 
mind, the ESC would favour the establishment of a network of regional experts to assist the monitoring 
activities of union officials. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 239 
The relationship between the ESF and certain categories of social partner mainly takes the form of 
funding for training. Such training, provided for under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation3, is likely to 
strengthen the training measures in the Objective 4 programming documents and the ADAPT Initiative, 
both of which provide for the active participation of the social partners in implementing the 
programmes. At the end of 1994, the Commission drew up, in collaboration with the social partners 
concerned, guidelines for measures funded in this regard, and it submitted them to the ESF Committee. 
These guidelines concerned first and foremost the Community's economic and instititutional framework 
within which other types of ineasures develop, secondly the new methods of production and 
organization of work and thirdly, a series of themes linking issues of industrial change with the labour 
market. 
Thus, in accordance with the guidelines, in 1995 the ESF funded training ineasures for the social 
partners at Community level4. In the case ofthe Economic and Social Committee, this involved 14 
training courses in which the 15 Member States participated, covering the impact of new technologies on 
employment in various sectors, such as high-speed trains, telecommunications, air transport and the 
environment. Furthermore, various training sessions were organized for employers' representatives 
under the programmes submitted by UNICE-CONPRI. The action programme submitted for the first 
time by the CEEP sought to provide a response to the prospects for managing equal representation 
between the social partners. The Fondazione Régionale Pietro Seveso set in motion an action 
programme on the prospects for developing and evaluating industrial relations models in Europe. The 
ESF funded sectoral studies alongside the appropriate social partners which looked at the difficulties 
inherent in the effects of industrial change on working practices (vocational qualifications, new skills 
and trades in particular). These sectoral studies involved the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, 
among others. Lastly, as a result ofthe reflection process started at the end of 19945, the groundwork 
was done on producing a mechanism to associate the social and economic partners with the effects of 
industrial change. New structures better adapted to future social dialogue were introduced. In this 
context, the accent will be placed on the need to integrate in the process of European social dialogue all 
organizations that can contribute significantly to industrial relations. A Commission communication in 
1996 should further clarify this issue. 
As regards rural issues, the Advisory Committee on Questions of Agricultural Structure Policy is the 
body most consulted by the Commission. It met on two occasions in 1995, and at these meetings a wide-
ranging discussion ofthe problems of rural development policy took place. Specific problems relating to 
the Community aid scheme for early retirement from farming, aid for the installation of young farmers 
and the introduction ofthe LEADER II initiative were also discussed. The Commission also informed its 
partners about progress on the CSFs/SPDs and the OPs for Objectives 1, 5(b) and 6, progress with the 
LEADER II Initiative, and the ineasures accompanying the reform of the CAP6. Lastly, the role, 
workings and future ofthe advisory Committee on Agricultural Structures were also discussed. 
Similarly, in the fisheries sector, the Advisory Committee on Fisheries is the body through with the 
industry engages in a dialogue with the Commission. It received on several occasions information and 
explanations concerning the implementation of the FIFG, measures under Article 4 of the FIFG 
Regulation7 and the PESCA Initiative. In March 1995, Mrs Bonino, the Member ofthe Commission 
with responsibility for fisheries, attended a meeting ofthe committee that dealt with, inter alia, structural 
assistance for the industry and socio-economic ineasures for deep-sea fishermen. In addition, the 
Commission worked with the Joint Committee on Social Problems in Sea Fishing, established as part of 
3 See Chapter I.B.2. Innovative actions and technical assistance. 
4 These measures continue those undertaken in the preceding period. In this regard, a comprehensive ex post 
evaluation ofthe AFETT and CONPRI 1 measures should be undertaken in 1996. Such an exercise is obviously 
of great importance both for the ESF, which funds the measures, and for the beneficiaries. 
5 See the 1994 Annual Report. 
6 Regulations (EEC) Nos 2078/92, 2079/92 and 2080/92. 
7 See Chapter l.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
240 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
the European social dialogue. Furthermore, the industry was represented at some sessions of the 
thematic seminars organised by the Commission for Members of the European Parliament8: the first 
seminar (Ancona, 22-23 June 1995) related to the preservation offish stocks, the second (Santiago de 
Compostela, 2-3 October 1995) dealt with structural policies for aquaculture and fisheries. 
8 See Chapter III.A.l. Dialogue with the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 241 
D. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION, DISSEMINATION OF BEST PRACTICE 
1. Information and communication 
Provisions concerning the Member States 
The duties ofthe Member States with regard to information and publicity are laid down by Article 32 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended and the Commission Decision of 31 May 1994,1 in which the 
Commission undertook to provide the authorities concerned in the Member States with a practical 
manual to facilitate implementation. The manual was published in 1995 and sent to those responsible for 
structural policies in the national administrations, who were also invited to consider this matter and 
ensure that it was considered by the Monitoring Committees. 
The obligation to provide information also forms part of the standard clauses attached to the decisions 
adopting the SDPs and the Monitoring Committees strive constantly to apply the Community rules. The 
Commission representatives drew the attention ofthe Monitoring Committees to this matter at meetings 
during 1995. As part ofthe implementation ofthe OPs, a number of Monitoring Committees have also 
adopted communications plans financed by technical assistance. 
Commission information activities 
Article 7 ofthe ERDF Regulation permits the Commission to take certain technical assistance measures 
on its own initiative. It has part-financed attendance at major events, the organization of seminars and 
other one-off measures. During 1995, the Commission had stands at 40 events which it was part-
financing and provided documentation and information for 17 000 visitors. Particular attention was paid 
to media coverage of these events and the provision of specific information for the press. The 
Commission also produces various types of publications which are distributed mainly through a regional 
database of some 30 000 addresses. This now includes the new Member States. The publications already 
produced and made available to the public include almost all the programming documents for the 
Objective 1 regions (full and summary CSFs) and the Objective 2 areas (summaries only). News on 
regional policy is contained in a monthly newsletter and an Internet site for regional and cohesion policy 
has been created.2 
''The environment and the regions: towards sustainable development" 
This is the title of an information booklet published by the Commission for the general public. It 
reviews the state ofthe environment in the regions and sets out the main lines of Community policy on 
the environment - particularly the Fifth action programme on the environment - and the measures 
taken in the various regions ofthe Community. It covers measures under the Structural Funds and the 
Cohesion Fund and includes examples of projects carried out since 1989. 
Following its adoption of a revised communications strategy in March 1995, the Commission continued 
its efforts to extend its contacts and objectives. A pilot project which had begun successfully in France 
was extended in cooperation with Commission offices in the Member States to Spain, the United 
Kingdom and Germany. This extension of the media plan enhanced knowledge and so extended 
coverage of regional policy issues by national and regional press and television. As part of this strategy, 
the Commission broadened the scope of its video image bank, which is used frequently by television 
stations, and is developing a picture library for the same purpose. 
1 Commission Decision concerning information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States 
concerning assistance from the Structural Funds and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) - OJ 
No L 152, 18.6.1994 (see also the 1994 Annual Report). 
2 Server Europa: http..//www.cec.lu. 
242 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Making the ESF better known, to the general public in particular, and making its working more 
transparent led to the preparation and coordination of a communications plan and related measures. The 
first meeting with representatives of each Member State was organized in 1995 and two seminars will be 
held in 1996. This contact led to an exchange of views on information, communications and knowledge 
of the ESF in the Member States. A general information booklet on the ESF was produced and 
distributed in nine languages and over 160 000 copies to meet a real need for information. A number of 
publications on the EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT Community Initiatives and Objective 4 were also 
produced and the ESF took part in a number of events to increase the exchange of experience and 
knowledge, including those held in Opio and Seville. 
In the case of the EAGGF Guidance Section, this desire for information took the fonn of active 
participation in the preparation of regional booklets for the Madrid European Council. The Commission 
intends to step up its policy of information on rural development in the future. 
The FIFG did not lag behind in terms ofthe production of documentation nor the organization of events. 
The publications produced in 1994 on structural measures for fisheries3 were distributed in all the 
Member States. They were supplemented by 15 booklets for the general public financed under Article 4 
of the FIFG Regulation4 on FIFG assistance in each Member State and a publication entitled 
"Aquaculture and the environment in the European Community." The Commission organized a seminar 
on structural policy on fisheries and aquaculture at Santiago de Compostela (Spain) attended by a 
number of Members of the European Parliament and representatives of those working in the sector. It 
also organized in Brussels a round table on the conversion of areas dependent on fisheries, to provide 
better knowledge of and analyse experience in this area in Europe. 
2. Measures to disseminate good practice 
The Commission's measures to provide information on the Structural Funds cover not only the 
programmes and their implementation but also innovative measures, so that these can later be 
disseminated on a larger scale. The spread of good practice takes various forms, mainly networking and 
major events organized by the Commission. 
In the case of innovative measures and inter-regional cooperation under Article 10 of the ERDF 
Regulation, dissemination takes three main forms: 
• first of all, in view of their operation through networks, RECITE (internal cooperation) and ECOS-
OUVERTURE (external cooperation) pilot projects, which contribute to the exchange of experiences 
leading rapidly to the transfer of knowledge among their members. This transfer concerns innovative 
practices on subjects of common interest to the network, e.g.mechanisms for the control and 
prevention of pollution in the case of ENVIRONET, vine-growing techniques in the case of 
DYONISOS, instruments for computer calculation in the case ofthe network of scientific centres. At 
an earlier stage, the PACTE/Exchange of experiences programme for smaller networks seeks to raise 
initial awareness of inter-regional cooperation through the exchange of information and experience 
on matters of common interest relating to regional development; 
• for all these networks the Commission organizes launch days so that their members can meet. They 
also attend review days to summarize good practice and extend it on a regional level. These days 
result in the production of documents which are widely distributed; 
3 "The European Community and the fishing industry. Practical guide to structural aid". "The common fisheries 
policy," information file including the structural aspect. "The new common fisheries policy," an information 
booklet containing a chapter on structural assistance. 
4 See Chapter I.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 243 - QUU 
• the Directoria events organized by the Commission each year in Brussels (twice in 1995) enable the 
delegations of some 500 local authorities representing 1 200 participants to meet and be informed 
about programmes of innovative measures and inter-regional cooperation which concern them, to 
receive through case studies methodological support on development techniques and good practice 
and, most important, to begin cooperation projects through a pool of appointments based on calls for 
proposals. 
Most of the Community Initiatives make provision for cross-border measures, principally the 
establishment of networks for the exchange of information and meetings between participants in 
partnerships, all of which are designed to disseminate good practice and stimulate cross-border 
cooperation. Hence, for the new period ofthe Community Initiatives, appropriations to finance networks 
are available under LEADER (ECU 34 million), SME (ECU 25 million) and PESCA (ECU 5 million) 
and are incorporated in the ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT programmes. Since some of the programmes 
were adopted in 1995, most activities relating to the exchange of information remained at a preparatory 
stage and will be implemented in 1996. In the case of PESCA, calls for tenders and proposals were 
prepared for publication in 1996 to encourage innovative cross-border projects and disseminate good 
practice through publications, conferences, partnership meetings, the creation of networks, etc. It is 
intended to publish guides to good practice under the ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT Initiatives. 
The LEADER network has, however, continued to operate strongly thanks to the experience acquired 
through LEADER I. The European Observatory for Innovation and Rural Development organizes the 
European rural development network, which includes the whole of LEADER II. The Observatory's 
activities include the publication of a number of journals and the organization of various meetings and 
events. The INFO-LEADER monthly information bulletin is a useful means to encouraging the 
European rural development network because it offers a forum for all those concerned by LEADER II to 
publish news and seek partners, cooperation or exchanges likely to be of interest to all those involved in 
the Initiative. In particular, a number of national or international meetings attended by several LEADER 
groups took place in 1995; in March the Murcia LEADER group organized a meeting on the restoration 
of buildings for rural tourism, in the spring ten local action groups in Portugal, France and Wales took 
part in a seminar in Poland to present the LEADER Initiative, in July there was a national meeting of 
local action groups in Paris organized by the CNASEA (Centre national pour l'aménagement des 
structures des exploitations agricoles - national centre for improving the structures of agricultural 
holdings) and in Spain a national network for rural development was established to federate the local 
action groups. In October, a seminar to launch the LEADER Initiative was organized by Carinthia and 
the local action group for the Norische region. Also in October, the tenth meeting of members of the 
Greek LEADER network was held at Mirina on Lemnos. 
^WÇ^Hé 
CHAPTER IV 
FURTHER REVIEW OF THE 1989-93 PERIOD 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 247 
Introduction 
The very nature of programming means that evaluation ofthe entire first period, 1989-93, is an ongoing 
process. The programmes were adopted throughout the period (some in 1993) with their physical 
execution taking place as late as 1995, and many programmes were extended, as was their financial 
implementation (for although expenditure commitments were not possible after the end of 1993, 
payments to beneficiaries by the Member States and to the Member States by the Commission were 
authorized until 1995, or even 1996). That continuing situation explains why evaluation ofthe entire 
period is also a gradual process. Although initial work by the Commission started in 19941, it was often 
preliminary in nature and in any case related only to certain measures. The successive annual reports, 
from 1993 onwards, sought to present the results as they became available to the Commission. This 
report continues that work for the evaluations carried out in 1995. 
However, this type of framework, a report prepared annually to set out the activities ofthe previous year, 
does not easily lend itself to an overall summary of an entire programming period without becoming 
excessively long or failing to meet legislative requirements. Nevertheless, under the 1993 revision ofthe 
rules (Article 16 ofthe Framework Regulation), the Commission must prepare every three years a report 
on economic and social cohesion taking into account all financial instruments and Community policies 
(first and foremost the Structural Funds) to analyse of their contribution to the achievement of cohesion. 
The first such report was prepared in 1996. 
A. EX POST EVALUATION OF ADDITIONALITY 
Because structural measures provide part-financing for national programmes, the principle of 
additionality is particularly important when gauging the true economic impact of those ineasures. The 
Commission has to ensure that Member States maintain their public or similar structural expenditure 
over the relevant programming period at at least the same level as during the previous period. There was 
therefore intensive work in 1995 on verifying additionality for the 1989-93 period, because it is not until 
a year after the legal end of the financial commitments, while national and Community payments are 
still being made, that such work can reliably be undertaken. The work on some Member States and some 
Objectives has been concluded, but it often proved difficult. 
1. Objectives 1 and 2 
The ex post additionality evaluation started in 1995 for these Objectives. The situation varies 
substantially between the Member States. The information presented at the end of 1995 by Belgium 
(Wallonia), Denmark, Spain, Ireland and the Netherlands was satisfactory, demonstrating that 
additionality had been observed in 1989-93. In contrast, the information forwarded by Germany, 
Belgium (Flanders) and Greece was incomplete and did not permit a proper evaluation. Lastly, by the 
end of 1995 France, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal had not submitted any figures at all. 
2. Objectives 3 and 4 
As in the case of Objectives 1 and 2, the verification exercise is useful and effective if the Member State 
agrees to cooperate. Thus, a reliable conclusion was reached for the Member States which applied the 
Commission's methodology rigorously: Luxembourg, France, Germany, Denmark (although the exercise 
was based on an unrepresentative sample) and Portugal, where additionality was clearly respected. In 
two cases, additionality was verified without the Commission receiving figures which were sufficiently 
detailed (the Netherlands) or representative (Italy). Greece supplied figures only for 1990-91, while 
See the 1993 and 1994 Annual Reports. 
248 . 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
conclusions for other Member States (Belgium and the United Kingdom, where additionality could not 
be verified), which looked at the entire national budget, were not reliable. Lastly, two Member States 
raised an objection of principle: Ireland felt that additionality could not be measured for Objectives 3 
and 4 as the whole country was eligible under Objective 1, and Spain held that the sources of the 
information supplied to the Commission did not have to be revealed. 
In conclusion, the evaluation exercise demonstrated that additionality had been respected in France, 
Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal. On the basis ofthe findings, the same can be said of 
Italy and the Netherlands. On the other hand, the evaluation exercise could not be completed in 1995 for 
Belgium, Spain, Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom. 
B. EX POST EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES 
Work on ex post evaluations ofthe various Objectives started in 1994 and was pursued intensively in 
1995. The reader is asked to refer to the previous Annual Report for Objective 1, whose results and 
impact were presented in detail, and for Objective 2, the preliminary results of which were also 
presented there. With regard to the latter Objective, the in-depth analysis by the assessors was still under 
way in 1995. Preliminary results for Objectives 3, 4 and 5(b) were given in the previous report and are 
confirmed here by the work done in 1995. Results for Objective 5(a) were available for presentation only 
in this Report. 
1. Objectives 3 and 4 
1995 saw the final ization ofthe expost evaluation reports for the former Objectives 3 and 4 for 1989-93. 
Despite the delay in the submission of reports by some Member States, the summary ofthe results was 
completed by the end ofthe year and should be distributed in 1996. This will permit coordination ofthe 
approaches ofthe Commission and the Member States and will help preparation ofthe policy guidelines 
for the ESF, particularly with regard to ensuring appropriate rules for assistance and the effect on target 
groups. 
The final conclusions do not differ from the preliminary results already described in the 1994 Annual 
Report. It is worthwhile giving some details on the implementing conditions for the programmes. The 
summary report stresses two key elements of the 1988 reform, multiannual programming and 
evaluation. Multiannual programming produced changes in the way the national administrations 
operated but it helped to create a true continuous development and assistance strategy. In addition, a new 
evaluation culture gradually developed at Community level and in each Member State. 
Another fundamental principle ofthe 1988 reform was the strengthening of partnership, and this led to 
the increased involvement of regional actors and social partners. While in countries with a decentralized 
structure the report notes a growing convergence and even a movement of resources to the most 
appropriate level, the involvement ofthe social partners remained modest in most cases between 1989 
and 1993. Neither the bodies responsible for the actual monitoring of beneficiaries nor those involved in 
business training have anything other than a purely formal role in partnership. 
2. Objective 5(ai 
The method of evaluating Objective 5(a) agriculture is quite different from those for the other forms of 
assistance, mainly because it falls under two Regulations: Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 2328/91 on 
improving the efficiency of agricultural structures and 866/90 on improving the conditions for the 
processing and marketing of products. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 24Q 
Measures under Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (production structures): These measures have long 
been an important element ofthe common agricultural policy. Ex post evaluation concentrates on their 
application, using questionnaires drawn up by the Commission and sent by the Member States every 
year with information on: 
• investments on holdings; 
• the number of holdings targeted by the programme broken down by region, the income bands of 
beneficiary farmers, cultivated area, production type; 
• a breakdown by category of investment, the main purpose ofthe investments and their total amount, 
the planned amount of aid; 
• start-up aid for young farmers and additional aid intended to facilitate their investments; 
• compensatory allowances, with the number of farms per region and by size, areas benefiting and the 
amounts granted in different regions. 
The overall impact of those measures on the development of agricultural structures has not been 
systematically analysed. However, there have been studies on certain measures in some Member States 
while aid to young farmers was the subject of a Commission report which had not been completed by the 
end of 1995. 
Measures under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 (processing and marketing of products): Only since 
1991 have ineasures to improve the processing and marketing of products been the subject of a 
programming procedure under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90; before then the Commission selected 
projects submitted under Regulation (EEC) No 355/77. Member States were obliged to inform the 
Commission ofthe results ofthe various projects in the form of final reports on each project drawn up 
after completion. Now, under Regulation (EEC) No 866/90, monitoring and evaluation are governed by 
Articles 25 and 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (as amended) coordinating the Structural Funds, 
which provide for the setting up of Monitoring Committees and the establishment of physical and 
financial indicators to determine the progress of ineasures. The Monitoring Committees established to 
evaluate application of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 are now in place in all Member States, and 
appropriate monitoring and evaluation programmes have been prepared. It is they who will be 
organizing expost evaluation for the period 1989-93. 
3. Objective 5(b» 
Numerous environmental initiatives: 
Assistance for the environment represented a significant part of the operational programmes. For 
1989-93 the percentage ofthe Community contribution for environmental protection is the same as 
for 1994-99: 11.4% and 11.7%. Depending on the region, measures might relate to the reduction and 
prevention of agricultural or agri-food industry pollution, the management of natural resources 
(water, flora and fauna), the reintroduction of rare or endangered species, waste disposal in rural 
areas, and rehabilitation and development of the cultural heritage, for example, by means of 
protected sites or nature reserves. 
The success of this aspect of the programmes undoubtedly stems from greater environmental 
awareness. Furthermore, environmental rules, particularly concerning the disposal of waste, require 
substantial public investments which are a heavy burden on the budgets of rural authorities. 
Community grants have often been decisive in providing the facilities required. 
In the case of private systems of waste disposal and treatment of effluent, measures must be financed 
with regard to the general guidelines on environmental aid. Many rural areas are now seeking not 
simply to protect but to build on the environment by developing new forms of tourist activity based on 
the discovery of nature. Measures of this type are easily implemented because the investment required 
is often slight: a reception centre, the marking of paths, observation points in remote areas, etc. 
Initiatives of this type have succeeded and are increasing in number. The links between protection 
and use of the environment should be encouraged as a way of turning what may appear to be cm 
obligation (application ofthe rules) into new and profitable activities suitable for rural areas. 
250 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
The expost evaluation of Objective 5(b) for 1989-93 was completed during 1995 with the finalization of 
the coordination report for the 21 regions covered. The final results ofthe exercise do not differ from the 
interim results presented in the 1994 Annual Report, which the reader should consult, remembering 
always that the evaluation was carried out only in a limited number of regions. It should, however, be 
noted that many problems were encountered in establishing quantified and comparable data permitting 
measurement of trends in income, job creation and the deceleration of rural population decline. The 
report does establish a more systematic summary of physical implementation (agricultural and forestry 
investments, renovation of villages, SMEs1 aided, industrial and tourist infrastructure, environmental 
initiatives, etc.). During 1989-93 the Objective 5(b) areas covered 17%> ofthe Community's territory and 
5.1%) of its population (16.3 million inhabitants). The total amount of Community aid was ECU 3 000 
million, or about 5%> ofthe total available Structural Funds appropriations. 
C. EX POST EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 
In 1989 the Commission launched a series of Community Initiatives under Article 11 of Regulation 
(EEC) No 4253/88. These Initiatives are the special financial instruments of structural policy which the 
Commission proposes to the Member States on its own initiative to support ineasures which will help 
solve problems having a particular impact at European level, and which are not covered by the Member 
States' development plans. The Community Initiatives were intended to provide flexibility and to offer 
special possibilities for cooperation and innovation, for example by encompassing ineasures which 
extended beyond national borders, by bringing a genuine Community dimension or by experimenting 
with new approaches. In total, the contribution of Community funds to carrying out the Initiatives 
amounted to ECU 5 300 million, representing almost 10% ofthe overall total allocated to the Structural 
Funds. 
In 1995, the Commission undertook an ex post evaluation of all the Initiatives, grouping the evaluation 
work according to the three main types of Initiative: regional development Initiatives, human resource 
Initiatives and LEADER, the rural development Initiative. 
Consideration ofthe environment between 1991 and 1993: 
Many of the Community Initiatives in the period 1989-93 included measures for the environment, in 
various kinds of region: mining (RECHAR), coal and steel (RESIDER), border regions (INTERREG) and 
via various types of measure - research and development, product quality, etc. Of those Initiatives, 
ENVIREG, launched in 1990, was specifically aimed at protecting the environment in the least-
developed coastal regions (see below). In rural areas LEADER aided the implementation of many 
environmental protection measures. That Initiative particularly encouraged the development of 
innovative ecological products and processes in less-favoured rural areas. For example, in Greece 
(Lefkada island) the use of olive stones as an energy source has been encouraged; in Italy (Umbria), 
a system to recycle waste from a potter's studio has been developed; in France (Haut-Jura), low-
pollution burners fed by smallwoodfrom forestry activities have been installed. 
1. Regional development Initiatives.Regional development Initiatives 
Evaluation of the regional development Initiatives covered ten Community Initiatives based on four 
main themes: 
• integration of the least-developed regions into the internal market: STRIDE, to reinforce the capacity 
for innovation and technological development in certain regions assisted under Objectives 1 and 2; 
TELEMATIQUE, for the promotion of the use of advanced telecommunications services in the 
Objective 1 regions; PRISMA, aimed at improving the infrastructure and services for enterprises in the 
Objective 1 regions in terms of policies of quality and access to public procurement markets; 
• protection of the environment: ENVIREG, to improve and protect the environment and to encourage 
economic development, mainly in the coastal areas ofthe Objective 1 regions; 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 251 
• cooperation and cross-border networks: INTERREG, to help frontier regions to prepare for the Internal 
Market, principally by improving cross-border cooperation; 
• diversification of the activities of industrial areas dependent on sectors in crisis: RESIDER, for iron 
and steel areas; RENAVAL for naval shipyard areas; RECHAR for coal-mining areas. 
Table 129: Community Initiatives 1989-93 - Assistance by Initiative and Member State (ECU million) 
INTERREG/ 
REG EM 
TTZ 
25,3 
52,4 
3,4 
184,2 RESIDER 
TO" 
52,4 
58,8 
23,0 
8,7 RENAVAL STRIDE 
~TS— 
2,2 
4,3 
59,3 
155,9 
16,4 (.1) 
13,1 
94,9 
2,1 
4,6 
54,1 
30,2 
441,6 TELEMATIQUE 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
Community (4) 
Total 84,0 
139,2 
16,1 (I) 
30,4 
171,2 
101,8 
17,7 17,7 
32,2 
5,2 (2) 
9,4 
22,6 
17,5 
5,7 89,9 
118,4 
2,0 
82,2 
1 077.2 
1.369,7 6? 
12,4 
37,3 
18,2 
65,3 
27,6 
24,0 
87,3 
299,1 41,3 
75,5 
1,7 
11,0 
64,7 
35,6 
5,4 
235,2 —57? 
14,6 
222,4 
292,2 
498,7 
215,9 
182,3 
398,9 
10,8 
32,2 
323,6 
335,2 
1.077,2 
3.661,2 
(1) Includes ECU 12 060 000 for Objective 1 regions 
(2) Includes Prisma-Telematique. 
(3) ENVIREG-STRIDE 
(4) This figure represents the value of Interreg forEUR-12, and includes ECU 82 390 000 for Article 10 ERDF appropriations. 
The general value ofthe Community Initiatives lies in the development of cross-border cooperation, the 
visibility ofthe Community action and its demonstration effect, and the innovation which the flexibility 
ofthe programmes can permit. It must be said that despite the positive effects ofthe programmes, there 
were certain factors which reduced the potential effectiveness ofthe actions: 
• the breadth of the objectives which gave the advantage of flexibility also led to a reduction of the 
specific nature of the Initiatives, so that they sometimes appeared to be merely an extension of 
existing national policies; 
• the administrative arrangements for the programmes were often complex, and the lack of coherence 
between the Member States in both content and timing meant that some of the potential for cross-
border cooperation was lost. 
However, the socio-economic actors involved regarded the Initiatives favourably since their "bottom-
up" approach enabled them to demonstrate capacity for innovative action. 
STRIDE, PRISMA, TELEMATIQUE 
These three Community Initiatives provided a crucial connection between cohesion and integration. 
Their aim was to assist the less-favoured regions in developing the technical and human capital 
infrastructure needed to give firms in those regions access to the wider benefits of the internal market. 
The three programmes were linked by their emphasis on technological development and innovation: 
• STRIDE was aimed mainly at stimulating the R&D capacity of the Objective 1 regions, although 
certain measures in Objective 2 regions were also eligible for funding. It provided funds to Objective 
1 regions to assist investment in basic R&D infrastructure through regional technological studies, 
new investments and project running costs to start up R&D activities and R&D centres preparing for 
and participating in EC-funded research. It also supported links and networks between research 
centres and industry in both Objective 1 and 2 regions, covering a wide range of consortia and 
technology transfer methods. The area which received the most funding was research activities 
including R&D centres, R&D and equipment grants (57%); 
• TELEMATIQUE concentrated on supporting the use of advanced telecommunications services, rather 
than just increasing access to them, and emphasizing the role of SMEs. The programme supported a 
wide range of projects covering data communications (including database and network development), 
252 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
support for service users, development of advanced services for SMEs and marketing, promotion and 
training activities. Data communications received the greatest proportion of funding (42%); 
PRISMA aimed at helping firms in the Objective 1 regions to benefit from the completion of the 
internal market, placing particular emphasis on meeting quality standards in private and public 
markets. The majority (75%>) of the funding was used for projects in calibration and metrology, 
which included both laboratory infrastructure and associated quality system projects. 
STRIDE, PRISMA, TELEMATIQUE: Breakdown by Member State (ECU million) 
B PRISMA 
• TELEMATIQUE 
m STRIDE 
.m 4 •J3. 
B DK D EL E F IRL I L N P UK 
The value added by STRIDE, TELEMATIQUE and PRISMA 
The key areas examined were innovation, the demonstration effects of the programmes, the degree of 
internationalization, any links to other programmes and the level of additionality (the extent to which the 
actions would have taken place if the programmes had not existed). 
STRIDE: There was quite a high degree of innovation. The programme concept itself was novel, and the 
programme design led to significant new links between universities and local firms (especially in 
Portugal and Greece). There was a substantial impact on the rate and level of technological innovation in 
support of research leading to product development, and in the provision of support services. Overall, 
several hundred new products and processes were developed with STRIDE support, and it facilitated the 
introduction of a rich variety of research techniques into certain regions and countries for the first time. 
Where the beneficiaries has been involved closely in the design and implementation ofthe projects, the 
demonstration aspect was quite successful. 
Internationalization was a specific objective ofthe programme, and it helped to foster the development 
of a large number of trans-national links. However, very few projects involved contractors from other 
Member States. The main success came from encouraging research organizations and firms to 
participate in the Framework Research Programmes, and from building links to help the mobility of 
research workers, which meant that large numbers of beneficiaries could be reached with a relatively 
small budget. Formal collaboration between projects was difficult due to a lack of knowledge of the 
content of other STRIDE programmes, differences in timescales and delays in implementation. However, 
there were examples of informal collaboration. Links to other programmes occurred mainly through 
Framework Programmes, and in a few cases through a contribution of current expenditure to ERDF-
funded capital projects. There was little collaboration with other programmes, even those apparently of 
interest such as SPRINT or COMETT. 
Generally the additionality of the Initiative was good in that it brought forward a large number of 
projects which would not otherwise have been funded, and in some cases developed whole lines of 
action at a regional level which did not previously exist. An area of concern was a few projects in Italy 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 253 
where large finns, particularly multi-nationals, had received large grants, and also aid to major public 
sector schemes and laboratories where the programme was being used to fund activities which would in 
all likelihood have been carried out anyway. 
The STRIDE Initiative was an extremely successful experiment in introducing a technological dimension 
to Community regional policy. It had profound effects on the pattern of expenditure within the wider 
CSFs and stimulated interest in a number of other regional technology initiatives. 
Some ofthe key outputs from STRIDE: 
• 68 new research centres and 100 others equipped or developed in the 
less favoured regions; 
• approximately 300 new products and processes and 46 new patents; 
• 4 400 jobs directly or indirectly created. 
TELEMATIQUE: This Initiative had an advantage enjoyed by no other Community Initiative at the time in 
that the national administrations already had experience of a similar programme - the STAR programme. 
However, the budget of the programme at just under ECU 220 million was a tiny fraction of what is 
spent on telecommunications in the less developed regions in one year. As already stated, the aim ofthe 
programme was less to develop innovative services than to support the use of advanced services. 
Innovation tended to lie in the application of existing technologies to new situations. A key objective 
was the opening up to SMEs ofthe opportunities offered by advanced telecommunications services and 
the information society. 
The demonstration effect ofthe programme was most effective in terms of illustrating success and thus 
encouraging new users. This tended to be indirect, rather than the result of specific demonstration or 
promotional ineasures. 
The degree of internationalization within the programme was limited. Opportunities for cross-border 
collaboration, providing access to services in other Member States and exchanging experience between 
projects were missed. However, it should not be assumed that internationalization is in all cases 
desirable. Where only expertise is required from another Member State, there is not necessarily a need 
for formalized involvement, and indeed the problems of obtaining and justifying matching funding may 
be insurmountable. 
There was usually a degree of deadweight in that projects would probably have gone ahead at a later 
date or in a less ambitious form. However, in a fast-moving field such as telecommunications, this 
advance can have in itself a significant impact. 
Some ofthe key outputs from TELEMATIQUE : 
• 17 000 SMEs using advanced telecommunications services 
• 32 000 new users of advanced services 
PRISMA: The value added by PRISMA lay in the fields of innovation, demonstration and additionality. 
The programme itself was innovative, especially the idea of solving the problems of SMEs in less-
favoured areas through the introduction of service-support infrastructures such as calibration and 
metrology laboratories. From a local perspective, the technology employed was also innovative as these 
technologies had not previously been transferred to these areas. There were also examples of innovative 
project design. These projects tended to have a high demonstration effect since firms can see the 
quantifiable benefits of calibration and quality certification. The public procurement projects were less 
successful, but this is a more difficult area for SMEs and the level of resistance was that much higher. 
Levels of deadweight were generally low, particularly for the calibration and metrology service since 
private companies do not tend to invest in facilities which offer this service to other SMEs because of 
low returns and significant risks, and because this is not an area in which government agencies 
traditionally invest. 
254 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
In general, this reinforcing of standardization and quality assurance made a real contribution to the 
completion ofthe Internal Market. 
Some ofthe key outputs from PRISMA : 
• 300 projects in the field of calibrations and standards 
• 4 500 participant organizations benefiting from the services. 
ENVIREG 
The ENVIREG Initiative had four very specific objectives: 
• to reduce pollution in coastal areas whose economy depends significantly on tourism, with priority 
given to areas experiencing rapid economic growth and with serious environmental problems; 
• to promote land-use planning in coastal areas so as to preserve natural ecosystems and check the 
deterioration of coastal habitats; 
• to contribute to the development of systems and infrastructure to manage toxic and hazardous wastes; 
• to strengthen technical expertise relating to the design and management of pollution control and 
treatment infrastructure and technologies. 
The Initiative covered the coastal zones of Objective 1, 2 and 5(b) areas around the Mediterranean and 
other coastal locations in Southern Europe, with a hinterland up to 10 km. In the case of toxic waste and 
technical assistance, the entire relevant Objective 1 regions were eligible. 
The value added by ENVIREG 
ENVIREG was able to help finance a number of projects which were of significance because of their 
innovative content and which might otherwise not have gone ahead. Funds were also often used to 
support projects focusing on responding to specific directives, including the Urban Waste Water 
Treatment Directive and the Toxic Waste Management Directive, which posed serious challenges to 
many of the Objective 1 regions. In particular ENVIREG made a contribution to environmental 
improvements in Objective 1 regions by: 
• allowing individual regions to carry out investment in waste water and waste management 
infrastructure; 
carrying out technical assessments of issues, or feasibility studies which helped improve designs and 
environmental benefits; 
focusing attention on coastal zone management issues; 
targeting coastal biotopes - an innovative approach; 
adding emphasis to water resource management and the reuse of treated effluent; 
acting as a catalyst which encouraged other projects building on or enhancing the ENVIREG projects. • 
• 
In addition, AMBER, a technical assistance structure, was created to organize exchanges of experience 
and the dissemination of good practice between those involved in environmental projects. 
This Initiative led to a significant change in Community structural policies through better integration of 
the environmental dimension into the new generation of CSFs and OPs. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 255 
Some ofthe key outputs from ENVIREG: 
• over 800 projects were financed; 
• a significant impact was made on the level of collection, treatment 
and disposal of urban waste and waste water, making a decisive 
contribution to reducing the gap with the rest of Europe. Almost 
two thirds of the funds were devoted to waste water treatment 
installations in Objective 1 coastal regions, mainly in Spain, 
southern Italy and Greece. 
In Portugal Envireg part-financed major clearing and prevention 
measures (waste compacter at Matosinhos, tannery waste recycling at 
Alviela, floating barriers, pump vessels, purgers and holding dams to 
control petroleum and chemical pollution in Madeira and the Azores), 
within an integrated approach combining preservation of both 
ecosystems and countryside of importance for tourism, and here local 
planning efforts to manage the environment were particularly 
important. 
RESIDER, RENAVAL, RECHAR 
These three Community Initiatives seek the diversification of areas affected by industrial decline and 
together account for Community expenditure totalling ECU 943.9 million. The RESIDER programme 
concerns areas adversely affected by the decline of the steel industry and which subsequently require 
restructuring. The programme covers 18 regions in eight Member States. RENAVAL centres on areas 
dependent on shipbuilding, ship conversion and repair where there have been similar employment losses 
and covers 26 regions in nine Member States. RECHAR assists those areas hit particularly hard by the 
rapid decline of coal mining and threatened by consequent job losses. It covers 26 coal mining regions in 
six Member States. Four Member States (France, Germany, Spain and the UK) received over 80%> ofthe 
funding, with the UK being the largest recipient. 
EC funding was not made available to directly support the industries in decline, but to encourage the 
creation of employment, the establishment of new businesses and the expansion of existing firms in the 
areas affected. This was to be achieved by: 
• investing in infrastructure projects; 
• directly assisting capital investment in SMEs; 
• indirect assistance (e.g. through intermediaries) to SMEs by the provision of technical assistance such 
as research and development, marketing, etc.; 
• in the case of RECHAR, providing vocational training and aid for redeployment. 
Clearly the programmes were too small to deal entirely with the problems caused by the decline ofthe 
industries they were supposed to support. The programmes were, therefore, only a starting point for 
stimulating and encouraging new activities. 
The value added by RESIDER, RENA VAL andRECHAR 
Evaluation puts the level of full dependency on the programmes as relatively high: 45% of RECHAR and 
33% of RENAVAL and RESIDER projects were entirely dependent on Community assistance; only 5% or 
less of projects (and none at all for RECHAR) would have gone ahead in the absence ofthe programmes. 
Thus it can be said that the programmes had a positive effect on the implementation ofthe projects. The 
level of leverage of these projects from the private and public sector was also relatively high at 2.66%. 
One ofthe most significant outcomes was the level of private sector investment pulled in to areas which 
had suffered from a progressive lack of investment as they were considered so unattractive. Measures 
funded included both "hardware" type investment such as infrastructure or environmental improvements 
256 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
or direct aid to SMEs, and "software" type investment, such as indirect aid to SMEs and, in the case of 
RECHAR, aid for tourism, vocational training and economic conversion bodies. Generally, between 67%> 
and 80%> of funding was spent on "hardware" type projects. 
The study highlighted a number of projects where cross-border cooperation occurred through European 
networks and between projects situated close to national borders. There were also examples of 
complementary linkages between ERDF and ESF projects under Rechar which are regarded as examples 
of good practice. 
Some ofthe key outputs from RESIDER, RENA VAL andRECHAR: 
• 904 projects under RESIDER; 
• 1 771 projects funded under RENAVAL; 
• 2 220 projects supported under RECHAR; 
• ECU 2 000 million of non-EC funds attracted to the programmes; 
• a large number of jobs directly or indirectly supported by the three 
Initiatives. 
INTERREG I 
INTERREG seeks to stimulate cross-border cooperation with the double objectives of: 
• accelerating the process of Community development, particularly in terms of the completion of the 
internal market, by acting on the areas where Member States meet - the frontier zones; 
• overcoming specific development problems resulting from geographical or economic handicaps. 
Thirty-one operational programmes were approved of which nine related to external frontiers, and 22 to 
the internal borders ofthe Community. ECU 1 077 million from Community funds was allocated to this 
Initiative, and was divided among 2 500 projects. Approximately half of the expenditure on INTERREG 
went to communication and energy infrastructure, this focus being particularly marked in the Objective 
1 regions. However, two other sectors which proved to be effective in promoting cross-border 
cooperation were tourism and the environment. 
The value added by INTERREG I 
The very open objectives of the programme, which put the emphasis as much on socio-economic 
development of the frontier regions as on actual cross-border cooperation, led to a high level of 
integration of Community, national and regional policies. One ofthe key effects ofthe programme was 
its ability to reinforce local policies. Two thirds of the projects could not have operated without the 
support of the programme, and a further 20% were significantly enhanced in scale or timescale. The 
cross-border nature of the programme led to the development of many innovative implementation and 
management mechanisms and new forms of partnership both at an international level and within the 
Member States. In a third of the frontier areas there were more ambitious forms of support for cross-
border cooperation which stimulated other forms of cooperation between the semi-public and private 
sectors. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 257 
Table 130: Interreg I: Breakdown of projects by sector 
Sector 
SME 
Tourism 
Environment 
Rural development 
Employment and training 
Research and higher education 
Communication infrastructure 
Cross-border organizations 
Cross-border development plans No. of projects 
278 
659 
187 
182 
160 
142 
464 
229 
174 % of projects 
11,1 
26,4 
7,5 
7,3 
6,4 
5,7 
18,6 
9,2 
7,0 % of 
expenditure 
7,5 
16,4 
8,9 
5,3 
3,7 
2,7 
49,3 
3,8 
2,5 
The programme also exerted a strong demonstration effect by giving credibility to the concept of cross-
border working: a third of projects led in turn to other cross-border projects. At a cultural level, the 
objectives of the project were not, in general, to promote uniformity but rather to add value to local 
customs and practices so that the experience of both parties could be exchanged and developed, 
enhancing the richness of both sides. This was particularly the case for projects in the tourism sector, 
where regions were able to develop an appreciation of their own heritage as part of the process of 
exchanging experience with others. In terms of the contribution to innovation and excellence, the key 
elements of INTERREG I were in the fields of circulation of information, exchange of experience, 
transfers of know-how and technology and the creation of new dynamics of economic and cultural 
exchange. 
Some ofthe key outputs from INTERREG I: 
Because ofthe extremely diverse nature ofthe projects involved, it is hard to 
list a series of concrete outputs. However, in the short term, INTERREG has 
contributed to: 
• increasing the level of qualification through training; 
• improving the accessibility of regions and their services through improved 
communications links; 
• making regions more attractive through tourism and cultural projects; 
• creating employment through the work financed by the projects. 
In the longer term, Interreg will have contributed to an improvement in the 
standard of living in these regions through: 
• the development of human resources which should reduce the fragility of 
the regions when faced by economic change; 
• the opening up and internationalization of relationships between local 
SMEs; 
• concrete measures to follow up the preparatory studies carried out; 
• the effect ofthe environmental improvement actions. 
2. Human resources Initiatives: NOW. HORIZON and EUROFORM 
These three Community Initiatives were the subject of expost evaluations by independent assessors. The 
main aims of this exercise were to estimate the coherence and effectiveness of implementation at 
programme and project levels and to evaluate the value added by the Community, i.e. cross-border 
working, harmonization and circulation of information. The study was carried out between August 1994 
and July 1995 and the final report was presented in December 1995. That timetable allowed the study's 
conclusions and recommendations to be used for the preparation and launch of the EMPLOYMENT and 
ADAPT Community Initiatives for the new programming period 1994-99. 
A total of 4 408 projects under the three Initiatives NOW, HORIZON and EUROFORM were aided in the 
twelve Member States between 1991 and 1994, the majority of them, managed by public bodies, being 
targeted at local or regional problems. The eligible measures mainly involved improvements to the 
258 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
training sector (which absorbed most of the aid), advisory services, services and aid systems for target 
groups and job creation. 
The results ofthe NOW Initiative, which targetted unemployed women, are positive in that trends on the 
labour market indicate an increase in jobs for women to which the Initiative seems to have contributed. 
However, there is still a grey area in that pay rates for men and women still differ and part of that 
increase in jobs for women is in unstable jobs. The major variations in employment rates and 
percentages of female employment throughout Europe must also be taken into account. 
Evaluation ofthe overall impact ofthe HORIZON Initiative, which was targeted at people suffering from 
incapacity or a specific handicap, raised a number of problems since there are no comparable statistics at 
Community level. However, it appears that, in general, HORIZON'S funding was relatively modest 
compared to the size of these groups and the amount of national aid. Results were therefore mixed, 
although its impact appears to have been more significant in the priority regions where it contributed 
ECU 295 per potential beneficiary. 
EUROFORM mainly benefited the jobless, with the training sector receiving most of the funding. The 
Community contribution to training activities undertaken within this Initiative was estimated at 10%> of 
the total commitments in the priority regions where ESF funding already accounts for the majority ofthe 
ineasures for training. The innovative aspects of EUROFORM above all (its trans-national nature, the type 
of measure, the beneficiary groups, the geographical targeting and the characteristics of the bodies 
responsible for implementing it) were more evident than for NOW and HORIZON. 
The value added by NOW, HORIZON and EUROFORM 
The added value aspect was considered from the point of view of the Initiatives' innovative features, 
such as their trans-national nature, circulation of information and harmonization. For their trans-national 
nature, the study attempted to measure the degree of implementation. An analysis by project revealed 
that about 20% of the total resources was devoted to trans-national activities and that the average 
number of partners per project was slightly under three. More importantly, the trans-national aspect, 
which would have been absent had it not been for the Initiatives, was deemed to be the most innovative 
aspect ofthe Community Initiatives. The report also defined certain major constraints militating against 
improving this aspect, such as the tight timetable for the projects, poor coordination at programme level 
and difficulties in identifying partners at Community level. These factors must be taken into account for 
the new programming period. Other constraints related to language and cultural barriers. 
These conclusions were taken into consideration by the Commission in its definition of the new 
generation of Community Initiatives. To this end, common selection criteria and coordinated selection 
procedures were agreed with the Member States and technical assistance was granted to support 
structures. In addition, the approval rules now include a "trans-national cooperation agreement" between 
the partners participating in the projects covering the main aspects of project implementation. Lastly, the 
condition that at least three partners must participate was accepted as being best practice. 
With regard to circulation of information, the evaluation concluded that, despite good communication of 
information at national level, the impact ofthe results ofthe project and the media impact were modest. 
The two main weaknesses were insufficient product development by the public bodies (such as training 
manuals, computer systems, etc.) and, more generally, the lack of a communication strategy at all levels, 
obstructing the proper dissemination of the results. To improve the circulation of information, the 
responsible bodies in the ESF, the Commission and the Member States agreed to launch a coherent 
communication strategy which should bring about the creation of a more systematic information base 
and produce skills at project level. The impact ofthe Initiatives on the content ofthe CSFs for the new 
programming period was considered poor. This is partly due to the inherent characteristics of the 
Initiatives (trans-national nature and many small projects), which are difficult to integrate into the CSFs. 
Better coordination at Commission and national levels is needed. The study found that the impact on 
local, regional and national policies was particularly great at local level, where cooperation between 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 259 oL(>0 
existing bodies increased markedly, as did the ability to participate in trans-national activities. 
Nevertheless, the overall impact on national measures and policies was deemed slight, with a few 
exceptions. This can also be explained by the basic characteristics ofthe Initiatives, which restrict their 
impact on national programmes with rather larger funding. 
The main recommendations of the study for the next programming period were, firstly, that a clear 
strategy is needed to demonstrate the potential impact of the Initiatives and improve the coherence of 
their trans-national dimension. Secondly, even though the demand for training is higher than in other 
sectors, the Initiatives should be restricted to those which are more innovative in the labour market. 
Lastly, priority must be given to better coordination with the main ESF programmes so as to create 
synergies, including developing monitoring and evaluation systems. 
3. The rural development Initiative: LEADER I 
A public invitation to tender was launched in 1995 to select assessors for LEADER I. The analysis must 
cover the 217 local action groups created in the twelve Member States and their activities, along with 
those ofthe coordination unit for 1990-94. The first stage must be the definition of a working method 
and will have to include an analysis ofthe impact ofthe Initiative, the added value achieved compared to 
other operational programmes, the effectiveness of the use of funds and the establishment of 
implementing rules. The study must be carried out in 1996 and 1997. 
fo/ 
\m$mm 
am 
ANNEX I: 
Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 265 
Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 
Table 1: Objective 1 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
feËLCluM 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM Fund 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
1,9? 
0,00 
7,00 
0,00 
8,97 
921,90 
606,05 
482,60 
12,00 
2.022,55 
1.812,99 
368,56 
452,19 
19,30 
2.653,04 
3.202,10 
837,75 
571,12 
167,93 
4.778,90 
96,22 
115,64 
9,50 
1,11 
222,47 
498,13 
295,13 
154,76 
6,19 
954,21 
1.558,98 
223,39 
411,69 
34,57 
2.228,63 
10,00 
5,00 
0,00 
2,20 
17,20 
19,96 
5,04 
3,80 
0,00 
28,80 
709,83 
370,86 
275,10 
23.93 
1.379,72 
128,71 
58,87 
27,42 
3,60 
218,60 
14.513,10 
8.960,80 
2.886,29 
2.395,18 
270,83 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
1,97 
0,00 
7,00 
0,00 
8,97 
921,90 
606,05 
482,60 
12,00 
2.022,55 
1.812,99 
368,56 
452,19 
19,30 
2.653,04 
3.202,10 
837,75 
571,12 
167,93 
4.778,90 
96,22 
115,64 
9,50 
1,11 
222,47 
498,13 
295,13 
154,76 
6,19 
954,21 
1.558,98 
223,39 
411,69 
34,57 
2.228,63 
10,00 
5,00 
0,00 
2,20 
17,20 
19,96 
5,04 
3,80 
0,00 
28,80 
709,83 
370,86 
275,10 
23,93 
1.379,72 
128,71 
58,87 
27,42 
3.6C 
218,60 
14.513,10 
8.960,80 
2.886,29 
2.395,18 
270,83 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
20,77 
0,00 
1,39 
0,00 
22,16 
452,44 
476,56 
314,87 
8,10 
1.251,97 
1.131,50 
253,46 
315,50 
5,34 
1.705,79 
2.517,66 
765,90 
454,79 
40,96 
3.779,30 
37,65 
66,94 
6,12 
0,87 
111.56 
391.45 
293,80 
167,06 
4,00 
856,30 
875,35 
66,54 
216,99 
0.00 
1.158.89 
4.29 
3.46 
0.53 
1,28 
9,56 
9,98 
2,52 
1,90 
0,00 
14,40 
1.123,93 
411,86 
86,53 
19,09 
1.641,42 
83.14 
53,27 
25.75 
1,64 
163,81 
10.715,16 
6.648,15 
2.394,31 
1.591,42 
81,27 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
20,77 
7,41 
1,39 
0,00 
29,57 
452,44 
476,56 
314,87 
8,10 
1.251,97 
1.131,50 
253,46 
315,50 
5,34 
1.705,79 
2.517,66 
765,90 
454,79 
40,96 
3.779,30 
37,65 
95,74 
6,12 
0,87 
140,37 
391.45 
293,97 
167,06 
4,00 
856,47 
878,35 
80,79 
216,99 
0,00 
1.176,13 
4,29 
3,46 
0.53 
1,28 
9,56 
9,98 
2,52 
1,90 
0,00 
14,40 
1.123,93 
437,67 
86,53 
19,09 
1.667,23 
83,14 
53,27 
25,75 
1,64 
163,81 
10.794,61 
6.651,15 
2.470,76 
1.591,42 
81,27 
Budget headings B2-1000, B2-1100, B2-1200, B2-1300. 
266 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 
Table 2: Objective 2 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
UNITED KINGDOM Fund 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
6,00 
0,00 
6,00 
20,33 
17,68 
38,01 
545,10 
114,11 
659,21 
261,90 
51,19 
313,09 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,09 
9,06 
9,15 
38,91 
15,24 
54,15 
24,80 
6,30 
31,10 
83,22 
22,56 
105,78 
352,26 
165,99 
518,25 
1.734,74 
1.332,61 
402,13 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
Ô,ÔÔ 
4,63 
4,63 
6,00 
0,00 
6,00 
20,33 
17,68 
38,01 
545,10 
114,11 
659,21 
261,90 
51,19 
313,09 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,09 
9,06 
9,15 
38,91 
15,24 
54,15 
24,80 
6,30 
31,10 
83,22 
22,56 
105,78 
352,26 
165,99 
518,25 
1.739,37 
1.332,61 
406,76 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
9,43 
0,00 
9,43 
8,35 
0,00 
8,35 
15,63 
10,30 
25,92 
395,86 
52,10 
447,96 
98,97 
43,15 
142,12 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
7,77 
4,53 
12,30 
13,80 
7,62 
21,42 
12,40 
3,15 
15,55 
26,78 
11,28 
38.06 
22,03 
123,40 
145,43 
866,54 
611,01 
255,53 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
9,43 
2,32 
11,75 
8,35 
0,00 
8,35 
15,63 
16,89 
32,52 
395,86 
52,10 
447,96 
98,97 
46,09 
145,06 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
7,77 
4,53 
12,30 
13,80 
7,62 
21,42 
12,40 
3,15 
15,55 
26,78 
11,28 
38,06 
22,03 
130,93 
152,96 
885,91 
611,01 
274,90 
Budget headings B2-1201, B2-1301. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 267 
Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 
Table 3: Objective 3 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
UNITED KINGDOM 
TOTAL Fund 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
33,39 
41,00 
48,22 
206,97 
396,80 
0,00 
3,29 
143,83 
64,06 
60,33 
73,00 
497,00 
1.567,90 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
33,39 
41,00 
48,22 
206,97 
396,80 
0,00 
3,29 
143,83 
64,06 
60,33 
73,00 
497,00 
1.567,90 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
34,24 
12,30 
96,49 
169,65 
312,88 
0.00 
3,51 
142.57 
32,03 
30.17 
36.50 
436.17 
1.306,51 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
42,33 
39,04 
104,48 
169,65 
312,88 
0,00 
4,00 
142,57 
32,03 
30,17 
36,50 
436,17 
1.349,82 
Budget heading B2-1302. 
268 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * 
Table 4: Objective 4 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
TOTAL Fund 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
0,00 
5,00 
0,00 
62,70 
0,00 
0,00 
0,27 
0,00 
11,70 
14,83 
0,00 
94,50 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
0,00 
5,00 
0,00 
62,70 
0,00 
0,00 
0,27 
0,00 
11,70 
14,83 
0,00 
94,50 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
0,00 
2,50 
0,00 
38,13 
0,00 
0,00 
0,21 
0.00 
5,85 
7.42 
0,00 
54,11 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
0,00 
2,50 
0,00 
38,13 
0,00 
0,00 
0,21 
0,00 
5,85 
7,42 
0,00 
54,11 
Budget heading B2-1303. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 269 
Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * 
Table 5: Objective 5(a) agriculture - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
UNITED KINGDOM 
TOTAL Fund 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
30,23 
16,73 
165,13 
21,10 
252,08 
0,00 
5,47 
4,89 
61,50 
61,42 
13,72 
22,80 
655,07 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
30,23 
16,73 
165,13 
21,10 
252,08 
0,00 
5,47 
4,89 
61,50 
61,42 
13,72 
22,80 
655,07 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
12,74 
16,49 
160,90 
27,64 
242,14 
0,00 
2,01 
1,96 
30,75 
30,71 
6,86 
22,43 
554,63 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
12,74 
16,49 
160,90 
27,64 
242,14 
0,00 
2,01 
1,96 
30,75 
30,71 
6,86 
22,43 
554,63 
Budget headings B2-1001, B2-1002. 
270 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * 
Table 6: Objective 5(a) fisheries- CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
UNITED KINGDOM 
TOTAL Fund 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
0,00 
23,28 
12,46 
19,90 
31,62 
22,37 
0,89 
1,40 
2,00 
23,00 
40,00 
0,11 
177,02 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
0,00 
23,28 
12,46 
19,90 
31,62 
22,37 
0,89 
1,40 
2,00 
23,00 
40,00 
o,n 
177,02 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
1,29 
18,63 
9,93 
0,00 
25,31 
0.00 
0,00 
2.33 
0,20 
6,90 
12,00 
4,43 
81,02 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
1,29 
18,63 
9,93 
0,00 
25,31 
0,00 
0,00 
2,33 
0,20 
6,90 
12,00 
4,43 
81,02 
Budget heading B2-1101. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 271 
Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * 
Table 7: Objective 5(b) - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
UNITED KINGDOM Fund 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
4,82 
1,55 
2,79 
9,16 
3,36 
0,00 
0,00 
3,36 
49,48 
5,10 
81,19 
135,77 
25,22 
5,30 
58,06 
88,58 
45,02 
29,73 
35,70 
110,46 
12,41 
3,27 
15,83 
31,50 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
1,94 
0,92 
4,45 
7,31 
33,34 
13,68 
31,30 
78,33 
16,03 
5,18 
11,60 
32,81 
36,78 
29,24 
8,57 
74,59 
571,86 
228,39 
93,97 
249,50 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
4,82 
1,55 
2,79 
9,16 
3,36 
0,00 
0,00 
3,36 
49,48 
5,10 
81,19 
135,77 
25,22 
5,30 
58,06 
88,58 
45,02 
29,73 
35,70 
110,46 
12,41 
3,27 
15,83 
31,50 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
1,94 
0,92 
4,45 
7,31 
33,34 
13,68 
31,30 
78,33 
16,03 
5,18 
11,60 
32,81 
36,78 
29,24 
8,57 
74,59 
571,86 
228,39 
93,97 
249,50 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
2,41 
0,77 
1,40 
4,58 
2,45 
0,00 
0,00 
2,45 
15,54 
4,26 
51,41 
71,21 
26,00 
3,21 
52,48 
81,69 
27,77 
18,21 
30,59 
76,57 
6,20 
1,64 
7,91 
15,75 
0,21 
0,00 
0,00 
0,21 
7,40 
0,46 
1,59 
9.45 
16,67 
6,84 
15,65 
39,16 
7,78 
2,59 
5,56 
15.94 
22,68 
19,42 
4.29 
46,39 
363,41 
135,13 
57,40 
170,89 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
2,41 
0,77 
1,40 
4,58 
2,45 
0,00 
0,00 
2,45 
15,54 
4,26 
51,41 
71,21 
26,00 
3,21 
52,48 
81,69 
27,77 
18,21 
30,59 
76,57 
6,20 
1,64 
7,91 
15,75 
0,21 
0,00 
0,00 
0,21 
7,40 
0.46 
1,59 
9,45 
16,67 
6,84 
15,65 
39,16 
7,78 
2.59 
5,56 
15,94 
22,68 
19,42 
4,29 
46,39 
363,41 
135,13 
57,40 
170,89 
Budget headings B2-1003, B2-1202, B2-1304. 
272 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * 
Table 8: Objective 6 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN Fund 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
TOTAL 
FEDER 
FSE 
FEOGA 
IFOP Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
22,40 
21,10 
36,80 
0,70 
81,00 
21,86 
11,39 
10,94 
0,73 
44,92 
125,92 
44,26 
32,49 
47,74 
1,43 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
22,40 
21,10 
36,80 
0,70 
81,00 
21,86 
11,39 
10,94 
0,73 
44,92 
125,92 
44,26 
32,49 
47,74 
1,43 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
11,20 
10,55 
18,40 
0,35 
40,50 
10,93 
5,70 
5,47 
0,37 
22,46 
62,96 
22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
11,20 
10,55 
18,40 
0,35 
40,50 
10,93 
5,70 
5,47 
0,37 
22,46 
62,96 
22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 
Budget headings B2-1004, B2-1 102, B2-I203, B2-1305. 
w. a^H 
ANNEX II: 
Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 275 
Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * 
Table 1: Objective 1 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM Fund 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
67,93 
24,70 
14,00 
0,37 
107,00 
1.844,97 
1.166,51 
861,60 
19,00 
3.892,08 
3.151,22 
684,71 
699,19 
37,10 
4.572,22 
5.367,19 
1.666,10 
979,67 
304,46 
8.317,41 
236,69 
185,46 
69,21 
6,30 
497,67 
748,60 
619,31 
332,56 
9,19 
1.709,66 
2.018,14 
462,35 
477,78 
66,54 
3.024,80 
24,30 
8,20 
1,90 
2,80 
37,20 
19,96 
5.04 
3,80 
0,00 
28,80 
2.925,37 
795,89 
776.14 
52,01 
4.549,40 
301,24 
162,11 
59,91 
9,06 
532,32 
27.268,56 
16.705,60 
5.780,37 
4.275,75 
506,84 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
67,93 
24,70 
14,00 
0,37 
107,00 
1.844,97 
1.166,51 
861,60 
19,00 
3.892,08 
3.151,22 
684,71 
699,19 
37,10 
4.572,22 
5.367,19 
1.666,10 
979,67 
304,46 
8.317,41 
236,69 
185,46 
69,21 
6,30 
497,67 
748,60 
619,31 
332,56 
9,19 
1.709,66 
2.018,14 
462,35 
477,78 
66,54 
3.024.80 
24,30 
8,20 
1,90 
2,80 
37,20 
19,96 
5,04 
3,80 
0,00 
28,80 
2.925,37 
795,89 
776,14 
52,01 
4.549,40 
301,24 
162,11 
59,91 
9,06 
532,32 
27.268,56 
16.705,60 
5.780,37 
4.275,75 
506,84 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
53,75 
12,35 
6,08 
0,19 
72,36 
1.027,06 
852,73 
578,67 
11,60 
2.470,05 
1.847,77 
411,53 
518,12 
14,24 
2.791,66 
3.582,35 
1.166,94 
668,62 
109,22 
5.527,13 
107,89 
101,85 
37,65 
3,46 
250,86 
568,45 
539,59 
285,46 
5,50 
1.398,99 
1.087,57 
186,02 
251,65 
15,99 
1.541,22 
11,44 
5,06 
1,55 
1,58 
19.63 
9,98 
2,52 
1,90 
0,00 
14,40 
2.161,09 
624.37 
419,63 
33,14 
3.238,23 
169,41 
104,89 
52.69 
4,37 
331,36 
17.655,89 
10.626,76 
4.007,85 
2.822,01 
199,28 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
53,75 
19,76 
6,08 
0,19 
79,77 
1.027,06 
852,73 
578,67 
11,60 
2.470,05 
1.847,77 
411,53 
518,12 
14,24 
2.791,66 
3.582,35 
1.166,94 
691,08 
109,22 
5.549,60 
107,89 
130,65 
37,65 
3,46 
279,66 
568,45 
539,76 
285,46 
5,50 
1.399,16 
1.087,57 
200,27 
251,65 
15,99 
1.555,47 
11,44 
5,06 
1,55 
1,58 
19,63 
9,98 
2,52 
1,90 
0,00 
14,40 
2.161,09 
650,18 
419,63 
33,14 
3.264,05 
169,41 
104,89 
52,69 
4,37 
331,36 
17.754,80 
10.626,76 
4.084,30 
2.844,47 
199,28 
Budget headings B2-1000, B2-1100, B2-1200, B2-1300, 
276 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 
Table 2: Objective 2 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
UNITED KINGDOM Fund 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
FEDER 
FSE 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
TOTAL 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF Commitments 
(1994-96) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
49,12 
8,41 
57,53 
24,84 
5,45 
30,29 
198,05 
88,80 
286,85 
545,10 
114,11 
659,21 
751,68 
152,71 
904,39 
239,29 
60,66 
299,95 
6,03 
1,94 
7,97 
66,95 
38,07 
105,02 
38,91 
15,24 
. 54,15 
24,80 
6,30 
31,10 
83,22 
22,56 
105,78 
903,52 
346,53 
1.250,05 
3.792,28 
2.931,52 
860,76 Including carry-overs 
and 
approp ialions 
made available again 
49,12 
13,04 
62,16 
24,84 
5,45 
30,29 
198,05 
88,80 
286,85 
545,10 
114,11 
659,21 
751,68 
152,71 
904,39 
239,29 
60,66 
299,95 
6,03 
1,94 
7,97 
66,95 
38,07 
105,02 
38,91 
15,24 
54,15 
24,80 
6,30 
31,10 
83,22 
22,56 
105,78 
903,52 
346,53 
1.250,05 
3.796,91 
2.931,52 
865,39 Payments 
(1994-96) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
24,39 
2,61 
27,00 
17,77 
2,23 
19,99 
104,49 
45,85 
150,34 
395,86 
52,10 
447,96 
326,44 
93,91 
420.35 
119,65 
30,33 
149,97 
3.01 
0,97 
3,99 
33,48 
19,03 
52,51 
13,80 
7,62 
21,42 
12,40 
3,15 
15,55 
26,78 
11,28 
38,06 
297,66 
213,67 
511,33 
1.858,47 
1.375,72 
482,75 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
24,39 
4,93 
29,31 
17,77 
2,23 
19,99 
104,49 
52,45 
156,94 
395,86 
52,10 
447,96 
326,44 
96,85 
423,29 
119,65 
30.33 
149,97 
3,01 
0,97 
3,99 
33,48 
19,03 
52,51 
13,80 
7,62 
21,42 
12,40 
3,15 
15,55 
26,78 
11,28 
38,06 
297,66 
221,20 
518,85 
1.877,84 
1.375,72 
502,13 
Budget headings B2-1201, B2-1301. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural unds (1995) 277 
Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * 
Table 3: Objective 3 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
UNITED KINGDOM 
TOTAL Fund 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
97,76 
85,00 
307,77 
426,59 
778,40 
200,47 
6,46 
282,27 
64,06 
60,33 
73,00 
975,00 
3.357,11 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
97,76 
85,00 
307,77 
426,59 
778,40 
200,47 
6,46 
282,27 
64,06 
60,33 
73,00 
975,00 
3.357,11 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available atain 
66,42 
47,50 
226,27 
244,54 
503,68 
100,23 
5,09 
253.32 
32,03 
30,17 
36,50 
818,57 
2.364,33 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
74,51 
74,24 
234,26 
244,54 
503,68 
100,23 
5,59 
253,32 
32,03 
30,17 
36,50 
818,57 
2.407,64 
Budget heading B2-1302. 
278 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * 
Table 4: Objective 4 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAWN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
TOTAL Fund 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
4,63 
6,00 
29,61 
118,10 
95,39 
60,61 
0,53 
22,23 
11,70 
14,83 
0,00 
363,63 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
4,63 
6,00 
29,61 
118,10 
95,39 
60,61 
0,53 
22,23 
11,70 
14,83 
0,00 
363,63 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
2,32 
3,00 
14,81 
65,83 
47,70 
30,31 
0.34 
11,12 
5,85 
7,42 
0,00 
188,68 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
2,32 
3,00 
14,81 
65,83 
47,70 
30,31 
0,34 
11,12 
5,85 
7,42 
0,00 
188,68 
Budget heading B2-1303. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 279 
Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 
Table 5: Objective 5(a) agriculture - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
UNITED KINGDOM 
TOTAL Fund 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF 
EAGGF Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
53,03 
38,67 
322,72 
77,41 
518,73 
117,47 
12,22 
25,27 
61,50 
61,42 
13,72 
85,16 
1.387,32 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
53,03 
38,67 
322,72 
77,41 
518,73 
117,47 
12,22 
25,27 
61,50 
61,42 
13,72 
85,16 
1.387,32 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
16,51 
19,19 
209,82 
55,81 
242,97 
58,73 
5,37 
12.15 
30,75 
30,71 
6.86 
41,73 
730,60 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
16,51 
19,19 
209,82 
55,81 
242,97 
58,73 
5,37 
12,15 
30,75 
30,71 
6,86 
41,73 
730,60 
Budget headings B2-1001, B2-1002 (not including budget heading B2-1000-Structural actions directly linked to markets policy 
(only in 1994 - ECU 43.65 million in commitments and in payments) and reimbursements under reg.(EEC) No 2328/91 
corresponding to the year 1993 (ECU 356.6 million in commitments and ECU 417.02 million in payments). 
280 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * 
Table 6: Objective 5(a) fisheries- CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN 
UNITED KINGDOM 
TOTAL Fund 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FffG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG 
FIFG Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
4,08 
46,59 
24,87 
39,83 
63,27 
44,77 
1,10 
9,16 
2,00 
23,00 
40,00 
14,78 
313,45 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
4,08 
46,59 
24,87 
39,83 
63,27 
44,77 
1,10 
9,16 
2,00 
23,00 
40,00 
14,78 
313,45 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
3,33 
30,29 
16,13 
9,97 
41,13 
11,20 
0,11 
6,21 
0.20 
6,90 
12,00 
11.82 
149,28 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
3,33 
30,29 
16,13 
9,97 
41,13 
11,20 
0,11 
6,21 
0,20 
6,90 
12,00 
11,82 
149,28 
Budget heading B2-1101. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 281 
Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * 
Table 7: Objective 5(b) - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
AUSTRIA 
FINLAND 
UNITED KINGDOM Fund 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
TOTAL 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF Commitments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
4,82 
1,55 
2,79 
9,16 
5,93 
1,29 
2,57 
9,79 
99,04 
27,46 
135,24 
261,74 
44,65 
13,29 
104,15 
162,09 
157,11 
64,71 
151,36 
373,18 
43,86 
14,35 
48,78 
107,00 
0,43 
0,11 
0,30 
0,84 
14,02 
2,22 
9,37 
25,61 
33,34 
13,68 
31,30 
78,33 
16,03 
5,18 
11,60 
32,81 
66,36 
36,47 
17,87 
120,70 
1.181,25 
485,60 
180,31 
515,34 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
4,82 
1,55 
2,79 
9,16 
5,93 
1,29 
2,57 
9,79 
99,04 
27,46 
135,24 
261,74 
44,65 
13,29 
104,15 
162,09 
157,11 
64,71 
151,36 
373,18 
43,86 
14,35 
48,78 
107,00 
0,43 
0,11 
0,30 
0,84 
14,02 
2,22 
9,37 
25,61 
33,34 
13,68 
31,30 
78,33 
16,03 
5,18 
11,60 
32,81 
66,36 
36,47 
17,87 
120,70 
1.181,25 
485,60 
180,31 
515,34 Payments 
(1994-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
2,41 
0,77 
1,40 
4,58 
3,74 
0,64 
1,29 
5,66 
40,32 
15,44 
78,44 
134,20 
35,72 
7,21 
75,52 
118,44 
83,81 
35,70 
88,42 
207,93 
21,93 
7,18 
24.39 
53.50 
0,21 
0,05 
0,15 
0,42 
7,40 
1,11 
4,05 
12,56 
16,67 
6,84 
15,65 
39.16 
7,78 
2.59 
5,56 
15,94 
37,48 
23,04 
8,93 
69,45 
661,85 
257,48 
100,57 
303,81 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
2,41 
0,77 
1,40 
4,58 
3,74 
0,64 
1,29 
5,66 
40,32 
15,44 
78,44 
134,20 
35,72 
7,21 
75,52 
118,44 
83,81 
35,70 
88,42 
207,93 
21,93 
7,18 
24,39 
53,50 
0,21 
0,05 
0,15 
0,42 
7,40 
1,11 
4,05 
12,56 
16,67 
6,84 
15,65 
39,16 
7,78 
2,59 
5,56 
15,94 
37,48 
23,04 
8,93 
69,45 
661,85 
257,48 
100,57 
303,81 
Budget headings B2-1003, B2-1202, B2-1304. 
282 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 
Table 8: Objective 6 - CSF 
ECU million 
Member State 
FINLAND 
SWEDEN Fund 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG Commitments 
(1995-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
22,40 
21,10 
36,80 
0,70 
81,00 
21,86 
11,39 
10,94 
0,73 
44,92 
125,92 
44,26 
32,49 
47,74 
1,43 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
22,40 
21,10 
36,80 
0,70 
81,00 
21,86 
11,39 
10,94 
0,73 
44,92 
125,92 
44,26 
32,49 
47,74 
1,43 Payments 
(1995-99) 
Not including carry­
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
11,20 
10,55 
18,40 
0,35 
40,50 
10,93 
5,70 
5,47 
0,37 
22,46 
62,96 
22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
11,20 
10,55 
18,40 
0,35 
40,50 
10,93 
5,70 
5,47 
0,37 
22,46 
62,96 
22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 
Budget headings B2-1004, B2-1102, B2-1203, B2-1305. 
*y^ ^«-
ANNEX III: 
Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative 285 
Community 
Initiatives 
(number of CIPs) Total cost SF 
assistance 
0) Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
<2V(0 Payments 
1994-95 
0) % 
(3)/(2) 
ADAPT (17) 
Belgium 
Wallonia 
Flanders 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Portugal 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Great Britain 
Northern Ireland 
EMPLOYMENT (17) 
Belgium 
Wallonia 
Flanders 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Portugal 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Great Britain 
Northern Ireland 
LEADER (68) * 
Germany 
lladen- Wurttemberg 
Bavaria 
Eastern Berlin 
Brandenburg 
Hesse 
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 
Lower Saxony 
North Rhine-Westphalia 
Rhineland-Palatinate 
Saarland 
Saxony 
Saxony-Anhalt 
Thuringla 3.010,89 
91,95 
51,29 
40,65 
65,68 
480,43 
44,59 
403,24 
622,51 
28,27 
360,49 
0,80 
142,80 
25,75 
29,17 
42,90 
21,72 
650,60 
64 5,H 3 
4.77 
2.738,67 
70,19 
43,53 
26,66 
20,68 
297,53 
83,15 
576,75 
384,42 
99,49 
589,08 
0,60 
90,86 
49,37 
55,55 
66,25 
39,89 
314,85 
296, "o 
m,09 
3.092,11 
382,40 
14,26 
113,45 
0,40 
33,67 
21,29 
29,31 
40.09 
H,'6 
25.4H 
4,20 
35,45 
26.34 
29,69 1.444,87 
31,20 
16,24 
14,96 
29,50 
228,80 
30,10 
256,40 
249,70 
21,20 
190,00 
0,30 
57,55 
11,57 
21,00 
19,70 
11,25 
286,60 
283,50 
3.10 
1.524,15 
32,10 
19,89 
12.21 
10,56 
156,80 
64,40 
386,60 
146,50 
76,10 
348,70 
0,30 
42,44 
23,01 
40,30 
29,15 
20,69 
146,50 
134,60 
11,90 
1.242,44 
169,79 
5,68 
43,05 
0,24 
18,83 
6,20 
15,56 
18,84 
3,54 
8,55 
1,82 
18,01 
15,56 
13,92 307,66 
5,69 
3,04 
2,66 
5,31 
42,92 
7,14 
48,10 
46,94 
3,90 
36,10 
0,05 
11,51 
11,57 
3,99 
19,70 
11,25 
53,49 
53,18 
0,31 
308,87 
21,69 
19,89 
1.80 
1,61 
23,14 
8,04 
58,63 
22,27 
7,61 
51,47 
0,30 
4,24 
23,01 
5,67 
29,15 
20,69 
31,36 
20.47 
10,89 
468,76 
124,57 
5,67 
6,08 
0,24 
l'.2l 
5,61 
15.25 
18.21 
3.54 
8.55 
1,21 
18.10 
11,63 
13.26 21% 
18% 
19% 
18% 
18% 
19% 
24% 
19% 
19% 
18% 
19% 
18% 
20% 
100% 
19% 
100% 
100% 
19% 
19% 
10% 
20% 
68% 
100% 
15% 
15% 
15% 
12% 
15% 
15% 
10% 
15% 
100% 
10% 
100% 
14% 
100% 
100% 
21% 
15% 
91%, 
38% 
73% 
100% 
14% 
100% 
91% 
90% 
98% 
9'% 
100%, 
100% 
6'%, 
100%, 
'5%, 
95% 152,62 
2,85 
1.52 
1.33 
2,66 
21,46 
3,57 
24,05 
23,47 
1,95 
18,05 
0,03 
5,76 
5,79 
2,00 
8,64 
5,63 
26,75 
26.59 
0.16 
154,23 
10,85 
9.95 
0.90 
0,80 
11,57 
4,02 
29,31 
11,13 
3,61 
25,73 
0,15 
2,12 
11,51 
2,83 
14,58 
10,35 
15,68 
10.24 
5.44 
132,71 
38,82 
l.'O 
3.04 
0.0-
5.22 
1.68 
4.59 
5.46 
1.06 
2.5 ~ 
0.36 
5.45 
3.62 
4.00 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
44% 
50%, 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50%, 
50%, 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
47% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
28% 
31% 
30% 
50% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30%, 
30%, 
30%, 
30%, 
30%, 
30% 
31%, 
30% 
'Including networks (commitments; ECU 3,7 million; payments; ECU 2,9 million) 
286 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd.) 
ECU million 
Community 
Initiatives 
(number of CIPs) Total cost SF 
assistance 
0) Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3V(2) 
Greece 
Spain 
Andalusia 
Aragon 
Asturias 
Balearic Islands 
Canary Islands 
Cantabria 
Castile-La Mancha 
Castile-Leon 
Catalonia 
Extremadura 
Galicia 
Rioja 
Madrid 
Murcia 
Navarre 
Basque Country 
Valencia 
France 
Aquitaine 
Auvergne 
Lower Normandy 
Burgundy 
Brittany 
Corsica 
Franche-Comté 
Languedoc-Roussillon 
Limousin 
l'oitou-Charentes 
l'rovence-Alpes-Côle d'Azur 
Ireland 
Italy 
Abruzzi 
Basilicata • ' 
Bolzano 
( 'ulabria 
( 'ampania 
Emilia-Romagna 
l-riuli-Venezia Giulia 
Apulia 
Sardinia 
Tuscany 
Umbria 
Valle d'Aosta 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Drenthe 
Flevoland 
Nottlmest Friesland/Norlhwest (ironingen 
Northwest Fries/and 
Austria - Burgenland 
Portugal 263,60 
1.161,93 
249.29 
137.40 
35.53 
11.27 
30.81 
19,89 
142,63 
122,88 
68,10 
56,14 
119.4' 
18,40 
14,15 
24.26 
21.47 
12.63 
77.62 
318,97 
38.51 
31.19 
23.81 
21.19 
28.52 
-.16 
11.55 
33.-1 
40.94 
58.2' 
24.12 
165,58 
435,96 
30.33 
39.10 
19,20 
4-.-I 
51.32 
20.61 
14.54 
53.20 
-3.86 
53.11 
31.15 
1.83 
4,85 
35,17 
2.84 
4.43 
14.43 
13.4-
6,50 
156,80 148,00 
354,81 
68,81 
27,48 
13,00 
3,13 
12,33 
6,41 
41,00 
53,50 
13,62 
24,00 
43.82 
3,68 
3,60 
9,52 
4,81 
2,47 
23,63 
122,89 
17,23 
12,78 
10.13 
8.53 
14.09 
3.05 
5.-8 
14.39 
15.04 
9.83 
12.06 
67,92 
183,20 
15.9' 
19.55 
4,80 
23.15 
25.82 
6.35 
4.90 
26.60 
32.3' 
14,81 
8,41 
0.47 
1,01 
8,46 
1.05 
2.11 
2.64 
2,65 
2,57 
117,59 22,56 
112,10 
9.8 S 
24,18 
12,52 
3,07 
1,85 
0.97 
4.47 
9,60 
2,12 
22,44 
2,90 
3,43 
3,36 
I.-4 
4.17 
2.31 
3.12 
95,56 
15.06 
11,96 
9.12 
',48 
4,26 
3,05 
4,9-
12.96 
14.50 
8,01 
4,22 
7,50 
28,62 
6,03 
1,~2 
4,26 
5,96 
2." 
0.69 
0,30 
6,04 
O.5-
0,00 
0,00 
0.28 
1,01 
8,18 
1,05 
2.02 
2.50 
2.61 
2,01 15% 
32% 
14% 
88%, 
96%, 
98% 
15% 
15% 
11% 
18% 
16% 
94%, 
'% 
93%, 
93% 
18% 
8'% 
94% 
13%, 
78% 
8'% 
94%, 
90%, 
88% 
30%, 
100%, 
86%, 
9(1%, 
96'% 
81%, 
35%, 
11% 
16% 
38% 
9% 
89%, 
26%, 
11%, 
11%, 
(,%, 
:%, 
0%, 
(1%, 
. "* 
100% 
97% 
100% 
96% 
95% 
98% 11,28 
34,86 
4.93 
4.51 
2.45 
1.22 
0.92 
0.48 
2,24 
4,80 
1.06 
4,39 
1,45 
1.03 
1.01 
0,87 
1.25 
0,69 
1,56 
15,53 
1,25 
2,13 
0,50 
1,52 
1,28 
0,54 
1,49 
0,90 
3,12 
1.53 
1.2-
3,75 
14,00 
3.02 
0,86 
1.8' 
2.98 
1,38 
0.34 
0,15 
3.02 
0.29 
0.00 
0.00 
0.08 
0,41 
2,45 
0.32 
0.60 
0. '5 
0. '8 
78% 0,33 
6,74| 6%| 3,59 50% 
31% 
50% 
19% 
20% 
40% 
50%, 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
20%, 
50% 
30% 
30% 
50%, 
30% 
30% 
50% 
16% 
8% 
18%, 
5% 
20% 
30% 
18% 
30% 
'%, 
22%, 
19% 
30%, 
50% 
49% 
50% 
50%, 
44%, 
50%, 
50%, 
50%, 
50%, 
50%, 
50%, 
30% 
40% 
30% 
30%, 
30%, 
30%, 
30%, 
16% 
53% 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex III: Financial implementation of the Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd.) 287 
ECU million 
Community 
Initiatives 
(number of CIPs) Total cost SF 
assistance 
d) Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3y<2) 
United Kingdom 
England 
Highlands and Islands 
Northern Ireland 
Wales 
Scotland 
Networks 
PESCA (11) 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
SME (21) 
Belgium - Wallonia 
Germany 
Bavaria 
Berlin 
Bremen 
Hesse 
Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania 
North Rhine- Westphalia 
Saxony 
Saxony-Anhalt 
'Ihuringia 
Greece 
France 
Corsica 
Hainaut 
Objective 2 and 5(b) areas 
Ireland 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
Highlands 
Northern Ireland 
Scotland 
Wales 
RECHAR (26) 
Belgium 
Châtelet 
Limburg 
Germany 
Lower Saxony-
North Rhine- Westphalia 160,37 
57,78 
27,91 
31,47 
18,83 
24,38 
605,89 
4,25 
48,64 
62,00 
54,63 
95,66 
81,33 
12,18 
81,19 
34,18 
47,17 
84,65 
1.025,51 
14,22 
356,25 
19,68 
36.20 
8,94 
3,40 
35,38 
31,64 
99,6~ 
63,89 
57,45 
156,86 
139,22 
15,75 
25.14 
98,33 
53,20 
26,86 
235,90 
42,99 
6,96 
11,10 
19,-1 
5,22 
900,17 
58,05 
1,86 
56,19 
400,81 
3,30 
280,41 66,20 
25,85 
11,96 
11,35 
8.62 
8,41 
252,99 
2,00 
16,40 
23,00 
27,10 
41,50 
28,30 
6,70 
34,17 
10,80 
25,60 
37,42 
491,25 
9,41 
156,83 
6,97 
14,61 
0,9-
1,16 
18,30 
",92 
42,80 
35,10 
29,00 
83,33 
58,49 
3,04 
6,29 
49,1-
28,79 
10,34 
123,98 
20,09 
3.04 
6,20 
8.52 
2.33 
328,02 
15,68 
0.93 
14,-5 
128,38 
1,65 
66,45 56,16 
22,40 
8,84 
9,-0 
7,58 
7,64 
3,75 
53,11 
0,33 
2,73 
3,83 
4,51 
6,91 
18,78 
1,11 
4,42 
1,15 
4,26 
5,07 
203,53 
7,49 
101,20 
6,9' 
14,61 
0,9' 
1.16 
14.65 
7.92 
4.39 
21,52 
29,00 
10,45 
15,41 
2,60 
6,29 
6.53 
26,49 
9,54 
13,22 
19,74 
3,04 
6.20 
8,52 
1.98 
172,52 
15,68 
0.93 
14,'5 
55,88 
1.65 
7,-4 85% 
87% 
-4% 
85% 
88%, 
91% 
21% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
66% 
17% 
13% 
11% 
17% 
14% 
41% 
80% 
65% 
100% 
100% 
100%, 
100%, 
80%, 
100% 
10% 
61%, 
100%, 
13% 
26% 
85%, 
100%, 
13%, 
91'A 
92% 
tl% 
98% 
100%, 
100%, 
100%, 
85%, 
53% 
100% 
100%, 
100% 
44% 
100%, 
12% 4,82 
1.47 
1.14 
0.-7 
0,81 
0,63 
2,88 
17,16 
0,17 
1,37 
1,92 
2,26 
3,46 
0,00 
0,56 
2,21 
0,58 
2,13 
2,54 
67,71 
2,25 
30,85 
2,09 
4,48 
0,49 
0.35 
4.65 
3.96 
2.20 
2.98 
9.65 
5,23 
4,62 
0.-8 
1.89 
1.96 
7,95 
2,86 
6,61 
7,34 
0.96 
3.10 
2.69 
0.59 
75,60 
7,84 
0,4' 
'.38 
26,80 
0,83 
3,87 9% 
7% 
13% 
8% 
11% 
8% 
11% 
32% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
0% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
33% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
31%, 
50% 
30%, 
32% 
50%, 
50% 
14% 
33% 
50% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
50% 
37% 
31% 
50%, 
32%, 
30% 
44% 
50% 
50%, 
50% 
48% 
50% 
50%, 
288 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd.) 
ECU million 
Community 
Initiatives 
(number of CIPs) Total cost SF 
assistance 
(D Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
wo) Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)'(2) 
Saarland 
Saxony 
Saxony-Anhalt 
Ihuringia 
Greece 
France 
Burgundy 
iMnguedoc-Roussillon 
Ijirraine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 
Rhône-Alpes 
Italy 
Sardinia 
Tuscany 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
Exist Midlands 
Eastern Scotland 
North East England 
North West England 
Wales 
West Midlands 
Western Scotland 
Yorkshire 
REGIS (3) 
Spain 
France - Réunion 
Portugal 
KONVER (37) 
Belgium 
Brussels 
Flanders 
Wallonia 
Denmark 
Germany 
Bavaria 
Berlin 
Bremen 
Hamburg 
Hesse 
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 
Lower Saxony 
North Rhine-Westphalia 
Rhineland-Palatinate 
Saarland 
Saxony-Anhalt 
Schleswig-Holslein 
'Ihuringia 
Greece 
France 
Alsace 
Aquitaine 22.86 
53.63 
30,60 
10,00 
2,03 
39,42 
3,08 
2,74 
25,11 
4,44 
2,02 
2,02 
34,13 
1,56 
32.5' 
1,15 
364,59 
99,28 
21.89 
51.15 
15.28 
46,44 
2'.86 
6,50 
96,19 
751,47 
385,49 
*~ 209,17 
156,81 
883,69 
30,43 
5, '5 
J 1.80 
12,88 
5,33 
342,33 
28.95 
18.6' 
21.54 
2.48 
49.S 
33.03 
36.34 
34.35 
2 ~.8 2 
4.58 
r.()4 
29,-9 
38.01 
20,27 
244,06 
19,98 
64,44 6,26 
29.80 
19,22 
5,00 
1,52 
16,66 
1,54 
1,01 
10.93 
1,15 
1,01 
1,01 
1,68 
0.78 
0,90 
0,86 
163,25 
42,15 
10,00 
23,46 
6,90 
20,46 
12,66 
3,04 
4',57 
456,50 
216,93 
115,56 
124,00 
352,13 
11,45 
1.-3 
4,80 
4,92 
2,38 
144,54 
12,67 
11.'6 
4.47 
1,24 
12,42 
19.45 
12,92 
14,90 
13,91 
1.24 
11,16 
8,94 
19.45 
12,91 
71,02 
4,25 
13,16 4,56 
19,81 
l',12 
5,00 
1,37 
15,49 
1,54 
0.81 
10,08 
1.03 
1,01 
1,01 
1,68 
0,78 
0.90 
0,86 
81,57 
4,24 
10.00 
23.46 
5.88 
20.46 
10.13 
3.04 
4,36 
58,83 
28,01 
8,76 
22,05 
238,22 
11,45 
l,"3 
4,80 
4.92 
2,38 
130,61 
8,45 
10.26 
4,4-
1,24 
12,42 
19.45 
12,92 
14.90 
9,04 
0.65 
11.16 
6.19 
19.45 
11,48 
64,42 
4,04 
11,86 ~3% 
66% 
89%, 
100%, 
90% 
93% 
100%, 
80%, 
92% 
90% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100%, 
100% 
50% 
10%, 
100%, 
100% 
85% 
100% 
80%, 
100% 
10% 
13% 
13% 
8% 
18% 
68% 
100% 
100%, 
100% 
100%, 
100% 
90% 
6~%, 
8'%, 
100%, 
100% 
100%, 
100%, 
100%, 
100%, 
65%, 
52%, 
100%, 
r.w, 
100%, 
89% 
91% 
95%, 
90%, 1,15 
9.91 
8,56 
2,50 
0,68 
1,78 
0.77 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,51 
0.51 
0,39 
0,39 
0,00 
0,26 
37,85 
2,12 
5,00 
11.-3 
0.00 
10,23 
5,ir 
1.52 
2.18 
22,02 
0,00 
4,38 
17,64 
87,33 
5,73 
0,86 
2.40 
2.46 
1,19 
38,74 
4,22 
3.90 
2.24 
0.00 
0,93 
0,00 
6,45 
-.45 
1.35 
0.04 
0.61 
1.83 
9. "2 
5,74 
31,99 
2.02 
5.93 25% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
12% 
50% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
50% 
50% 
23% 
50% 
0% 
30% 
46% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
0% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
37% 
0% 
50% 
80% 
37% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
30% 
50%, 
38%, 
50% 
0%, 
8%, 
0%, 
50% 
50% 
15%, 
6%, 
5% 
30%, 
50%, 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50%, 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 289 
Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd.) 
Community 
Initiatives 
(number of CIPs) SF 
assistance 
(1) Com litmeiits 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
Auvergne 
Lower Normandy 
Brittany 
Centre 
Champagne-Ardenne 
lle-de-France 
iMnguedoc-Roussillon 
Limousin 
Lorraine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Nord Pas-de-Calais 
Provence-Alpes-Côle d'Azur 
Picardy 
Poitou-Charentes 
Rhône-Alpes 
Portugal 
United Kingdom-Gibraltar 
RESIDER (20) 
Belgium 
Charleroi 
Liège 
Germany 
Bavaria 
Bremen 
Lower Saxony 
North Rhine- Westphalia 
Saarland 
Saxony 
Saxony-Anhalt 
Ihuringia 
Greece 
France 
Burgundy 
Lorraine 
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 
Picardy 
Rhône-Alpes 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
Wales 
Western Scotland 
RETEX (18) 
Belgium - Wallonia 
Germany 
Baden- Wiirllemberg * 
Bavaria * 
Hesse' 
Lower Saxony 
North Rhine-Westphalia * 
Saxony 
Ihuringia 3,78 
7,42 
10,40 
22,02 
5,49 
18,83 
10.06 
21.95 
2.23 
12,45 
2,23 
11,-4 
20, -0 
3.12 
'.23 
10,66 
230,61 
840,61 
52,89 
24.48 
28,42 
558,30 
12,09 
6.55 
4-.5 2 
39~,40 
4-, 58 
30,29 
-.69 
9.19 
8,94 
105,75 
3.68 
-3.52 
15,26 
-.22 
6,06 
51,50 
10,77 
52,46 
28,54 
23.93 
1.756,22 
6,00 
284,34 
24,45 
129,39 
6,'0 
4.93 
3.'3 
90.14 
25.01 1,52 
2,33 
5.16 
4,15 
2.43 
5,52 
3.14 
4,05 
I.U 
4,0i 
1.11 
5,87 
9,42 
1.52 
2.23 
7,90 
101,94 
284.20 
24,43 
11.90 
12,53 
164,27 
5,39 
3,28 
14,81 
101,89 
12,90 
14,88 
5,00 
6,12 
4,69 
42,62 
1.84 
31.11 
5.18 
2,31 
2.18 
18,10 
6,91 
23,18 
12,96 
10,23 
592,70 
3,00 
65,87 
0.80 
8,88 
1,40 
1.81 
1.5-
41.85 
9.56 1.22 
2.02 
4.4' 
3,92 
1,96 
4,'4 
2.'6 
4.05 
1,11 
3.65 
1.11 
5.3' 
8.40 
1,52 
2,23 
7,90 
9,99 
177,10 
23,68 
11.15 
12.53 
62,49 
5.39 
3.28 
14.81 
8,39 
9,9 
10,12 
5,00 
6,12 
4,12 
38,61 
1,84 
2'.5 3 
5.18 
2.31 
l.~4 
18,10 
6,91 
23,18 
12.96 
10,23 
244,56 
3,00 
22,87 
0.23 
8.81 
0.55 
1.21 
o.r 
3.6' 
8.24 80%, 
8'% 
8'%, 
94%, 
81%, 
86%, 
88%, 
100%, 
100% 
90%, 
100%, 
91%, 
89% 
100%, 
100%, 
99% 
10% 
62% 
97% 
94%, 
100%, 
38% 
100%, 
100%, 
100%, 
8%, 
".!% 
68% 
100% 
100% 
88% 
91 % 
100%, 
88%, 
100%, 
100%, 
80%, 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100%, 
100%, 
41% 
100% 
35% 
28%, 
99%, 
39%, 
6'% 
11%, 
9% 
86%, 0,61 
1.01 
2.23 
1.96 
0.98 
2.3' 
1.38 
2,02 
0,33 
1,82 
0,56 
2,69 
4.20 
0,-6 
1.11 
3,95 
0,00 
78,30 
5,58 
5.58 
0,00 
31,25 
2. '<> 
1.64 
'.40 
4.19 
4.69 
5.06 
2,50 
3,06 
2,06 
17.55 
0,92 
13." 
1.55 
0,~9 
0,52 
7,35 
2,93 
11,59 
6,48 
5.11 
144,10 
1,50 
8.11 
0.1 J 
1.00 
0,36 
0.60 
0,08 
1,83 
4.12 50% 
50% 
50%o 
50%, 
50%, 
50% 
50% 
50%, 
30%, 
50%, 
50%, 
50%, 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
0% 
44% 
24% 
50%, 
0%, 
50% 
50% 
50%, 
50% 
50%, 
50%, 
50%, 
50%, 
50% 
50% 
45% 
50%, 
50%, 
30%, 
34%, 
50%, 
41 % 
42% 
50% 
50% 
50%, 
59% 
50% 
35% 
50%, 
11%, 
65%, 
50% 
50%, 
50%, 
50%, 
* CIP adopted in 1993. Total cost and assistance 1993-97, Commitments and payments 1993-95 
290 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd.) 
ECU million 
Community 
Initiatives 
(number of CIPs) SF 
assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2V(I) Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3V(2) 
Greece* 
Spain* 
France* 
Irelnnd* 
Italy 
Régions objectif 1 * 
Régions objectifs 2 et 5h* 
Netherlands • Twente 
Portugal* 
United Kingdom 
Northern Ireland 
Great Britain 
URBAN (19) 
Belgium 
Anvers 
Charleroi 
Denmark 
Germany 
Berlin 
Bremen 
( 'hemnitz 
Duishurg 
Erfurt 
Magdebourg 
Rostock 
Brandenburg 
Greece 
Spain 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Amsterdam 
IM Haye 
Austria - Vienne 
Portugal 
United Kingdom - Northern Ireland 145,33 
361,13 
79,27 
22,46 
249,20 
'8,39 
170,82 
3,50 
526,84 
78,15 
8,40 
69.S 
822,93 
26,56 
15.24 
11,33 
3,04 
270,07 
31,05 
16.31 
141.31 
18.65 
r.18 
19.94 
16,02 
9,61 
67,17 
248,68 
1,03 
87,91 
19,68 
68.23 
31,93 
62,02 
24,52 87,52 
90,39 
28,89 
11,43 
78,99 
39,37 
39,62 
1,01 
189,00 
36,60 
4,20 
32,40 
384,76 
8,25 
2,58 
5,66 
1,52 
86,37 
16,10 
8.00 
9.20 
• 8,10 
12,89 
12,88 
12,00 
~,20 
45,20 
162,60 
0,51 
9,30 
4,65 
4,65 
9,77 
44,30 
16,95 11,80 
38,53 
7,04 
6,93 
12,05 
7,90 
4,16 
1,01 
111,37 
29,96 
3.75 
26.21 
157,37 
8,25 
2,58 
5,66 
1,34 
79,00 
16.10 
8,00 
9.20 
6,81 
12,89 
8,92 
9,88 
7,20 
4,52 
22,85 
0,51 
7,89 
3.6-
4.22 
6,84 
9,22 
16,95 13% 
43% 
24% 
61% 
15% 
20% 
10% 
100% 
59% 
82% 
89% 
81% 
41% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
88% 
91% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
84% 
100% 
69% 
82% 
100%, 
10% 
14% 
100% 
85% 
'9%, 
91%, 
70% 
21% 
100% 9,14 
34,16 
3,42 
4,06 
6,03 
3,95 
2,OH 
0,51 
63,06 
14,10 
1,88 
12,23 
58,13 
4,12 
1,29 
2,83 
0,40 
23,19 
l.'O 
0.74 
2.99 
2,04 
3,91 
4,46 
4,94 
2,41 
1,70 
11.42 
0,04 
2,37 
1,10 
1.2-
3,42 
4,61 
6,85 78% 
89% 
49% 
59% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
57% 
47% 
50% 
4'% 
37% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
30% 
29% 
11% 
9% 
33% 
30% 
30% 
50%, 
50% 
34% 
38% 
50% 
8% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
50% 
50% 
40% 
* CIP adopted in 1993; Total cost and assistance 1993-97, Commitments and payments 1993-95 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
Table 2: Presentation by Member State 291 
ECU million 
Member 
State 
(number of CIPs) SF 
Assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
BELGIUM 
ADAPT (2) 
EMPLOYMENT (2) 
PESCA (1) 
SME(l) 
RECHAR (2) 
KONVER (3) 
RESIDER (2) 
RETEX (1) 
URBAN (2) 
Total (16) 
1NTERREG/REGEN (3) 91,95 
70,19 
4,25 
14,22 
58,05 
30,43 
52,89 
6,00 
26,56 
354,54 31,20 
32,10 
2,00 
9,41 
15,68 
11,45 
24,43 
3,00 
8,25 
137,52 5,69 
21,69 
0,33 
7,49 
15,68 
11,45 
23,68 
3,00 
8,25 
97,26 18% 
68% 
17% 
80% 
100% 
100% 
97% 
100% 
100% 
71% 2,85 
10,85 
0,17 
2,25 
7,84 
5,73 
5,58 
1,50 
4,12 
40,87 50% 
50% 
50% 
30% 
50% 
50% 
24% 
50% 
50% 
42% 
DENMARK 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
PESCA (1) 
KONVER (1) 
URBAN (1) 
Total (5) 
1NTERREG/REGEN (4) 65,68 
20,68 
48,64 
5,33 
3,04 
143,37 29,50 
10,56 
16,40 
2,38 
1,52 
60,36 5,31 
1,61 
2,73 
2,38 
1,34 
13,37 18% 
15% 
17% 
100% 
88% 
22% 2,66 
0,80 
1,37 
1,19 
0,40 
6,41 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
30% 
48% 
GERMANY 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (13) 
PESCA (1) 
SME (9) 
RECHAR (6) 
KONVER (13) 
RESIDER (8) 
RETEX (7)' 
URBAN (8) 
Total (67) 
INTERIŒG/REGEN (17) 480,43 
297,53 228,80 
156,80 
382,40 169,79 
62,00| 23,00 
356,25| 156,83 
400,81| 128,38 
342,33! 144,54 
558,30! 164,27 
284,34 
270,07 
3.434,47 65,87 
86,37 
1.324,64 42,92 
23,14 
124,57 
3,83 
101,20 
55,88 
130,61 
62,49 
22,87 
79,00 
646,51 19% 
15% 
73% 
17% 
65% 
44% 
90% 
38% 
35% 
91% 21,46 
11,57 
38,82 
1,92 
30,85 
26,80 
38,74 
31,25 
8,11 
23,19 
49%| 232,71 50% 
50% 
31% 
50% 
30% 
48% 
30% 
50% 
35% 
29% 
36% 
GREECE 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (1) 
PESCA (1) 
SME(l) 
RECHAR (1) 
KONVER (1) 
RESIDER (1) 
RETEX (1) 
URBAN (1) 
Total (10) 
1NTERREG/REGEN (3) 44,59 
83,15 30,10 
64,40 
263,60 148,00 
54,63 
156,86 
2,03 
20,27 27,10 
83,33 
1,52 
12,91 
8,94 4,69 
145.33J 87,52 
67,171 45.2C 
846,56 504,76 7,14 
8,04 
22,56 
4,51 
10,45 
1,37 
11,48 
4,12 
11,80 
4,52 
85.9J 24% 
i :% 
1 5% 
1 7% 
13% 
90% 
89% 
88% 
13% 
10°/. 
17"/i 3,57 
4,02 
11,28 
2,26 
5.23 
0,68 
5,74 
2,06 
9,14 
l,7C 
45,68 50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
78% 
38% 
53% 
1993-95 
"1993-1995 
292 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
Table 2: Presentation by Member State (ctd.) 
ECU million 
Member 
State 
(number of CIPs) Total cost SF 
Assistance 
(1) Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(D Payments 
1994-95 
(3) % 
(3)/(2) 
SPAIN 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (17) 
PESCA (1) 
REGIS (1) 
RETEX (1)* 
URBAN (1) 
Total (23) 
1NTERREG/REGEN (2) 
i 403,24 
576,75 
1 161,93 
95,66 
385,49 
361,13 
248,68 
3.232,88 256,40 
386,60 
354,81 
41,50 
216,93 
90,39 
162,60 
1.509,23 48,10 
58,63 
112,10 
6,91 
28,01 
38,53 
22,85 
315,12 19% 
15% 
32% 
17% 
13% 
43% 
14% 
21% 24,05 
29,31 
34,86 
3,46 
0,00 
34,16 
11,42 
137,26 50% 
50% 
31% 
50% 
0% 
89% 
50% 
44% 
FRANCE 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (11) 
PESCA (1) 
SME (3) 
RECHAR (6) 
REGIS (1) 
KONVER (17) 
RESIDER (5) 
RETEX (1)* 
Total (47) 
INTERIŒG/REGEN (5) 622,51 
384,42 249,70 
146,50 
318,97 122,89 
81,33 
139,22 
39,42 
209,17 
244,06 
105,75 28,30 
58,49 
16,66 
115,56 
71,02 
42,62 
79,27! 28,89 
2.224,121 880,63 46,94 
22,27 
95,56 
18,78 
15.41 
15,49 
8,76 
64,42 
38,61 19% 
15% 
78% 
66% 
26% 
93% 
8% 
91% 
91% 
7,04| 24% 
333,291 38% 23,47 
11,13 
15,53 
0,00 
4,62 
1,78 
4,38 
31,99 
17,55 
3,42 
113,88 50% 
50% 
16% 
0% 
30% 
12% 
50% 
50% 
45% 
49% 
34% 
IRELAND 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (1) 
PESCA (1) 
SME(l) 
RETEX (1)* 
Total (6) 
INTERRJXl'REGEN (2) 
PEACE (1) 28,27 21,20 
99,49; 76,10 
165,58| 67,92 
12,18; 6,70 
53,20j 28,79 
22,46i 11,43 
381,17 212,14 3,90 
7,61 
7,50 
1,11 
26,49 
6,93 
53,54 18% 
10% 
11% 
17% 
92% 
61% 
25% 1,95 
3,61 
3,75 
0,56 
7,95 
4,06 
21,87 50% 
47% 
50% 
50% 
30% 
59% 
41% 
ITALY 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (12) 
PESCA (1) 
RECHAR (2) 
RETEX (2)* 
Total (19) 
INTERIŒG/REGEN (2) 360,49; 190,00 
589,08! 348,70 
435,96| 183,20 
81,19 
34,13 
249,20 
1.750,04 34,17 
1,68 
78,99 
836,74 36,10 
51,47 
28,62 
4,42 
1,68 
12,05 
134,35 19% 
15% 
16% 
13% 
100% 
1 5% 
16% 18,05 
25,73 
14,00 
2,21 
0,39 
6,03 
66,41 50% 
50% 
49% 
50% 
23% 
50% 
49% 
LUXEMBOURG 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (1) 
URBAN (1) 
Total (4) 
LVl ERREG/REGEN (1) 0,80 0,30 
0,60 0,30 
4,85j 1,01 
1,03 0,51 
7,28| 2,12 0,05 
0,30 
1,01 
0,51 
1,87 18% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
88% 0,03 
0,15 
0,41 
0,04 
0,62 50% 
50% 
40% 
8% 
33% 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 
Table 2: Presentation by Member State (ctd.) 293 aSH 
ECU million 
Member 
State 
(number of CIPs) Total cost SF 
Assistance 
0) Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) % 
(2)/(l) Payments 
1994-95 
(3) (3)/(2) 
NETHERLANDS 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (4) 
PESCA (1) 
SME(l) 
RESIDER (1) 
RETEX (1) 
URBAN (2) 
Total (12) 
1NTERREG/REGEN (7) 142,80 
90,86 
35,17 
34,18 
26,86 
51,50 
3,50 
87,91 
472,77 57,55 
42,44 
8,46 
10,80 
10,34 
18,10 
1,01 
9,30 
158,00 11,51 
4,24 
8,18 
1,15 
9,54 
18,10 
1,01 
7,89 
61,63 20% 
10% 
97% 
11% 
92% 
100% 
100% 
85% 
39% 5,76 
2,12 
2,45 
0,58 
2,86 
7,35 
0,51 
2,37 
23,99 50% 
50% 
30% 
50% 
30% 
41% 
50% 
30% 
39% 
AUSTRIA 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (1) 
URBAN (1) 
Total (4) 
INTERREG/REG EN (4) 25,75 11,57 
49,37 
6,50 
31,93 23,01 
2,57 
9,77 
113,55 46,92 11,57 
23,01 
2,01 
6,84 
43,43 100% 
100% 
78% 
70% 
93% 5,79 
11,51 
0,33 
3,42 
21,04 50% 
50% 
16% 
50% 
48% 
PORTUGAL 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
LEADER (1) 
PESCA (1) 
SME(l) 
RECHAR (1) 
REGIS (1) 
KONVER (1) 
RESIDER (1) 
RETEX (1)* 
URBAN (1) 
Total (11) 
INTERIŒG/REGEN (2) 29,17 21,00 
55,55j 40,30 
156,80! 117,59 
47,17! 25,60 
1 235,901 123,98 
1,15j 0,86 
156,81 124,00 
10,66! 7,90 
10,77 6,91 
526.84J 189,00 
62.02J 44,30 
1.292,85| 701,43 3,99 
5,67 
6,74 
4,26 
13,22 
0,86 
22,05 
7,90 
6,91 
111,37 
9,22 
192,18 19% 
14% 
6% 
17% 
11% 
100% 
18% 
99% 
100% 
59% 
21% 
27% 2,00 
2.83 
3,59 
2,13 
6,61 
0,26 
17,64 
3.95 
2,93 
63,06 
4,61 
109,60 50% 
50% 
53% 
50% 
50% 
30% 
80% 
50% 
42% 
57% 
50% 
57% 
FINLAND 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
Total (2) 42,90 19,70 
66,25| 29,15 
109,151 48,85 19,70 
29,15 
48,85 100% 
100% 
100% 8,64 
14,58 
23,21 44% 
50% 
48% 
SWEDEN 
ADAPT (1) 
EMPLOYMENT (1) 
Total (2) 21,72! 11,25 
39,89| 20,69 
61,60| 31,94 11,25 
20,69 
31,94 100% 
100% 
100% 5,63 
10,35 
15,97 50% 
50% 
50% 
UNITED KINGDOM 
ADAPT (2) 
EMPLOYMENT (2) 
LEADER (5) 
PESCA (1) 
SME (4) 
RECHAR (8) 
KONVER (1) 
RESIDER (2) 
RETEX (2) 
URBAN (1) 
Total (28) 
INTERIŒG/REGEN (3) 
PEACE (1) 650,60 
314,85 286,60 
146,50 
160,3 7 j 66,20 
84,65) 37,42 
42,99' 20,09 
364,59! 163,25 
230,61 i 101,94 
52,46| 23,18 
78,15i 36,60 
24,52; 1-6,95 
2.003,79! 898,73 53,49 
31,36 
56,16 
5,07 
19,74 
81,57 
9,99 
23,18 
29,96 
16,95 
327,47 1 9% 
21% 
85% 
14% 
98% 
50% 
10% 
100% 
82% 
100% 
36% 26,75 
15,68 
4,82 
2.54 
7,34 
37.85 
0,00 
11,59 
14,10 
6,85 
127,52 50% 
50% 
9% 
50% 
37% 
46% 
0% 
50% 
47% 
40% 
39% 
<&$•* 
ANNEX IV: 
Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 297 
Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures * 
Table 1: Implementation in 1995 
ECU million 
Member State / Fund Commitments Payments 
BELGIUM 25,05 20,02 
ERDF 0,00 2,46 
ESF 24,99 16,80 
EAGGF 0,00 0,58 
FIFG 0^06 0,18 
DENMARK L25 2,85 
ERDF 0,00 1,10 
ESF 1,10 0,67 
EAGGF 0,00 0,01 
FIFG ÇU6 1,06 
GERMANY MO 13,24 
ERDF 0,90 8,21 
ESF 5,30 4,66 
EAGGF 0,00 0,15 
FIFG O^ 0,22 
GREECE 2^ 9,47 
ERDF 0,01 0,00 
ESF 1,63 3,19 
EAGGF 0,02 4,98 
FIFG U£ 1,30 
SPAIN 4^40 15,52 
ERDF 0,00 2,28 
ESF 0,52 7,44 
EAGGF 0,00 3,08 
FIFG Mi__ 2,72 
FRANCE 3/73 18,44 
ERDF 0,00 - 1,51 
ESF 2,38 7,46 
EAGGF 0,01 8,40 
FIFG U33 1,07 
IRELAND 4^96 lfi\_ 
ERDF 0,00 0,00 
ESF 4,16 4,87 
EAGGF 0,01 2,63 
FIFG 0J50 0,31 
ITALY 13,89 36,85 
ERDF 0,00 12,83 
ESF 2,06 1,79 
EAGGF 10,30 20.63 
FIFG U54 1,59 
LUXEMBOURG 0^95 (K58 
ERDF 0,00 0,00 
ESF 0,95 0,58 
EAGGF 0,00 0,00 
FIFG 0.00 0_^ 
* Budget headings B21800, B21810, B21820 and B21830, Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again. 
298 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures * 
Table 1: Implementation in 1995 (ctd.) 
ECU million 
Member State / Fund Commitments Payments 
NETHERLANDS 2,67 [ Zfij 
ERDF 0,00 1,48 
ESF 1,74 0,76 
EAGGF 0,00 0,02 
FIFG 0^ 0,79 
AUSTRIA 0^26 0^15 
ERDF 0,00 0,00 
ESF 0,24 0,14 
EAGGF 0,01 0,01 
FIFG 0£0 0,00 
PORTUGAL Iflf^ 25,02 
ERDF 0,00 18,00 
ESF 7,44 5,34 
EAGGF 0,00 0,21 
FIFG 0^42 1,46 
FINLAND 0^29 (Ul 
ERDF 0,00 0,00 
ESF 0,28 0,10 
EAGGF 0,01 0,00 
FIFG 0£0 0,00 
SWEDEN 0^57 0^10 
ERDF 0,00 0,00 
ESF 0,22 0,10 
EAGGF 0,02 0,00 
FIFG 0^34 0,00 
UNITED KINGDOM 6^54 6^14 
ERDF % 0,00 0,97 
ESF » 3,71 1,75 
EAGGF 0,27 1,35 
FIFG 2^56 2,07 
COMMUNITY 30,30 34,50 
ERDF 30,08 33,48 
ESF 0,00 1,02 
EAGGF 0,21 0,00 
FIFG 0,01 0,00 
TOTAL 111,92 193,85 
ERDF 30,98 82,32 
ESF 56,70 56,69 
EAGGF 10,87 42,06 
FIFG 13.37 12,77 
Budget headings B21800, B21810, B21820 and B21830, Including carry-overs and approprialions made available again. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 299 
Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures * 
Table 2: Implementation in 1994-95 
ECU million 
Member State / Fund Commitments Payments 
BELGIUM 49,13 56,29 
ERDF 0,00 6,61 
ESF 45,34 48,52 
EAGGF 3,20 0,80 
FIFG (^59 0,35 
DENMARK 3/79 5,13 
ERDF 0,00 2,40 
ESF 1,75 1,20 
EAGGF 0,00 0,21 
FIFG 2__ 1,31 
GERMANY 10,11 32,12 
ERDF 1,27 24,88 
ESF 6,63 5,59 
EAGGF 1,33 1,01 
FIFG __%_ 0,64 
GREECE __ 33,68 33,20 
ERDF 2,11 7,59 
ESF 29,20 18,22 
EAGGF 0,02 5,47 
FIFG 2__ 1^2 
SPAIN 68,00 52,54 
ERDF 55,00 32,97 
ESF 1,60 8,65 
EAGGF 5,55 6,83 
FIFG S___ 4,10 
FRANCE 11,38 53,89 
ERDF 0,00 23,26 
ESF 3,65 8,34 
EAGGF 4,71 20,12 
FIFG 3£2 2,17 
IRELAND M2 12,19 
ERDF 0,00 0,88 
ESF 4,87 5,68 
EAGGF 0,57 5,22 
FIFG ___ 0,41 
ITALY 32,19 95,45 
ERDF 0,00 32,39 
ESF 8,81 12,28 
EAGGF 20,97 47,69 
FIFG 3,08 
LUXEMBOURG 1,12 0,64 
ERDF 0,00 0,00 
ESF 1,12 0,63 
EAGGF 0,00 0,00 
FIFG OfJO 0__ 
Budget headings B21800, B21810, B21820 and B21830, Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again. 
300 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures 
Table 2: Implementation in 1994-95 (ctd.) 
ECU million 
Member State / Fund Commitments Payments 
NETHERLANDS 4,471 1LQ4 
ERDF 0,00 8,29 
ESF 1,95 1,25 
EAGGF 0,00 0,44 
FIFG 2__ 1,07 
AUSTRIA 0^26 0,15 
ERDF 0,00 0,00 
ESF 0,24 0,14 
EAGGF 0,01 0,01 
FIFG 0,00 
PORTUGAL 76,39 66,58 
ERDF 59,01 52,51 
ESF 7,99 5,72 
EAGGF 6,33 6,44 
FIFG 3^06 1,91 
FINLAND 0^29 _Y_ 
ERDF 0,00 0,00 
ESF 0,28 0,10 
EAGGF 0,01 0,00 
FIFG ___ 0,00 
SWEDEN __ 
ERDF 0,00 0,00 
ESF 0,22 0,10 
EAGGF 0,02 0,00 
FIFG ___ 0,00 
UNITED KINGDOM 11,96 16,12 
ERDF 0,00 2,88 
ESF 5,26 8,08 
EAGGF 0,27 2,59 
FIFG 2,57 
COMMUNITY 46,66 78,04 
ERDF 46,28 76,01 
ESF 0,01 2,03 
EAGGF 0,21 0,00 
FIFG | ' 0,00 
TOTAL 356,31 513,57 
ERDF 163,67 270,68 
ESF 118,92 " 126,54 
EAGQF 43,20 96,82 
FIFG 30,52 19,54 
Budget headings B21800, B21810, B21820 and B21830, Including carry-overs and appropriations made available again. 
3o/ 3>â 
ANNEX V: 
Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 1: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1995 303 
Member Stale / 
Region Objective 
' I * I 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr.) j 5(a) (Hsh.) | Sb | 6 CI 
BELGIUM 
Brussels 
Flanders 
Wallonia 
Multi-regional 
DENMARK 
0st for Storebaelt 
Vest for Storebaelt 
Multi-regional 
GERMANY 
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 
Brandenburg 
Saxony-Anhalt 
Saxony 
Thuringia 
Berlin 
Schleswig-Holstein 
Hamburg 
Lower Saxony 
Bremen 
North Rhine-Westphalia 
Hesse 
Rhineland-Palatinate 
Baden-Wurttemberg 
Bavaria 
Saarland 
Multi-regional 
GREECE 
Eastern Central and Islands(l) 
Central and Western Macedonia 
Péloponnèse and Western Central Gr. (2) 
Thessaly 
Crete 
Epirus (3) 
Thrace (4) 
Eastern Aegean Islands (S) 
Multi-regional 
SPAIN 
Galicia 
Asturias 
Cantabria 
Basque Country 
Navarre 
Rioja 
Aragon 
Madrid 
Castile-Leôn 
Castile-La Mancha 
Extremadura 
Catalonia 
Valencia 
Balearic Islands 8,97 
-
8,97 
-
-
-
-
-
2.022,55 
370,40 
272,79 
338,53 
461,58 
297,82 
109,98 
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
171,46 
2.653,04 
195,86 
118,41 
140,50 
55,24 
84,20 
82,46 
72,66 
9 !,25 
1.812,45 
4.778,90 
589,88 
224,68 
106,55 
" 
-
-
-
-
296,07 
240,09 
155,20 
-
589,60 
-4,63 
-
0,00 
4,63 
-
6,00 
0,00 
6,00 
-
38,01 
-
-
-
-
-
13,10 
0,00 
-
6,49 
2,61 
5,37 
1,20 
3,10 
0,00 
6,14 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
659,21 
192,43 
22,83 
11,87 
13,86 
79,13 
-
288,98 
10,37 33,40 
1,90 
0,00 
25,95 
5,55 
41,00 
-
-
41,00 
48,22 
-
-
-
-
-
8,09 
6,12 
0,00 
0,00 
6,28 
0,00 
7,90 
5,04 0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
5,00 
-
-
5,00 
0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-30,23 
0,27 
12,31 
5,90 
11,75 
16,73 
-
-
16,73 
165,13 
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,49 
0,68 
4,74 
0,11 
0,00 
-
-
8,34| 
0,00| 
6,45 -
0,00 0,00 
' 1 -
-
--
-3,33 
0,00 
3,50 
13,56 
0,50 
138,23 
-
-
-1 
-1 
-
-
-
206,97 *! 
-
-
-
62,70 
I 
"1 
"1 
•'! 
20.66J 
6,78 
0,00 
0,00 
18.41 j 
i -
-
-
21,10 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
• 
-
"I '! 
15,561 
'1 0,00 0,00 
-
-
0,00 
23,28 
-
23,28 
12,46 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12,46 
-
-
-
-
-
19,90 
-
-
-
-
• 9,16 
-
4,31 
4,86 
3,36 
-
-
3,36 
135,77 
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,69 
15,60 
5,49 
14,05 
7,97 
8,79 
70,36 
2,82 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
88,58 
-
-
-
3,78 
10,11 
1,94 
40,95 
6,52 
-
17,05 
8,21 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 92,19 
1,73 
24,79 
65,68 
0,00 
9,03 
0,00 
0,00 
9,03 
617,61 
59,24 
24,41 
75,35 
65,28 
93,96 
41,22 
6,19 
1,24 
48,79 
16,72 
49,30 
19,47 
17,59 
5,67 
34,44 
15,81 
42,92 
61,64 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
61,64 
239,54 
2,90 
12,52 
0,97 
2,31 
4,17 
3,43 
24,18 
3,36 
9,60 
4,47 
22,44 
2,12 
3j2 
3,07 178,59 
3,89 
41,4i 
115,99 
17,30 
104,40 
0,00 
6,00 
98,40 
3.039,76 
429,63 
297,20 
413,88 
526,86 
391,78 
172,38 
23,49 
1,92 
75,62 
25,72 
60,16 
45,95 
33,70 
26,30 
118,36 
31,72 
365,07 
2.714,68 
195,86 
118,41 
140,50 
55,24 
84,20 
82,46 
72,66 
91,25 
1.874,09 
6.076,89 
592,78 
237,20 
107,52 
219,18 
43,89 
17,24 
78,99 
107,42 
305,66 
244,56 
177,64 
323,71 
592,72 
21,65 
(1) Including the OP for Attica 
(2) Including the OPs for Central Greece, Western Greece and the Péloponnèse 
(3) Including the OPs for Epirus and the Ionian Islands 
(4) Including the OPs for Thrace and Western Macedonia 
(5) Including the OPs for the northern and southern islands ofthe Aegean 
304 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 1: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1995 (ctd.) 
ECU million 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
| 5(a) (agr.)" 5(a) (fish.) Total 
Andalusia 
Murcia 
Ceuta and Melilla 
Canary Islands 
Multi-regional 
FRANCE 
Ile-de-France 
Upper Normandy 
Lower Normandy 
Picardy 
Champagne-Ardenne 
Burgundy 
Centre 
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 
Brittany 
Loire Region 
Poitou-Charentes 
Lorraine 
Alsace 
Franche-Comté 
Limousin 
Aquitaine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Auvergne 
Rhône-Alpes 
Languedoc-Roussillon 
Proven ce-Al pes-Côte d'Azur 
Corsica 
Martinique 
Guadeloupe 
French Guiana 
Réunion 
Multi-regional 
IRELAND 
Multi-regional 
ITALY 
Piedmont 
Valle d'Aosta 
Lombardy 
Trentino 
Veneto 
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 
Liguria 
Emilia-Romagna 
Tuscany 
Umbria 
Marche 
Lazio 
Abruzzi 
Molise 
Campania 
Apulia 
Basilicata 
Calabria 
Sicily 
Sardinia 
Multi-regional 700,29 
169,37 
25,42 
307,57 
1.374,18 
222,44 
-
-
-
-
-
-
9,40 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14,25 
24,45 
54,03 
8,12 
112,20 
954,21 
954,21 
2.228,59 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
134,37 
26,75 
124,02 
203,67 
51,65 
117,17 
189,39 
50,95 
1.330,62 -
-
-
-
39,75 
313,09 
-
45,19 
17,08 
37,58 
0,00 
13,91 
0,00 
12,02 
0,00 
41,94 
17,10 
39,96 
0,00 
2,10 
3,82 
13,63 
19,25 
0,00 
19,86 
29,64 
. 
-
-
-
-
-
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
-
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
145,56 
396,80 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
62,70 
0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"I 
"j 
-
-
-71 
• 
• 
1 
-1 
-
-
-
396,80 
-
-
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
-
0,00 -
-
0,00 
-
-
0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. 
0,0C -
-
-
-
21,10 
252,08 
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
252,08 
-
0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,00 -
-
-
-
19,90 
31,62 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
" 
31,62 
-
22,37 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22,37 1 
-
-
110,46 
-
0,00 
12,80 
-
0,00 
20,35 
1,12 
-
0,00 
12,52 
3,75 
1,40 
0,21 
6,86 
14,01 
2,84 
4,89 
25,68 
1,56 
0.00 
0,32 
2,14 
-
31,50 
9,78 
0,00 
0.00 
0.00 
0,00 
5,22 
4.19 
3.39 
0,00 
0,00 
8,93 
0,00 
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
: 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
• 9,85 
1,74 
0,00 
29,86 
99,43 
307,12 
4,74 
0,00 
11,13 
10,71 
1,96 
10,86 
3,92 
7,40 
8,72 
0.00 
9,52 
38,73 
4,04 
4,97 
18,54 
26,92 
4,68 
13,17 
4,98 
16,53 
15,79 
5,65 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
8,76 
75,39 
42,64 
42,64 
70,83 
0,00 
0,28 
0,00 
4,26 
0,00 
0,30 
0,00 
0,69 
0,90 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
6,03 
0,00 
2,77 
6,04 
1,72 
5,96 
0,00 
1,35 
40,52 710,14 
171,11 
25,42 
337,42 
1.762,61 
1.633,61 
4,74 
45,19 
41,02 
48,29 
1,96 
45,12 
5,04 
28,82 
8,72, 
54,47 
30,38 
80,09 
4,25 
13,93 
32,55 
33,58 
23,21 
58,11 
6,54 
36,39 
45,74 
19,90 
24,45 
54,03 
8,12 
120,96 
758,04 
996,85 
996,85 
2.353.29 
9,78 
0,28 
0,00 
4,26 
0,00 
5,52 
4,19 
4,08 
0,90 
0.00 
8,93 
0,00 
140,40 
26,75 
126,78 
209,71 
53,37 
123,13 
189,39 
52,30 
1.393,52 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 1: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1995 (ctd.) 305 
ECU million 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
« 1 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr.) | 5(a) (fish.) | 5b | 6 CI Total 
LUXEMBOURG 
Multi-regional 
NETHERLANDS 
North Netherlands 
East Netherlands 
West Netherlands 
South Netherlands 
Multi-regional 
AUSTRIA 
East Austria 
South Austria 
West Austria 
Multi-regional 
PORTUGAL 
North 
Centre 
Lisbon and the Tagus valley 
Alentejo 
Algarve 
Azores 
Madeira 
Multi-regional 
FINLAND 
Continental Finland 
Islands 
Multi-regional 
SWEDEN 
South Sweden 
West Sweden 
Central Norrland 
Upper Norrl and 
Multi-regional 
UNITED KINGDOM 
North 
Yorkshire and Humberside 
East Midlands 
East Anglia 
South East 
South West 
West Midlands 
North East England 
North West 
Wales 
Scotland 
Northern Ireland 
Gibraltar 
Multi-regional 
COMMUNITY 
TOTAL -
-
17,20 
" 
17,20 
-
-
-
28,80 
28,80 
-
-
-
1.379,72 
97,80 
59,99 
93,98 
57,69 
24,88 
84,70 
82,35 
878,33 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
218,60 
-
•> 
-
-
-
• 
-
50,17 
39,14 
129,29 
-
14.513,03 0,00 
0,00 
9,15 
9,15 
0,00 
-
0,00 
• 
54,15 
22,41 
11,12 
20,62 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
\ 
-
31,10 
-
-
31,10 
105,78 
15,00 
24,00 
18,00 
48,78 
-
518,25 
0,00 
103,79 
6,55 
" 
6,13 
0,00 
122,96 
95,65 
32,70 
15,58 
134,89 
0,00 
-
1.739,37 3,29 
3,29 
143,83 0,27 
0,27 
0,00 
1 " 
-
-
143,83 
64,06 
-
-
-
64,06 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60,33 
-
--
-
0,00 
11,70 
-
-
-
11,70 
-
-
-
-
* 
-
-
-
14,83 
-
60,33 14,83 
73,00 
-
-
-
73,00 
497,00 5,47 
5,47 
4,89 
-
-
-
-
4,89 
61,50 
-
-
-
61,50 
-
-
-
-
-
-
61,42 
-
-
61,42 
-! 13,72 
1 
-! 
• 
"! 
-j 13,72 
-
" 
-22,80 
"! 
-I 
1 "I 
J 
-
-
-
-
-
" 
497,00 
-
1.567,91 --
-! 
-
94,50 -
-
22,80 
-
655,08 0,89 
0,89 
1,40 
-
-
-
1,40 
2,00 
-
-
-
2,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23,00 
-
-
23,00 
40,00 
-
-
-
40,00 
0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
0,00 
-
176,92 0,00 
0,00 
7,31 
4,50 
1,42 
1,40 
0,00 
78,33 
21,18 
27,21 
29,94 
" 
-
-
-
-
-
" -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"1 32.81 
30.48 
2.33 
-81,00 
-
81,00 
44,92 
-1 
1 
-
-
74,59 44,92 
-
-
-1 
1 
7,51 
1.39 
5.11 
2,16 
27.6S 
23.77 
7.57 
-
571,86 ^ 
125,92 1,83 
1.83 
573 
6,16 
3,03 
7,89 
0,00 
40,30 
43,43 
8,85 
0,00 
0,00 
34,58 
147,98 
0,00 
0,00 
9,22 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
138,76 
48,85 
0,00 
0,00 
48,85 
31,94 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
31,94 
305,86 
0,00 
4,36 
4,24 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
10,13 
23,46 
5,88 
42,98 
51,30 
46,62 
0,00 
116,89 
588,78 
2.666,65 11,75 
11,75 
241,16 
19,80 
21,65 
9,29 
0,00 
190,42 
343,97 
81,24 
38,33 
50,56 
173,84 
1.527,70 
97,80 
59,99 
103,20 
57,69 
24,88 
84,70 
82,35 
1.017,09 
35334 
30,48 
2,33 
320,53 
30936 
15,00 
24,00 
18,00 
48,78 
203,58 
1.637,10 
0,00 
108,16 
18,29 
1,39 
6,13 
5,11 
133,09 
121,27 
88,75 
85,64 
249,11 
175,91 
0,00 
644,26 
588,78 
22.111,23 
306 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 2: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1994-95 
ECU million 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
I 2 j 3 1 4 | 5(a) (agr.) [ 5(a) (fish.) | 5b | 6 CI Total 
BELGIUM 
Brussels 
Flanders 
Wallonia 
Multi-regional 
DENMARK 
0st for Storebœlt 
Vest for Storebaelt 
Multi-regional 
GERMANY 
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 
Brandenburg 
Saxony-Anhalt 
Saxony 
Thuringia 
Berlin 
Schleswig-Holstein 
Hamburg 
Lower Saxony 
Bremen 
North Rhine-Westphalia 
Hesse 
Rhineland-Palatinate 
Baden-Wiirttemberg 
Bavaria 
Saarland 
Multi-regional 
GREECE 
Eastern Central and Islands(l) 
Central and Western Macedonia 
Péloponnèse and Western Central Gr. (2) 
Thessaly 
Crete 
Ëpirus (3) 
Thrace (4) 
Eastern Aegean Islands (5) 
Multi-regional 
SPAIN 
Galicia 
Asturias 
Cantabria 
Basque Country 
Navarre 
Rioja 
Aragon 
Madrid 
Castile-Leôn 
Castile-La Mancha 
Extremadura 
Catalonia 
Valencia 
Balearic Islands 107,00 
-
-
107,00 
-
-
-
-
-
3.892,08 
625,34 
568,39 
673,61 
916,10 
571,53 
211,42 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
325,70 
4.544,89 
298,72 
239,23 
284,40 
111,61 
131,00 
143,54 
146,81 
156,40 
3.033,18 
8.372,41 
937,94 
338,64 
155,98 
537,87 
407.0C 
284.9C 
886,02 62,16 
-
38,32 
23,84 
-
30,29 
9,52 
20,77 
-
286,85 
-
-
-
-
-
49,19 
15,39 
-
13,52 
14,94 
115,00 
21,26 
23,46 
13,64 
20,46 
-
-
-
-
659,21 
192,43 
22,83 
11,87 
13, se 
79,13 
288,9! 
10,3 97,77 
3,73 
30,40 
52,73 
10,91 
85,00 
-
-
85,00 
307,77 
-
-
-
-
15,88 
12,20 
5,99 
18,58 
12,33 
43,02 
15,50 
10,17 
16,37 
8,66 
13,01 
136,05 
-
-
-
-
-
-
426,59 
41,32 
13,44 
4,34 
20,04 
36,7* 
31,i: 
? 12,9 4,63 
0,29 
3,45 
0,27 
0,62 
6,00 
-
-
6,00 
29,61 
-
-
-53,03 
C.27 
16,10 
9,63 
27,03 
38,67 
-
-
38,67 
322,72 
-
-
-
-1 
-
-
--
0,49 
0,68 
4,74 
-j 0,11 
4,85 
j -j 
-I 3,02 
-i 3,50 
-| 13,56 
-i 0,50 
29,61 287,95 
"i 
.1 
1 i 
-i 
•I 
J 
118,10 101,86 
"i 
-i 
-! 
1 
•! 
-
-4,08 
-
-
-
4,08 
46,59 
-
-
46,59 
24,87 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24,87 
-
-
; 
-
39,83 9,16| 
-! 
4,31! 
4,86! 
1 
9,79 
-
-
9,79 -
-
-
-
26I,74| 97,26 
1,73 
26,59 
68,61 
0,33 
13,37 
0,00 
0,00 
13,37 
646,51 
59,24 
-i 24,41 
-i -| 75,35 
-j 65,28 
-i -i 93,96 
-! 41,22 
20,91! - 6,19 
•! -! ''24 
44,41 j - 48,79 
-! -! 16,72 
5,49; - 49,47 
23,66! -! 19,74 
20,17: -j 17.59 
8,79 
Ï35~i49 
2,82 -i 5,90 
! -! 35,70 
-; i5,8i 
69,90 
"! 85,98 
-j 0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
-! 0,00 
-i 0,00 
-; -j 0,00 
-; 0,00 
-, - 85,98 
162,09i " 315,12 
-i 2,90 
----- 'j ----- — 
6,43; 
16.43; 12,52 
-i 0,97 
-! 2,31 
-! 4,17 
6,20! -: 3,43 
78,83 -, 24,18 
11,32, -j 3,36 
-! 9,6C 
4,4" 
- Wfib] 
8,2 -| 22,44 
-| 2,1: 
-j 3,11 435,09 
6,02 
119,17 
266,94 
42,97 
229,70 
9,52 
20,77 
199,41 
5.772,15 
684,58 
592,81 
748,96 
981,38 
665,49 
317,71 
55,18 
7,92 
130,05 
44,09 
217,82 
83,49 
74,40 
34,56 
207,04 
52,61 
874,08 
4.630,87 
298,72 
239,23 
284,40 
111,61 
131,00 
143,54 
146,81 
156,40 
3.119,17 
10.195,22 
940,84 
351,16 
156,95 
242,50 
56,87 
25,83 
136,91 
130,57 
547.46 
411,47 
307,41 
356.88 
889,14 
1 -| 3,07| 34-6o 
(1) Including the OP for Attica 
(2) Including the OPs for Central Greece, Western Greece and the Péloponnèse 
(3) Including the OPs for Epirus and the Ionian Islands 
(4) Including the OPs for Thrace and Western Macedonia 
(5) Including the OPs for the northern and southern islands ofthe Aegean 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 2: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1994-95(ctd.) 307 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
1 1 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr.) | 5(a) (fish.) j 5b ] 6 CI ECU million 
Total 
Andalusia 
Murcia 
Ceuta and Melilla 
Canary Islands 
Multi-regional 
FRANCE 
Ile-de-France 
Upper Normandy 
Lower Normandy 
Picardy 
Champagne-Ardenne 
Burgundy 
Centre 
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 
Brittany 
Loire Region 
Poitou-Charentes 
Lorraine 
Alsace 
Franche-Comté 
Limousin 
Aquitaine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Auvergne 
Rhône-Alpes 
Languedoc-Roussillon 
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 
Corsica 
Martinique 
Guadeloupe 
French Guiana 
Réunion 
Multi-regional 
IRELAND 
Multi-regional 
ITALY 
Piedmont 
Valle d'Aosta 
Lombardy 
Trent i no 
Veneto 
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 
Liguria 
Emilia-Romagna 
Tuscany 
Umbria 
Marche 
Lazio 
Abruzzi 
Molise 
Campania 
Apulia 
Basilicata 
Calabria 
Sicily 
Sardinia 
Multi-regional 1 337,33 
263,91 
44,19 
453,00 
2.725,59 
497,61 
-
-
-
-
69,87 
-
" 
-
-
-
-
48,49 
57,57 
100,61 
26,87 
194,21 
1.680,13 
1 680,13 
3.024,71 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
150,90 
37,74 
177,22 
203,67 
98,05 
189,15 
189,39 
170,58 
1.808,01 -
-
-
-
39,75 
904,39 
-
91,59 
35,45 
76,49 
24,64 
29,61 
24,20 
114,06 
28,52 
85,14 
34,04 
80,44 
19,60 
17,30 
37,86 
27,17 
38,68 
31,69 
42,27 
65,65 
-
-
-
-1 -
-
-
-
266,62 
778,40 
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
778,40 
-! 
-j 
299,95 
65,15 
6,00 
23,00 
-
22,57 
24,00 
30,53 
12,00 
40,36 
35,00 
21,00 
20,34 200,47 
18,32 
1,86 
26,25 
7,90 
16,23 
8,00 
6,33 
27,64 
9,84 
4,57 
5,51 
18,30 
-
-
-
49,71 -
-
-
-
118,10 
95,39 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
101,86 
678,61 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-! 
- " 
"i 
-! 
-
-
-
-
95,39 
--
-
-
-
678,61 
-
"I 
60,61 117,47 
1 
-
-
* 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
" 
-
-
-
-
"i 
60,61 -
-
-
-
-
117,47 -
-
-
-
39,83 
63,27 
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
373,18 
-
1,09 
31,54 
-
4,12 
29,69 
5,09 
-
26,19 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
63,27 
-
44,77 
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
44,7" 27,78 
20,85 -
-
-
-9,85 
1,74 
0,00 
29,86 
-| 175,01 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,20 
6,75| 
13,92 333,29 
4,74 
0,00 
11,13 
10,71 
1,96 
10,86 
3,92 
7,40 
8,72 
0,00 
9,52 
38,73 
4,04 
4,97 
32,02! -| 18,54 
34,391 -| 26,92 
33,89! -i 4,68 
44,88 -! 13,17 
24,91 -! 4,98 
11,65 -| 16,53 
12,09 -j 15,79 
5,65 
-i -1 0,00 
l -i - 0,00 
-i -! 0,00 
! i 
-j -j 8,76 
2,14; -j 101,56 
-! - 53,54 
-I -j 53,54 
107,00 ! - 134,35 
9.78J -j 0,00 
0,59, 
4,79s 
6,23 0,28 
0,00 
4.26 
17,30! - 0,00 
5,22| 
4.19} 0,30 
0,00 
6,78! - 0,69 
I 
15.79 - 0,90 
10.75! . o,00 
8,93 - 0,00 
16,66 -j 0,00 
. 6,03 
0,00 
2,77 
t - 6,04 
-j 
"I 
" 
-j 1,72 
5,96 
0,00 
1,35 
-| 104,04 1.347,18 
265,65 
44,19 
482,86 
3.466,76 
3.724,14 
4,74 
92,68 
78,13 
87,20 
30,72 
70,16 
33,21 
191,33 
63,44 
112,91 
64,42 
129,36 
30,39 
36,18 
50,57 
99,16 
65,75 
96,72 
61,58 
70,45 
93,52 
54,13 
57,57 
100,61 
26,87 
202,97 
1.719,37 
1.733,67 
1.733,67 
3.989,32 
93,25 
8,73 
54,04 
18,39 
56,09 
37,52 
41,05 
47,11 
66,89 
50,32 
35,44 
55,31 
156,93 
37,74 
179,99 
209,71 
99,77 
195,11 
189,39 
171,93 
2.184,61 
308 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 2: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1994-95(ctd.) 
ECU million 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
| 5(a) (agr.) \ S(a)(fish.)" 
LUXEMBOURG 
Multi-regional 
NETHERLANDS 
North Netherlands 
East Netherlands 
West Netherlands 
South Netherlands 
Multi-regional 
AUSTRIA 
East Austria 
South Austria 
West Austria 
Multi-regional 
PORTUGAL 
North 
Centre 
Lisbon and the Tagus valley 
Alentejo 
Algarve 
Azores 
Madeira 
Multi-regional 
FINLAND 
Continental Finland 
Islands 
Multi-regional 
SWEDEN 
South Sweden 
West Sweden 
Central Norrland 
Upper Norrland 
Multi-regional 
UNITED KINGDOM 
North 
Yorkshire and Humberside 
East Midlands 
East Anglia 
South East 
South West 
West Midlands 
North East England 
North West 
Wales 
Scotland 
Northern Ireland 
Gibraltar 
Multi-regional 
COMMUNITY 
TOTAL -
-
37,20 
-
37,20 
-
-
28,80 
28,80 
-
-
4.548,75 
210,00 
126,00 
124,54 
78,62 
28,48 
216,21 
148,65 
3.616,26 
-
-
-
-
532,32 
-
162,13 
-
81,89 
288,30 
-
-7,97 
7,97 
105,02 
33,38 
36,48 
-
35,16 
-
54,15 
22,41 
11,12 
20,62 
-
-
-
-
31,10 
-
31,10 
105,78 
15,00 
24,00 
18,00 
48,78 
1.250,05 
25,00 
204,44 
31,66 
43.65 
29,00 
240,88 
193,55 
137,26 
75,34 
264,27 
5,00 
-
27.265,911 3.796,91 6,46 
6,46 
282,27 
-
-
-
282,27 
64,06 
" 
-
-
64,06 
-
-
-
-
• 
" 
60,33 
-
60,33 
73,00 
73,00 
975,00 
-
: 
-
-
975,00 
-0,53 
0,53 
22,23 
-
-
-
-
22,23 
11,70 
-12,21 
12,21 
25,27 
-
-
-
25,27 
61,50 
-
"! 
!1,70J 61,50 
-! 
i 
•i 
1 
-1 
"i 
-! 
1 
14,83 i 61,42 
14.83] 61,42 
-i 13,72 
-! 
-i 13,72 
-j 85,16 
-j 
-' 
i 
-j 
-i 
"i 
-; 
"i 
85,16 
-1 
3.357,12 363,63 1.571,64 1,10 
1,10 
9,16 
-
-
-
9,16 
2,00 
-
2,00 
-
-
—_ 
23,00 
23,00 
40,00 
40,00 
14,78 
-
-
-': 
14,78 
-
313,45 0,84* 1,87 
0,84| - 1,87 
25,61 
16,86! 61,63 
6,16 
3,28j - 3,03 
3,18: -| 7,89 
2,29; 
-: 0,00 
44,54 
78,33 -\ 43,43 
21,18; - 8,85 
27,21, -| 0,00 
29,94i -! 0,00 
-| 34,58 
192,18 
-; o,oo 
0,00 
-: - 9,22 
-j o,oo 
-: o.oo 
-\ 0,00 
0,00 
.! ""' 7 [82795 
32,81 81.00 48(85 
30,48 - 0,00 
2.33 - 0,00 
81,00: 48,85 
•".92; 31,94 
-: 0,00 
- T oToo 
-;; * 0,00 
0,00 
-; 44,92: 31,94 
120,70' -! 327,47 
0,00 
4,36 
7,51: -; 4,24 
8,59 - 0,00 
0,00 
31.17 -, 0,00 
-, 10,7 3 
15.01 - 23,46 
5,88 
27,08; -: 42,98 
23.77! " -'--"~: 5Y.3Ô 
-i -, 47,79 
-! -' 0,00 
7,57. •] 137,33 
-! -| 589,06 
1.181,25. 125,92 2.975,84 30,98 
30,98 
568,38 
56,40 
79,99 
11,07 
37,45 
383,47 
343,97 
81,24 
38,33 
50,56 
173.84 
4.740,93 
210,00 
126,00 
133,76 
78,62 
28,48 
216,21 
148,65 
3 799.22 
353,34 
30,48 
2.33 
320,53 
309,36 
15,00 
24,00 
18,00 
48,78 
203,58 
3.305,48 
25,00 
208,81 
43.40 
8,59 
43,65 
60,17 
251,01 
232,02 
305.27 
145,40 
421,23 
336,09 
5,00 
1 219,84 
589,06 
40.951,67 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 3: Regional breakdown of payments in 1995 309 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
• 1 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr.) | 5(a) (fish.) | 5b | 6 CI ECU million 
Total 
BELGIUM 
Brussels 
Flanders 
Wallonia 
Multi-regional 
DENMARK 
0st for Storeba:lt 
Vest for Storeba:lt 
Multi-regional 
GERMANY 
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 
Brandenburg 
Saxony-Anhalt 
Saxony 
Thuringia 
Berlin 
Schleswig-Holstein 
Hamburg 
Lower Saxony 
Bremen 
North Rhine-Westphalia 
Hesse 
Rhineland-Palatinate 
Baden-Wiirttemberg 
Bavaria 
Saarland 
Multi-regional 
GREECE 
Eastern Central and Islands(l) 
Central and Western Macedonia 
Péloponnèse and Western Central Gr. (2) 
Thessaly 
Crete 
Epirus (3) 
Thrace (4) 
Eastern Aegean Islands (5) 
Multi-regional 
SPAIN 
Galicia 
Asturias 
Cantabria 
Basque Country 
Navarre 
Rioja 
Aragon 
Madrid 
Castile-Leôn 
Castile-La Mancha 
Extremadura 
Catalonia 
Valencia 
Balearic Islands 29,57 
-
-
29,57 
-
-
-
-
1.251,97 
247,43 
228,36 
165,63 
298,53 
129,16 
47,19 
-
-
-
" 
-
-
" 
-
-
-
135,67 
1.705,79 
106,54 
124,56 
119,65 
59,56 
49,68 
50,41 
74,40 
59,42 
1.061,57 
3.772,23 
390,88 
132,54 
42,03 
300,55 
252,77 
147,46 
429,69 11,75 
-
0,00 
11,75 
-
8,35 
0,00 
8,35 
-
32,52 
-
-
-
-
-
11,90 
0,00 
-
3,25 
4,22 
2,68 
0,60 
1,55 
" 
2,55 
5,77 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
447,96 
" 
148,42 
16,72 
5,93 
6,93 
29,46 
220.4C 
5,18 4233 
1,49 
9,39 
26,00 
5,45 
39,04 
-
-
39,04 
104,48 
" 
" 
-
-
8,81 
6,72 
1,80 
0,00 
6,84 
12,91 
6,23 
4,06 
6,58 
2,60 
7,13 
40,82 
-0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
2,50 
-
-
2,50 
0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,00 
-
-; 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
169,65 
15,54 
6,72 
0,62 
2,10 
13,45 
18,5 
0,0C -
-
-
-
-
-12,75 
0,13 
8,21 
4,40 
0,00 
16,49 
-
-
16,49 
160,90 
-
-
-
" 
-
-
0,24 
0,34 
2,37 
0,05 
1,45 
1,67 
0,91 
1,75 
6,78 
0,25 
145,09 
-
-
-
-
-
"i 
38,13 
-
-
-
-
-
-27,65 
-
" 
-1,22 
-
-
-
1,22 
18,63 
-
-
18,63 
9,93 
-
" 
" 
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
" 
9,93 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,00 4,581 
"I 
2,15| 
2,43| 
"1 
2,451 
' 'I 
-I 
2.45] 
71,21 i 
-! 
-j 
-i 
"i 
"; 
" 
1,84; 
•\ 
11,30, 
-: 
2,75, 
7,99( 3833 
0,86 
12,39 
25,08 
0,00 
4,25 
0,00 
0,00 
4,25 
218,18 
14,18 
7,63 
22,73 
27,43 
36,96 
10,15 
1,83 
0,00 
20,75 
5,10 
22,58 
3,10 
6,37; -j 3,92 
4,39 -\ • 1,70 
34,86 -j 12,43 
1,72 -! 6,24 
-; -! 21,46 
30,26 
-1 0,00 
-| 0,00 
-! o.oo 
0,00 
-, 
-: 
-. 0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
-| 30,26 
81,69 
-
-
3.23; 
10,92 
1,82, 
37,83, 
5.37 
-, 
-, 
15,75! 
-> 
6,76! 94,42 
1,45 
2,45 
0,48 
0,69 
1,25 
1,03 
4,51 
1,01 
4,8C 
2,24 
4,35 
i.oe 
l,5f. 
1,2: 140,54 
2,48 
32,15 
99,23 
6,68 
91,70 
0,00 
8,35 
83,36 
1.849,20 
261,62 
235,99 
188,37 
325,96 
166,12 
78,04 
10,63 
2,14 
37,66 
16,21 
42,37 
19,58 
16,80 
14,42 
59,22 
21,11 
352,97 
1.736,05 
106,54 
124,56 
119,65 
59,56 
49,68 
50,41 
74,40 
59,42 
1.091,83 
4.631,72 
392,33 
134,99 
42,52 
167,87 
35,61 
9,41 
51,36 
49,28 
305,35 
255,00 
151,85 
255,72 
431,25 
13,16 
(1 ) Including the OP for Attica 
(2) Including the OPs for Central Greece, Western Greece and the Péloponnèse 
(3) Including the OPs for Epirus and the Ionian Islands 
(4) Including the OPs for Thrace and Western Macedonia 
(5) Including the OPs for the northern and southern islands ofthe Aegean 
310 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 3: Regional breakdown of payments in 1995 (ctd.) 
ECU million 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
1 I 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr.) | 5(a) (fish.) | 5b | 6 CI Total 
Andalusia 
Murcia 
Ceuta and Melilla 
Canary Islands 
Multi-regional 
FRANCE 
Ile de France 
Upper Normandy 
Lower Normandy 
Picardy 
Champagne-Ardenne 
Burgundy 
Centre 
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 
Brittany 
Loire Region 
Poitou-Charentes 
Lorraine 
Alsace 
Franche-Comté 
Limousin 
Aquitaine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Auvergne 
Rhône-Alpes 
Languedoc-Roussi 1 Ion 
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 
Corsica 
Martinique 
Guadeloupe 
French Guiana 
Réunion 
Multi-regional 
IRELAND 
Multi-regional 
ITALY 
Piedmont 
Valle d'Aosta 
Lombardy 
Trentino 
Veneto 
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 
Liguria 
Emilia-Romagna 
Tuscany 
Umbria 
Marche 
Lazio 
Abruzzi 
Molise 
Campania 
Apulia 
Basilicata 
Calabria 
Sicily 
Sardinia 
Multi-regional 638,23 
101,59 
22,33 
254,35 
1.059,82 
147,44 
" 
-
" 
-
-
-
8,94 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
10,45 
21,89 
32,40 
7,60 
66,16 
-
856,47 
856,47 
1.176,10 
-
-
• 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
68,22 
15,52 
63,21 
92,91 
29,20 
60,93 
74,06 
25,47 
746,59 -
-
-
" 
14,92 
145,06 
-
18,49 
12,15 
30,47 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
11,74 
0,00 
22,85 
6,74 
15,48 
0,00 
1,10 
-
2,59 
2,11 
15,62 
0,00 
5,71 
0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
-
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
-
-
" -
-
-
-
112,72 
312,88 
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-1 
-
-
38,13 -
-
27,65 
0,00 ! 242,14 
-1 
- -
-
-! 
-1 
-j 
"! 
"! 
1 
-! 
-; 
-; 
-: 
-! 
•; 
-
-' 
-j -i 
-
-
-
312,88 
-
-
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
-
0,00 -: 
0,00 242,14 
-i 
0,00 ; o.oo 
-; 
-! 
-: 
"I 
0,00, 0,00 -
-
-
-
0,00 
25,31 
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25,31 
0,00 
; 
: 
-
-
^ 
- •; 
-
-
0,00 •I 
"i 
-1 
-! 
"i 
76,57! 
- 7 
0,00| 
7.77J 4,93 
0,87 
0,00 
0,92 
59,56 
100,79 
2,37 
0,00 
1,51 
-j -1 4,99 
0,00; - 0,98 
9,40! " 3'21 
0,5 lj - 1,96 
": -; 2,44 
3,08; -! 3,51 
4.16! -i 0,00 
2.57 -! 2,29 
K 23: " - • Ï47ÎÔ 
0,00 -; 2,02 
4,80 -! 1,49 
12,46; J 5,14 
3,42 -j 7,18 
3,65 - 1,82 
18,98 -, 2,74 
K55 "-: 2.Ï4" 
o.oo; 
1,92, 2,28 
6,01 
-! 1,32 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
"-' 7 4778 
1.07 - 26,90 
-] 16,42 
16,42 
15,75 -; 34,65 
4,89; -: 0,00 
0,00; -! 0,08 
0,00 -, 0,00 
0.00; 
~Ô7Ô0;~ j 1,87 
0,00 
2.61; - 0,15 
2,09' -! 0,00 
1,6') -; 0,34 
0,00 -| 0,00 
0,00, - 0,00 
4,46 -i 0,00 
0.00. -j 0,00 
-j 3,02 
•'".'•"' -" " """".; o_oo 
-; -I 1-:'8 
-' -' 3.02 
0,80 
-; - 2,98 
-: -j o.oo 
-i - 0.68 
-j -j 20,26 643,15 
102,46 
22,33 
255,28 
1.312,80 
1.050,19 
2,37 
18,49 
21,43 
35,45 
0,98 
12,60 
2,47 
23,12 
6,59 
27,01 
11,60 
30,81 
2,02 
7,38 
17,61 
13.19 
7,59 
37,34 
3,69 
8,00 
7,93 
11,78 
21.89 
32,40 
7,60 
70,55 
608,30 
872,89 
872,89 
1.226,50 
4.S9 
0,08 
0,00 
1,87 
0,00 
2,76 
2,09 
2,04 
0,00 
0.00 
4,46 
0,00 
71,23 
15,52 
64,59 
95,93 
30,06 
63,91 
74,06 
26,15 
766,85 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 3: Regional breakdown of payments in 1995 (ctd.) 311 
ECU million 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
1 I 2 1 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr.) | 5(a) (fish.) | 5b | 6 CI Total 
LUXEMBOURG 
Multi-regional 
NETHERLANDS 
North Netherlands 
East Netherlands 
West Netherlands 
South Netherlands 
Multi-regional 
AUSTRIA 
East Austria 
South Austria 
West Austria 
Multi-regional 
PORTUGAL 
North 
Centre 
Lisbon and the Tagus valley 
Alentejo 
Algarve 
Azores 
Madeira 
Multi-regional 
FINLAND 
Continental Finland 
Islands 
Multi-regional 
SWEDEN 
South Sweden 
West Sweden 
Central Norrland 
Upper Norrland 
Multi-regional 
UNITED KINGDOM 
North 
Yorkshire and Humberside 
East Midlands 
East Anglia 
South East 
South West 
West Midlands 
North East England 
North West 
Wales 
Scotland 
Northern Ireland 
Gibraltar 
Multi-regional 
COMMUNITY 
TOTAL -
-
9,56 
-
9,56 
-
-
-
14,40 
14,40 
-
-
1.667,01 
77,75 
47,03 
65,08 
27,04 
15,90 
96,87 
74,80 
1.262,54 
-
-
7 
163,81 
: 
44,47 
16,55 
102,78 
-0,00 
0,00 
12,30 
12,30 
0,00 
-
0,00 
-
21,42 
7,62 
5,56 
8,24 
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
15,55 
15,55 
38,06 
5,04 
8.20 
6,16 
18,66 
-
152,96 
0,00 
19,31 
5,85 
4,37 
0,00 
Ï9J6 
37,38 
27,54 
14,33 
25,09 
-
0,00 
-
-
10.794,35J 885,91 4,00 
4,00 
142,57 
-
-
-0,21 
0,21 
0,00 
-
-
-
142,57 0,00 
32,03 
-5,85 
-
"1 
32,03) 5,85 
- -
1 -2,00 
2,00 
1,96 
-
-
-
1,96 
30,75 
-
-
30,75 
-
-
-; i 
-! 
-! -1 
"! 
30,17! 7,42 30,71 
": 1 
-i -| 
30,17, 7,42! 30,71 
36,50! -,' 6,86 
j 
"l 
-! -1 
i -; 
36,50! - 6,86 
436,17; -J 22,43 
-1 "j 
"j 
-;' "I 
-! -! 
1 "i 
.! 
"1 "! 
~i -i 
-! 
•I -; 
"i 1 
436,17; -j 22,43 
1 
-1 -| 
1.349,83 i 54,11 554,64 0,06 
0,06 
2,33 
-
-
-
2,33 
0,20 
-
-
0,20 
-
-
-
-
6,90 
6,90 
12,00 
-
12,00 
4,43 
-
-
-
" 
4,43 
-
81,02 0,211 
0,21 j 
9,451 
5,78; 
1,24 
2.00J 0,60 
0,60 
21,87 
1,85 
1.11 
2,37 
0,43 - 0,00 
-| - 16,54 
39,16! "j 21,04 
10,59! - 3,75 
13,60! - 0,00 
14,97; 0,00 
-| -| 17,29 
-: " 79,35 
-! -! 0,00 
1 -; 0,00 
-i - 4,61 
-j 0,00 
-I 0,00 
-j 0,00 
0,00 
-! -j 74,74 
15.94 4°.S0 23,21 
15,24 -! 0,00 
0,70 -| 0,00 
40,50; 23,21 
"-«j ,5,97 
-, 0,00 
-! o.oo 
-; 0,00 
-! 0,00 
22.46J 15,97 
46,39 "j 116,71 
0,00 
2,18 
3.97^ -! 2,12 
0.96 - 0.00 
0,00 
S.79 - 0,00 
5,07 
1,67 - 11,73 
7 7 °^ôo 
15.26 -i 18,11 
11.66 -; 17,06 
-1 17,61 
0,00 
4.09 -, 42,84 
-: -| 244,31 
363,41 62'96! 1.060,37 7,10 
7,10 
200,04 
19,93 
11,91 
4,37 
0,43 
163,40 
164,85 
36,36 
19.16 
23,21 
86,12 
1.74636 
77,75 
47,03 
69,70 
27,04 
15,90 
96,87 
74,80 
1.337,28 
170,39 
15,24 
0,70 
154,45 
131,85 
5,04 
8,20 
6,16 
18,66 
93,79 
942,91 
0,00 
21,49 
11.94 
0,96 
4,37 
8,79 
24,17 
50,77 
72,01 
47,70 
70,36 
120,39 
0,00 
509,97 
244,31 
15.206,61 
312 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 4: Regional breakdown of payments in 1994-95 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
| 5(a) (agr,) | 5(a) (fish.) \ 5b | 
BELGIUM 
Brussels 
Flanders 
Wallonia 
Multi-regional 
DENMARK 
0st for Storebarlt 
Vest for Storebaîlt 
Multi-regional 
GERMANY 
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 
Brandenburg 
Saxony-Anhalt 
Saxony 
Thuringia 
Berlin 
Schleswig-Holstein 
Hamburg 
Lower Saxony 
Bremen 
North Rhine-Westphalia 
Hesse 
Rhineland-Palatinate 
Baden-Wurttemberg 
Bavaria 
Saarland 
Multi-regional 
GREECE 
Eastern Central and Islands(l) 
Central and Western Macedonia 
Péloponnèse and Western Central Gr (2) 
Thessaly 
Crete . " 
Epirus (3) 
Thrace (4) 
Eastern Aegean Islands (5) 
Multi-regional 
SPAIN 
Galicia 
Asturias 
Cantabria 
Basque Country 
Navarre 
Rioja 
Aragon 
Madrid 
Castile-Leon 
Castile-La Mancha 
Extremadura 
Catalonia 
Valencia 
Balearic Islands 79,77 
-
79,77 
-
-
-
-
-
2.470,05 
402,99 
422,32 
355,83 
618,89 
306,05 
107,01 
-2931 
-
17,56 
11,75 
-
19,99 
4,26 
15,73 
" 
156,94 
-
-
-
29,94 
7,70 
-
-j 6,76 
-
-
-10,38 
57,50 
10,63 
-! 11.73 
1 
9,37 
12,93 
256,96| 
2.760,70 
157,97 
184,97 
191,60 
87,741 
73,08| 
80,95 
111,47 
92,00 
1.780,92 
5.570,03 -
-
-
447,96 
561,98) 
188,19! 
66,75! 
-! 148,42 
-16,72 
5,93 
-i 6,93 
29,46 
421,46 
335,25 
212,34 
-
570,72 220,40 
-| 5.18 74,52 
2,40 
24,59 
39,39 
8,13 
74,24 
-
-
74,24 
234,26 
-
-
-
12,71 
9,76 
4,80 
9,29 
9,87 
34,41 
10,03 
6,62 
10,60 
6,93 
10,41 232 
0,15 
1,73 
0,13 
0,31 
3,00 
-
3,00 
14,81 
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
108,84 14,81 
-1 "I 
" 
-! 
1 
" 
-! 
-
244,54 
-65,83 
j 
"1 
25,87; 
10,05| 
0,62; 
2,58| 
22,62] 
"I 
23,03 -
-! 
1,02; 16,51 
0,13 
10,11 
6,27 
0,00 
19,19 
-
-
19,19 
209,83 
-
-
-
0,24 3,26 
-
-
-
3,26 
30,29 
-
-
30,29 
16,13 
-
-
0,34! 
2,37j 
0.05| 
3.88 
l,67j 
2,411 
1,75; 
6,78 
0,25 : 
190,08 16.13 
-! 
•i 
-i 
T 1 -1 
-1 
-
-
80,25 -
9,97 
-! 1 
" 
-; 
"i 
"I 
-: 
-, 
"! 
:• : 
-; 4,58 
-
2,15 
2,43 
5,66 
' " 
-
5,66 
134,20 
-
— —; 
6,95 
-
25,71 
2,75 
12,79 
12.47 
4,39 
67,43 
1.72 
-
: -
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ; 
" 
-
-
-
— —: 
-
-
7 
118,44 
--
-
"! 
4.55 
14.08 
3.95 
56,77 
7,77 
-
24.56 
6,76 -
-
-40,87 
0,86 
13,29 
26,54 
0,17 
6,41 
0,00 
0,00 
6,41 
232,71 
14,18 
7,63 
22,73 
27,43 
36,96 
10,15 
1,83 
0,00 
20,75 
5,10 
22,66 
3,32 
3,92 
1,81 
13,05 
6.24 251,14 
3,55 
69,44 
166,28 
11,87 
158,78 
4,26 
15,73 
138,79 
3.468,92 
417,18 
429,95 
378,57 
646,32 
343,01 
159,80 
26,48 
5,14 
64,87 
25,40 
121,20 
38,44 
37.15 
18,55 
103,56 
31,55 
34,95| 621,77 
45,68 
0,00 
0,00 
o7oo 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
45.68 
137,26 
1,45 
2,45 
0,48 
0,69 
1,25 
1.03 
4,51 
1,01 
4,80 
2.24 
4,39 
1,06 
~ ~T,56 
1,22 2.806,38 
157,97 
184,97 
191,60 
87,74 
73,08 
80,95 
111,47 
92,00 
1.826,60 
6.674,27 
563,43 
190,64 
67,23 
179,53 
42,10 
11,54 
70,78 
60,86 
426,25 
337,49 
216,73 
269,04 
572,28 
14,19 
(1 ) Including the OP for Attica 
(2) Including the OPs for Central Greece, Western Greece and the Péloponnèse 
(3) Including the OPs for Epirus and the Ionian Islands 
(4) Including the OPs for Thrace and Western Macedonia 
(5) Including the OPs for the northern and southern islands ofthe Aegean 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 4: Regional breakdown of payments in 1994-95 (ctd.) 313 
ECU million 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
5(a) (agr.) I 5(a) (fish.) 
Andalusia 
Murcia 
Ceuta and Melilla 
Canary Islands 
Multi -regional 
FRANCE 
Ile de France 
Upper Normandy 
Lower Normandy 
Picardy 
Champagne-Ardenne 
Burgundy 
Centre 
Nord-Pas-de-Cal ais 
Brittany 
Loire Region 
Poitou-Charentes 
Lorraine 
Alsace 
Franche-Comté 
Limousin 
Aquitaine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Auvergne 
Rhône-Alpes 
Languedoc-Roussillon 
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 
Corsica 
Martinique 
Guadeloupe 
French Guiana 
Réunion 
Multi-regional 
IRELAND 
Multi-regional 
ITALY 
Piedmont 
Valle d'Aosta 
Lombardy 
Trentino 
Veneto 
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 
Liguria 
Emilia-Romagna 
Tuscany 
Umbria 
Marche 
Lazio 
Abruzzi 
Molise 
Campania 
Apulia 
Basilicata 
Calabria 
Sicily 
Sardinia 
Multi-regional 956,74 
148,12 
31,71 
327,07 
1.749,70 
286,71 
-
-
-
" 
-
-
" 
40,02 
--
-
-
-
14,92 
423,29 
-
41,69 
21,34 
49,92 
12,32 
7,85 
12,10 
62,76 
14,26 
27,03 
-
-
-15,21 
35,72 
9,80 
8,69 
-
19,61 
-j 8,88 
-i 25,33 
15,85 
-1 16,92 
18,01 
27.36J 
38,45 
55,99 
17,00! 
107,87| 
"1 
1.369,631 
1.369,63 
1.555,41 149,97 
32,57 
-3,00 
11,50 
-
11,28 
12,00 
15,27 
-| 6,00 
20,18 
17,50 
-1 10,50 
-! 10,17 
76,48 
19,32 
89,8 
92,9 
52.4C 
78.2c 
74,0( 
86,9( ' 
985,28 -
-
-
-
158,75 
503,68 
-
-
-
-
" 
" 
-
-
" 
" 
-
-
-
-
--
-
" 
-
65,83 
47,70 
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-! 
-1 
-
- -
•i 
"1 
-
503,68 
-
-
100,23 
9,16 
0,93 
13,12 
3,95 
8,11 
4,00 
3,16 
13,82 
4,92 
2,29 
2,75 
9,15 
24,8c -
47,70 
-
" 
3031 
" 
-
-
-
-
" 
30,3 " 
-
-
-
80,25 
402,85 
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
--
-
-
-
9,97 
41,13 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-j 
-
-
-
402,85 
-
-
58,73 -
-
41,13 
-
11,20 
1 
-
-
58,7: -
-
-
Il,2C -
-
-
-
207,93 
-
0,54 
17,14 
-
2,06 
14,06 
2,50 
16,18 
11,79 
11,12 
5,63 
3.27 
S.33 
21.47 
19.19 
IS.15 
2S.57 
13.23 
5.83 
7.SI 
-
1.07 
-
-
53,50 
4.S9 
0,30 
2.39 
3,11 
S.65 
2.61 
2.09 
3.39 
7.90 
5.37 
4.4C 
S.33 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7 
-
-
7 
-
-
-
7 
" 4,93 
0,87 
0,00 
0,92 
102,40 
113,88 
2,37 
0,00 
1,51 
4,99 
0,98 
3,21 
1,96 
2,44 
3,51 
0,00 
2,29 
14,10 
2,02 
1,49 
5,14 
7,18 
1,82 
2,74 
2,14 
2,28 
6,01 
1,32 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
4,38 
39,99 
21,87 
21,87 
66,41 
0,00 
0,08 
0,00 
1,87 
0,00 
0,15 
0,00 
0,34 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
3,02 
0,00 
1,38 
3,02 
0,8C 
2,9S 
0,0C 
Ô761 
52,0: 961,67 
148,99 
31,71 
327,99 
2.181,82 
2.027,17 
2,37 
42,24 
39,99 
54,90 
15,36 
25,12 
16,56 
105,23 
33,95 
38,82 
28,62 
55,45 
15,09 
18,51 
26,61 
45,98 
28,86 
56,65 
31,21 
25,03 
31,83 
28,69 
38,45 
55,99 
17,00 
112,25 
1 036,41 
1.391,50 
1.391,50 
2.025,77 
46,62 
4,31 
27,02 
8,94 
28,05 
18,76 
20,52 
23,55 
33,00 
25,16 
17,72 
27,65 
79,50 
19,32 
91,19 
95,93 
53,26 
81,24 
74,06 
87,57 
1.162,40 
314 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 
Table 4: Regional breakdown of payments in 1994-95 (ctd.) 
ECU million 
Member State / 
Region Objective 
1 I 2 | 3 | 4 | 5(a) (agr.) | 5(a) (fish.) | 5b | 6 CI Total 
LUXEMBOURG 
Multi-regional 
NETHERLANDS 
North Netherlands 
East Netherlands 
West Netherlands 
South Netherlands 
Multi-regional 
AUSTRIA 
East Austria 
South Austria 
West Austria 
Multi-regional 
PORTUGAL 
North 
Centre 
Lisbon and the Tagus valley 
Alentejo 
Algarve 
Azores 
Madeira 
Multi-regional 
FINLAND 
Continental Finland 
Islands 
Multi-regional 
SWEDEN 
South Sweden 
West Sweden 
Central Norrland 
Upper Norrland 
Multi-regional 
UNITED KINGDOM 
North 
Yorkshire and Humberside 
East Midlands 
East Anglia 
South East 
South West 
West Midlands 
North East England 
North West 
Wales 
Scotland 
Northern Ireland 
Gibraltar 
Multi-regional 
COMMUNITY 
TOTAL -
-
19,63 
-
19,63 
-
-
-
14,40 
14,40 
-
-
3.263,42 
148,28 
88,34 
89,53 
43,78 3,99 
3,99 
52,51 
16,69 
18,24 
-
17,58 
21,42 
7,62 
5,56 
8,24 
-
-
-
-
-
18,78! 
181,16 
123,80 
2.569,75) 
-f 15,55 
"I 
"i 
-| 15,55 
- 38,06 
5,04 
-', 8,20 
-! 6,16 
18,66 
-! 
331.36J 518,85 
12,50 
-j 69,63 
18,40 
-; 
23,13 
14,50 
-j 78,06 
-| 86,33 
100,46 
40,65 79,82 
44,21 
89,78 
190,211 
1 2.5C 
-1 
17.721,101 1.877,84 5,59 
5,59 034 
0,34 
253,32 j 11,12 
"I 
1 
"1 
253,32) 11,12 
32,031 5,85 
i 
"! 
•! 
32,03! 5,85 
- -
-
"! 
"i 
"' 
1 
-! 
30,17! 7,42 
"! 
30,17! 7,42 
36,501 
-! 
-! 
36,50| 
818,57 j 
"; 
-; 
1 
-1 
-i 
-i 
-! 
-! 
818,57) 
-1 
2.407,651 188,68 5,37 
5,37 
12,15 
-
-
-
12,15 
30,75 
-
-
" 
30,75 
-0,17 
0,17 
6,21 
-
-
-
6,21 
0,20 
-
-
0,20 
-
' 
-! 
1 
-
-
-
--
" 
-
30,711 6,90 
Ï 
-
30,71 
6,86 
-
-
--
6,90 
12,00 
-
6,86 12,00 
41,73 11,82 
"i 
-1 
I 
-
-
-
-
•! 
41,73) 11,82 
-1 
914,931 149,28 0,42 
0,42 
12,56 
7,27 
1,64 
2,50 
1,15 
39,16 
10.59 
13,60 
14,97 
-
-
-
-
-
15,94 
15,24 
0,70 
-
69,45 
3,97 
4.56 
2Î.82 
S.09 
15,26 
11,66 
4,0? 
661.85 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
40,50 
40,50 
22,46 
-
22,46 
: 
: 
62,9« 0,62 
0,62 
23,99 
1,85 
1,11 
2,37 
0,00 
18,66 
21,04 
3,75 
0,00 
0,00 
17,29 
109,60 
0,00 
0,00 
4,61 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
104,98 
23,21 
0,00 
0,00 
23,21 
15,97 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
15,97 
127,52 
0,00 
2,18 
2,12 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
5,07 
11,73 
0,00 
18,11 
17,06 
18,19 
0,0C 
53,06 
244,31 
1.231,34 16,50 
16,50 
391,48 
25,81 
40,61 
4,87 
18,73 
301,46 
164,85 
36,36 
19,16 
23,21 
86,12 
3.373,01 
148,28, 
88,34 
94,14 
43,78 
18,78 
181,16 
123,80 
2.674,73 
170,39 
15,24 
0,70 
154,45 
131,85 
5,04 
8,20 
6,16 
18,66 
93,79 
1.919,31 
12,50 
71,82 
24,49 
4,56 
23,13 
36,32 
83,13 
106,15 
180,27 
77,58 
159,18 
208,40 
2,50 
929,28 
244,31 
25.215,63 
3/i^<> 
ANNEX VI: 
Major projects adopted in 1995 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 317 --hW 
Annex VI: Major projects adopted in 1995 
ECU million 
IRELAND 
Tallaght Hospital 
(Dublin) 
ITALY 
Gioia Tauro Port 
(Calabria) Obj. 
1 
1 Total 
cost 
131,24 
120,00 ERDF 
assistance 
(1) 
39,37 
40,00 National 
public 
contribution 
91,87 
0,00 Private 
contribution 
0,00 
80,00 Commitments 
1995 
(2) 
39,37 
40,00 % 
(2)/(l) 
100% 
100% Payments 
1995 
(3) 
31,50 
0,00 % 
(3V(2) 
80% 
0% 
Major projects within the meaning of Article 16(2) ofthe Coordination Regulation. 
3ci ^ào 
ANNEX VII: 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 321 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF Unancing by measure, theme, benefîciaries4 
Table 1: EUR15 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
74% 
6% 
5% 
15% 
100% % of total costs 
50% 
62% 
57% 
47% 
51% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
20.008,9 
820,0 
482,4 
5.403,5 
26.714,8 % 
75% 
3% 
2% 
20% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
19% 
20% 
11% 
3% 
10% 
19% 
2% 
12% 
0% 
3% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
13,9 
14,5 
7,3 
1,9 
8,9 
11,7 
0,7 
11,5 
1,7 
1,3 
73,4 % 
19% 
20% 
10% 
3% 
12% 
16% 
1% 
16% 
2% 
2% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
322 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, benefîciaries' 
Table 2: Belgium 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
80% 
4% 
6% 
9% 
100% % of total costs 
38% 
35% 
44% 
43% 
39% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
371,5 
23,6 
11,4 
23,2 
429,7 % 
86% 
5% 
3% 
5% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
24% 
14% 
20% 
4% 
10% 
8% 
5% 
9% 
0% 
7% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
16,1 
8,2 
4,8 
1,0 
5,2 
4,0 
1,3 
1,8 
0,0 
1,1 
43,5 % 
37% 
19% 
11% 
2% 
12% 
9% 
3% 
4% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 323 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' 
Table 3: Denmark 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
93% 
3% 
4% 
0% 
100% % of total costs 
47% 
50% 
49% 
0% 
47% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
56,5 
1,4 
0,4 
0,0 
58,4 % 
97% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
41% 
17% 
19% 
1% 
10% 
7% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
4,4 
2,1 
2,0 
0,1 
U 
1,6 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
0,1 
11,5 % 
38% 
18% 
17% 
1% 
10% 
14% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
324 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries4 
Table 4: Germany 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
%. 
79% 
1% 
5% 
15% 
100% % of total costs 
48% 
52% 
58% 
58% 
50% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
1.214,1 
9,3 
0,0 
275,0 
1.498,5 % 
81% 
1% 
0% 
18% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
16% 
16% 
6% 
6% 
2% 
43% 
2% 
3% 
0% 
4% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3 a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
3,2 
2,3 
1,2 
1,4 
1,3 
8,1 
0,3 
0,7 
0,0 
0,0 
18,5 % 
17% 
12% 
6% 
8% 
7% 
44% 
2% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 325 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries* 
Table 5: Greece 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
79% 
0% 
2% 
19% 
100% % of total costs 
66% 
0% 
76% 
74% 
68%. Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
1.050,3 
0,0 
3,0 
98,1 
1.151,4 % 
91% 
0% 
0% 
9% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
4% 
3% 
10% 
2% 
15% 
8% 
1% 
54% 
2% 
0% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/M ultipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
4,9 
4,6 
11,7 
2,5 
27,3 
8,1 
0,4 
31,7 
19,2 
0,3 
110,7 % 
4% 
4% 
11% 
2% 
25% 
7% 
0% 
29% 
17% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
326 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries* 
Table 6: Spain 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
67% 
21% 
6% 
6% 
100% % of total costs 
61% 
69% 
64% 
62% 
63% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
6.630,6 
496,4 
433,8 
213,9 
7.774,8 % 
85% 
6% 
6% 
3% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting eoual opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
26% 
24% 
10% 
3% 
10% 
9% 
3% 
15% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
29,0 
28,0 
10,8 
5,1 
38,5 
. 22,1 
3,8 
58,2 
2,7 
11,1 
209,3 % 
14% 
13% 
5% 
2% 
18% 
11% 
2% 
28% 
1% 
5% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) ill 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 
Table 7: France 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
36% 
0% 
5% 
58% 
100% % of total costs 
33% 
0% 
52% 
43% 
39% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
2.264,3 
0,0 
0.2 
4.155,1 
6.419,6 % 
35% 
0% 
0% 
65% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
15% 
25% 
18% 
1% 
20% 
14% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
7% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
27,3 
42,9 
16,8 
0,8 
8,9 
14,0 
0,1 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
111,0 % 
25% 
39% 
15% 
1% 
8% 
13% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
328 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' 
Table 8: Ireland 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
89% 
1% 
1% 
9% 
100% % of total costs 
44% 
75% 
80% 
63% 
46% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
897,6 
3,7 
0,0 
95,1 
996,4 % 
90% 
0% 
0% 
10% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
12% 
44% 
22% 
1% 
4% 
13% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
22,8 
74,0 
82,5 
10,7 
43,5 
45,0 
0,0 
4,2 
0,0 
0,0 
282,7 % 
8% 
26% 
29% 
4% 
15% 
16% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 329 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 
Table 9: Italy 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
90% 
0% 
6% 
3% 
100% % of total costs 
57% 
0% 
51% 
61% 
56% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
1.856,4 
0,0 
5,9 
37,3 
1.899,6 % 
98% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
19% 
27% 
8% 
5% 
11% 
11% 
5% 
7% 
2% 
6% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
7,8 
8,2 
1,4 
1,1 
2,4 
3,7 
0,7 
5,6 
2,4 
0,1 
33,4 % 
23% 
25% 
4% 
3% 
7% 
11% 
2% 
17% 
7% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
330 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 
Table 10: Luxemburg 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
82% 
12% 
5% 
0% 
100% % of total costs 
45% 
45% 
45% 
45% 
45% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
8,6 
1,4 
0,0 
0,0 
10,0 % 
86% 
14% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
22% 
12% 
40% 
5% 
4% 
8% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
4% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
2,9 
2,7 
3,6 
2,5 
3,6 
9,5 
0,0 
1,2 
0,0 
0,0 
26,0 % 
11% 
10% 
14% 
10% 
14% 
37% 
0% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 331 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 
Table 11: Netherlands 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
"A, 
62% 
0% 
5% 
33% 
100% % of total costs 
41% 
45% 
46% 
42% 
42% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
292,7 
1,0 
0,0 
66,9 
360,6 % 
81% 
0% 
0% 
19% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of perçons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
42% 
27% 
3% 
1% 
17% 
10% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
10,9 
0,1 
0,3 
0,1 
8,1 
4,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
23,5 % 
46% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
34% 
17% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
332 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, benefîciaries" 
Table 12: Austria 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
%. 
63% 
13% 
5% 
18% 
100% % of total costs 
41% 
44% 
48% 
42% 
42% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
128,7 
17,2 
0,0 
12,7 
158,7 % 
81% 
11% 
0% 
8% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
20% 
4% 
17% 
11% 
17% 
23% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
3,9 
0,9 
1,5 
1,4 
7,1 
4,9 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
20,0 % 
20% 
5% 
8% 
7% 
36% 
25% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 333 
Annex VTI: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' 
Table 13: Portugal 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
82% 
4% 
3% 
11% 
100% % of total costs 
74% 
74% 
76% 
75% 
74% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
1.917,1 
60,0 
0,3 
362,8 
2.340,2 %. 
82% 
3% 
0% 
16% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
14% 
9% 
7% 
0% 
2% 
15% 
5% 
46% 
1% 
1% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
35,7 
7,8 
10,6 
0,0 
2,7 
34,7 
0,5 
125,0 
20,8 
0,0 
237,8 % 
15% 
3% 
4% 
0% 
1% 
15% 
0% 
53% 
9% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
334 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries* 
Table 14: Finland 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
56% 
6% 
2% 
36% 
100% % of total costs 
31% 
48% 
49% 
31% 
31% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
132,7 
4,9 
0,0 
63,0 
200,6 % 
66% 
2% 
0% 
31% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
33% 
19% 
5% 
1% 
22% 
12% 
3% 
4% 
0% 
1% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability "" 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
11,4 
10,4 
1,2 
0,4 
64,6 
5,7 
1,4 
0,9 
0,0 
0,0 
96,0 % 
12% 
11% 
1% 
0% 
67% 
6% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 335 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' 
Table 15: Sweden 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
93% 
0% 
7% 
0% 
100% % of total costs 
37% 
0% 
50% 
0% 
37% Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
281,3 
0,0 
3,5 
0,0 
284,7 % 
99% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total %. 
26% 
16% 
12% 
1% 
27% 
7% 
6% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
9,0 
5,2 
3,4 
0,1 
60,5 
1,6 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,4 
80,5 %. 
11% 
6% 
4% 
0% 
75% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
336 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 
Table 16: United Kingdom 
Distribution of ESF financing by measure 
Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total ESF Finance 
% 
89% 
5% 
3% 
2% 
100% % of total costs 
41% 
43% 
51% 
71% 
42%, Beneficiaries 
1000 pers 
2.906,5 
200,9 
23,7 
0,5 
3.131,6 % 
93% 
6% 
1% 
0% 
100% 
Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total % 
16% 
14% 
15% 
4% 
9% 
38% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
100% 
Beneficiaries per 1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 
b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 
2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 
b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 
4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 
b. Training of public officials 
Technical assistance/Multipurpose 
Total Bfc/1000 pers 
12,4 
9,5 
8,7 
3,0 
2,8 
17,1 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,4 
54,1 % 
23% 
18% 
16% 
6% 
5% 
32% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
100% 
Situation mid 1996. 
32?.^ 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 
7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 339 
ADAPT 
AFETT 
CAP 
CEEP 
CES 
CI 
CIP 
CSF 
EAGGF 
ECOS-OUVERTURE 
ECSC 
EFTA 
EIB 
EIF 
EMPLOYMENT 
ENVIREG 
ERDF 
ESDP 
ESF 
EUROCHAMBRES 
EUROFORM 
EUROPARTENARIAT 
FIFG 
Forcem 
GG 
HORIZON 
INTERREG 
ISDN 
KONVER 
LEADER 
NOW 
OP 
PACTE 
PEACE 
PERIFRA 
PESCA 
PHARE 
PRISMA 
RECHAR 
RECITE 
REGEN Community Initiative for the adaptation of workers to industrial change 
Association for European training of workers in new technologies 
Common agricultural policy 
Centre européen de l'entreprise publique (European Centre for Public 
Enterprise) 
European confederation of trade unions 
Community Initiative 
Community Initiative programme 
Community support framework 
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
Cooperation network with central and eastern European cities 
European Coal and Steel Community 
European Free Trade Association 
European Investment Bank 
European Investment Fund 
Community Initiative for the development of human resources 
Community Initiative for the environment 
European Regional Development Fund 
European Spatial Development Perspective 
European Social Fund 
Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry 
Community Initiative to develop new qualifications 
Events to promote contacts between businesses in regions eligible under the 
Structural Funds and businesses elsewhere in the Community and/or non-
member countries 
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance 
Foundation for continuing training (Spain) 
Global grant 
Community Initiative for the occupational integration of handicapped and 
disadvantaged persons 
Community Initiative for the promotion of cross-border and inter-regional 
cooperation 
Integrated Services Digital Network 
Community Initiative for the conversion of regions dependent on the defence 
sector 
Community Initiative for rural development projects 
Community Initiative for the occupational integration of women 
Operational programme 
Programme for sharing of experience among local and regional authorities of 
Europe 
Community Initiative for reconciliation and peace in Northern Ireland and in 
the border counties of Ireland 
Action programme for the remoter regions and declining activities 
Community Initiative for the fishing industry 
Programme of aid for the economic conversion of central and eastern European 
countries 
Community Initiative to prepare for the single market 
Community Initiative for the conversion of coal-mining areas 
Programme to create networks among the regions and cities of Europe 
Community Initiative for energy networks 
340. *>4 1 7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 
REGIS 
RESIDER 
RETEX 
RTD 
SME 
SME(s) 
SPD 
STRIDE 
TELEMATIQUE 
TEN(s) 
UCLAF 
UNICE-CONPRI 
URBAN 
YOUTHSTART Community Initiative for the most remote regions 
Community Initiative for the conversion of steel-making areas 
Community Initiative for the diversification of economic activities in regions 
heavily dependent on the textiles and clothing industry 
Research and technological development 
Community Initiative for the adjustment of SMEs to the Single Market 
Small and medium-sized firm(s) 
Single programming document 
Community Initiative on science and technology for regional innovation and 
development 
Community Initiative to promote the use of advanced telecommunications 
services in the least-favoured regions 
Trans-European network(s) 
Unité de coordination de la lutte anti-fraude (anti-fraud unit at the 
Commission) 
Union des industries de la Communauté européenne - employers' federation for 
industrial relations 
Community Initiative to assist declining urban areas 
Community Initiative for the occupational integration of young people 
<#a 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(96) 502 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 13 03 05 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-557-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-10829-4 
Office for Official Publications ofthe European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg