*1Î**§ÉW«§P 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 01.07.1998 
COM(1998)417 final 
SIXTH SURVEY ON STATE AID IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 
IN THE MANUFACTURING AND CERTAIN OTHER SECTORS 
(presented by the Commission) 

CONTENTS 
INTRODUCTION 1 
Background 1 
Conceptual remarks 3 
PART I - AID TO THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR 6 
Volume and trend of aid 6 
Community totals 6 
Comparisons between Member States 8 
Aid to shipbuilding 12 
Aid to steel industry 14 
Aid to the motor vehicle industry 14 
Types of aid instruments 16 
Objectives of aid 19 
State aid given on an ad-hoc basis 26 
German State aid to the new Lander 28 
PART II - OVERALL NATIONAL AID IN THE MEMBER STATES 30 
Aid to sectors other than the manufacturing sector 30 
Aid to agriculture 30 
Aid to fisheries 33 
Aid to services 35 
Aid to the financial services sector 35 
Aid to the air transport sector 35 
Aid to railway transport 36 
Aid to coal mining 38 
Volume of overall aid in the Community 40 
Budgetary impact of aids 43 
RESULTS 45 
CONCLUSIONS 48 
ANNEX I: TECHNICAL ANNEX 52 
ANNEX II: STATISTICAL ANNEX 65 
ANNEX III: COMMUNITY FUNDS AND INSTRUMENTS 85 
TABLES AND FIGURES 
Table 1 State aid to the manufacturing sector in the Community 
- annual values in constant prices (1995) 6 
Table 2 State aid to the manufacturing sector in the Community 
- annual values 1992 to 1996 7 
Table 3 State aid to the manufacturing sector in the Community 
- annual averages 1992-1994 and 1994-1996 9 
Table 4 Aid to shipbuilding in 1994-1996 in percent of contract values of ships 13 
Table 5 Shipbuilding development aid as decided upon by EC 14 
Table 6 State aid approved to the motor vehicle sector in the years 1992-1996 1 5 
Table 7 State aid to the manufacturing sector 1994-1996 - breakdown according to 
type of aid 16 
Table 8 State aid to the manufacturing sector 1994-1996 - breakdown according to 
sector and function 24 
Table 9 State aid to the manufacturing sector 1992-1994 and 1994-1996 
- breakdown to main objectives 25 
Table 10 State aid on an ad-hoc basis and Treuhand aid awarded in the manufacturing, 
financial services and air transport sectors in the Member States in the years 
1992 to 1996 27 
Table 11 State aid on an ad-hoc basis awarded in the manufacturing, financial services 
and air transport sectors in the Member States - annual averages 1992-1994 
and 1994-1996 27 
Table 12 
Table 13 
Table 14 
Table 15 
Table 16 
Table 17 
Table 18 
Table 19 National aid in respect of products listed in Annex II of the EEC Treaty. 
State aid to fisheries in per cent of gross valued added in this sector 
Community interventions in the fisheries sector 
State aid to transport (Railways) 
State aid to coal industry 
Overall national aid in the Member States 
Overall national aid in the Member States in per cent of GDP 
Overall national aid in the Member States broken into main sectors 32 
34 
34 
37 
38 
41 
42 
44 
STATISTICAL ANNEX 
Table A1 State aid to the manufacturing sector in current prices 1992-1996 
(National currency) 
Table A2 State aid to the manufacturing sector in current prices 1992-1996 (ECU 
Table A3 German State aid to the new Lander - yearly average 1994-1996 
Table A4 Total State aid - annual average 1994-1996 by Member State 
Table A Annual Community Expenditure 
Table B Other Community Instruments 
Table C1 Community Average Annual Expenditure by Member State 
Table C2 Community Average Annual Expenditure by Member State 66 
67 
68 
70 
95 
96 
97 
98 
FIGURES 
Figure 1 State aid to the manufacturing sector as percentage of value added 
Figure 2 State aid to the manufacturing sector: Distribution by tax and budgetary 
expenditure 
Figure A1 Aid to the manufacturing sector and Community Funds per employee 10 
18 
69 
m 
INTRODUCTION 
Background 
1. The need for an effective method of systematic quantification of State aid 
for the purposes of competition policy was fully perceived in 1985, the year 
which saw the publication of the Commission White Paper on completing 
the internal market. At the end of that year the Commission instructed its 
departments to compile and publish a fact-based analytical survey on the 
granting of State aid in the Member States of the Community. 
Since the First Survey, covering 1981-86, concluded that transparency in 
the field of State aid had to be increased, it was decided that updating 
should be carried out, and this was done in the Second, Third, Fourth and 
Fifth Surveys, covering the periods 1987-88, 1988-90, 1990-92 and 1992-
94 respectively1. 
2. The Sixth Survey updates the existing data and covers the period up to and 
including 1996. It thus covers for the first time the new Member States 
Finland, Sweden and Austria and provides information on the then prevailing 
structure of state support to companies in the fifteen Member States of the 
Union. 
3. The publication of this Sixth Survey underlines the commitment of the 
Commission to maintain an open policy on the control of State aid. This 
emphasis on transparency is increasingly important given the environment 
in which the Commission currently operates, both within the Union itself, 
and in the wider international context. 
The completion of the internal market and the approaching economic and 
monetary union require an increasingly effective control of State aid since 
such aid can be used to replace barriers to trade that have been 
dismantled in the integration process. 
References: COM (88) 945 
COM (90) 1021 
COM (92) 1116 
COM (95) 365 
COM (97) 170 
Member States will willingly contribute to the completion and future proper 
functioning of the internal market only if they are certain that all other 
Member States abide by the same rules when subsidising their firms. 
Compiling and publishing data on the aid amounts awarded is one, and not 
the least means by which the Commission demonstrates to the Member 
States that it is constantly keeping a close watch on public interventions, 
both on their overall development and the development in each of the 
Member States. This in turn will allow it to adjust its policies where required 
in order to execute a fair and efficient State aid control, and to adapt to a 
changing economic environment. 
4. Looking at the international context, this decade has witnessed the 
conclusion of the Europe Agreements with the Central and East European 
Countries (CEECs), and subsequently the opening of membership 
negotiations. The burdens of the past of these countries in transition are 
particularly heavy requiring considerable public support in some areas. This 
urgently calls for increased transparency in the field of State aid in these 
countries. Through the publication of its own Surveys on State aid the 
Commission and indeed the whole European Union give a concrete 
example to these countries of the level of transparency that is expected of 
modern, competitive market economies. This will facilitate fulfilling the 
reporting obligation of the CEECs as laid down in the Europe Agreements. 
The first surveys submitted by a number of the CEECs seem to confirm 
this, demonstrating as they do a reasonable level of sophistication which, 
with further development, should in the near future provide a basis for 
meaningful comparisons as far as the granting of State aid in the 
Community and the CEECs is concerned. 
Equally important, in the context of the World Trade Organisation the 
Survey provides an example of what we should expect from our trading 
partners in terms of transparency. In this respect it complements the 
notification to the WTO of Community and Member States subsidies 
pursuant to Article 25 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures. In a similar fashion the Survey furthermore 
provides an example to our partners in the OECD. 
Conceptual remarks 
5. This Sixth Survey on State Aid covers the period 1994-1996, updating the 
Fifth Survey (published in 1997) which covered the period 1992-1994. 
Included in the Survey is national aid given in the Community of fifteen 
Member States to the sectors: manufacturing, agriculture, fisheries, 
transport - railways and aviation -, financial services and energy (coal), 
Compared with the previous Survey, more detailed information on state aid 
in certain sectors, has been provided. General explanations of the 
methodology used are given in the Technical Annex (Annex I). The 
Statistical Annex (Annex II) contains basic statistical data on aid to the 
manufacturing sector and on overall aid. An overview of Community Funds 
and Instruments is given in Annex III. 
6. When comparing the different Member States, the analysis of the aid 
figures concentrates on the annual averages over the three-year-period 
1994-1996. Where appropriate, the figures for the period 1992-1994 are 
given by way of comparison. As explained in the Technical Annex (Annex 
I), for the three new Member States, who have only been members for the 
years 1995 and 1996, the annual average of these two years is used. 
As in the preceding surveys, the periods compared overlap by one year. 
For comparisons between Member States, the use of overlapping three-
year averages is the only way of arriving at conclusions supported by 
sufficiently reliable statistics. This is because for some of the figures, 
amounts are at present only known over longer than one-year periods. In 
such cases, the amounts have to be arbitrarily assigned to individual years. 
Secondly, the amounts for the last year reported on (1996) are to a non-
negligible extent provisional and, as was already the case for the last year 
of the period reviewed by the previous Survey (1994), will certainly be 
modified by the Member States in future. The resulting provisional nature of 
the data on the last year of the period under review, particularly when 
broken down for Member States is statistically straightened out by using 
overlapping three-year averages. In order to make the averages for the 
previous period comparable with those of 1994-1996, 1992-1994 figures 
are expressed in 1995 prices2. Throughout the Survey, therefore, figures 
are given in real terms.3 
7. For the first time aid given within the air transport and financial services 
sectors, has been highlighted, whereas in the previous surveys the little aid 
given to these two sectors was contained in the category of the 
manufacturing sector. Therefore, comparisons of the development of 
overall levels of aid between this and previous surveys should be based on 
the manufacturing sector aid figures of the past and the manufacturing 
sector plus aviation and financial services totals. 
8. Commission departments in co-operation with the Member States drew up 
the figures for 1995 and 1996. Together with the existing figures for 1992-
1994 (for the then EUR 12) they were verified by the Member States and, if 
necessary, modified. This procedure ensures that a relatively high degree 
of reliance can be placed in the data4. 
As far as Greece is concerned, the Commission, when establishing the 
Greek figures for previous reports, used as a reference a study on Greek 
State aid and spending undertaken by a consultant. This study then served 
as a basis for the Commission departments' estimates and extrapolations. 
The improved contribution received from the Greek authorities is to be 
welcomed and has permitted improvement of the Greek data. However, as 
a comprehensive contribution from the Greek authorities has not been 
received to date the figures still comprise a non-negligible proportion of 
estimates, and therefore the results for Greece should be treated with 
caution. 
As far as Ireland is concerned, the considerable step decrease in the 
overall level of aid to the manufacturing sector, when compared with 
For this reason, and because of the - in some cases considerable - modifications by the Member 
States of the 1994 figures mentioned above, figures for 1992-1994 are not the same as those 
published in the Fifth Survey. 
Figures for aid to manufacturing at current exchange rates are given in the Statistical Annex (Annex 
ID-
Certain figures for 1994-1996 were modified particularly in the case of; Belgium where there was a 
marked improvement in data quality; Greece where there was also an improvement in the reliability 
of data; France, where data on aviation and banking aid are presented in part ii of the survey; 
Ireland, where co-financing figures were removed (see p.4-5); and Portugal, where data on aid to 
aviation are also presented in part ii As a consequence, figures in this survey are not directly 
comparable with those in the previous survey. 
4 
previous surveys, is due to the fact that in the previous reports the figures 
provided by the Irish authorities contained figures on Community 
expenditure. As the Irish authorities had to resort to estimations in order to 
delimit national expenditure from Community expenditure, the results for 
Ireland should be also treated with caution. 
PART I - AID TO THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR 
Volume and trend of aid 
9. In the Community the industrial sector is granted more aid than any of the 
other sectors covered by this Survey; in fact, during the period 1994-1996 
as much as 46% of overall aid went to this sector. The analysis of aid in this 
sector of the economy is, therefore, the centrepiece of this Survey. 
Community totals 
10. Table 1 shows the annual amounts of aid to the manufacturing sector in the 
Community in the years 1992 to 1996. 
Table 1 
State aid to the manufacturing sector in the Community 1992-1996 
Annual values in constant prices (1995). 
Million ECU 
EUR 15 
EUR 12 1992 
39062 1993 
44057 1994 
41198 1995 
38591 
37386 1996 
35163 
34106 
The figures in Table 1 lead to the conclusion that the aid granted in EUR 12 
has returned to the downward trend observed in the past. The findings of 
the previous (Fifth) survey, which indicated a halt to this, would thus appear 
to have been an exception to the general tendency. Aid for the 
manufacturing sector alone in the EUR 12 in 1994-96 is situated around an 
annual average of some 37,5 billion. For the EUR 15 the corresponding 
figure is 38,3 billion. 
11. Absolute values, even if aggregated at Community level, are of only limited 
use for reflecting trends in national aid policies over time. Therefore, Table 
2 shows aid to the manufacturing sector as a percentage of value added, 
per person employed in this sector, and in percent of intra-Community 
exports of manufactured goods.5 
Table 2 
State aid to the manufacturing sector in the Community 
Annual values 1992 to 1996 
EUR 12/15 
In per cent of 
value added 
In ECU per 
person employed 
In per cent of 
intra-community 
trade* 1992 
3,2 
1206 
5,7 1993 
3,8 
1436 
7,0 1994 
3,4 
1374 
5,7 1995 
2,9 
1217 
4,8 1996 
2,7 
1123 
4,4 
at constant 1995 prices 
* intra-Community trade of industrial products 
Aid levels relative to value added fluctuate slightly above 3% for the EUR 
12 between 1992-94, and dropped below 3% for the EUR 15 in 1995-96. 
The amount of aid per person employed in the manufacturing sector for the 
EUR 12 varies between ECU 1206 in 1992 and ECU 1436 in 1993. For the 
EUR 15 it drops from ECU 1217 in 1995 to ECU 1123 in 1996. Aid relative 
to the value of intra-Community trade6 of manufactured goods - this ratio 
can be seen as a good indicator for the potential distortion of competition in 
the Community - peaks in 1993 for the EUR 12 at 7%, falling to 4,4% for 
the EUR 15 in 1996. 
Since a small but not exactly quantifiable part of the aid amounts has to be attributed to the 
service sector (tourism, consultancy), the figures shown may be slightly overestimated. 
The big step-level decrease in the indicator relating aid to intra-community trade when 
compared with the previous surveys can be explained by a change in the base used for 
calculating the absolute level of intra-community trade (see Technical Annex). 
7 
The generally lower figures for the EUR 15 in the years 1995 and 1996, 
compared with the EUR 12 figures for 1992-1994, not only reflect the 
decrease in the overall trend of aid levels in the Community, but also the 
generally lower levels of aid prevailing in the three new Member States with 
respect to the EUR 12 average. 
12. From Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen that the absolute aid amounts and the 
three indicators used to mirror the tendency of aid to the manufacturing 
sector at Community (EUR 12) level largely coincide: they indicate a return 
to the downward trend observed in the past, which was only momentarily 
halted as shown by the findings of the previous survey. 
Comparisons between Member States 
13. Table 3 compares the average aid levels in the manufacturing sector for the 
different Member States7 for the periods 1992-1994 and 1994-19968, 
expressed in per cent of gross value added and aid amounts per person 
employed in this sector. In addition, real term absolute amounts of aid are 
given for information. 
Germany has been divided into the old and new Lander in order to show clearly the different 
development in the two German areas, marked by the unprecedented adjustment process of the new 
Lander economy to a market system. 
As explained in point 6 above, detailed breakdowns by Member States can only be compared 
reliably if overlapping three-year averages are used. For an explanation of the methodology used for 
establishing the annual averages over the three-year-period 1994-1996 for the three new Member 
States, who have only been members for the years 1995 and 1996, turn to the Technical Annex 
(Annex I). 
8 
Table 3 
State aid to the manufacturing sector in the Community9 
Annual averages 1992 -1994 and 1994 -1996 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
-Old Under 
-New Lander 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12 
EUR 15 In per cent of value 
added 
1992-1994 
-
2,5 
2,5 
4,4 
6,5 
1,8 
-
2,4 
1.7 
6,4 
2,6 
1,5 
2,5 
-
0,9 
3,5 1994-1996 
1,3 
3,0 
2,9 
3,8 
: 
i 
6,3 
2,7 
1,6 
1,8 
1,5 
5,8 
2,3 
1,4 
1,9 
0,8 
0,9 
3,0 In ECU per person 
employed 
1992-1994 
-
1310 
1120 
2091 
527 
10816 
987 
512 
-
1174 
818 
2205 
1555 
760 
443 
-
245 
1339 1994-1996 
626 
1678 
1383 
1888 
455 
8216 
863 
837 
911 
927 
838 
2151 
1375 
788 
371 
406 
263 
1238 In million ECU 
1992 -1994 
-
920 
539 
19851 
4312 
15539 
722 
1311 
-
4931 
198 
10320 
55 
694 
467 
-
1431 
41439 1994-1996 
448 
1149 
671 
16639 
3192 
13447 
662 
2101 
365 
3740 
215 
9760 
46 
686 
382 
318 
1513 
37563 
38318 
Averages in 1995 prices 
The figures for 1994-1996 in Table 1 do not correspond with the average presented in Table 3, 
because the totals in Table 1 do not contain figures for the three new Member States for the year 
1994. The 1994-1996 annual average obtained from Table 1 would therefore be somewhat lower 
than that shown in Table 3, which has been obtained by calculating the annual average of those 
years for which data is available and using this average for the whole period. 
9 
Figure 1 
State aid to the manufacturing sector 
As percentage of value added (averages 1992 -1994 and 1994 -1996) 
AU* B DK D GR E FIN* F IRL I L NL P 
• 1992 -1994 B1994-1996 
' during the period 1992-1994, these countries were not yet members of the EU UK EUR 
15 
The highest levels of aid to the manufacturing sector are to be found in 
Greece and Italy. These countries rank high above Community average. As 
noted above, the continuing uncertainty attached to the figures for Greece 
does not yet allow any further detailed comment. 
Germany is also above the Community average with Belgium on 
Community average, while Denmark and Spain are slightly below. 
The lowest aid to the manufacturing sector is given, in declining order, in 
Austria, the United Kingdom and Sweden. In all these countries aid is far 
below the Community average. Due to lack of statistics, aid in per cent of 
10 
value added for the two distinct parts of reunified Germany could not be 
calculated. 
14. Aid per person employed in Italy is the highest of all Member States, 
followed by Germany. The extremely high figure for the new German 
Lander is due both to the high amounts of aid granted and a sharp decline 
in the number of employees in this part of Germany. The decrease as 
compared with the previous reporting period reflects that the peak of the 
restructuring process following German reunification in 1990 was already 
reached during the previous review period. At the same time, aid per 
person employed in the old Lander has continued to decline and is among 
the lowest in the Community. Belgium, Denmark and Luxembourg are 
above the Community average. The group of low aid givers now comprises, 
in descending order, Sweden, Portugal and the United Kingdom. 
15. As a general conclusion on the differences in aid trends between Member 
States, it can be established that significant differences between the 
individual countries remain. 
A comparison of the four big economies shows that in Italy aid to the 
manufacturing sector as a percentage of value added is more than 6 times 
higher than in the United Kingdom, 3 times higher than in France, and 1,5 
times higher than in Germany. The observed disparity between these 
Member States can be partly explained by their differing views on the use 
of the State aid instruments. 
When considering the overall differences in the Community under the 
aspect of cohesion, the trend now appears to be slightly more promising 
than the one identified in the previous survey where a direct comparison 
between the four large Member States and the four cohesion countries -
Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Greece - revealed that the relative importance 
of state support to the manufacturing sector was rising in the larger 
Member States at the expense of the cohesion countries. Table 3 shows 
that the volume of aid in the four cohesion countries has increased from 6,5 
to 8,8% of total aid to the manufacturing sector in the Community of EUR 
12 whilst the share of the four big economies of this aid, having been at 
around 88% in the period 1992-1994, has decreased to around 83% in 
1994-1996. In this context it should also be noted that in addition to 
National State aid, the manufacturing sector benefits from 
11 
Community interventions via the Structural Funds (see Annex II, Figure 
A1). In relative terms, the largest beneficiaries from this expenditure are the 
four cohesion countries, which see their relative aid position improved to a 
level which better reflects their weaker socio-economic situation. The 
effectiveness of these Community instruments, however, depends crucially 
on their not being outweighed by an unbalanced development in the use of 
state aid measures. 
16. It is evident from Table 3 that behind the decrease in the figures on overall 
aid to the manufacturing sector in the EUR 12 lies the considerable 
decrease in aid expenditure in Germany, both in the new and old Lander. 
This decrease is to some extent offset by an increase in aid to 5 countries 
Aid to shipbuilding 
17. In shipbuilding, a sub-sector of the manufacturing sector, the granting of aid 
is governed during the reporting period by the Seventh Shipbuilding 
Directive10, which applied from the 01/01/1991. 
Table 4 shows contract related operating aid covering new constructions, 
conversions and fishing vessels, and thus reflects the aid intensities for 
which the Commission sets ceilings when implementing the shipbuilding 
directive. The aid ceilings under the prevailing Directive are 4,5% of 
contract value both for ships with a contract value of less than ECU 10 
million and for conversions, and 9,0% of contract value for ships with a 
contract value of more than ECU 10 million. 
In addition to operating aid, the shipbuilding sector can receive aid for 
restructuring. During the period under review restructuring aid totalling 
about ECU 1080 million has been given in Spain, Belgium and Portugal. In 
the new German Lander aid for restructuring between 1994 and 1996 adds 
up to about ECU 890 million. 
When relating total aid given in the shipbuilding sector to the sector's value 
added the conclusion can be drawn that this is a heavily supported sector. 
As was seen earlier from Table 3, aid for the manufacturing sector amounts 
to 3,5% of the sector's value added; for the sub-sector of shipbuilding aid 
covers some 25% of the sector's value added. 
10 OJL 380 of 31.12.1990. 
12 
The Community average for aid to the shipbuilding industry strongly 
declined from 34% of value added for 1988-1990 to 24% for 1990-1992, 
thereafter stabilising around 25% for 1992-1994 and 1994-1996. 
Table 4 
Aid to shipbuilding in 1994-1996 in per cent of contract values of ships 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
France 
Finland 
Spain 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12/15 1994 
Small 
Ships* 
0 
4,31 
4,12 
4,3 
0 
0 
4,5 
-
0 
4,5 
0 
3,3 
0 
0 
4,8 
-Large 
Ships* 
0 
0 
8,4 
6,1 
9,0 
0 
8,8 
-
0 
9,0 
0 
3,7 
8,8 
0 
0,7 
-Total 
0 
4,31 
8,0 
5,9 
9,0 
0 
8,4 
-
0 
8,5 
0 
3,6 
8,8 
0 
1,6 
-1995 
Small 
Ships 
0 
0 
4,2 
4,0 
0,0 
0 
4,3 
-
0 
4,5 
0 
2,9 
0 
0 
4,3 
-Large 
Ships 
0 
0 
8,3 
6,5 
9,0 
0 
8,1 . 
-
0 
9,0 
0 
3,3 
0 
0 
8,6 
-Total 
0 
0 
8,2 
6,5 
9,0 
0 
7,8 
-
0 
8,8 
0 
3,2 
0 
0 
8,2 
-1996 
Small 
Ships 
0 
0 
4,5 
4,5 
0,0 
0 
4,3 
-
0 
4,5 
0 
3,1 
0 
0 
4,3 
-Large 
Ships 
0 
0 
9,0 
6,7 
9,0 
0 
8,0 
-
0 
9,0 
0 
4,8 
0 
0 
6,0 
-Total 
0 
0 
8,9 
6,6 
9,0 
0 
7,4 
-
0 
8,7 
0 
3,2 
0 
0 
6,0 
-
k Small ships are those with a contract value of less than ECU 10 million. For these the 
maximum aid intensity allowed by the 7th Shipbuilding Directive is 4,5 % of contract 
value. 
**Large ships are those with a contract value of more than ECU 10 million. For these the 
maximum aid intensity allowed by the 7th Shipbuilding Directive is 9,0 % of contract 
value. 
- Note that a dash indicates missing information, whereas a zero indicates no aid. 
State aid granted to European shipyards for the construction of ships for 
developing countries rose from a yearly average of 76 MECU during the 
13 
period 1992 - 1994 to 203 MECU in 1994 - 1996. The distribution by 
country is given below. 
Table 5 
Shipbuilding development aid 
Germany 
Spain 
Netherlands 
France 
Total 1992 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 - as decided 
1993 
21,6 
19,4 
0 
0 
41 upon by EC 
1994 
185,96 
0 
0 
0 
185,96 1995 
108,82 
55,98 
34,18 
39,19 
238,17 Million ECU 
1996 
103,44 
33,14 
48,89 
0 
185,47 
in current ECU 
Aid to steel industry 
18. In the other sub-sector of the manufacturing sector, steel, the granting of 
aid in the period under review was regulated under the fifth Steel Aids 
Code of 1991. After aid had been virtually phased out by the end of 1992, 
1994-96 saw the formal adoption by the Commission of decisions under 
Article 95 ECSC Treaty concerning the restructuring of steel companies in 
the new German Lander, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, and Austria. 
Together these aids amounted to an annual average of around ECU 1500 
million in 1994-96. This amount does not comprise aid granted in this 
sector for other objectives such as R&D, regional development and 
environmental protection. 
Aid to the motor vehicle industry 
19. Whilst there are no aid schemes in the EU that are specific to this sub-
sector, State aid granted to the motor vehicle sector, mainly by way of 
regional and rescue and restructuring aid, is for the first time also the 
subject of analysis in this survey. 
It is quite difficult at present to draw any conclusions as regards the general 
trend because of the very small number of cases (for example, in Italy in 
1992 when one case amounted to 2928 MECU). The main conclusion is 
14 
that given the existance of a specific framework, the award of aid by 
Member States remains within limits. 
Table 6 
State aid approved to the motor vehicle sector in the years 1992-1996 
(not including cases below the notification ceilings) 
Million ECU 
Austria 
Belgium 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
Total 1992 
-
11 
159 
8 
0 
2928 
0 
0 
7 
3113 1993 
-
0 
112 
48 
32 
0 
0 
0 
66 
258 1994 
-
0 
307 
39 
0 
250 
0 
0 
13 
609 1995 
0 
33 
3 
328 
0 
0 
7 
0 
0 
371 1996 
10 
0 
340 
202 
83 
0 
0 
103 
72 
810 
in current ECU 
15 
Types of aid instruments 
20. Table 7 gives an overview of the use of the various types of aid instruments 
in the Member States. 
Table 7 
State Aid to the manufacturing sector 1994 -1996 
Breakdown according to type of aid 
per cent 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 15 TYPE OF AID 
Group A 
Grants 
79 
54 
83 
55 
66 
93 
81 
44 
89 
43 
92 
73 
82 
61 
88 
57 Tax 
exemptions 
0 
35 
10 
15 
13 
0 
3 
38 
0 
42 
4 
13 
8 
19 
5 
23 Group B 
Equity 
participation 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
9 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
3 Group C 
Soft 
loans 
14 
3 
5 
22 
3 
6 
15 
3 
0 
6 
4 
3 
2 
18 
2 
13 Tax 
deferrals 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
1 
1 Group D 
Guarantees 
7 
6 
2 
5 
18 
0 
1 
10 
11 
0 
0 
9 
8 
0 
4 
4 TOTAL 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
Grants and tax exemptions, which have been classified in this Survey as 
group A forms of intervention, are by far the most frequently used form of 
aid in the Community. Within this group, direct grants are more often 
employed than tax exemptions. This can be explained by the fact that the 
former type of aid is more flexible than the latter. Since the introduction of 
grants is in general less "costly" in terms of parliamentary procedures than 
the introduction of changes to tax laws, governments have a preference to 
employ the former type of aid. It can also be noted that the relative share of 
16 
grants has increased considerably from the previous survey, accounting 
now for 57% of total aid expenditure in the EUR 15 whereas in 1992-1994 it 
accounted for 48% of the total aid expenditure of the EUR 12. At the same 
time, the relative share of tax exemptions has decreased from 26% to 23%. 
21. Aid in the form of state equity participation, classified under group B, 
represents 3% of all aid to the manufacturing sector granted in the 
European Union; the figure for this type of aid has decreased as during the 
period 1994 to 1996 very few financial transfers in the form of equity 
participation to public undertakings including an aid element took place. 
22. Forms of aid classified in group C, i.e. loans at reduced interest rates and 
tax deferrals, are an important form of aid in Germany and Sweden. 
Member States generally avoid the award of soft loans because it puts a 
heavy burden on the budget. The figures for soft loans represent only the 
aid element; the gross budgetary resources necessary for these aids are 
much higher. This explains the low share in the manufacturing sector of this 
form of aid. Member States prefer to reduce the cost of loans by granting 
interest subsidies. 
Tax deferrals, mainly accelerated depreciation and the constitution of tax-
free reserves, is the form which is least used in the Community. Only the 
Netherlands, France, Germany and the United Kingdom grant support in 
this form. 
23. Guarantees, group D, continue to be mainly used to help in rescue and 
restructuring operations and to foster the development of small and 
medium-sized enterprises. Although its share in industrial aid is the third 
smallest on average, it is a significant part of aid in Greece, Ireland and 
France. The calculation of the aid element of guarantees is particularly 
difficult and, therefore, they are, together with equity participation, a very 
non-transparent form of State aid. 
17 
Figure 2 
State aid to the manufacturing sector 
Distribution by tax expenditure and budgetary expenditure 1994-1996 
Budget Expenditure • Tax Expenditure 
24. Figure 2 gives a breakdown of aid to the manufacturing sector according to 
the mode of financing. Budgetary expenditure, which is composed of 
grants, equity participation, soft loans, and guarantees, is the preferred way 
of financing aid in the European Union. This holds particularly for Spain, 
Austria and Ireland, where all aid is financed through the budget, and 
Finland, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and Portugal, where more than 
90% is financed through the budget. In contrast, tax expenditure, i.e. tax 
rebates and tax deferrals, is used to a large extent in Italy, France and 
Belgium. 
18 
Objectives of aid 
25. Aid to the manufacturing sector is also classified according to the principal 
purposes for which it is given or the sector to which it is directed, as follows: 
Horizontal objectives 
- Research and Development 
- Environment 
- Small and medium-sized enterprises 
- Trade 
- Energy saving 
- General investment 
- Other objectives (mainly rescue and restructuring) 
Particular sectors 
- Shipbuilding 
- Steel 
- Other sectors 
Regional objectives 
- Regions falling under Article 92(3)a 
- Regions falling under Article 92(3)c 
- (Only for Germany) Berlin and Zonenrand aids. 
The classification of aid is, in many cases, somewhat arbitrary because it is 
necessary to decide which of the objectives declared by a Member State is 
to be considered as the primary objective. In some Member States, aid for 
research and development is administered through sector specific R&D 
programmes, in others aid to particular sectors is limited to small and 
medium-sized enterprises, etc. Furthermore, primary objectives cannot 
give a true picture of the final beneficiaries: a large part of regional aid is in 
fact paid to small and medium-sized enterprises, aid for research and 
development goes to particular sectors, and so on. 
Consequently, conclusions about changes from one objective to another 
over time and, notably, conclusions about differences in objectives 
between Member States can only be drawn with caution. The following 
Table 8 gives the breakdown of aid to the manufacturing sector according 
19 
to objectives during the period 1994-1996, and Table 9 indicates the 
changes over time for the three main objectives pursued by the EUR 12. 
26. It can be seen from the percentages presented in Table 8 that 56% of 
industrial aid in the Union is spent on regional objectives. Amongst these 
aids, it appears from the data that eight and a half out of every ten ECUs 
are going to areas where the living conditions are particularly low, the so-
called Article 92(3)a regions11. The regions which benefit most from this 
category of aid are located in Germany, Greece, Ireland and Italy as can be 
seen from the high percentages for this aid objective in these Member 
States. 
27. Aid granted for horizontal objectives is ranked second. Amongst these, 
support for research and development12 is given highest priority. Although 
aids for such horizontal objectives may in many cases be in the Community 
interest, they present, nevertheless, the drawback that their impact on 
competition is often difficult to assess because little or no information is 
available about their sectorial and regional repercussions. This is the case 
notably in their extreme form as general investment schemes where the 
objectives are so poorly defined that no general judgement can be made 
and the Commission is bound to examine all major cases of application. 
With regard to the functioning of the internal market, the existence of such 
general schemes was therefore, increasingly difficult to justify and 
consequently the grant of such aid was prohibited. Whilst the Commission 
exercises a general ban on export aid, programmes which provide soft non-
product related aid are generally found to be compatible with the common 
interest. Moreover they are usually established to support SME's. This 
category also comprises some aid that complies with the conditions laid 
down in the OECD consensus for officially supported export credits. 
28. Some 13% of industrial aid in the Community are spent on particular 
sectors. Having been virtually phased out in the previous period under the 
strict Steel Aids Code of 1991, the Commission, starting in 1994 has taken 
decisions under Article 95 ECSC that allow aid to flow into the steel sector 
for major restructuring, as witnessed by the figures for 1994-1996. 
11 A list of these regions is given in Annex I, point 9.2. 
12 For the reasons explained in Annex I, point 11.1, the R&D figures contained in Table 6 are certainly 
underestimated. 
20 
29. The situation in each Member State as regards the overall composition of 
aid to the manufacturing sector is as follows: 
In Belgium, horizontal aid which has increased during the period under 
review forms the majority of spending (46%) which is far above the 
average in the European Union. The increase is accounted for by one 
single scheme, for which the Belgian government must seek repayment 
and which, at the time of such repayment, will be withdrawn from the 
figures. SMEs are the most notable horizontal objective. Sector specific 
aid (29%) is quite high whilst regional aid (25%) is relatively high for a 
geographically compact Member State without any 92(3)a regions. 
In Denmark, the largest proportion of aid is horizontal (84%) and 
comprises essentially aid for energy saving, environmental protection 
and R&D aid. The sector specific aid (14%) is mostly aid to 
shipbuilding. Regional policy at 2% is not significant. 
In Germany, horizontal aid accounts for 19%, which is low compared 
with the average in the European Union. Almost two thirds of this aid is 
spent on research and on SMEs. Sector specific aid (7%) is also low. 
The most important item is regional aid (75%), the overwhelming part 
of which consists of 92(3)a aid for the New Lander (including aid 
granted via the Treuhandanstalt/BvS). This aid has decreased 
considerably in absolute terms when compared with the previous 
period reviewed. 
In Greece - the figures are considered too unreliable for detailed 
comments. 
In Spain, 24% of the aid is spent for horizontal objectives, mainly for 
SMEs and for research and development. Sector specific aid 
represents 63% of total aid to the manufacturing sector, constituting 
thus the highest proportion of aid directed to specific sectors in the 
Community. With 13%, regional aid is low for a country where 
presently 54% of the population live in 92.3a regions. 
In France, 51% of the manufacturing sector aid has horizontal 
objectives. 15% of the volume of aid is directed to specific sectors, 
21 
although in certain cases for R&D or in the form of parafiscal levies13. 
Regional policy accounts for 34% of the aid. 
In Ireland, regional aid (56%) still forms the bulk of spending although 
it has decreased considerably from the previous period reviewed. 
Horizontal objectives attract 37% of spending while 7% goes to 
particular sectors. As far as the decrease in Ireland's share of total 
Community the manufacturing sector aid is concerned, attention is 
drawn to the point raised under Conceptual Remarks, p. 4-5. 
In Italy, horizontal aid accounts for 31%. The most important aid 
category is regional aid (58%). Almost all regional aid goes into the 
92(3)a regions of the country, the Mezzogiorno. Sectorial aid accounts 
for 11%. 
In Luxembourg, the most important item is regional aid (65%) which is 
very high for such a compact country, followed by aid to SMEs (21%) 
and aid to R&D (7%). 
In the Netherlands, horizontal aid (74%) is by far the biggest item and 
considerably larger than the average in the European Union. Within 
horizontal aid, energy saving and R&D absorb most. Aid to particular 
sectors represent 10% of total aid to manufacturing. As with Belgium, 
regional aid (17%) is relatively important for a geographically compact 
Member State without any 92(3)a regions. 
In Portugal, sector specific interventions at 52% are high. "Other 
objectives" almost exclusively absorb aid for horizontal objectives 
(24%). The latter ones are mostly cofinanced by the Commission and 
are more akin to the regional aid given in 92(3)a regions because the 
whole territory of Portugal, as with Ireland and Greece, is considered 
by the Commission as constituting a 92(3)a region. 
In Finland, 74% of the aid is spent on horizontal objectives, mainly on 
R&D and SMEs. Spending on particular sectors, at 2%, is the lowest in 
the Community. Regional aid accounts for 23% of total aid. 
13 Parafiscal levies are taxes specific to a sector which are used to finance certain operations in that 
sector. 
22 
In Sweden, 34% of the aid is spent on horizontal objectives, mainly on 
SMEs and R&D. Sector specific spending is low at 4%. Regional aid at 
61% accounts for the bulk of the spending. 
In the United Kingdom, regional aid (59%) forms the biggest group of 
support. A considerable part of the aid is spent in Northern Ireland 
which is a 92(3)a region. Horizontal aid accounts for 22% of which aid 
to R&D is the main item. Sectorial aid totals 19% of aid to the 
manufacturing sector 
In Austria, horizontal aid forms by far the largest group of spending, 
with R&D, environment and SMEs being the main beneficiaries. Sector 
specific spending is on par with the Community average. Regional aid 
is low at 13%. 
23 
Table 8 
State aid to the manufacturing sector 1994 -1996 
Breakdown of aid according to sector and function 
per cent 
SECTORS / FUNCTION 
Horizontal Objectives 
Research & Development 
Environment 
SME 
Trade 
Energy saving 
General Investment 
Other Objectives 
Particular Sectors 
Shipbuilding 
Other sectors 
Regional Objectives 
Regions under 92(3)c 
Regions under 92(3)a 
Germany:Berlin/Zonenrand) 
TOTAL AU 
74 
19 
16 
13 
0 
1 
0 
24 
13 
0 
13 
13 
10 
3 
0 
100 B 
46 
10 
0 
21 
4 
0 
0 
11 
29 
2 
27 
25 
25 
0 
0 
100 DK 
84 
29 
10 
5 
7 
34 
0 
0 
14 
10 
4 
2 
2 
0 
0 
100 D 
19 
7 
1 
5 
0 
2 
0 
4 
7 
4 
3 
74 
3 
69 
2 
100 GR 
31 
2 
0 
2 
15 
0 
2 
12 
3 
0 
3 
66 
0 
66 
0 
100 E 
24 
7 
1 
10 
0 
1 
0 
4 
63 
20 
43 
13 
9 
4 
0 
100 FIN 
74 
35 
2 
21 
10 
4 
0 
2 
2 
0 
2 
23 
23 
0 
0 
100 F 
51 
28 
1 
6 
11 
1 
0 
5 
15 
1 
14 
34 
22 
12 
0 
100 IRL 
37 
6 
0 
17 
3 
1 
0 
10 
7 
0 
7 
56 
0 
56 
0 
100 I 
31 
3 
0 
6 
9 
1 
0 
12 
11 
2 
9 
58 
.1 
57 
0 
100 L 
33 
7 
5 
21 
1 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
2 
65 
65 
0 
0 
100 NL 
74 
20 
10 
8 
3 
31 
0 
3 
10 
7 
3 
17 
17 
0 
0 
100 p 
24 
4 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
19 
52 
4 
48 
24 
0 
24 
0 
100 s 
34 
11 
5 
16 
0 
3 
0 
0 
4 
0 
4 
61 
61 
0 
0 
100 UK 
22 
12 
0 
4 
5 
0 
0 
1 
19 
1 
18 
59 
36 
23 
0 
100 EUR 
15 
30 
9 
1 
7 
3 
2 
0 
7 
13 
4 
10 
56 
7 
48 
1 
100 
24 
Table 9 
State aid to the manufacturing sector 1992 -1994 and 1994 -1996 
Breakdown to main objectives 
per cent 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 15 Horizontal Objectives 
1992-
1994 
56 
73 
14 
53 
38 
70 
36 
35 
29 
76 
23 
32 
31 1994-
1996 
74 
46 
84 
19 
31 
24 
74 
51 
37 
31 
33 
74 
24 
34 
22 
30 Particular Sectors 
1992-
1994 
19 
26 
6 
20 
43 
11 
0 
12 
0 
5 
36 
16 
11 1994-
1996 
13 
29 
14 
7 
3 
63 
2 
15 
7 
11 
2 
10 
52 
4 
19 
13 Regional Objectives 
1992-
1994 
26 
1 
80 
27 
19 
19 
63 
53 
70 
19 
41 
53 
58 1994-
1996 
13 
25 
2 
74 
66 
13 
23 
34 
56 
58 
65 
17 
24 
61 
59 
56 
30. As regards the development over time of the distribution of the 
manufacturing sector aid amongst the different main objectives, it can be 
seen from Table 9 that at the level of the EUR 12, aid for horizontal 
objectives has fallen from 40% in 1988-90 (see Fourth Survey on State aid in 
the European Union) to 35% in 1990-92 (see Fifth Survey on State aid in the 
European Union), and 31% in 1992-94, and then stabilised, for EUR 15, at 
around 30% in 1994-1996. The proportion of regional aid has remained high, 
while sector specific interventions has risen slightly. 
The apparent gradual move from horizontal objectives to sectorial 
interventions, is a cause for some concern given the potentially distortive 
effect of sectorial aid. Of course both horizontal and sectorial categories of 
aid can be used for more or less hidden and unwanted purposes of industrial 
policy (support of single companies as national champions or protection of 
sectors which are allegedly of vital national interest) and have a particularly 
25 
negative effect upon competition. However, horizontal aid given to all sectors 
of the economy is less suitable for the protection of certain sectors or 
national champions than sector specific interventions. 
State aid given on an ad-hoc basis 
31. Table 10 shows that as was already the case with the previous survey, that 
high volumes of aid continued to be granted on an ad hoc basis to individual 
enterprises. This type of aid falls outside schemes promoting horizontal, 
sectorial or regional objectives. In the sectors manufacturing, financial services 
and air transport taken together, a limited number of individual aids of 
important volume are thus responsible for a disproportionate part of total aid 
granted. Ad hoc aid, which is granted mainly for rescue and restructuring of 
companies, increased in volume from 6% in 1992 to 16% in 1996. If aid 
granted to the new German Lander via the Treuhandanstalt is added - such 
aid can be considered close to ad hoc aid - the share in overall aid increased 
from 19 to 29 percent. 
26 
Table 10 
State aid on an ad-hoc basis and Treuhand aid awarded in the manufacturing, 
financial services and air transport sectors in the Member States in the years 1992 to 
1996 
Ad-hoc aid 
Treuhand aid 
Total aid 1992 
in 
MECU 
2422 
5161 
39062 in% 
of total 
aid 
6 
13 
100 1993 
in 
MECU 
5742 
8854 
44800 in% 
of total 
aid 
13 
20 
100 1994 
in 
MECU 
6922 
11013 
43466 in% 
of total 
aid 
16 
25 
100 1995 
In 
MECU 
5776 
6682 
41732 in% 
of total 
aid 
14 
16 
100 1996 
in 
MECU 
5888 
4839 
37677 in% 
of total 
aid 
16 
13 
100 
Table 11 
State aid on an ad-hoc basis awarded in the manufacturing, financial services and air 
transport sectors in the Member States - annual averages 1992-1994 and 1994-1996 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12/15 1992 
in MECU 
0 
31 
0 
686 
75 
473 
0 
1663 
53 
1864 
0 
0 
184 
0 
0 
5029 -1994 
in percent 
0 
1 
0 
14 
1 
10 
0 
33 
1 
37 
0 
0 
4 
0 
0 
100 1994-1996 
in MECU 
65 
29 
0 
584 
44 
1088 
0 
2532 
58 
1453 
0 
0 
365 
0 
0 
6218 in percent 
1 
0 
0 
10 
1 
18 
0 
41 
1 
23 
0 
0 
6 
0 
0 
100 
27 
German State aid to the new Lander 
32. During the period under review, the process of reorganising the economy of 
the new Lander of Germany continued. The reunification of Germany is of 
particular importance for Community State aid policy. The transition from a 
centrally planned economy under State control typified by insufficient 
infrastructure and uncompetitive enterprises, to a decentralized market 
economy based essentially on private initiative and the need to develop the 
economy - could not be achieved without considerable financial transfers 
from the old into the new Bundeslânder. 
It was therefore unavoidable that the integration of the centrally planned 
East German economy into the internal market had to be facilitated by 
substantial amounts of national aid. During the period under review, a yearly 
average volume of almost 13,5 billion ECU was granted in aid to 
manufacturing in the new Lander. This, although on high level, is a marked 
decline in comparison with 1992-1994, where 15,5 billion ECU were spent. 
The decline shows that the main repercussions on State aid of restructuring 
the economy of the new Lander occurred in the previous period. In addition, 
this reduction is accompanied by an even sharper decrease in aid to the old 
German Lander which has fallen from 8,9 billion ECU in 1990-1992 and 4,3 
billion ECU in 1992-1994 to a low of only 3 billion ECU in 1994-1996. These 
substantial reductions show the commitment of the German government to 
shift its efforts to the new Lander without increasing the overall level of aid in 
Germany. Whereas in 1990-1992 the old Lander absorbed 53 percent of all 
aid to manufacturing in Germany, they only received 19 percent of the total 
in the period under review. The breakdown into the different forms of the aid 
to the new Lander is given in Table A3 in Annex II. 
In the context of privatising the former state-owned companies, aid during 
the period under review was also granted via the Treuhandanstalt (THA), the 
State holding company set up to administer, adapt, and privatize former East 
German public undertakings, and its successor, the Bundesanstalt fur 
vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben (BvS). As laid down in the 
Commission's decisions of 1991, 1992 and 1995 on the interventions of the 
THA, some of these interventions may constitute aid. This was usually the 
case where the THA issued guarantees for loans granted by the banking 
sector at market rate to its generally poor-ranking undertakings. Equally, the 
28 
THA itself borrowed at market rate and then awarded loans to its 
undertakings at the same rate. 
In the case of the THA/BvS, the Commission is of the opinion that the 
method used for the assessment guarantees and loans (see Annex I) 
undervalues their aid element in the period covered by the Sixth Survey. 
In the period covered by the present Survey including 1996 when normal 
state aid rules applied guarantees totalling ECU 2776 million and loans 
amounting to a total of ECU 13484 million were given. Based on its previous 
experience, the Commission is of the opinion that 20% of these amounts can 
be regarded as aid, which are included in the Survey. In addition, grants 
totalling ECU 4097 million in order to finance social plans were included in 
their totality. 
29 
PART II - OVERALL NATIONAL AID IN THE MEMBER STATES 
Aid to sectors other than the manufacturing sector 
33. The following gives an overview of State aid granted in the agriculture, 
fisheries, transport - railways and airlines -, financial services and energy 
(coal mining) sectors on the basis of available information. The totality of aid 
awarded in these sectors together with that discussed in Part I of this Survey 
would constitute the overall national State aid reported by the fifteen Member 
States. Unfortunately, due to the fact that some Member States have not 
been able to supply complete information in all of these sectors, particularly 
agriculture, the overall amount is not a sufficiently viable figure and therefore 
interpretation of data given in this section must be made with utmost caution. 
Aid to agriculture 
34. In sectors such as agriculture where a highly developed Community policy is 
in operation, the limits for granting State aid are, to a greater extent, 
determined by this common policy. Thus, although Articles 92-94 of the EC 
Treaty apply in principle to agriculture as to other sectors of the economy, 
Article 42 specifies that the extent to which these articles apply to agriculture 
should be decided by the Council. Hence the Council has limited Member 
States' freedom to grant State aid in certain areas of policy: 
(i) Support of markets in most agricultural products (Council Regulations 
governing the common market organisations). 
Aid, using exclusively Community (i.e. EAGGF) resources, is payable 
only on the basis of Council rules which provide inter alia for a 
common system of intervention buying and export refunds and, further 
to the reform decisions of May 1992, compensatory aid in the various 
sectors for price reductions in conjunction with compulsory set-aside. 
(ii) Support for improving farm structure (Council Regulation (EEC) No 
2328/91). 
30 
Aid concerning productive investments on agricultural holdings is 
determined to a large extent by the provisions of the above-mentioned 
Council Regulation and partly Community cofinanced. 
The reporting situation in the field of agriculture is unsatisfactory. Several 
Member States have failed to deliver to the Commission comprehensive 
information on their aid expenditure in this sector. Until the Fourth Survey, 
the Commission, when faced with this situation, made extrapolations and 
estimates in order to close the gaps. In the previous Survey (5th) as in the 
present Survey, in contrast, the gaps are left intact and only available data 
are used for the two periods 1992-1994 and 1994-1996. 
Taking account of the data situation, Table 12 relates total State aid 
(including the national contribution to the socio-structural measures under 
(ii) above) in respect of products listed in Annex II of the EC Treaty - plant 
and livestock production and primary processing activities - to gross value 
added of agricultural production at the level of the holding. It will be noted 
that national aid taken into account in this table applies to a broader 
spectrum of activities than the base retained for gross valued added. Data 
covering the whole reporting period were available from two Member 
States, whilst data covering only a part of the period were available from 
five others. No data were available from the remainder. 
31 
Table 12 
National aid in respect of products listed in Annex II of the EEC Treaty 
As a percentage of gross value added of agricultural production In 1992-1994, 
1994-1996 
per cent 
1992-1994 1994-1996 
Austria N.A. 
Belgium 9,6 6,8 
Denmark 5,2 2,8 
Germany 27,3 12,4 
Greece N.A. N.A. 
Spain N.A. N.A. 
Finland N.A. 
France 2,7 N.A. 
Ireland N.A. N.A. 
Italy N.A. N.A. 
Luxembourg N.A. N.A. 
Netherlands 5,0 4,0 
Portugal 7,6 N.A. 
Sweden N.A. 
United Kingdom 7,0 2,9 
EUR 15 N.A. N.A. 
* German agriculture aid figures include aid in the form of VAT concessions (VAT plus per 
hectare aid) awarded in compensation for price reductions flowing from agri-monetary 
changes. Of the total shown, some 10-percentage points of gross value added are 
accounted for by this aid. 
This table should be read in conjunction with point 34 (above) and point III.10.2 of the 
Technical Annex. 
It may be noted that the concept of total national aid encompasses individual 
categories of aid, which may present differing levels of relevance in terms of 
competition policy. Therefore, it may be argued that aid for measures such 
as productive investment and publicity is more likely to potentially have an 
effect upon trade than aid which is destined simply to compensate operators 
for services rendered, for example, access to the countryside and aid to 
offset the financial burden of natural disasters. A broadly similar argument 
might apply to aid financed by certain parafiscal taxes where, though such 
aid from a legal viewpoint is considered as State aid, the economic burden 
falls exclusively upon the beneficiaries themselves. 
32 
Further, it should be noted that the data in Table 12 do not provide an 
accurate picture of the total level of support granted to agriculture in the 
Community or in any particular Member State. The annual publication by the 
Commission entitled "The Agricultural Situation in the Community" provides 
data inter alia on Community aid for agriculture. 
In view of the above, no conclusions concerning the possible impact on trade 
from the data in Table 12, or indeed from any data relating to global volumes 
of aid in agriculture, can be drawn (see Annex I, Section III for details). 
Aid to fisheries 
35. In the fisheries sector, national aids closely follow the development of and 
the limits imposed by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) thereby 
contributing to the realisation of common objectives. Any conclusion to be 
drawn from the quantification of national aids has, therefore, not only to take 
account of their impact on competition but also of their impact on attaining a 
common aim. 
Tables 13 and 14 show national aids and Community intervention in favour 
of the Community's fishing fleet, the commercialisation, and first-stage 
processing of the products. 
33 
Table 13 
Aids to fisheries in per cent of gross value added* in this sector, 
Calculated on the basis of quantities landed and average prices 
In 1992-1994, 1994-1996 
per cent 
1992-1994 1994-1996 
Austria 
Belgium 3,0 2,0 
Denmark 4,0 2,0 
Germany 13,2 14,6 
Greece 0,2 0,1 
Spain 6,0 3,0 
Finland 17,8 
France 3,7 4,1 
Ireland 9,3 8,4 
Italy 8,4 8,4 
Luxembourg 
Pays-Bas 8,9 9,5 
Portugal 2,4 2,2 
Sweden 8,2 
United Kingdom 4,1 3,2 
EUR 12/15 5,6 4,9 
Value added figures used exclude transformation industry and on-shore production. 
Table 14 
Community interventions in the fisheries sector in the framework of the 
common organisation of the market and structural policy 1992-1996. 
Million ECU 
Guarantee 
Guidance 1992 
32,1 
358,4 1993 
32,4 
401,8 1994 
35,5 
391,1 1995 
36,9 
471,1 1996 
34,1 
382,2 
34 
Aid to services 
36. As explained in the Conceptual Remarks, p.7, aid granted to the air transport 
and financial services sectors has been highlighted. 
Aid to the financial services sector 
37. In contrast with the above downward trend in aid to the manufacturing 
sector, aid (mostly ad-hoc) that was granted to the financial services sector 
has risen from an annual average of 340 MECU in 1992-1994, to 1270 
MECU in the latest reporting period. Although these amounts are relatively 
small when compared with the overall aid figures, the rapid increase and 
concentration in a small number of companies in this sector in one country, 
means that continued vigilance must be exercised. Strict application of the 
rescue and restructuring guidelines will continue and, the contribution of aid 
to the restructuring operations will be monitored closely. 
Aid to the air transport sector 
38. Aid (mostly ad-hoc) granted to the air transport sector doubled from a yearly 
average of 660 MECU during the period 1992-1994 to 1370 MECU in 1994-
1996; a rise that reflected a transient phenomena during this period. 
Previously enjoying protection, this sector has, following gradual 
liberalization, been opened up to greater market forces which has resulted in 
major restructuring programmes. Aid to this sector, representing only 1.5% 
of overall aid or 3% of aid to the manufacturing sector, has contributed to this 
restructuring process of the companies concerned and attenuated the social 
consequences caused by such restructuring. To strengthen its control, in 
1994 the Commission adopted strict guidelines on State aid to this sector. 
35 
Aid to railway transport 
39. Table 15 shows aid to railways as a percentage of value added in this 
sector. Whilst most aid is given to compensate for the imposition of social 
obligations or inherited liabilities on railways (Council Regulation 1191/69, as 
amended by Council Regulation 1893/91, and Council Regulation 1192/69) 
aid in percent of value added remains high. However, as recent figures for 
value added were not always available estimates were used and, therefore, 
these figures should be interpreted with caution. 
36 
Table 15 
State aid to transport (Railways) in per cent of gross value added in inland 
transport services 1992 - 1994,1994 -1996 
per cent 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark* 
Germany* 
Greece* 
Spain* 
Finland 
France 
Ireland* 
Italy 
Luxembourg** 
Netherlands 
Portugal* 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12/15 1992-
total aid 
40,5 
12,7 
40,1 
14,9 
23,1 
25,6 
8,5 
9,8 
87,3 
17,1 
6,8 
6,8 
25,2 -1994 
of which 
Regulat. 
1191/2-69 
18,1 
3,7 
21,4 
0,4 
1,1 
5,2 
4,5 
3,1 
84,8 
8,2 
3,5 
6,7 
10,3 1994 
total aid 
13,0 
37,6 
10,5 
38,3 
15,4 
20,5 
1,4 
25,7 
6,7 
9,1 
34,8 
19,9 
5,6 
30,2 
9,2 
29,4 -1996 
of which 
Regulat. 
1191/2-69 
0,0 
14,1 
1,4 
11,3 
0,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
4,5 
2,8 
34,4 
2,0 
4,4 
0,0 
9,1 
7,2 
* Gross value added was not available for all countries in all years. Lacking data were 
estimated. 
** A considerable part of the expenditure under Regulation 1192/69 in this Member State is 
for pensions. 
37 
Aid to coal mining 
40. Table 16 gives the aid to coal mining divided into aid not going to current 
production and aid granted to current production. The latter is expressed in 
ECU per person employed in the manufacturing sector and as the share of 
the total aid to the sector. The general trend in the two main coal producing 
Member States is for an increase in the amount of aid per person employed 
compared with the previous period. After halting all aid to current production 
during the period 1990-1992 the United Kingdom saw a minuscule amount of 
aid to current production in 1992-1994 and 1994-1996 as draconian 
restructuring of the coal industry took place prior to privatisation. In Belgium 
the last colliery closed in the summer of 1992 and in Portugal at the end of 
1994. 
Table 16 
State aid to Coal Industry 1992 -1994 and 1994 -1996 
Belgium 
Germany*** 
Spain 
France 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
TOTAL Yearly ave 
not destine 
produc 
(inM 
1992-1994* 
539 
3.745 
657 
2.212 
2 
286 
7.420 rage of aid 
d to current 
;tion ** 
ECU) 
1994-1996 
134 
236 
608 
2 
976 
1.862 Yearly average of aid destined to current 
production 
(in ECU and per cent) 
1992-
per 
employee 
14.973 
52.096 
16.865 
13.800 
8.617 
237 
34.096 1994* 
in % of 
total 
3 
60 
44 
10 
75 
2 
46 1994-1996 
per 
employee 
_ 
58.383 
21.822 
9.848 
1.881 
575 
41.328 in % of 
total 
_ 
98 
76 
20 
26 
1 
77 
in 1995 prices 
Following Commission Decision 3632/93/ECSC, from 1994 figures on the financing 
of social benefits are no longer included by the Commission in its annual report on 
aid in this sector. 
The 1994 figures for aid to current production for Germany include an exceptional 
financial measure of DM 5 350 million to clear the debts of the compensation fund 
as they stood at the end of 1993. 
After declining in the previous years, the share of aid going to current 
production rose from 46% of the total aid for the period 1992-94 to 77% 
during the period 1994-96-(a tendency which persists even if the financing of 
38 
social benefits had been included in the 1994 aid figures.) The average aid, 
destined to current production, per employee in the manufacturing sector 
has risen from 23 500 ECU in 1990-1992 to 34 000 ECU in 1992-94 and 41 
000 ECU in 1994-1996. This is at odds not only with the objectives of the 
restructuring and rationalisation of the Community coal industry but also with 
the establishment of the single market. 
Of the aid not going to current production, the majority is to cover the social 
and redundancy costs resulting from the contraction of the manufacturing 
sector. The average number of employees in the sector had decreased to 
132.000 in 1996 from 153.000 in 1994, compared with 215.500 in 1992 and 
270.000 in 1990, with important recent decreases in Germany and the 
United Kingdom being offset by recent increases in Spain. 
In the case of Germany and Spain a coal reference price system has been in 
operation for a number of years which keeps domestic prices net of 
subsidies considerably above world market prices. Although such a measure 
has an effect equivalent to an aid, the usual indicators that are shown in 
Table 16 cannot reflect it. Therefore, the figures should be taken as an 
overview and not an accurate indicator of the protection afforded by aid. 
The new Community framework Decision 3632/93/ECSC on State aid to the 
coal industry has tightened the definition of aid to cover: 
- any direct or indirect measure or support by public authorities linked to 
production, marketing and external trade which, even if it is not a burden on 
public budgets, gives an economic advantage to coal undertakings by 
reducing the costs which they would normally have to bear; 
- the allocation, for the direct or indirect benefit of the coal industry, of the 
charges rendered compulsory as a result of State intervention; 
- aid elements contained in financing measures taken by Member States in 
respect of coal undertakings, which are not regarded as risk capital, 
provided to a company under standard market-economy practice. 
To increase transparency, Member States are also required to enter aid in 
their "national, regional or local budgets or channelled through strictly 
equivalent mechanisms" after a transitional period not exceeding December 
39 
1996. All aid received by coal undertakings has to be shown together with 
their profit and loss accounts "as a separate item of revenue, distinct from 
turnover" from 1994 onwards. 
Finally, operating aid is defined as "the difference between production costs 
and the selling price freely agreed between the contracting parties in the light 
of the conditions prevailing on the world market". The new Decision 
stipulates that "arrangements existing at 31 December 1993, under which 
aid was granted in conformity with the provisions of Decision 2064/86/ECSC 
and which are linked to agreements between producers and consumers, 
exempted under Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty and/or authorised under 
Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty, must be modified by 31 December 1996" to 
bring them into line with the provisions of the new Decision 3632/93/ECSC. 
For some Member States, this will result in an increase in aid amounts as 
the coal reference price systems are abolished. 
41. For both railways and coal the observed aid amounts are high. Competition 
between coal industries has been stifled; the impact of these aids on the 
wider markets in transport and energy cannot be ignored. As these markets 
are becoming integrated with the completion of the single market, 
competition is becoming increasingly important. The declared will of the 
Community to open up the transport and the energy markets render a strict 
aid control policy by the Commission in these sectors more and more 
important. The Survey will, in future, have to contain data on forms of 
transport other than railways and forms of energy other than coal in order to 
provide a basis for the full assessment of the impact of aids in these sectors. 
In the transport sector, however, the assessment of distortions of inter-modal 
competition is made more difficult by the question of imputing infrastructure, 
environmental, and surveillance costs. 
Volume of overall aid in the Community 
42. The volume of State aid in the Community, given in the sectors covered by 
this survey and taking due account of the (regrettably continuing) 
incompleteness of data for reasons described above, amounts on average 
over the period 1994-96 to almost 84 billion ECU, as can be seen from Table 
17. Because of missing data on most Member States' expenditure in the 
agricultural sector, figures on aid in this sector have been removed from the 
overall total. The total aid amounts are therefore underestimated and the 
40 
figures presented in this Survey are not comparable with those presented 
previously. 
Table 17 
Overall national aid in the Member States 1992 -1994 and 1994 - 199614 
Million ECU 
1992-1994 1994-1996 
Overall national aid 87.962 83.655 
of which: 
- Manufacturing sector 41.439 38.318 
-Agriculture NA N.A. 
- Fisheries 356 301 
- Services 32.375 36.555 
-Coal 13.792 8.481 
Table 18 shows Member States' total aid expenditure as a percentage of 
gross domestic product, per person employed, and relative to total 
government expenditure. Because of the omission of data on aid to 
agriculture, the ratios are underestimated and not comparable with those 
presented in previous surveys. 
14 The totals include no figures on aid given to the agricultural sector. 
41 
Table 18 
Overall national aid in the Member States 1992 -1994 and 1994 -1996 in per cent of 
GDP, per person employed and relative to government expenditure. 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 15 In per cent of GDP* 
1992-1994 
1,5 
0,9 
2,3 
1,3 
1,1 
1,2 
1,0 
2,2 
2,1 
0,6 
0,8 
0,3 
1,5 1994-1996 
0,6 
1,3 
0,9 
1,9 
1,1 
1,2 
0,4 
1,1 
0,8 
2,0 
1,0 
0,7 
0,9 
0,7 
0,5 
1,4 In ECU per person 
employed 
1992-1994 
829 
467 
1.132 
260 
362 
641 
335 
781 
1.269 
343 
150 
121 
631 1994-1996 
325 
735 
481 
978 
253 
392 
214 
574 
312 
754 
623 
379 
162 
346 
170 
573 In per cent of total 
Government 
Expenditure 
1992-1994 
2,8 
1,5 
4,5 
2,4 
2,4 
2,3 
2,3 
4,0 
4,6 
1,1 
2,0 
0,8 
2,9 1994-1996 
1,1 
2,4 
1,4 
3,7 
2,4 
2,5 
0,7 
1,9 
2,1 
3,8 
2,2 
1,2 
2,1 
1,1 
1,1 
2,6 
1992-1994, in 1995 prices 
* As figures on aid to agriculture have been omitted from the overall aid totals, the GDP 
figures have been adjusted correspondingly by subtracting the value-added for the 
agricultural sector from these. 
42 
Budgetary impact of aids 
43. In Belgium, the financing of State aid is equivalent to 33% of the high budget 
deficit and amounts to 4,0% of GDP in 1994-96. In Germany, where the 
budget deficit in 1994-96 was 3,0% of GDP, the financing of State aid is 
equivalent to 59% of the deficit for the period. Finally, in Italy, where the 
annual budget deficit is around 7,9% of GDP in 1994-96, the financing of the 
overall aid amount accounts for 26% of the deficit. Compared with the 
preceding period, there has only been a marginal decrease in the budget 
deficit in Italy while the share of the deficit necessary for financing the aid 
has increased. For the reasons explained above, the overall aid figures for 
all Member States are underestimated, resulting in an underestimation of the 
ratio of the financing of aid to the budget deficit. 
44. Table 19 shows a breakdown of overall national aid into the main sector of 
the economy. Due to the lack of data in agriculture, the indication can only 
be taken as a rough approximation. 
43 
Table 19 
Overall national aid in the Member States 1992 -1994 and 1994 -1996 
Broken into main sectors. 
per cent 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 15 Overall State Aid in the Member States 
Manufacturing 
1992-
1994 
0 
30 
46 
50 
74 
28 
0 
35 
50 
58 
21 
38 
69 
0 
47 
47 1994-
1996 
41 
42 
56 
49 
68 
42 
88 
29 
55 
58 
35 
32 
52 
23 
35 
46 Fisheries 
1992-
1994 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
3 
1 
0 
2 
1 
0 
1 
0 1994-
1996 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
3 
1 
0 
2 
1 
1 
1 
0 Services 
1992-
1994 
0 
52 
52 
27 
26 
44 
0 
48 
47 
41 
79 
60 
29 
0 
43 
37 1994-
1996 
59 
58 
44 
34 
32 
37 
11 
65 
42 
41 
65 
66 
47 
77 
42 
44 Coal 
1992-
1994 
0 
18 
0 
23 
0 
26 
0 
17 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
10 
16 1994-
1996 
0 
0 
0 
17 
0 
20 
0 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
23 
10 TOTAL 
1992-
1994 
0 
100 
100 
. 100 
100 
100 
0 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
0 
100 
100 1994-
1996 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
44 
RESULTS 
45. With the publication of this Sixth Survey on State aid in the European Union, 
the Commission and the Member States reaffirm their commitment to a 
continuing high level of transparency in the field of public support to the 
economy. The document contains a detailed analysis of the volumes of 
national aid, broken down into the different forms and the various objectives 
pursued by Member States. The data collected and analysed serve the 
Commission, by making available a sound statistical basis, in its continuous 
endeavour to improve its State aid policy. The Survey serves, furthermore, the 
Community in the wider international context by reflecting, in a coherent and 
transparent way, the determined will of the Community to eliminate distorting 
aid that is incompatible with the internal market and to keep overall aid levels 
under control. It thus underlines the Community's commitment to a free world 
market. 
46. As regards aid to the manufacturing sector the figures lead to the conclusion 
that the aid awarded in the European Union has returned to the modest 
downward trend in the overall levels of aid observed in the past. The findings 
of the previous survey that indicated a halt in this downward trend would 
thus appear to have been an exception to the historical tendency. The aid 
awarded to the manufacturing sector in the 15 Member States in 1994-96, 
amounts to an annual average of some 38,3 billion ECUs. For the EUR 12 
the corresponding figure is 37,5 billion ECUs compared with 41,4 billion 
ECUs in 1992-1994. 
The disparities between the different countries in the award of aid remain 
large. In terms of aid to the manufacturing sector in per cent of value added 
the highest aid level observed is nine times the lowest aid level. It should also 
be noted that the decrease of the overall volume of aid to the manufacturing 
sector for the EUR 12 is in fact due to decreases in aid levels seen in Germany 
-where the decrease is considerable-, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, 
45 
the Netherlands and Portugal being offset to some extent by increases in aid 
observed in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Ireland and the United Kingdom. 
When considering the overall differences in the Community under the aspect 
of cohesion, however, the observed trend now appears to be slightly more 
promising than the one identified in the previous survey, where a direct 
comparison between the four largest Member States and the four cohesion 
countries - Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal - revealed that the relative 
importance of industrial support was rising in the larger Member States at the 
expense of the cohesion countries. The volume of aid in the four cohesion 
countries is increasing from 6,5 to 8,8% of total aid to the manufacturing 
sector in the EUR 12 whilst the share of the four big economies of this aid, 
having been at around 88% in the period 1992-1994, has decreased to 
around 83% in 1994-1996 (Germany accounts for 44%, Italy for 26%, France 
for 10% and the U.K. for 4% of the EUR 12 total). Nonetheless the apparent 
slightly more positive trend in the increased share of the cohesion countries 
is in fact largely accounted for by one ad hoc aid in Spain as well as by the 
fact that aid levels in one large Member State have considerably decreased. 
Budgetary expenditure is the preferred form of awarding State aid to the 
manufacturing sector in all Member States. This is to be welcomed in the 
sense that financing through the budget is more transparent than the 
alternative of financing through the tax system. 
As to the objectives pursued, a slight increase, although on low level, of the 
share of sectorial aid in overall manufacturing aid can be observed. This 
causes some concern as aid to single companies or whole branches of the 
manufacturing sector are amongst the most distortive for competition. 
47. As was the case already with the previous survey, the most marked trend can 
be observed in the continuing high volume of aid granted on ad hoc basis to 
individual enterprises, falling outside schemes promoting horizontal, sectorial 
or regional objectives. In the sectors manufacturing, financial services and air 
transport taken together, a limited number of individual aids of important 
46 
volume are responsible for a disproportionate part of total aid granted. Ad hoc 
aid, which is granted mainly for rescue and restructuring of companies, 
increased in volume from 6% of overall aid to these sectors in 1992 to 16% 
in 1996. If aid granted to the new German Lander via the Treuhandanstalt is 
added - such aid can be considered close to ad hoc aid - the share in 
overall aid increased from 19 to 29 percent. 
48. As regards overall national aid to the economy, the figures, in so far as they 
are available to the Commission, confirm the conclusion of the previous 
Surveys that the volume of aid in the Community remains at a very high level. 
It should not be forgotten in this overall context that Article 92(1) of the EG 
Treaty, the basis of the Commission's State aid policy, contains a general ban 
on aid and that State aid is only approved where one of the derogations set 
out in Article 92 applies. The Commission, of course, approves aid for many 
purposes where these are deemed to be in the common interest. Examples of 
such aid for which the Commission has clearly a favourable view include R&D, 
SME, training, environmental protection and regional aid. However it cannot 
be denied that the piling up of State aid interventions risks to jeopardise the 
efficient functioning of the Single market. 
47 
CONCLUSIONS 
49. The previous surveys that the Commission published on the aid volumes 
awarded by the Member States of the European Union to their companies, 
showed a slight and continuing downward trend of the overall level of aid to 
the manufacturing sector. This tendency was interrupted in the period 1992-
1994 when a stable tendency in the overall volume of aid prevailed. The 
data, upon which the Sixth Survey is based, now suggest a return to the 
downward trend observed in the past. Whilst it will only be possible to 
confirm this return to the long term downward trend in future, the decrease in 
aid to the manufacturing sector during the period 1994-1996 is welcome. 
However it is undeniable that with an annual average of some 38,3 billion 
ECUs representing 3,0 per cent of value added in the manufacturing sector 
or more than 1200 ECUs per person employed, state intervention remains at 
a very high level in this sector. This clearly cannot be in line with the global 
objectives of the European Union. The Cardiff European Council 
emphasized the need to promote competition and to reduce distortions such 
as state aid. 
In the face of increasing globalisation and worrying reports that Europe is 
constantly falling behind its main trading partners in competitiveness Europe 
needs to realise the full potential of the Single market. The observed high 
levels of State aid put this at risk. Not only does the excessive aid distort free 
competition and free trade, but it also has the potential of delaying and even 
preventing industrial restructuring where it is urgently needed. Yet free 
competition, free trade and rapid industrial restructuring constitute precisely 
the instruments for the efficient allocation of resources within the European 
economy, which in turn is the very foundation of increased competitiveness 
and therefore job creation. 
Added to these obstacles for the creation of an efficient European economy 
is the fact that the high public expenditure on State aid is financed through 
taxes. It is widely acknowledged that the high level of taxation in the 
Community risks to suffocate private entrepreneurship and therefore the 
48 
creation of new enterprises needed to provide new jobs for Europe's idle 
resources. Moreover, with most of European governments running not 
inconsiderable budgetary deficits, partially due to the financing of the high 
expenditure on State aid, they constantly need to resort to borrowing on the 
European capital markets, thereby crowding out potentially more productive 
private investment. 
The observed reduction of the high levels of manufacturing aid during the 
period under review shows that control in this sector has become more 
effective. The continuing high level indicates, however, that the pressure 
must be maintained. This is all the more necessary since in the forthcoming 
Economic and Monetary Union the sensitivity of companies towards aid that 
benefits their competitors will be increased. With the adoption of the single 
currency, Member States can no longer resort to exchange rates as a shock-
absorber; in this new environment it is to be expected that companies will 
increasingly turn to their governments to provide such shock-absorption by 
way of the tax system and direct subsidies. This poses an acute threat to the 
accomplishment of the Single market. Therefore the need for the 
Commission to control State aid strictly and for Member States to exercise 
rigorous self discipline remains. 
50. The situation described above and the changing global context can only 
increase the Commission's action in State aid control. This is notably the 
case with the adoption of the new Guidelines for regional aid in December 
1997 which meet the need for stricter control of State aid in the European 
Union and contribute to cohesion and a balanced regional development as a 
major Community objective The new guidelines are aimed at reducing the 
areas eligible for national regional aid and at the same time lowering the 
whole range of allowed maximum aid intensities. Aid will thus be 
concentrated in those regions where its supportive effect is the highest and 
distortions of competition will simultaneously be reduced. It is expected that 
this will contribute to decrease the overall volume of regional aid. 
49 
Furthermore, the tendency of Member States, faced with budgetary 
restrictions, to concentrate the available resources for their regional aid 
schemes on a few large investments equally induced the Commission to 
introduce a possibility to better control such cases which are likely to cause the 
most important distortions of competition. The criteria that will be applied for 
the examination of those cases are to be found in the so-called "multi-
sectorial" framework, which will be operational as from September 1998. 
51. As a result of liberalisation in the context of the Single Market, technological 
change and globalisation, many sectors are facing increased competition both 
from within the EU and from outside. These sectors must adapt promptly to 
changing market conditions. Most companies are doing this without state 
intervention. Some companies that are unable to adapt will disappear. State 
support to keep an ailing company in business, even if it restores the 
company's viability, can impose a heavy cost in terms of forgone opportunities 
to use the resources in ways which contribute more to competitiveness and 
thus to economic growth and the creation of stable employment. State-aided 
restructuring, often the precursor to privatisation, follows different time cycles 
that depend on the sector and Member State concerned. Whilst data on ad 
hoc aid, which comprises all big restructuring cases, presented in this Survey 
suggest that aid for restructuring in the manufacturing sector has now passed 
its peak the future trend in this and other sectors will have to be followed 
closely. Even if part of this type of aid contributes to attenuate the social 
consequences of the accelerated adjustment process in certain sectors, it is 
equally indispensable that such aid be rigorously limited to the levels 
necessary for the restructuring and ensures the long term viability of the 
beneficiary companies in such a way that further aid would not be necessary. 
Only then can the employment maintained by these aids be considered as 
actually safe. If these conditions are not met, aid awarded for the rescue and 
restructuring of companies risks delaying and even, preventing industrial 
restructuring and thus actually destroying work places in the long run. 
Therefore the Commission thinks that it is necessary to limit more strictly aid 
granted for the rescue and restructuring of companies in difficulty and to this 
50 
end is currently finalising its proposal for new, stricter guidelines on rescue and 
restructuring aid. 
52. In the context of the Economic and Monetary Union, one of the key elements 
underpinning its successful operation is healthy public finances of the 
Member States participating in it. Budgetary discipline implies that Member 
States should keep every area of government expenditure, including State 
aid, under constant review. In view of this it is imperative that Member 
States, by their own initiative, evaluate both existing aid schemes and new 
proposals to verify that, firstly, government intervention is needed; secondly, 
that State aid is the most appropriate instrument for achieving the policy 
objective concerned; thirdly, that the aid is accurately targeted on the 
problem to be solved; and, fourthly, that the amount of the aid is no more 
than necessary to achieve the objective. In line with the above mentioned 
conclusions of the Cardiff European Council, the Commission intends to 
consult the Member States about the possibility of implementing a 
coordinated strategy for selective reductions in state aids. 
53. A strengthened control policy also calls for further increases in transparency. 
The Commission continues to emphasise the importance of the standardised 
annual reporting system that allows the Commission to have a clearer picture, 
inter-alia, of the regional and sectorial impact of the different forms of 
government support to the manufacturing sector, notably in the case of aid 
with a horizontal objective. The Commission will therefore take the necessary 
steps to ensure full compliance with this reporting obligation. 
51 
ANNEX I 
TECHNICAL ANNEX 
The purpose of this annex is to outline the methodologies and sources used in 
order to produce this Survey on State aid, notably with regard to: 
Scope of the study 
Fields excluded 
II. Categories, forms and objectives of aid 
III. Type of data, sources and methods of assessing the aid element 
IV. Specific problems 
Research and Development (R&D) 
Transport in Luxembourg 
Tourism; Agri-foodstuff 
Training and unemployment 
Accession of the three new Member States during the 
reporting period 
52 
I. Scope of the Study 
Fields excluded 
1. This Technical Annex explains the methodological background and the 
statistical techniques used. It updates the technical annex used for the 
preceding Survey. 
The Survey focuses on State aid to enterprises falling within the scope 
of Articles 92 and 93 EC Treaty and Article 95 ECSC Treaty. 
Accordingly, general measures (which, if they distort competition, would 
be dealt with under Article 101 of the EC Treaty) are not included in the 
figures. 
2. The following measures or areas are not dealt with: 
2.1. Aid whose recipients are not enterprises 
Aid to households 
Aid to the handicapped 
Aid for infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, etc.) 
Aid for university institutes 
Aid for public vocational training centres 
Aid given directly to developing countries 
2.2. General measures and other measures 
Differences between the various tax systems and general social 
security systems in Member States (depreciation, social security 
deficit, etc.) 
Quotas, public procurement, market restrictions, technical 
standards 
Specific tax schemes (co-operatives, owner enterprises, self-
employed, etc.)15 
General reduction in VAT (for example, foodstuffs in the United 
Kingdom/certain products in the French overseas Departments)16 
2.3. Aid granted by supranational and multinational organisations 
Community funds (ERDF, EAGGF, etc.) 
Financing by EIB and EBRD 
Support to the European Space Agency 
15 However, a lower-than-the-standard rate of corporation tax for small businesses constitutes an aid 
and has been included (e.g. Germany). 
16 Specific reductions such as the reduction of VAT for all products manufactured in Berlin have been 
included. In contrast, all goods (regardless of origin) sold in the DOM pay a lower rate of VAT. 
This has not been included as an aid. 
53 
2.4. Individual types of aid 
Defence (see point 11.2 of this annex) 
Aid to energy, except coal (see points 10.2 and 11) and aid for 
energy saving and alternative (renewable) energy 
Aid to transport, except railways (see point 10.2), and the aviation 
sector covered under section 2.1.9.: Other Objectives. 
Training and unemployment measures (see point 14) 
Press and media 
Buildings and public works 
Public utilities such as gas, water, electricity, telecommunications 
(tariff structure and financing) 
II. Categories, forms and objectives of aid 
3. Categories of aid 
All aid represents a cost or a loss of revenue to the public authorities 
and a benefit to recipients. However, the "aid element", i.e. the ultimate 
financial benefit contained in the nominal amount transferred, depends 
to a large extent on the form in which the aid is provided. Aid should 
therefore be subdivided in accordance with the form in which it is 
provided. Four categories have been identified for this purpose. Each 
category is represented by a letter: A, B, C, or D, followed either by the 
number 1 or 2, meaning respectively budgetary aid (i.e. aid provided 
through the central government budget) or tax relief (i.e. aid granted via 
the tax system), plus an A if the aid element is known; for example, 
C1A refers to the aid element (A) of a soft loan (C1). 
4. GroupA(A1+A2) 
4.1. The first category (A) concerns aid which is transferred in full to the 
recipient. In other words, the aid element is equal to the capital value of 
the aid. This first category has been subdivided into two groups 
depending on whether the aid was granted through the budget (A1) or 
through the tax or social security system (A2). 
4.2. List of aid coming under categories A1 and A2 
Grants 
Interest subsidies received directly by the recipient 
General research and development schemes (see point 11) 
Tax credits and other tax measures, where the benefit is not 
dependent on having a tax liability (i.e. if the tax credit exceeds 
the tax due, the excess amount is repaid) 
54 
Tax allowances, exemptions, and rate relieves where the benefit 
is dependent on having a tax liability 
Reduction in social security contributions 
Grant equivalents e.g. sale or rental of public land or property at 
prices below market value 
5. Group B1 
5.1. It is necessary to determine whether a financial transfer by the public 
authorities in the form of equity participation is an aid to the recipient or 
a matter of the public sector engaging in a commercial activity and 
operating like a private investor under normal market conditions. 
Consequently, although equity participation, in their various forms, 
could have been included in the first category, they have been grouped 
together under a separate category (B1). The aid element contained in 
such equity participation is set out in category B1A. 
5.2. List of aid coming under category B1 
Equity participation in whatever form (including debt conversion) 
6. Group C (C1+C2) 
6.1. The third category (C) covers transfers in which the aid element is the 
interest saved by the recipient during the period for which the capital 
transferred is at his disposal. The financial transfer takes the form of a 
soft loan (C1) or tax deferral (C2). The aid elements (C1A/C2A) in this 
category are much lower than the capital values of the aid. 
6.2. List of aid coming under categories C1 or C2 
Soft loans (new loans granted) whether from public or private 
sources. (The transfer of interest subsidies is categorised under 
A1) 
Participatory loans from public or private sources 
Advances repayable in the event of success 
Deferred tax provisions (reserves, free or accelerated 
depreciation, etc.) 
7. Group D1 
7.1. The last category (D1) covers guarantees, expressed in nominal 
amounts guaranteed. The aid elements (D1A) are normally much lower 
than the nominal amounts, since they correspond to the benefit which 
the recipient receives free of charge or at lower than market rate if a 
premium is paid to cover the risk. However, if losses are incurred under 
the guarantee scheme, the total loss, net of any premiums paid, is 
55 
included under D1A, since it can be considered as a definitive transfer 
to the recipient. The nominal amounts of these guarantees are shown 
under D1 to give an indication of the contingent liability. 
7.2. List of aid coming under category D1 
Amounts covered under guarantee schemes (D1) 
Losses arising from guarantee schemes, net of premiums paid 
(D1A) 
For information on the calculation of the aid element contained in the 
different forms of assistance, see point 10.6. 
9. Objectives of aid 
9.1. The aid schemes have been broken down into 19 headings accon 
to their sectorial or functional objectives: 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2. Manufacturing/Services 
2.1. (Horizontal objectives) 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. Small and Medium Enterprises 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment} see point 14 of 
2.1.8. Training Aid } this annex 
2.1.9. Other objectives 
2. Manufacturing/Services 
2.2. (Particular sectors) 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2. Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
2.2.4.1. Coal (Current Production) 
2.2.4.2. Coal (Other Aid) 
2.2.5. Other Sectors 
3. Regional aid 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)a 
3.2. Other regions 
56 
9.2. The heading 3.: "Regional aid " contains for Germany three 
subheadings: aid to Art. 92(3)a regions which comprises the new 
Bundeslander, Art. 92(3)c regions and to the former Zonenrandgebiet 
and West-Berlin. 
In the coal sector, a distinction is made depending on whether or not 
aid is linked to current production (such a link is made by the 
Commission in its annual communication to the Council on the financial 
aids in this sector). 
List of regions within the meaning of Article 92(3)(a)17 
Member State Regions 
Greece ) the 
Ireland ) whole of the 
Portugal ) country 
Austria Burgenland 
Germany Berlin (Eastern Part) 
Brandenburg 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 
Sachsen 
Sachsen-Anhalt 
Thuringen 
Spain Galicia 
Asturias 
Cantabria 
Castilla-Leon 
Castilla-La Mancha 
Extremadura 
Comunidad Valenciana 
Andalucia 
Murcia 
Ceuta y Melilla 
Canarias 
France Overseas departments 
Italy Campania 
Sud 
, Sicilia 
Sardegna 
United Kingdom Northern Ireland 
17 OJ EC no. C 212 of 12.08.1988, pages 2 to 10 and subsequent changes. 
57 
III. Type of data, sources and methods of 
assessing the aid element 
10. As a general rule, the figures have been expressed in terms of actual 
expenditure (or actual revenue losses in the case of tax expenditure).18 
Where this was not possible, budget appropriations or the amounts 
provided for in planning programmes were used after consultation with 
the Member States concerned. Where figures were not available 
previous figures have, unless otherwise stated, been extrapolated. 
10.1. All the figures have been compiled in national currency and have been 
converted into ECUs at the annual average exchange rate provided by 
the Statistical Office of the European Communities. 
The following statistical data used in the survey have been taken from 
the EUROSTAT database NEWCHRONOS. A minor number of 
unavailable data have been completed with statistics from the AMECO 
database managed by DG II of the Commission or with best estimates. 
gross domestic product (GDP) at market price 
gross value added at market price 
general government total expenditure 
statistics on civilian employment 
intra-EC exports of industrial products under No's 5 to 8 of the 
CTCI, rev. 3. 
10.2. The Commission's departments have provided figures for their 
respective sectors in accordance with the following outlines. Not all the 
figures have been counter-checked by the Member States nor have 
they been checked against their budgets by the Commission's 
departments. 
For agriculture and fisheries the figures are those submitted by the 
Member States in accordance with the procedure emanating from the 
resolution of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member 
States during the 306th Session of the Council on 20 October 1974. 
As regards agriculture however, no data at all have been submitted by 
Spain, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Sweden and Austria for the 
period under review. Moreover, figures were only available up to 1992 
for Greece and France, up to 1993 for Portugal and up to 1995 for 
Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. 
From the total amount of budgetary expenditure indicated in the 
inventory, the following have been excluded: research aid, land 
18 It has to be stressed that the yearly expenditures (commitments) are not necessarily identical to the 
yearly budgetary appropriations for an aid scheme. 
58 
improvement (drainage), social security measures applicable to the 
entire sector, income tax concessions, regional selective financial 
assistance. 
The figures contain the following: grants, tax relief, aid financed by 
parafiscal charges, interest subsidies and a number of benefits in kind 
provided by the State (for example, training courses). 
In the fisheries sector, for 1995 and 1996 data were available for 
Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Finland, Sweden and the 
United Kingdom. 
Loans and guarantees are not included where the aid element is 
unquantifiable. 
For coal the figures are those submitted by the Member States in 
accordance with Commission Decision No.s 528/76/ECSC, 
2064/86/ECSC and 3632/93/ECSC and summarised in the 
Commission's Annual Communication to the Council on aids in this 
sector19. New capital injections, which may constitute aid, are not 
included in these figures. Public undertakings' coal-purchasing 
contracts (for example, for electricity generation) which might comprise 
an aid element where the price exceeds the world price have not been 
included. 
For transport (Railways) the figures are those submitted by the Member 
States in accordance with Council Regulation No 1107/70. In addition, 
but shown separately, are the aids given for railways within the 
framework of Council Regulation 1191/69 as amended by Regulation 
1893/91 and Council Regulation 1192/69 for respectively the 
maintenance of public service obligations and, the normalisation of 
railways' accounts due to special burdens placed on railways. 
With regard to other forms of transport except aviation, due to lack of 
information, the aid figures are incomplete and fragmentary and have 
not been included. In particular no figures have been given for aid to 
local transport. 
10.3. Manufacturing 
In the case of aid to the manufacturing sector, the figures have 
generally been taken from notifications under Article 93 and from 
information submitted within the context of the standardised annual 
reporting procedure set out in the Commission letter of 22.02.1994 to 
the Member States and up-dated by the Commission letter of 
19 These figures are broken down into aid for current production and those not relating to current 
production (i.e. special social security measures for miners and aid to cover inherited liabilities). 
However since 1994 figures on the financing of social benefits are no longer included by the 
Commission in its annual communication on aid in this sector. 
59 
02.08.1995 to the Member States. Furthermore, data are checked 
against national publications on the award of aid, national accounts, 
draft budgets and other available sources. 
10.4. Steel 
The figures presented in the study have been compiled from the steel 
aid monitoring reports prepared by the Commission for the Council. 
The figures show the amount of aid granted to undertakings. 
10.5. Tax expenditure 
With regard to tax expenditure, the OECD concept was used as a 
starting point. 
"A tax expenditure is usually defined as a departure from the generally 
accepted or benchmark tax structure, which produces a favourable tax 
treatment of particular types of activities or groups of taxpayers". 
Thus, for example, tax reliefs granted to certain development areas i.e. 
to only a part of the territory of the tax authority, are regarded as tax 
expenditures, whereas the rate.structure is regarded as an integral part 
of the benchmark tax system. 
However, in some cases, such departures from the benchmark system 
are on the borderline between aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) 
EC and general measures. Further work has to be carried out in order 
to elucidate this "grey area". 
10.6. Methods of assessing the aid element 
10.6.1. In order to analyse the different forms of aid on a fully comparable 
basis; it is necessary to reduce them to a common denominator - the 
grant element which they contain. To this end the methods currently 
employed by the Commission in its control of State aid have been 
used. These methods are all official Commission policy and have been 
discussed at a technical level with the Member States. 
10.6.2. The basic approach to evaluating the aid element is the common 
method of evaluation used in calculating the net grant equivalent of 
state interventions (for latest update see annex of the Commission 
guidelines on national regional aid schemes, OJ C 74 of 10.03.1998. 
Obviously, the receipt of an aid may change the tax liability of some 
recipients. However, taking account of the allowances and reductions 
that can be claimed against profits tax and the losses made by certain 
companies, the effective rate of tax paid in general by companies is 
much lower than the theoretical maximum rate. Therefore it is 
considered that the results obtained without taking account of taxation 
are closer to reality than if the maximum theoretical rate had been 
employed. The common denominator is therefore grant equivalent and 
not net grant equivalent. 
60 
Method applied to different forms of aid 
10.6.3. Group A - grants, relief from taxes and social charges, etc. 
No calculations of the aid element are necessary because this group 
comprises all interventions, which can be considered as constituting 
grants or grant equivalents. 
10.6.4. Group B - equity (including debt conversion). 
In line with established Commission policy, such interventions 
constitute aid when a private investor operating under normal market 
conditions would not have undertaken such an investment. See 
Commission communication "Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the 
EEC Treaty and of Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to 
public undertakings in the manufacturing sector", OJ No C 307 of 
13.11.1993, p320. This method is based on calculating the benefit of the 
intervention to the recipient. 
Where a Commission decision does not establish the aid element and 
where data provided by a Member State does not indicate the aid 
element, 15% of the total participation is taken as the aid element. This 
proxy was only resorted to in a few cases and has no significant impact 
on the results. 
10.6.5. Group C - soft loans and deferred tax provisions. 
In accordance with the common method of evaluation, benefits 
accorded to an enterprise over a period of time in the form of soft loans 
and deferred tax provisions are discounted back to the present. The 
discount rate is the "reference rate" which represents the rate at which 
companies can borrow under normal market conditions. The definition 
of the reference rate in each Member State has been formally adopted 
by the Commission (see point 14 of the common method of evaluation). 
The aid element in a soft loan in any one-year is, therefore, the 
difference between the reference rate and the rate at which the State 
accords the loan multiplied by the value of the loan. The aid elements 
(C1A/C2A) in this category are much lower than the capital values of 
the aid. Starting in 1995, where a Member State fails to provide data on 
the aid elements, 15% of the total amount lent by the government is 
taken as the aid element, compared with the old practice of taking 33%. 
This downward adjustment is explained by the generally lower level of 
the aid element due to generally lower rates of interest in the Member 
States when compared with periods covered by previous surveys. 
20 See also "Application of Article 92 and 93 EEC to public authorities' holdings", Bulletin EC 9-1984, 
further "The Measurement of the Aid Element of State Acquisitions of Company Capital" - IV/45/87 
Evolution of Concentration and Competition Series, Collection : Working Papers 87. 
61 
These proxies were only resorted to in a few cases and have no 
significant impact on the results 
In the case of participatory loans the net cost was calculated as the 
difference between the rate of return effectively received by the state 
on these participatory loans and the reference rate. 
In the case of reimbursable advances, where a Member State does not 
indicate the reimbursement ratio, the aid element is taken to be 90% as 
the re-payment ratio has shown to be very low on average. Where a 
Commission decision establishes the aid element, this is used. 
10.6.6. Group D - amounts covered under guarantee schemes. 
For ordinary guarantee schemes the aid element is calculated as the 
benefit of the scheme to the recipient. The aid element (D1A) is much 
lower than the capital value guaranteed. Where this information is not 
available, the losses to the Government are taken as an approximation 
of the aid element. Where Member State data only contain figures on, 
the capital value guaranteed, but not the annual net results of the 
scheme, then, starting in 1995, the aid element is taken to be 10% of 
the capital value guaranteed21. This proxy was only resorted to in a few 
cases and has no significant impact on the results. 
For loans awarded under exchange-rate guarantee schemes, the aid 
element is calculated as though the loan was a soft loan in the 
currency, which is guaranteed against exchange rate fluctuations. The 
aid element is the difference between the reference rate for the 
currency which is covered by the guarantee and the rate of interest at 
which the loan is given less any charge for the guarantee. This 
calculation is therefore based on calculating the benefit of the scheme 
to the recipient. 
10.7. Although figures for loans or guarantees from publicly owned credit 
institutions are given when they are considered as constituting aid, 
there are greater difficulties in identifying and quantifying such 
interventions than for other forms of aid, because by their very nature 
they are less transparent. In order to avoid any unwarranted 
discrimination with respect to the different treatment of aids in these 
areas, additional work as to identifying and quantifying such aid will 
have to be done. 
21 The percentage is based on a corresponding Member States' agreement in shipbuilding sector. 
62 
IV. Specific problems 
11. Research and Development (R&D) 
11.1. R&D schemes 
Figures including extra-mural Government funding of R&D programmes 
for nationalised or private enterprises are classified under A1A22. In 
view of the global nature of the sources used, it has not always been 
possible to exclude certain elements of public procurement from extra­
mural expenditure (e.g. R&D contracts). Because only direct funding of 
R&D has been included, it is considered that the figures for R&D have 
been underestimated (R&D contracts and Public Research (see 11.2 
and 11.3 below) have been omitted because of the inability to quantify 
the aid element in such interventions). 
11.2. R&D contracts 
Figures for research and development contracts have not been 
included in the figures, since the aid element is, at present, often 
unquantifiable. Furthermore, the sources do not permit research and 
development contracts intended specifically for military purpose to be 
isolated nor the impact on the market of such contracts to be 
evaluated23. 
11.3. Public Research 
No figures are given for any aid element contained in the intramural 
funding of government or public research establishments or research 
carried out by institutes of higher education. Public financing of R&D 
activities by public non-profit-making higher education or research 
establishments is normally not covered by article 92 (1) of the EC 
Treaty24. 
11.4. Nuclear energy 
Member States provide aid to the nuclear energy sector through the 
intermediary of their public undertakings or through the intermediary of 
R&D financing (mainly in the form of R&D contracts and public 
research). Only some of this direct financing could be included in the 
figures for R&D (2.1.1.)- The figures on nuclear energy contained in 
R&D figures may well be underestimated. Since the R&D figures 
exclude R&D contracts and public research, the aid element of such 
measures is difficult to quantify. 
22 Accelerated depreciation for R&D equipment is not considered as an aid. 
23 See point 2.5. of the Community framework for Research and Development Aid, OJ C 45 of 
17.02.1996. 
24 See point 2.4. of the Community framework for Research and Development Aid,. 
63 
12. Transport in Luxembourg 
Transport figures appear to be higher in Luxembourg relative to other 
Member States due in the main to particularly high payments for 
pensions of former railways employees. No further details are available. 
13. Tourism and Agri-foodstuff industries 
Due to a lack of information on these two sectors it is probable that the 
data included in the study are incomplete. 
14. Training and unemployment 
It is not always apparent whether certain fiscal or social security 
measures constitute aid or form a coherent and integral part of the 
fiscal or social security system. In addition, incentive schemes exist in 
different Member States to stimulate or facilitate general training or the 
employment of certain socially disadvantaged groups of workers. In so 
far as such schemes are not industry-specific and are available across 
the whole economy, and in fact genuinely constitute part of a general 
system of employment measures, they are not to be considered as 
State aids. Although a number of training and employment schemes 
have been treated by the Commission as State aid, not all Member 
States' measures in these fields have up to now been examined in 
detail. Because of the considerable problems in delimiting employment 
aids, particularly those concerning training, from general measures and 
in order to present figures that are comparable between Member 
States, no training and unemployment measures have been analysed 
in the present report. 
15. Accession of the three new Member States in the middle of the 
reporting 
period 
For reasons stated above, when comparing the different Member 
States, the analysis of the aid figures concentrates on the annual 
averages over the three-year-period 1994-96. As the three new 
Member States only acceded in 1995, figures for these countries are 
only available for the years 1995 and 1996. Consequently, for these 
countries the annual average of 1995 and 1996 is presented as the 
annual average of the three-year-period 1994-96 in the tables. 
64 
ANNEX II 
STATISTICAL ANNEX 
The methodology used for the tables contained is explained in the Technical 
Annex. 
Table A1 State aid to the manufacturing sector. Annual amounts of aid 1992-
1996 in current prices ^nd national currencies. 
Table A2 State aid to the manufacturing sector. Annual amounts of aid 1992-
1996 in current prices and ECU. 
Table A3 State aid to the new German Lander. 
Annual averages 1994-1996 in ECU. 
Figure A1 State aid to the manufacturing sector and Community Social and 
Regional Funds. 
Annual averages 1994-1996 per employee in ECU. 
Tables 
A4/1-15 Total State aid - annual average 1994-1996 by Member State 
65 
Table A1 
State aid to the manufacturing sector in current prices 1992-1996 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 15 
EUR 12 
Old German lander 
New German lander 1992 
0,00 
25.176,37 
2.604,90 
29.501,46 
282.609,57 
135.610,43 
0,00 
32.438,84 
157,32 
19.061,76 
2.533,70 
1.426,23 
57.029,17 
0,00 
1.461,89 
37.595,51 
9.820,84 
19.680,62 1993 
0,00 
33.401,28 
4.440,55 
38.145,72 
131.376,92 
215.538,16 
0,00 
34.121,64 
169,30 
22.316,42 
1.669,10 
1.371,57 
74.759,41 
0,00 
895,77 
42.736,85 
7.040,21 
31.105,51 1994 
0,00 
43.252,04 
4.377,04 
38.803,33 
105.256,25 
240.391,09 
0,00 
26.615,98 
145,89 
19.139,58 
1.678,50 
1.407,29 
115.855,07 
0,00 
1.029,07 
40.542,15 
6.071,91 
32.731,42 million national currency 
1995 
6.515,48 
39.572,04 
4.903,38 
29.548,24 
263.163,64 
339.902,85 
2.287,91 
22.000,65 
159,90 
23.135,24 
1.829,79 
1.517,34 
54.728,23 
2.895,78 
1.233,70 
38.591,06 
37.385,71 
5.827,60 
23.720,64 1996 
5.239,22 
50.178,02 
5.489,77 
24.612,29 
243.859,26 
449.050,07 
1.905,08 
24.461,03 
221,15 
20.109,41 
1.815,47 
1.389,66 
49.716,05 
3.070,11 
1.516,38 
36.705,27 
35.627,84 
5.975,71 
18.636,58 
66 
Table A2 
State aid to the manufacturing sector in current prices (ECU) 1992-1996 
million ECU 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EUR 15 
EUR 12 1992 
0,00 
605,30 
333,57 
14.602,44 
1.144,26 
1.023,27 
0,00 
4.736,71 
206,80 
11.947,05 
60,92 
626,96 
326,41 
0,00 
1.981,82 
37.595,51 1993 
0,00 
825,31 
584,78 
19.699,40 
489,18 
1.445,36 
0,00 
5.143,70 
211,64 
12.120,39 
41,24 
630,55 
396,88 
0,00 
1.148,44 
42.736,85 1994 
0,00 
1.090,67 
580,26 
20.162,60 
365,44 
1.512,66 
0,00 
4.043,38 
183,83 
9.994,24 
42,33 
652,05 
588,41 
0,00 
1.326,28 
40.542,15 1995 
494,26 
1.026,46 
669,13 
15.769,58 
868,56 
2.085,29 
400,79 
3.371,72 
196,07 
10.860,90 
47,46 
722,92 
279,08 
310,31 
1.488,55 
38.591,06 
37.385,71 1996 
389,98 
1.276,84 
745,96 
12.889,12 
798,11 
2.793,50 
326,87 
3.767,29 
278,72 
10.265,35 
46,20 
649,45 
253,96 
360,56 
1.863,33 
36.705,27 
35.627,84 
67 
Table A3 
German State aid to the new Lander - yearly average 1994-1996 
Grants 
Tax exemptions 
Equity participation 
Soft loans 
Tax deferrals 
Guarantees 
TOTAL million ECU 
7.373,1 
1.964,0 
0,0 
3.418,1 
0,0 
691,9 
13.447,1 in per cent 
54,8 
14,6 
0,0 
25,4 
0,0 
5,2 
100,0 in per cent 
of total aid 
44,3 
11,8 
0,0 
20,5 
0,0 
4,2 
80,8 
During the years of 1994 to 1996 aid totalling a yearly average of Ecu 13497 
million including Treuhand was granted to the new Lander. This volume 
represents 81% of all German aid to the manufacturing sector. The increase of 
the overall volume of German aid resulting from granting aid to the new Lander 
has been partially compensated by a decrease of the aid to Berlin and to the 
Zonenrand. 
68 
Figure A1 
Aid to the manufacturing sector and Community Funds per employee 
Average 1994-1996 
3000 
2000 
ECU 
1000 J 
AU B DK D GR E FIN F IRL I L NL P S UK EUR 
15 
Regional/Social funds per employee r-. Aid to industry per employee 
69 
AUSTRIA 
Table A4/1 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
l.l. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
261,5 
66,7 
67,8 
54,3 
0,0 
5,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
66,9 
704,0 
6,8 
0,0 
655,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
41,4 
0,0 
43,3 
37,8 
5,5 
1.008,9 
91,4 
353,0 
78,8 A2A 
N.A. 
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 B1A 
N.A. 
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 CIA 
N.A. 
0,0 
40,2 
17,8 
3,5 
2,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
16,1 
9,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
9,6 
0,0 
13,6 
8,1 
5,5 
63,4 
5,7 
63,4 
14,1 C2A 
N.A. 
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 D1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
28,4 
1,8 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
26,5 
0,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
3,3 
0,0 
3,3 
31,8 
2,9 
31,8 
7,1 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
0,0 
330,1 
86,2 
71,4 
57,1 
0,0 
5,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
109,5 
713,7 
6,8 
0,0 
655,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
51,1 
0,0 
60,2 
45,9 
14,3 
1104,1 in% 
0,0 
0,0 
29,9 
7,8 
6,5 
5,2 
0,0 
0,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
9,9 
64,6 
0,6 
0,0 
59,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
4,6 
0,0 
5,5 
4,2 
1,3 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
330,1 
86,2 
71,4 
57,1 
0,0 
5,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
109,5 
57,9 
6,8 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
51,1 
0,0 
60,2 
45,9 
14,3 
448,3 in% 
-
-
73,6 
19,2 
15,9 
12,7 
0,0 
1,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
24,4 
12,9 
1,5 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
11,4 
0,0 
13,4 
10,2 
3,2 
100,0 
70 
BELGIUM 
Table A4/2 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
l. I. Agriculture* 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
168,5 
1,9 
420,7 
82,8 
5,4 
230,3 
2,0 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1.613,9 
3,4 
28,0 
1.569,9 
590,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
12,7 
0,0 
259,6 
259,6 
0,0 
2.196,1 
80,7 
624,4 
54,4 A2A 
0,0 
0,0 
111,6 
0,2 
0,0 
1,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
110,0 
288,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
288,7 
0,0 
6,1 
6,1 
0,0 
406,4 
14,9 
406,4 
35,4 B1A 
0,0 
0,0 
14,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
14,1 
0,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,2 
0,0 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
14,5 
0,5 
14,3 
1,2 CIA 
0,0 
0,0 
34,3 
32,1 
0,0 
0,6 
1,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,2 
0,2 
0,0 
34,5 
1,3 
34,5 
3,0 C2A 
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 
4,5 
4,5 
0,0 
4,5 
0,2 
4,5 
0,4 D1A 
0,0 
0,0 
47,1 
0,0 
0,0 
6,3 
40,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
17,4 
17,4 
0,0 
64,6 
2,4 
64,6 
5,6 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
168,5 
1,9 
527,8 
115,0 
5,4 
238,5 
44,2 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
124,5 
1903,2 
3,4 
28,0 
1570,0 
590,0 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
301,8 
0,0 
287,7 
287,7 
0,0 
2.720,6 in% 
0,1 
19,4 
4,1 
0,2 
8,8 
1,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
4,6 
70,0 
0,1 
1,0 
56,6 
21,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
11,1 
0,0 
10,6 
10,6 
0,0 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
527,8 
115,0 
5,4 
238,5 
44,2 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
124,5 
333,2 
3,4 
28,0 
-
-
-
-
-
301,8 
0,0 
287,7 
287,7 
0,0 
1.148,7 in% 
-
-
46,0 
9,6 
0,4 
20,8 
3,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
10,8 
29,0 
0,3 
2,3 
-
-
-
-
-
26,3 
0,0 
25,0 
25,0 
0,0 
100,0 
* State aid to agriculture is given for information only and is not included in any total. 
71 
DENMARK 
Table A4/3 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture* 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
134,6 
8,3 
453,9 
129,7 
45,7 
21,7 
34,0 
222,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
621,0 
0,0 
65,4 
527,2 
68,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
28,5 
0,0 
11,6 
11,6 
0,0 
1.094,8 
90,7 
559,3 
83,3 A2A 
0,0 
0,0 
68,9 
50,1 
18,8 
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 
68,9 
5,7 
68,9 
10,3 B1A 
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 CIA 
0,0 
0,0 
32,4 
15,7 
0,0 
1,0 
13,1 
2,6 
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 
0,1 
0,1 
0,0 
32,6 
2,7 
32,6 
4,9 C2A 
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 D1A 
0,0 
0,0 
10,5 
0,5 
0,0 
10,0 
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 
10,5 
0,9 
10,5 
1,6 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
134,6 
8,3 
565,7 
195,9 
64,5 
32,8 
47,2 
225,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
621,0 
0,0 
65,4 
527,2 
68,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
28,5 
0,0 
11,7 
11,7 
0,0 
1.206,7 in% 
0,7 
46,9 
16,2 
5,3 
2,7 
3,9 
18,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
51,5 
0,0 
5,4 
43,7 
5,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,4 
0,0 
1,0 
1,0 
0,0 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
565,7 
195,9 
64,5 
32,8 
47,2 
225,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
93,9 
0,0 
65,4 
-
-
-
-
-
28,5 
0,0 
11,7 
11,7 
0,0 
671,3 in% 
-
s 
84,3 
29,2 
9,6 
4,9 
7,0 
33,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
14,0 
0,0 
9,7 
-
-
-
-
-
4,2 
0,0 
1,7 
1,7 
0,0 
100,0 
* State aid to agriculture is given for information only and is not included in any total. 
72 
GERMANY 
Table A4/4 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture* 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
3.3. Germany: (Berlin/Zonenrand) 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in % A1A 
2.939,1 
16,5 
1.750,2 
1.076,6 
78,6 
325,7 
0,0 
241,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
28,0 
18.223,0 
298,6 
519,1 
11.649,2 
3.048,9 
0,0 
5.599,8 
134,2 
22,1 
0,0 
6.502,9 
375,1 
6.126,0 
1,8 
26.492,7 
78,1 
9.092,9 
55,1 A2A 
0,0 
0,0 
251,2 
0,0 
0,0 
247,4 
0,0 
3,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
143,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
143,6 
0,0 
2.127,2 
2,8 
1.964,0 
160,4 
2.521,9 
7,4 
2.521,9 
15,3 FORMS OF AID 
B1A 
0,0 
0,0 
119,4 
75,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
43,8 
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 
119,4 
0,4 
119,4 
0,7 CIA 
0,0 
0,0 
777,5 
14,1 
48,3 
184,1 
0,0 
25,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
505,5 
7,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
7,1 
0,0 
2.919,3 
69,5 
2.849,9 
0,0 
3.703,9 
10,9 
3.703,9 
22,4 C2A 
0,0 
0,0 
61,1 
0,0 
0,0 
61,1 
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 
161,4 
0,0 
0,0 
161,4 
222,5 
0,7 
222,5 
1,3 D1A 
0,0 
0,0 
231,3 
0,0 
0,0 
79,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
151,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
611,1 
0,0 
611,1 
0,0 
842,4 
2,5 
842,4 
5,11 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
2.939,1 
16,5 
3190,7 
1166,3 
126,9 
897,9 
0,0 
270,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
729,0 
18.373,7 
298,6 
519,1 
11.649,2 
3048,9 
0,0 
5599,8 
134,2 
172,7 
0,0 
12321,8 
447,4 
11550,9 
323,5 
33.902,8 in% 
0,0 
0,1 
9,7 
3,6 
0,4 
2,7 
0,0 
0,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,2 
54,2 
0,9 
1,6 
34,4 
8,9 
0,8 
17,1 
0,4 
0,5 
0,0 
36,3 
1,3 
34,1 
1,0 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
3190,7 
1166,3 
126,9 
897,9 
0,0 
270,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
729,0 
990,4 
298,6 
519,1 
-
-
-
-
-
172,7 
0,0 
12321,8 
447,4 
11550,9 
323,5 
16503,0 in% 
-
-
19,3 
7,1 
0,8 
5,4 
0,0 
1,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
4,4 
6,0 
1,8 
3,1 
-
-
-
-
-
1,0 
0,0 
74,7 
2,7 
70,0 
2,0 
100,0| 
* State aid to agriculture is given for information only and is not included in any total. 
73 
GREECE 
Table A4/5 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
l.l. Agriculture 
l .2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
0,8 
14,0 
10,0 
0,0 
4,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
279,8 
0,0 
0,0 
271,7 
8,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
8,2 
0,0 
415,7 
0,0 
415,7 
710,4 
72,6 
437,9 
66,2 A2A 
N.A. 
0,0 
70,6 
0,0 
0,0 
7,0 
63,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
12,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
12,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
83,1 
8,5 
83,1 
12,6 B1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
44,1 
0,0 
0,0 
44,1 
0,0 
44,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
44,1 
4,5 
0,0 
0,0 CIA 
N.A. 
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 
21,8 
0,0 
21,8 
21,8 
2,2 
21,8 
3,3 C2A 
N.A. 
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 D1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
119,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
37,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
81,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
119,1 
12,2 
119,1 
18,0 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
0,8 
203,8 
10,0 
0,0 
11,0 
101,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
81,4 
336,4 
0,0 
0,0 
315,8 
8,0 
44,1 
0,0 
0,0 
20,7 
0,0 
437,5 
0,0 
437,5 
978,5 in% 
0,0 
0,1 
20,8 
1,0 
0,0 
U 
10,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
8,2 
34,4 
0,0 
0,0 
31,5 
0,8 
4,4 
0,0 
0,0 
2,1 
0,0 
44,8 
0,0 
44,8 
100,0 In Million ECU 
Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
203,8 
10,0 
0,0 
11,0 
101,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
81,4 
20,7 
0,0 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
20,7 
0,0 
437,5 
0,0 
437,5 
661,9 in% 
-
-
30,8 
1,5 
0,0 
1,6 
14,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
12,0 
3,1 
0,0 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
3,1 
0,0 
66,1 
0,0 
66,1 
100,0 
74 
SPAIN 
Table A4/6 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in % 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in % FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
62,3 
409,9 
112,2 
30,2 
155,8 
3,7 
29,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
78,4 
4.117,9 
663,6 
389,3 
1.857,2 
0,0 
0,0 
767,6 
236,5 
203,7 
0,0 
267,8 
190,6 
77,2 
4.857,9 
97,3 
1.934,4 
93,4 A2A 
N.A. 
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 B1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
4,1 
0,0 
0,0 
3,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,8 
0,0 
2,8 
6,9 
0,1 
6,9 
0,3 CIA 
N.A. 
0,0 
89,8 
33,6 
0,4 
46,8 
4,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
4,6 
28,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
28,6 
0,0 
9,5 
0,0 
9,5 
127,9 
2,6 
127,9 
6,2 C2A 
N.A. 
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 D1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
2,5 
0,0 
0,0 
2,1 
0,3 
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 
2,5 
0,0 
2,5 
0,1 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
62,3 
506,2 
145,8 
30,6 
207,8 
8,4 
29,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
84,0 
4.146,5 
663,6 
389,3 
1857,2 
0,0 
0,0 
767,6 
236,5 
232,3 
0,0 
280,1 
190,6 
89,6 
4.995,1 in% 
0,0 
1,3 
10,4 
3,0 
0,6 
4,3 
0,2 
0,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,7 
83,0 
13,7 
7,7 
37,2 
0,0 
0,0 
15,4 
4,7 
4,7 
0,0 
5,8 
3,9 
1,8 
100,0 In Million ECU 
Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
506,2 
145,8 
30,6 
207,8 
8,4 
29,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
84,0 
1285,3 
663,6 
389,3 
-
-
-
-
-
232,3 
0,0 
280,1 
190,6 
89,6 
2071,6 in% 
-
-
24,4 
7,0 
1,5 
10,0 
0,4 
1,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
4,1 
62,0 
32,0 
18,8 
-
-
-
-
-
11,2 
0,0 
13,5 
9,2 
4,3 
100,0 
75 
FINLAND 
Table A4/7 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING . 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
3,5 
214,1 
122,5 
8,9 
27,7 
38,2 
13,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
3,6 
52,8 
0,0 
0,0 
47,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,2 
0,0 
76,4 
76,4 
0,0 
346,7 
83,3 
295,6 
81,0 A2A 
N.A. 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,8 
0,0 
9,1 
9,1 
0,0 
11,8 
2,8 
11,8 
3,2 B1A 
N.A. 
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 CIA 
N.A. 
0,0 
54,6 
5,6 
0,0 
49,0 
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 
54,7 
13,1 
54,7 
15,0 C2A 
N.A. 
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 D1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
2,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,2 
0,2 
0,0 
3,0 
0,7 
3,0 
0,8 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
3,5 
271,5 
128,2 
8,9 
76,6 
38,2 
13,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
6,4 
55,6 
0,0 
0,0 
47,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
8,0 
0,0 
85,7 
85,7 
0,0 
416,2 in% 
0,0 
0,8 
65,2 
30,8 
2,1 
18,4 
9,2 
3,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,5 
13,4 
0,0 
0,0 
11,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,9 
0,0 
20,6 
20,6 
0,0 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
271,5 
128,2 
8,9 
76,6 
38,2 
13,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
6,4 
8,0 
0,0 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
8,0 
0,0 
85,7 
85,7 
0,0 
365,2 in% 
-
• 
74,4 
35,1 
2,4 
21,0 
10,5 
3,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,7 
2,2 
0,0 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
2,2 
0,0 
23,5 
23,5 
0,0 
100,0 
76 
FRANCE 
Table A4/8 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
l.l. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in % 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
32,3 
773,2 
504,6 
38,2 
157,8 
8,8 
23,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
40,2 
7.160,1 
2,6 
24,4 
5.912,4 
0,0 
0,0 
149,5 
608,4 
462,7 
0,0 
353,5 
312,1 
41,4 
8.319,1 
65,3 
1.616,5 
43,4 A2A 
N.A. 
0,0 
487,1 
469,8 
0,0 
17,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
20,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
20,0 
0,0 
913,6 
517,2 
396,4 
1.420,7 
11,1 
1.420,7 
38,1 B1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
160,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
160,9 
2.312,3 
0,0 
0,0 
1.043,2 
0,0 
1.043,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1.269,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2.473,2 
19,4 
160,9 
4,3 CIA 
N.A. 
0,0 
100,1 
62,9 
0,0 
37,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
13,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
13,0 
0,0 
1,1 
0,0 
1,1 
114,2 
0,9 
114,2 
3,1 C2A 
N.A. 
0,0 
22,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
22,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
28,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
28,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
50,3 
0,4 
50,3 
1,3 D1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
364,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
364,3 
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 
0,5 
0,5 
0,0 
364,8 
2,9 
364,8 
9,8 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
32,3 
1907,7 
1037,4 
38,2 
212,3 
395,1 
23,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
201,1 
9.533,6 
2,6 
24,4 
6955,6 
0,0 
1043,2 
149,5 
608,4 
524,0 
1.269,1 
1268,6 
829,8 
438,8 
12.742,3 in% 
0,0 
0,2 
13,9 
7,6 
0,3 
1,5 
2,9 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,5 
74,8 
0,0 
0,2 
50,6 
0,0 
7,6 
U 
4,4 
3,8 
10,0 
9,2 
6,0 
3,2 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
1907,7 
1037,4 
38,2 
212,3 
395,1 
23,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
201,1 
551,0 
2,6 
24,4 
-
-
-
-
-
524,0 
-
1268,6 
829,8 
438,8 
3727,4 in% 
-
-
51,2 
27,8 
1,0 
5,7 
10,6 
0,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,4 
14,8 
0,1 
0,7 
-
-
-
-
-
14,1 
-
34,0 
22,3 
11,8 
100,0 
77 
IRELAND 
Table A4/9 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
l.l. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
11,8 
54,5 
12,7 
0,0 
36,7 
3,9 
1,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
141,7 
15,5 
0,0 
126,2 
84,1 
0,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
120,1 
0,0 
120,1 
328,2 
83,4 
190,1 
88,6 A2A 
N.A. 
0,0 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,2 
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 
0,2 
0,0 
0,2 
0,1 B1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
41,0 
0,0 
0,0 
41,0 
0,0 
41,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
41,0 
10,4 
0,0 
0,0 CIA 
N.A. 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,6 
0,1 
0,6 
0,3 C2A 
N.A. 
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 D1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
23,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
2,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
21,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
23,8 
6,0 
23,8 
11,1 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
11,8 
78,5 
12,7 
0,0 
36,9 
6,4 
1,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
21,4 
183,2 
15,5 
0,0 
167,2 
84,1 
41,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,5 
0,0 
120,1 
0,0 
120,1 
393,7 in% 
0,0 
3,0 
20,0 
3,2 
0,0 
9,4 
1,6 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,4 
46,5 
3,9 
0,0 
42,5 
21,4 
10,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
30,5 
0,0 
30,5 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
78,5 
12,7 
0,0 
36,9 
6,4 
1,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
21,4 
16,0 
15,5 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
0,5 
0,0 
120,1 
0,0 
120,1 
214,7 in% 
-
-
36,6 
5,9 
0,0 
17,2 
3,0 
0,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
10,0 
7,5 
7,2 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
0,2 
0,0 
56,0 
0,0 
56,0 
100,0 
78 
ITALY 
Table A4/10 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
l.l. Agriculture 
l .2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in % 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
88,9 
1.914,3 
232,21 
19,8 
528,4 
444,4 
65,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
623,5 
7.908,5 
544,5 
204,8 
6.899,1 
2.142,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
260,1 
0,0 
1.277,6 
60,3 
1.217,3 
11.189,3 
66,8 
4.201,3 
43,0 A2A 
N.A. 
0,0 
5,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
13,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
13,7 
0,0 
4.101,8 
53,0 
4.048,9 
4.120,7 
24,6 
4.120,7 
42,2 B1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
839,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
270,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
569,0 
7,3 
0,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
6,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
846,4 
5,1 
846,4 
8,7 CIA 
N.A. 
0,0 
289,5 
38,6 
0,0 
82,8 
148,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
20,0 
32,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
32,4 
0,0 
260,7 
0,0 
260,7 
582,6 
3,5 
582,6 
6,0 C2A 
N.A. 
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 D1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
1,7 
0,0 
0,0 
1,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
7,1 
1,5 
5,6 
9,3 
0,1 
8,9 
0,1 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
88,9 
3.049,8 
270,9 
19,8 
612,8 
862,6 
71,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1.212,6 
7.961,9 
545,0 
204,8 
6.899,1 
2.142,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
312,9 
0,0 
5.647,3 
114,8 
5.532,5 
17.690,9 in% 
0,0 
0,5 
18,2 
1,6 
0,1 
3,7 
5,2 
0,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
7,2 
47,5 
3,3 
1,2 
41,2 
12,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,9 
0,0 
33,7 
0,7 
33,0 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
3.049,8 
270,9 
19,8 
612,8 
862,6 
71,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1.212,6 
1.062,7 
545,0 
204,8 
-
-
-
-
-
312,9 
0,0 
5.647,3 
114,8 
5.532,5 
9;759,9 in% 
-
-
31,2 
2,8 
0,2 
6,3 
9,0 
0,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
12,4 
10,9 
5,6 
2,1 
-
-
-
-
-
3,2 
0,0 
57,9 
1,2 
56,7 
100,0 
79 
LUXEMBOURG 
Table A4/11 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
l.l. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
13,5 
2,8 
2,3 
8,2 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
86,1 
0,7 
0,0 
85,4 
84,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
28,2 
28,2 
0,0 
127,9 
97,4 
42,5 
92,5 A2A 
N.A. 
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 
1,8 
1,8 
0,0 
1,8 
1,4 
1,8 
3,9 B1A 
N.A. 
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 CIA 
N.A. 
0,0 
1,7 
0,2 
0,0 
1,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,7 
1,3 
1,7 
3,6 C2A 
N.A. 
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 D1A 
N.A. 
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 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
0,0 
15,2 
3,0 
2,3 
9,5 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
86,1 
0,7 
0,0 
85,4 
84,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
30,0 
30,0 
0,0 
131,4 in% 
0,0 
0,0 
11,6 
2,3 
1,8 
7,3 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
65,6 
0,5 
0,0 
65,0 
64,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
22,9 
22,9 
0,0 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
15,2 
3,0 
2,3 
9,5 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,7 
0,7 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
0,1 
0,0 
30,0 
30,0 
0,0 
46,0 in% 
-
-
33,1 
6,5 
5,1 
20,7 
0,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,6 
1,4 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
0,2 
0,0 
65,3 
65,3 
0,0 
100,0 
80 
NETHERLANDS 
TableA4/12 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture* 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in % FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
344,4 
39,9 
322,6 
131,2 
17,4 
14,7 
0,0 
141,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
17,9 
1.375,9 
0,0 
17,2 
1.336,3 
137,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
22,4 
0,0 
113,4 
113,4 
0,0 
1.851,7 
91,0 
475,6 
72,2 A2A 
0,0 
0,0 
88,2 
0,0 
35,8 
0,0 
0,0 
52,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
y 0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
88,2 
4,3 
88,2 
13,4 B1A 
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 CIA 
0,0 
0,0 
21,8 
3,6 
0,0 
0,0 
18,2 
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 
21,8 
1,1 
21,8 
3,3 C2A 
0,0 
0,0 
12,1 
0,0 
12,1 
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 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
12,1 
0,6 
12,1 
1,8 D1A 
0,0 
0,0 
60,5 
0,0 
0,0 
39,6 
0,0 
14,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
3,7 
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 
60,5 
3,0 
60,5 
9,2 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
344,4 
39,9 
505,3 
134,9 
65,3 
54,3 
18,2 
211,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
21,6 
1375,9 
0,0 
17,2 
1336,3 
137,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
22,4 
0,0 
113,4 
113,4 
0,0 
2034,4 in% 
0,0 
2,0 
24,8 
6,6 
3,2 
2,7 
0,9 
10,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,1 
67,6 
0,0 
0,8 
65,7 
6,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,1 
0,0 
5,6 
5,6 
0,0 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
505,3 
134,9 
65,3 
54,3 
18,2 
211,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
21,6 
39,6 
0,0 
17,2 
-
-
-
-
-
22,4 
0,0 
113,4 
113,4 
0,0 
658,2 in% 
-
-
76,8 
20,5 
9,9 
8,2 
2,8 
32,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
3,3 
6,0 
0,0 
2,6 
-
-
-
-
-
3,4 
0,0 
17,2 
17,2 
0,0 
100,0 
* State aid to agriculture is given for information only and is not included in any total. 
81 
PORTUGAL 
TableA4/13 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal 
Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 
1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
3,8 
90,1 
12,7 
0,0 
0,3 
0,5 
7,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
69,2 
273,2 
111,0 
3,6 
89,4 
70,7 
0,0 
0,6 
1,9 
66,7 
0,0 
30,9 
0,0 
30,9 
398,0 
56,2 
302,2 
81,6 A2A 
N.A. 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
2,0 
2,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,2 
2,0 
30,3 
0,0 
30,3 
32,5 
4,6 
30,4 
8,2 B1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
0,5 
0,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
239,8 
0,0 
0,0 
239,8 
0,0 
239,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
240,3 
33,9 
0,5 
0,1 C1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,9 
0,0 
0,5 
0,0 
0,5 
6,5 
0,9 
6,5 
1,8 C2A 
N.A. 
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 D1A 
N.A. 
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 
30,7 
0,0 
30,7 
30,7 
4,3 
30,7 
8,3 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
3,8 
90,7 
13,2 
0,0 
0,3 
0,6 
7,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
71,2 
521,1 
111,0 
3,6 
329,8 
70,7 
239,8 
0,6 
1,9 
72,8 
0,0 
92,4 
0,0 
92,4 
708,0 in% 
0,0 
0,5 
12,8 
1,9 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
1,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
10,1 
73,6 
15,7 
0,5 
46,5 
10,0 
33,9 
0,1 
0,3 
10,3 
0,0 
13,0 
0,0 
13,0 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
90,7 
13,2 
0,0 
0,3 
0,6 
7,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
69,2 
187,3 
111,0 
3,6 
-
-
-
-
-
72,8 
0,0 
92,4 
0,0 
92,4 
370,3 in% 
-
-
24.5 
3,6 
0,0 
0,1 
0,2 
2,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
18,7 
50,6 
30,0 
1,0 
-
-
-
-
-
19,6 
0,0 
24,9 
0,0 
24,9 
100,0 
82 
SWEDEN 
TableA4/14 
Total state aid - annual average 1994-1996 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
l.l. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in% 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
N.A. 
7,7 
49,2 
3,1 
9,0 
35,1 
0,0 
1,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,3 
1.093,1 
0,0 
0,0 
1.078,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
14,3 
0,0 
130,4 
130,4 
0,0 
1.280,3 
91,2 
193,8 
61,0 A2A 
N.A. 
0,0 
5,7 
0,0 
5,7 
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 
53,8 
53,8 
0,0 
59,5 
4,2 
59,5 
18,7 B1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
5,4 
5,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
5,4 
0,4 
5,4 
1,7 CIA 
N.A. 
0,0 
46,3 
24,8 
0,0 
13,8 
0,0 
7,7 
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 
11,3 
11,3 
0,0 
57,7 
4,1 
57,7 
18,1 C2A 
N.A. 
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 D1A 
N.A. 
0,0 
1,6 
0,7 
0,0 
0,8 
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 
1,6 
0,1 
1,6 
0,5 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
N.A. 
7,7 
108,2 
34,1 
14,7 
49,7 
0,0 
9,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,3 
1093,1 
0,0 
0,0 
1078,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
14,3 
0,0 
195,6 
195,6 
0,0 
1404,5 in% 
0,0 
0,5 
7,7 
2,4 
1,0 
3,5 
0,0 
0,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
77,8 
0,0 
0,0 
76,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
1,0 
0,0 
13,9 
13,9 
0,0 
100,0 In Million ECU 
Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
108,2 
34,1 
14,7 
49,7 
0,0 
9,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,3 
14,3 
0,0 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
14,3 
0,0 
195,6 
195,6 
0,0 
318,0 in% 
-
-
34,0 
10,7 
4,6 
15,6 
0,0 
3,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
4,5 
0,0 
0,0 
-
-
-
-
-
4,5 
0,0 
61,5 
61,5 
0,0 
100,0 
83 
UNITED KINGDOM 
TableA4/15 
Total state aid annual average 1994-1996 In Million ECU 
SECTOR/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture* 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Manufacturing/Services: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment 
2.1.8. Training aid 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Manufacturing/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
of which Airline services 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
2.2.6. Financial services 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL 
in % 
TOTAL MANUFACTURING 
in% FORMS OF AID 
A1A 
367,3 
23,3 
303,4 
176,1 
0,9 
41,8 
71,3 
1,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
11,5 
3.069,4 
0,0 
8,6 
1.809,5 
1.797,1 
0,0 
6,4 
976,1 
268,8 
0,0 
750,5 
468,4 
282,1 
4.146,6 
95,8 
1.331,3 
88,0 A2A 
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 
74,6 
7,9 
66,8 
74,6 
1,7 
74,6 
4,9 B1A 
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 
4,2 
0,0 
4,2 
4,2 
0,1 
4,2 
0,3 CIA 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
6,5 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
6,5 
0,0 
23,6 
23,6 
0,1 
30,2 
0,7 
30,2 
2,0 C2A 
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 
8,9 
8,9 
0,0 
8,9 
0,2 
8,9 
0,6 D1A 
0,0 
0,0 
31,9 
0,0 
0,0 
30,9 
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 
31,4 
31,4 
0,0 
63,3 
1,5 
63,3 
4,2 TOTAL AID 
TOTAL 
367,3 
23,3 
335,3 
176,1 
0,9 
72,8 
72,3 
1,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
11,5 
3076,0 
0,0 
8,6 
1809,5 
1797,1 
0,0 
6,4 
976,1 
275,3 
0,0 
893,3 
540,2 
353,2 
4327,9 in% 
0,0 
0,5 
7,7 
4,1 
0,0 
1,9 
1,7 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,3 
71,1 
0,0 
0,2 
41,8 
41,5 
0,0 
0,1 
22,6 
6,4 
0,0 
20,6 
12,5 
8,2 
100,0 Manufacturing 
TOTAL 
-
-
335,3 
176,1 
0,9 
72,8 
72,3 
1,8 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
11,5 
283,9 
0,0 
8,6 
-
-
-
-
-
275,3 
0,0 
893,3 
540,2 
353,2 
1512,6 in% 
-
-
22,2 
11,6 
0,1 
4,8 
4,8 
0,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,8 
18,8 
0,0 
0,6 
-
-
-
-
-
18,2 
0,0 
59,1 
35,7 
23,3 
100,0 
State aid to agriculture is given for information only and is not included in any total. 
84 
ANNEX III 
COMMUNITY FUNDS AND INSTRUMENTS 
85 
I. Community Funds, Instruments and Programmes 
Below a brief description of the main Community funds, instruments and 
programmes is given. It should be noted that the Cohesion Financial 
Instrument and Cohesion Fund were established in April 1993 and May 1994 
respectively. Moreover in July 1993, the second reform of the Structural Funds 
(EAGGF-Guidance, ERDF, Social Fund, FIFG) took place thereby confirming 
the basic principles which inspired the first reform in 1988 and bringing in a 
number of operational improvements. A further innovation was that, in 
accordance with the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council, the 
resources of the Structural Funds allocated to four Member States eligible for 
assistance from the Cohesion Fund (Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal) 
would double in real terms between 1992 and 1999 and that total funding for 
the Structural Funds over the period 1994-99 would amount to ECU 141 471 
million (at 1992 prices). A new instrument was also introduced with the entry 
into operation in 1994 of the FIFG to provide support for the restructuring of the 
fisheries sector. 
The 4th FPRD (4th Framework Programme for Research and Technological 
Development) was adopted in April '94 for the period 1994-1998. This new 
Framework Programme includes all the Community research and development 
activities. Its budget is ECU 13,1 billion. Its overall structure has been 
streamlined to respond to three major challenges: 
developing scientific and technological excellence in Europe, to meet 
the needs of the manufacturing sector and improve the quality of life in 
the Member States. 
furthering cooperation and improving the co-ordination and 
exploitation of the Community research efforts. 
promoting research activities deemed necessary to other Community 
policies. 
EAGGF-Guarantees 
The Common Agricultural Policy is a general system of market support based 
on external protection and internal intervention. As such, it is comparable to 
import quotas and customs tariffs, systems, which bring about a transfer of 
resources between sectors, without the recourse to direct aid. Much of EAGGF 
Guarantee expenditure is concerned with a system of support of this type and 
therefore cannot be regarded as comparable to expenditure on aid. Moreover, 
the breakdown by Member State has little meaning in this case because the 
ultimate beneficiary may not be in the Member State where the expenditure 
took place. Around 35% of expenditure are in the form of price compensation 
aid granted to producers or processors. 
86 
EAGGF-Guidance 
The EAGFF-Guidance intervenes by co-financing structural measures in the 
framework of programmes, which have been established with the Member 
States and Regional authorities for: 
the strengthening and reorganisation of agricultural and forestry 
structures, including those for the processing and marketing of products; 
compensation for the effects of natural handicaps on agriculture; 
the re-conversion of agricultural production and the development of 
additional activities for farmers; 
the development of the social fabric of rural areas and the conservation 
of natural resources. 
The actions co-financed in areas covered by objectives 1 and 5b relate in 
particular to: 
the conversion, diversification, reorientation and adjustment of the 
agricultural production potential; 
the promotion, labelling and investment of quality products for local or 
regional agricultural and forestry; 
the development of structures and rural infrastructures; 
measures to achieve diversification, especially those providing for 
farmers to develop multiple activities; 
the renovation and development of villages and the protection and 
conservation of the rural heritage; 
encouragement for tourist and craft investment; 
the introduction of appropriate preventive instruments in the case of 
natural catastrophes (in particular in objective 1 regions) restoring 
agricultural and forestry production potential damaged by natural 
disasters; 
the irrigation, protection of the environment, and restoration of 
landscapes; 
exploiting the full value of forests; 
development of agricultural and forestry advisory services and vocational 
training. 
87 
FIFG 
Structural assistance for the fishing industry was first granted as far back as 
1971, the year in which it was agreed to use funds from the Guidance Section 
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to 
encourage the construction and modernisation of inshore and pelagic fishing 
vessels together with the processing and marketing of fish. In 1978 the original 
rules were replaced by a series of annual interim measures widened in scope 
to encompass the restructuring of the inshore fleet and the development of 
aquaculture. 
In 1983 a system of multi-annual programmes was put into effect, based 
around schemes under which aid could be granted for restructuring the 
manufacturing sector and conversion of fishing activities. In 1986 the need to 
reinforce this approach resulted in the whole range of structural measures for 
the fleet and aquaculture being grouped together in a single regulatory 
framework. 
Schemes designed to assist the processing and marketing of fishery products 
developed from a different source, which was shared with the structural policy 
for processing and marketing of agricultural products. For a long time, one and 
the same Regulation covered the processing and marketing of both types of 
products. However, in order to ensure that better account was taken of the 
specific requirements of the fisheries sector, the two were split in 1989; 
assistance for the processing and marketing of fishery products has since had 
its own rules, integrated from that date into the Community's Structural Funds 
arrangements. 
In 1993 the structural elements of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) were 
overhauled and three major changes were introduced. These ensured greater 
coherence between different aspects of the policy, removed the partition which 
had divided the CFP from other Community activities and, took account of the 
changes affecting the sector. The CFP's structural measures were integrated 
into the Community's system of structural funds when these were reformed in 
1993. Moreover the different fishery finances available for such activity were 
regrouped in one fund known as the Financial Instrument for Fisheries 
Guidance (FIFG). 
Social Fund 
The objectives of the Social Fund are to improve employment opportunities for 
young people (under the age of 25) and for other groups deemed to be in need 
of support (long-term unemployed, the handicapped, migrant workers and other 
socially disadvantaged groups). The Fund therefore contributes to the financing 
of operations carried out by the public or private operators in the following 
areas: 
the prevention of long term unemployment; 
vocational training; 
technical advice concerned with job creation; 
facilitate the adaptation of workers to industrial changes and changes in 
production system. 
88 
All applications for assistance are submitted through the Member States. 
Money from the Social Fund is paid out on a horizontal and not on a sectorial 
basis, so an extrapolation corresponding to the concept of aid within the 
meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty is not possible. 
Regional Fund 
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) aims to reduce disparities 
within the Community by providing financial support to: 
regions whose development is lagging behind (Objective 1); 
regions in industrial decline (Objective 2); 
rural problem areas (Objective 5b); 
the development of regions with an extremely low population density 
(Objective 6). 
This support is focused mainly on infrastructure, human resources and 
productive investment. 
As ERDF aid is generally paid out on a horizontal and not on a sectorial basis, 
identification of expenditure which corresponds to the concept of State aid 
within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty is not always possible. As an 
alternative, figures relating to the manufacturing sector and services and, 
economic development have been retained; the data obtained by using this 
approach therefore only provide an idea of the scale of ERDF aid involved. 
Cohesion Financial Instrument - Cohesion Fund 
After the principle of the Cohesion Fund had been incorporated into the 
Maastricht Treaty, the Edinburgh European Council further decided to establish 
a provisional instrument to provide Community financial support to the 
beneficiary Member States from 1993 while awaiting the entry into force of the 
Treaty which in turn permitted establishment of the Cohesion Fund. 
The Commission adopted the proposal for a Regulation establishing the 
cohesion financial instrument based on Article 235 of the Treaty which was 
subsequently adopted by Council on 30/IV/93 and extended until the end of 
1994. 
The Cohesion Fund was established by Article 130d of the EC Treaty, as 
amended by the Treaty of Maastricht and represented a further stage in the 
policy of solidarity initiated mainly through the Structural Funds. This Fund 
makes its own specific and complementary contribution since it is grounded 
principally in the requirements stemming from the prospect of economic and 
monetary union (which is already starting to become a reality). From the outset 
the Fund has created its own identity on the basis of three major principles. 
The first is its limited field of implementation: the protocol on economic and 
social cohesion states that the Cohesion Fund "will provide Community 
financial contributions to Member States with a per capita GNP of less than 
90% of the Community average." 
89 
Secondly, assistance is restricted to the part financing of projects in the fields of 
the environment and Trans-European transport networks. 
Thirdly, as a result of its links with the implementation of economic and 
monetary union, the Fund assists Member States which have drawn up a 
programme complying with the conditions on excessive public deficits as laid 
down in Article 104c. 
In addition the Cohesion financial instrument and later (from May 1994) 
Cohesion Fund, contributed towards the objective of cohesion. However given 
that most of the credits available were devoted to infrastructure projects and 
not productive investment, the figures are only presented for information below 
in Table B. 
Community Research and Technological Development (RTD) 
Community research activities are conducted essentially at two levels: 
(I) by shared cost actions with third parties which include RTD projects, 
thematic networks, and concerted actions (Indirect actions). 
(II) at the Joint Research Centre^ (Direct actions). 
DG XII (Science, Research and Development) administers the indirect actions 
of the Framework Programme together with DG III (Industry), DG VI 
(Agriculture), DG VII (Transport), DG XIII (Telecommunications, Information 
Market and Exploitation of research), DG XIV (Fishery) and DG XVII (Energy). 
According to the 4th Community Framework on RT&D the amount of ECU 13,1 
billion from the EU budget will be spent on support for research during the 
period 1994-1998. The main participants in the RTD activities are from 
universities, research centres and the manufacturing sector (including SMEs). 
A little bit more than ECU 950 million is allocated to support the European Joint 
Research Centre. 
ECSC financial operations 
Financial assistance is provided by the ECSC in the form of loans and grants. 
The loans fall into three main categories: 
industrial loans; 
conversion loans; 
loans for workers' housing 
The fact that the financial institutions, which distribute the loans, are non-profit 
making could be advantageous to the recipient of the loan but this advantage is 
not considered as aid for the purposes of the Treaties. The situation with 
regard to grants is different. Whilst interest subsidies (on loans) would normally 
be considered as constituting aid, other measures, notably payments of a 
social nature to former steel and coal sector workers, are less likely to be 
considered as such. 
90 
European Investment Bank 
The mission of the Bank is to further the objectives of the European Union by 
making long-term finance available for sound investment. Created by the 
Treaty of Rome, shareholders are the Member States and the Board of 
Governors is composed of the Finance Ministers of these States. To receive 
support, projects and programmes must be viable in four fundamental areas: 
economic, technical, environmental and financial. Through the Bank's own 
lending operations and ability to attract other financing, the range of funding 
possibilities is widened. Through the borrowing activities, the Bank contributes 
to the development of capital markets throughout the Union. The Bank's 
policies are established in close cooperation with the Member States and the 
other Institutions of the European Union. There is also close cooperation with 
the business and banking sectors and the main international organisations in 
the field. 
European Investment Fund 
The European Investment Fund is a new financial agency set up to provide 
guarantees to support medium and long-term investment in two crucial areas 
for the development of the European economy; Trans-European Networks 
(TEN) and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Established in June 1994, the 
Fund is a new and unique partnership in which the European Investment Bank 
and the European Union, through the Commission, cooperate with the banks 
and financial institutions of the Member States. By Commission Directive dated 
15 March 1994, it was granted Multilateral Development Bank status. 
The fundamental objective of the Fund is to draw more private capital into 
infrastructure finance and to improve the flow of financial resources to the small 
and medium business sector. It will do this by developing mechanisms to 
transfer and share financial risk and will concentrate on the provision of 
financial guarantees on medium and long-term lending by banks and other 
financial institutions. 
In addition to senior long-term debt for TEN projects it will be able to cover 
private placements, bond issues, revenue or asset backed securities and 
subordinated debt. For SME finance it can cover portfolios of loans, credit lines 
and securitized assets. 
The EIF can also take equity participations in venture capital funds. 
In fulfilling its mission the EIF acts, on a commercial basis, as a complement to 
the banking sector and in co-ordination with other EU financial institutions and 
instruments. 
II. Statistical Data 
Table A sets out in global terms the financial intervention of the Community for 
the years 1992 to 1996. 
Table B shows other Community instruments granted for the years 1992 to 
1996. 
91 
3. Tables C1 and C2 indicate, for the periods 1992-1994 and 1994-1996 
respectively, the average annual volume of Community intervention broken 
down by Member State whereever possible. 
4. It should be noted that a direct comparison between the volume of Community 
intervention shown here and the national State aid described earlier in this 
Survey, (i.e. aid financed by national budgets.and tax systems) is misleading 
since in many cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the aid element 
contained in the Community interventions, which is not paid directly to firms like 
State aid. 
In the agricultural sector, making comparisons could result in erroneous 
conclusions being drawn owing to the fact that those who benefit from 
Community intervention are for the most part not firms. As regards comparison 
between the different Member States, the benefits of Community intervention 
are felt by all operators in the Union irrespective of where the expenditure (i.e. 
export refunds or intervention buying) took place. As to comparison between 
Community and national expenditure, expenditure by the Union is strongly 
influenced by the differences between fluctuating world prices and Community 
prices for agricultural products, which is not the case with most national 
expenditure. 
5. Further details of Community Funds are given in the Technical Annex. 
6. Further detailed information on Community funds and instruments can be found 
in the following documents: 
- Research and Technological Development Activities of the EU 
annual report 1995 ISBN 92-77-93761-0 
annual report 1996 ISBN 92-78-08603-7 
- The Structural Funds 
annual report 1995 ISBN 92-78-10829-4 
annual report 1996 ISBN 92-78-26044-4 
- Cohesion Financial Instrument Cohesion Fund 
combined report 1993-1994 ISBN 92-827-5739-0 
annual report 1995 ISBN 92-827-9688-4 
annual report 1996 ISBN 92-827-8877-6 
- ECSC Financial Report 1995 ISBN 92-827-7933-5 
ECSC Financial Report 1996 ISBN 92-828-0908-0 
- European Investment Bank 
annual report 1995 ISBN 92-827-6303-X 
92 
Table A 
Annual Community Expenditure Million ECU 
EAGGF Guarantee-Agriculture 
EAGGF Guidance-Agriculture 
EAGGF Guarantee-Fisheries 
EAGGF Guidance-Fisheries/EFFG- FIFG (from 1994) 
SOCIAL FUND 
REGIONAL FUND (1) 
COHESION FUND 
EC R&TD FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 
ECSC Grants 
Resettlement Art. 56.2(b) 
Steel social Art. 56.2(b) 
Coal social Art. 56.2(b) 
Research Art. 55 
Interest relief Art. 54/56 
TOTAL 1992 
32005.3 
2874,8 
32,1 
358,4 
5894,2 
1374,0 
-
2391,0 
154,8 
46,2 
50,0 
120,2 
106,0 
45407,0 1993 
34496,3 
3092,4 
32,4 
401,8 
6306,8 
1635,0 
1560,6 
2094,0 
182,4 
60,0 
50.0 
124,6 
114,3 
50154,6 1994 
32831,4 
3335,4 
35,5 
391,1 
5826,8 
1803,0 
1853,1 
2019,0 
157,0 
86.0 
40,0 
52,0 
51,5 
48481,8 1995 
34377,5 
3609,0 
36,9 
450,3 
4382.9 
1970,0 
2151,7 
3019.0 
123,8 
41,3 
40,0 
61.4 
11,4 
50275.2 
n I 1996 
39041.3 
3934,5 
34,1 
334,4 
7145,8 
2037,0 
2443,7 
3183,0 
56,3 
0.0 
23.2 
85,0 
36,7 
58046.8 
(1 ) part corresponding approximately to the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty 
93 
Table B 
Other Community Instruments 
ECSC (new loans issued) 
European Investment Bank* 
European Investment Fund** 1992 
1486,2 
16066,0 
-1993 
918,3 
17672,6 
-1994 
673,4 
17656,0 
-1995 
402,8 
18603.0 
-Million ECU 
1996 
279,7 
20946,0 
2294,0 
Financing provided within the EU 
Guarantees approved since inception in 1994 
94 
Table C1 
Community Average 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED 
KINGDOM 
Technical 
assistance 
TOTAL Annual Expenditure by Member State (1992-1994) 
EAGGF 
Guarantee 
1278,7 
1257,0 
4979,7 
2522,5 
4011,5 
7680,5 
1513,9 
4469,0 
6,9 
2207,5 
519,2 
2664,7 
33111,1 EAGGF 
Guidance 
35,8 
28,7 
434,2 
353,8 
530,4 
602,5 
179,5 
421,3 
8,4 
24,5 
371,4 
110,2 
3100,7 EAGGF 
Guarantee 
Fisheries 
0,2 
3,4 
0,9 
0,9 
10,7 
10,1 
2.2 
1,1 
-
0,1 
1.8 
1,8 
33,2 EAGGF 
Guid 
Fisheries 
EFFG-FIFG 
4,8 
29,6 
16,3 
36,1 
127,1 
31,9 
7,8 
52,1 
-
7,9 
50,3 
20,0 
383,7 SOCIAL 
FUND 
154,7 
54,3 
798,5 
461,2 
1146,7 
665,6 
307,0 
886,6 
5,0 
163,5 
597,9 
768,3 
6009,3 REGIONAL 
FUND 
30,0 
6,5 
304,4 
131,9 
273,7 
145,6 
120,6 
181,1 
3,9 
12,9 
279,3 
113,9 
1603,8 COHESION 
FUND 
(from 1993) 
306,2 
936,3 
154,9 
309,0 
0,4 
1706,8 EC R&TD 
Framework 
Programme* 
2168,0 
2168,0 Million ECU 
ECSC 
GRANTS* 
465,0 
465,0 TOTAL 
1504,0 
1379,5 
6534,0 
3812,6 
7036,4 
9136,2 
2285,9 
6011,2 
24,2 
2416,4 
2128,9 
3678,9 
0,4 
2633,0 
48581,6 
It is not possible to effect a breakdown by Member State. 
95 
Table C2 
Community Average Annual Expenditure by Member State (1994-1996) 
AUSTRIA 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FINLAND 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
SWEDEN 
UNITED KINGDOM 
Technical Assistance 
TOTAL EAGGF 
Guarantee 
649,2 
1312,7 
1340,8 
5534,3 
2627,2 
4297,9 
354,7 
8641,9 
1532,1 
3676,6 
15,3 
1793,7 
668,9 
348,7 
3073,8 
35867,8 EAGGF 
Guidance 
110,2 
41,7 
29,4 
771,1 
352,8 
649,7 
106,1 
498,0 
198,9 
381,8 
6,7 
24,2 
390,8 
45,0 
106,9 
3713,3 EAGGF 
Guarantee 
Fisheries 
0,0 
0,2 
6,6 
0,3 
0,7 
6,1 
0,0 
12,0 
2,8 
0,5 
0,0 
0,1 
3,2 
1,3 
2,2 
36,0 EAGGF 
Guid 
Fisheries 
EFFG-FIFG 
1,0 
8,8 
24,0 
28,3 
12,8 
174,9 
11,9 
24,1 
5,8 
37,4 
0,3 
6,7 
25,0 
20,4 
21,9 
403,3 SOCIAL 
FUND 
64,5 
109,6 
50,7 
967,7 
292,9 
1327,4 
52,9 
664,2 
316,1 
417,7 
4,3 
178,1 
520,5 
42,1 
829,6 
5838,3 REGIONAL 
FUND 
12,9 
18,4 
4,4 
211,9 
244,2 
535,5 
36,3 
160,8 
117,8 
248,3 
0,6 
15,2 
272,6 
26,0 
173,9 
2078,8 COHESION 
FUND 
386,1 
1181,5 
193,3 
387,0 
1,5 
2149,4 EC R&TD 
Framework 
Programme* 
2740,0 
2740,0 ECSC 
GRANTS* 
288,5 
288,5 Million ECU 
TOTAL 
837,8 
1491,4 
1455,9 
7513,6 
3916,7 
8173,0 
561,9 
10001,0 
2366,8 
4762,3 
27,2 
2018,0 
2268,0 
483,5 
4208,3 
1,5 
3028,5 
53115,4 
(*) It is not possible to effect a breakdown by Member State 
96 


ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 417 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 06 08 10 16 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-439-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-37965-4 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg