REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION - Twelfth annual report on the Structural Funds (2000)

This report has been prepared by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy, in collaboration with the Directorates-General for Employment and Social Affairs, Agriculture and Fisheries, and with contributions from the Directorates-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Competition, Energy and Transport, Environment, Information Society, Internal Market, Budget and the European Anti-Fraud Office.

Following the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999, the financial amounts in this report are all expressed in euro, including those relating to operations before that date. The 'EUR' used in the report refers to the ecu where the amounts related to the period before 1 January 1999 and to the euro after that date.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1: THE MAJOR EVENTS OF 2000 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2000-06

1.1. Adoption of the remaining Objective 2 lists

1.2. Adoption of the CSFs/SPDs/OPs 2000-06

1.3. The guidelines for the Community Initiatives

1.4. The draft guidelines for the innovative actions

1.5. Winding up of earlier programmes

CHAPTER 2 : IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING IN THE MEMBER STATES

2.1. General overview

2.1.1. Implementation of Objectives 1, 2 and 3

2.1.2. Implementation of the Community Initiatives

2.1.3. Innovative actions and technical assistance

2.1.4. The ex-ante verification of additionality

2.2. Implementation of programming in the Member States

2.2.1. BELGIUM

2.2.2 DENMARK

2.2.3. GERMANY

2.2.4. GREECE

2.2.5. S P A I N

2.2.6. FRANCE

2.2.7. IRELAND

2.2.8. I T A L Y

2.2.9. LUXEMBOURG

2.2.10. NETHERLANDS

2.2.11. AUSTRIA

2.2.12. PORTUGAL

2.2.13. FINLAND

2.2.14. SWEDEN

2.2.15. UNITED KINGDOM

2.3. Coordination with the other financial instruments

2.3.1. Coordination with the Cohesion Fund

2.3.2. Coordination with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF)

2.3.3. Financial assistance for the trans-European networks (RTE)

2.4. Coherence with other Community policies (within the meaning of Article 12 of the general Regulation on the Structural Funds)

2.4.1. The Structural Funds and employment policy

2.4.2. Structural Funds, rural development policy and fisheries policy

2.4.3 Structural Funds and environmental policy

2.4.4. The Structural Funds and competition policy

2.4.5. Structural Funds and public procurement

2.4.6. Structural Funds and equality for men and women

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

3.1. Ex-ante evaluation of Objective 2

3.2. Final evaluation of the ESF (1994-99)

3.3. The Edinburgh Conference on evaluation

3.4. Checks carried out

CHAPTER 4: DIALOGUE AND INFORMATION

4.1. European Parliament

4.2. Fund Committees

4.3. Dialogue with the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

4.4. Social partners

4.5. Information and Publicity

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Financial implementation in 2000 by Objective

Annex 2: Financial implementation in 2000 - technical assistance

Annex 3: Budget implementation

GENERAL SUMMARY

This report is compiled in accordance with Article 45(2) of the general Regulation governing the Structural Funds (Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999). It presents the application in 2000 of the rules on the Structural Funds, particularly the implementation of Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and the Community Initiatives.

In addition to the statutory requirements, the first chapter of the report looks at the major events of 2000, in particular the adoption of the programming documents and the start of the first assistance on the ground.

2000

The past year was marked by two major topics in the field of the policy on economic and social cohesion:

1. The adoption of the programmes for 2000-06 and the guidelines for the Community Initiatives and the innovative measures

Following the final preparations completed in 1999 (see the 11th annual report), the Commission was able to adopt a large number of programming documents (CSFs/SPDs/OPs) in this first year of implementation.

The situation is particularly satisfactory as regards the Objective 1 programmes (regions whose development is lagging behind), since all the 7 CSFs and 19 SPDs were adopted, with only one exception (the French national programme for computers). About half the OPs under the CSFs were adopted (46 in 2000; 51 are still to be adopted in 2001).

In the case of Objective 2 (areas undergoing economic conversion), only the SPDs for Finland, Sweden and Denmark could be adopted, 8 in all, because most plans did not reach the Commission until early in 2000.

All the CSFs/OPs or SPDs for Objective 3 (human resources) in the Member States concerned were adopted during 2000.

In all, 111 forms of assistance (SPDs and OPs) for Objectives 1, 2 and 3 were adopted during 2000.

During the year, the Commission adopted guidelines for the four Community Initiatives: INTERREG III, URBAN II, EQUAL AND LEADER+.

INTERREG III has three strands: cross-border cooperation; transnational cooperation and interregional cooperation.

URBAN II seeks to regenerate certain urban areas in crisis.

The EQUAL Initiative seeks to promote equal treatment on the labour market and the promotion of equality between men and women.

LEADER+, following on from Leader I and II, is designed to promote rural development.

The draft guidelines for innovative actions were adopted by the Commission in July. Following amendments requested by the European Parliament, the final version of the guidelines was adopted in January 2001.

Following adoption of the programming documents for Objectives 1, 2 and 3, some programmes could start in the first year of programming. This meant that 13% of total appropriations were committed and 5% paid by 31 December 2000. These rates of implementation are similar to those recorded in 1994, the first year of programming for the previous period (1994-99).

2. Closure of old programmes

A large number of programmes from earlier periods were closed during 2000. The number of programmes still to be closed relating to assistance before 1989 was reduced from 89 to 35. A particular effort was made to close programmes in Italy, which were the most numerous.

Of the programmes for period 1989-93, some 73 programmes were closed during the year; 101 still remain. Progress was particularly significant in the case of programmes in Italy and the United Kingdom.

The closure of Objective 2 programmes (1994-96) also began during the year 2000.

CHAPTER 1: THE MAJOR EVENTS OF 2000 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2000-06

1.1. Adoption of the remaining Objective 2 lists

Following the definition on 1 July 1999 of the ceilings of eligible population, the Commission invited the Member States concerned to send it their proposals for areas eligible under Objective 2 before 31 August 1999. They were in fact received between 16 August and 3 December 1999.

As a result, in 1999 the Commission took decisions of principle on certain lists: those for Finland, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain. For the first five of these Member States final decisions were also taken in 1999.

On 18 January 2000, the Commission adopted decisions of principle on the lists of Objective 2 areas in the other Member States concerned by this Objective (France, Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg), with the notable exception of Italy, on whose lists a decision in principle was taken in July. Final decisions on the lists awaiting approval were taken in the first quarter of 2000, apart from Italy (third quarter).

1.2. Adoption of the CSFs/SPDs/OPs 2000-06

Since the vast bulk of the plans for Objective 1 reached the Commission before 31 December 1999, all the CSFs and SPDs could be adopted in 2000, apart from the French national programme for computers, which was adopted early in 2001. As regards the OPs under the CSFs, the situation differed from one Member State to another (see table below).

The lists of areas eligible under Objective 2 were drawn up later (see point 1.2 above) and no plans had reached the Commission by 31 December 1999. Virtually all arrived between 1 January and 30 April 2000. The SPDs adopted in 2000 concerned only three of the twelve Member States concerned by Objective 2 (Finland, Sweden, Denmark). Most of the assistance under Objective 2 for the other Member States was adopted during the first quarter of 2001.

As regards the programming for Objective 2, France is the only Member State to opt to integrate rural development measures (financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section, which is not a Structural Fund) into the SPDs. In all the other Member States, all rural development measures are integrated into a specific 'rural development plan'.

It should also be noted that some Member States have chosen not to integrate the ESF into the programming for Objective 2, and have preferred to call on support from this Fund exclusively through programming under Objective 3 (co-financed exclusively by the ESF).

All the CSFs/OPs or SPDs for Objective 3 for all the Member States concerned (since Portugal, Greece and Ireland are entirely covered by Objective 1 transitional support under Objective 1, they are excluded) were adopted during 2000. They totalled 39 items of assistance (25 OPs for Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom and 14 SPDs for the other Member States).

Nine SPDs concerning assistance from the FIFG outside Objective 1 (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, United Kingdom, Sweden) were adopted in 2000. The three countries entirely covered by Objective 1 or transitional support under Objective 1 (Greece, Ireland and Portugal) are not concerned. The two SPDs for Italy and the Netherlands are still to be adopted. No assistance is planned in Luxembourg.

In all, 111 items of assistance (SPDs and OPs) were adopted in 2000 under Objectives 1, 2 and 3. Of these, 64 concerned Objective 1: 18 SPDs, and 46 OPs (the vast majority of the OPs for Italy, Portugal and Germany were adopted while no OPs have yet been adopted for Greece and a large number still remain to be adopted for Spain). Eight SPDs concern programming under Objective 2 and 39 assistance under Objective 3.

Assistance adopted during 2000:

>TABLE POSITION>

1.3. The guidelines for the Community Initiatives

On 28 April the Commission adopted the guidelines for the new Community Initiative Interreg III (2000-06) [1] and the indicative financial breakdown by Member State. Total assistance from the ERDF for the whole period amounts to EUR4 875 million (at 1999 prices).

[1] OJ C 143, 23 May 2000, p.6.

The Interreg Initiative began in 1990 to promote cross-border cooperation and help the regions located on the Union's internal and external borders to overcome the problems resulting from their isolation. The new Interreg III Initiative for the period 2000-06 is broader in scope because it also provides support for interregional and transnational cooperation. This means that Interreg III operates at three territorial levels:

* Strand A: cross-border cooperation between adjacent frontier communities to develop cross-border economic and social centres and strategies for territorial development;

* Strand B: transnational cooperation between national, regional and local authorities to promote a greater degree of integration within larger regional groupings. Thirteen programmes throughout the Union are planned;

* Strand C: interregional cooperation to make the regional development instruments more effective, mainly by networking the regions and public authorities responsible for regional policies. This strand also concerns cooperation between non-adjacent regions.

Urban II: Following the favourable opinion of the European Parliament, at the end of April the Commission adopted the guidelines on the new Urban II (2000-06) Community Initiative, which were published in OJ C 141 of 19 May 2000.

Equal follows on from the Employment and Adapt Community Initiatives and builds on the lessons learned from these programmes. It is distinct from the mainstream Social Fund programme by its focus on testing new ways of delivery for policy priorities and by its emphasis on partnership in a context of transnational cooperation. The main principles of Equal are:

* partnership: including public authorities (in particular at local and regional level), representatives of workers and employers, the equality commissions, education and training communities, the voluntary and community sectors and the management authorities for the countries;

* thematic approach: to explore new ways of tackling the problems common to different types of discrimination and inequality, rather than focusing on a specific group;

* transnationality: to work in cooperation with partnerships from other Member States, learning lessons and developing new methods and approaches to training and job creation;

* empowerment/participation: those targeted for support will have the opportunity to influence the design and evaluation of the activities proposed to help them;

* innovation: including new methods of delivery, new systems or innovative actions to address gaps identified in key reports, from, for example, the Social Exclusion Unit;

* dissemination and mainstreaming: to help inform policy developments at a national and European level.

The financial resources allocated to Equal are modest, EUR2 847 000. Nevertheless, its strategic character and visibility are more extensive because of the innovative approach and the transfer to more "traditional" programmes (mainstreaming - dissemination of best practice).

Leader+: On 14 April the Commission approved guidelines for the Member States on the new Community Initiative for rural development, Leader+ [2]. The total Community contribution to Leader+ in the 2000-06 period will be EUR2 020 million, financed by the EAGGF Guidance Section.

[2] OJ C 139, 18 May 2000, p.5.

As its name implies, Leader+ will not be a simple continuation of the existing Leader II Initiative but will be more ambitious, aiming to encourage and support high quality and ambitious integrated strategies for local rural development. It will also put a strong emphasis on cooperation and networking between rural areas. All rural areas of the EU will, in principle, be eligible.

The four priority themes proposed at European level concern key aspects of development in rural Europe: improving the competitiveness of rural products and services through the use of new know-how and new technologies; improving the quality of life in rural areas; better promotion of local products through collective marketing approaches; enhancement and protection of the natural and cultural heritage.

1.4. The draft guidelines for the innovative actions

Under Article 22 of the general Regulation, up to 0.4 % of the annual ERDF budget may be set aside to co-finance innovative actions. The proposal for the new guidelines for ERDF innovative actions was approved by the Commission on 12 July 2000. The guidelines reflect the desire outlined in the general Regulation for greater efficiency in the use of the Structural Funds mainly through the proposals for :

* a programme rather than a project approach;

* a reduction in the number of strategic themes from 8 to 3;

* closer cooperation between the innovative actions and the mainstream Objectives 1 and 2 programmes;

* decentralised management and implementation at regional level.

The principal aim of the new regional programmes of innovative actions is to improve the quality of the Objective 1 and 2 programmes in relation to the following three strategic themes:

* regional economies based on knowledge and technological innovation: helping less-favoured regions to raise their technological level;

* e-EuropeRegio: the information society at the service of regional development;

* regional identity and sustainable development: promoting regional cohesion and competitiveness through an integrated approach to economic, environmental, cultural and social activities.

Under the new system described in the guidelines, all regions in the EU are invited to submit an individual programme application which sets out a strategy for promoting innovation in the context of regional development. The strategy should be drawn up by a partnership consisting of all regional actors and should be based on an analysis of the region's particular strengths and weaknesses. The regional programmes should be seen as a laboratory for experimentation offering the regions a chance to test new ideas in ways that may not always be possible in the mainstream Structural Funds programmes. Nevertheless, the ultimate aim should be to transfer successful results to the operational programmes where they can be replicated on a wider scale. For this to work, there will have to be close cooperation between those responsible for innovative actions and the authorities responsible for Objectives 1 and 2.

In contrast with past practices, the Commission will no longer select individual projects. Since the regions are best placed to determine what is innovative for them, it will be up to regional steering committees to choose individual projects. These can be wide-ranging and may include studies, pilot projects, preparation of strategic plans, networking, etc. Pilot projects should be aimed at small and very small firms.

Networking is very important and participating regions should set aside between 1% and 3% of their budget for this purpose. In addition, the Commission is prepared to co-finance a limited number of specific network programmes involving at least five regions from five Member States who wish to set up new networks to promote innovation related to the three strategic themes outlined above.

The Commission amended the draft guidelines to take account of suggestions from the ERDF and the European Parliament's Committee on Regional Development, Tourism and Transport and formally adopted them in January 2001. The first programme applications are expected by end-May 2001. Each year between 2001 and 2005, the Commission will select programmes for co-financing based on a set of objective criteria with an emphasis on quality and the innovative character of the proposal. The ERDF contribution will vary from a minimum of EUR300 000 to a maximum of EUR3 million for up to two years. Once the regional programmes are underway, the Commission will organise two competitions to identify the best projects or actions which contribute to promoting innovation in relations to regional development.

1.5. Winding up of earlier programmes

Work on winding up earlier programmes continued apace during 2000. A survey carried out at the beginning of March 2001 determined the number of programmes closed for each programming period. The main points were that:

- for assistance prior to 1989, the number of programmes to be closed fell from 89 (30 June 2000) to 35 (end February 2001). The amount involved was EUR124 million. The items wound up included a large number of programmes in Italy, which accounted for the vast bulk of the programmes awaiting closure (75 out of 89 in mid-2000). This meant that by the end of February, only 24 Italian programmes still awaited closure;

- of the programmes for 1989-93, the number wound up since 30 June 2000 totalled 73, involving a total of EUR516 million. At the end of February 2001, some 101 items, involving EUR714 million still remained to be closed. Progress was particularly significant for the programmes in Italy (33 items closed) and the United Kingdom (26 items closed). Work is continuing and during the first half of 2001 it is expected that 17 items in Spain and 11 in France will be wound up;

- as expected, the winding up of the Objective 2 programmes (1994-96), which amounted to 65 in number and EUR759 million, began. The items under Objective 2 for 1994-96 which raise no particular problem should be wound up by the end of summer 2001.

CHAPTER 2 : IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING IN THE MEMBER STATES

2.1. General overview

This Chapter deals solely with the implementation of the new programming for 2000-06. Continuation of the programmes for 1994-99 is presented briefly by Member State in Chapter 2.2, where its main features so merit. Innovative actions will be covered in this chapter since they do not fall under the breakdown of appropriations by Member State.

2.1.1. Implementation of Objectives 1, 2 and 3

2000 saw the gradual implementation of assistance for period 2000-06 while most of the programmes for 1994-99 continued to be implemented on the ground.

Commitment appropriations from the Structural Funds for 2000-06 in million euros (1999 prices), excluding Community Initiatives and innovative actions:

>TABLE POSITION>

(2) Including appropriations for Peace (2000-04) (3) Including appropriations for the special programme for Swedish coastal areas

Implementation of appropriations for all Objectives:

Since some 115 items of assistance (OPs and SPDs) were adopted in 2000, some measures could begin on the ground during the first year of the programming period (details by Member State in chapter 2.2.). In any case, as provided for in the general Regulation, expenditure on most programmes is eligible retroactively to 1 January 2000. However, the small number of programmes adopted under Objective 2 prevented the overall implementation rate for the year reaching a satisfactory level.

Taking all the Objectives together, 13% of the appropriations for 2000-06 was committed and 5% paid. These implementation rates were similar to those recorded in the first year of the previous programming period, 1994-99. In 2001 implementation will probably speed up substantially since in that year work on the Objective 2 programmes will begin. The 7% advance and automatic annual commitments should facilitate implementation.

Annex 1 shows the implementation of the Funds by Member State and by Fund (commitments and payments made in terms of total appropriations allocated).

Annex 3 also shows financial implementation of the budget (i.e. commitments and payments made in terms of the budget available for the year).

Budgetary implementation shows that overall 51.8% of the appropriations available for all the Objectives, Community Initiatives and innovative actions for 2000 were committed. Consumption of appropriations varied widely by budget heading: Objective 3 used 94.6% of the appropriations available for the year while Objective 2 used only 4.6% (see explanations below). The FIFG (non-Objective 1) also used a very large proportion of the commitment appropriations available. The situation is similar as regards payment appropriations, with Objective 3 and the FIFG (non-Objective 1) using a very large proportion of the appropriations available while Objective 2 used very little and the Community Initiatives none at all. This failure to use all the appropriations in 2000 means that some will have to be carried over to following years.

Commitment appropriations carried over from 2000 to subsequent years:

Since some items of assistance could not be adopted or implemented in 2000, in May 2001 the Commission proposed, and the European Parliament approved, a reprogramming of commitment appropriations from 2000 to 2002-06. The amount in question totals EUR6 152 million in commitment appropriations: EUR3 589 000 for Objective 1; EUR864 million for Objective 2; EUR4.5 million for the FIFG non-Objective 1 and EUR1 695 million for the Community Initiatives. 2000, the first year of implementation in the 2000-06 programming period, is the only one when this type of transfer is possible.

Implementation of Objective 1 (regions whose development is lagging behind):

Almost all the SPDs and all the CSFs were adopted in 2000. About half the OPs under CSFs were adopted in 2000 (46 OPs were adopted while 51 are still to be adopted in 2001). This meant that appropriations could be committed and work on many measures could begin so that all the Member States, with the notable exception of Greece, could begin implementing their programmes in 2000. In the various Member States the progress of the programmes was fairly uniform in terms of the commitment of appropriations although at 21% the rate in Ireland was considerably higher than the Community average of 9%, mainly because of better preparation in terms of the partnership (establishment and consultation of the Monitoring Committee) and the prior existence of eligible projects 'in reserve', awaiting co-financing. The disparities regarding payments were greater: while most Member States recorded a rate of around 7%, corresponding to the advance paid when the programme was adopted, there was a delay in some Member States (Germany, France and, particularly, Spain), mainly because the programmes were adopted at the very end of 2000 (the end of December in some cases), which meant that the corresponding payments could not be made that year. The first payments were made early in 2001. As a result, the average rate of payments under Objective 1 was 3.3%.

Implementation of Objective 2 (conversion of areas facing structural difficulties):

The SPDs for only three Member States (Denmark, Finland and Sweden) could be adopted in 2000 which meant that only those Member States could actually begin work on their programmes. However, the Objective 2 SPD for Sweden was not adopted until the end of December 2000 so no payment could be made that year. Both Denmark and Finland recorded payment rates of 7%, which, as in the case of Objective 1, corresponds to the advance paid when the programmes were approved. The Commission adopted the bulk of the programmes for the other Member States during the first quarter of 2001, so that work could begin immediately, which means that the measures are likely to make satisfactory progress in 2001. The overall rate of commitments is 15%, and 4% for payments.

Implementation of Objective 3:

Objective 3 supports human resource activities in all areas outside Objective 1. Around 75% of ESF funding under Objective 3 will go to just four Member States: Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Diversity in the scale of ESF support within Member States played a key part in both the negotiations and content of programmes. Larger programmes are typically allocated within existing active labour market policies whereas for smaller scale ESF programmes, there tends to be a greater emphasis on targeting a narrower range of (often) more innovative activities.

During 2000, many programming documents were adopted under Objective 3 so that implementation on the ground could begin in the first year of programming. However, for the three Member States (Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom) which opted for programming through a CSF divided into a number of OPs (unlike the others, which opted for programming through an SPD), the CSF was adopted in 2000 but the corresponding programmes were not adopted until 2001. That explains why the rate of implementation for Objective 3 is lower than for Objectives 1 and 2, particularly as regards commitments: the overall rates are 10% for commitments and 4.5% for payments.

2.1.2. Implementation of the Community Initiatives

Interreg III:

Following adoption of the guidelines for Interreg III, the Member States were invited to submit detailed proposals within six moths of the date of publication of the final notice in the Official Journal [3].

[3] OJ C 143, 23 May 2000, p.6.

Towards the end of 2000, the Commission received 46 cross-border programmes (strand A) and 7 transnational programmes (strand B). The Commission started consideration of a large number of these programmes and negotiations with the regions concerned so that the various programmes could begin as soon as possible, in fact in 2001.

Urban II:

Following the publication of the guidelines for Urban II, the Commission helped its partners in the Member States to prepare the new programmes, mainly through a Vademecum which was put on the Inforegio Internet server in September 2000.

The Member States sent the Commission applications for a number of towns well above the 55 originally planned. The Commission made a special effort so that 70 towns could be supported by the Urban programme. However, by 31 December, only 28 programmes had been submitted.

Equal:

The guidelines for Equal were signed in Lisbon on 14 April 2000 during the Portuguese presidency of the Union. The arrival of draft programmes in September saw the start of negotiations between the Commission and the Member States which continued throughout the autumn and winter and culminated in March 2001 with the adoption of 17 programmes (Belgium submitted two separate programmes: one for the French- and German-speaking part and one for the Dutch-speaking part and Northern Ireland has a special programme within the United Kingdom).

Leader+:

The Leader+ Community Initiative will be implemented through 73 programmes, 12 at national level and 61 at regional level. They were approved during the first half of 2001.

2.1.3. Innovative actions and technical assistance

Innovative actions:

No new innovative actions or projects were launched in 2000. The implementation and winding-up of the 'old' projects approved in 1994-99 continued alongside preparation of the new guidelines for 2000-06. At the beginning of 2000, 295 of the original 329 projects were in operation. By end-2000, this had dropped to 252: a large number of these will be closed in 2001 and the remainder in 2002.

Events of particular interest related to these projects during 2000 were:

* After 10 years, the final Europartenariat at the initiative of the Commission took place in Palermo, Sicily, in December. Henceforth, events of this type may be organised by the regions in the context of the Objective 1 and 2 programmes.

* A seminar for participating RIS/RITTS (information technology) regions took place in Madrid in June. Over 200 representatives from nearly 100 European regions, including accession countries, took part in the seminar, which provided an opportunity to exchange good practice and develop further inter-regional cooperation in the field of innovation promotion.

* RINNO (technical assistance for the development of a regional innovation policy measures resource base) is a EUR1 million joint project between DG Regional Policy and DG Enterprise, which started in January 2000 and will last for two years. RINNO is a central resource for regions to obtain information and good practice on what others are doing in the field of (technological) innovation promotion, particularly with respect to SMEs.

* Implementation of the action plans of the Regional Innovation Strategies (RIS) continued in 30 regions; six inter-regional technology transfer projects (RTTS) have developed in the latest stages of their implementation phase.

* RISI 1/RISI 2/RISI+ (regional information society initiative) projects: 6 projects ended in 2000; 22 projects are still ongoing. Among these, 13 RISI+ projects were successful in helping the regions to incorporate the results of the pilot projects into the mainstream Objective 1 and 2 programmes. A conference was held in Sovia, Spain, in July, attended by some 50 regions. The objective was to familiarise regions with ways of developing a regional information society on a larger scale. These actions are supported by either the ERDF or the ESF.

* Ecos-Ouverture (interregional cooperation with non-member countries): a seminar for participating regions was held in Brussels in January. At present all 63 projects are ongoing.

* A seminar on territorial employment pacts was held in Naples in July, attended by some 400 participants. Examples of TEP experiences which had been incorporated into mainstream programmes were discussed. Funding for technical assistance for the pacts provided under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation will end in December 2001 at the latest. Some of the pacts have already secured a continuation of their activities in the new SPDs and Operational Programmes 2000-06.

* Culture: most of the 37 projects have now been closed. However, three projects are still to send in their final reports and on 11 other projects further information is needed. One of the projects runs until mid-2001.

An evaluation of the 1994-99 projects carried out in 1999 showed that a large proportion had produced sound results. Their success can also be measured by the fact that activities of this type are now firmly embedded in the mainstream programmes. This has allowed the Commission to launch a new generation of innovative actions, based on the strategic approach used by RIS and RISI, which concentrates on the demands of the new economy.

In the human resources domain (Article 6 of the ESF Regulation), progress was also made in 2000:

* New sources of employment: The majority of the projects originally selected in 1996 and 1997 had come to an end by December 2000. Given the closeness of the content to the Third System and Employment Pilot [4], a selection of the projects took part in the 'capitalisation' process initiated for the Third System projects. This has so far produced outputs which are sectoral (e.g. culture or neighbourhood services); horizontal (e.g. job creation, new information technologies) or instrumental (development tools and financing).

[4] http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl&esf/3syst/index_en.htm

At the beginning of 2000, the Commission published a Project Directory containing descriptions and contact information for the 82 projects funded under the 1996 and 1997 calls for proposals [5] This was distributed to a wide range of organisations including the ESF missions in the Member States.

[5] "ESF Article 6 96/97 Project Directory - New Job Sources", ISBN 92-828-7728-0. This information can also be found at http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/actions/index_en.htm

* Local Social Capital: The 30 projects in 12 Member States under the Local Social Capital pilot measure began on 1 September 1999. The pilot measure will allow the identification of good practices for the implementation of the provisions of Article 4(2) of the ESF Regulation concerning Objectives 1 and 3 programmes. The local social capital intermediary bodies are non-profit organisations that provide financial and technical support to micro-projects aimed at restoring social cohesion, reinforcing local networks and groups promoting social inclusion and the start-up of micro-firms and cooperatives.

A 'Summer School' which brought together representatives of all the intermediary bodies, the external evaluators and the European Commission was held in Belgium on 8-11 July. It focused on specific practical issues such as the selection and monitoring of micro-projects and the management of partnerships, building on discussions started on the CIRCA electronic discussion forum. The Summer School also provided a general opportunity for project promoters to meet and exchange information and experiences.

In November the first year report was submitted by the external assessors responsible for the on-going and ex-post evaluation of the pilot project as a whole. The report concluded that in general the pilot project is now fully established and operational (including financial management systems), has a substantial volume of micro-projects and well-functioning local partnerships. The report was presented to the European Social Fund Committee at its meeting on 15 December 2000.

* Labour mobility: To promote innovation in support of the aims of the Action Plan for the reinforcement of free movement of workers (COM(97) 586), ESF support has been provided to 13 projects linked to industrial change and restructuring. They focus on the impact of barriers to freedom of movement and/or on supporting geographic and occupational mobility. These projects are currently in their final stages.

* Inter-professional and sectoral social dialogue: Following a call for proposals at the beginning of 1999 addressed to the European social partner organisations, support is being provided to nine projects in the areas of new forms of work organisation, new training methodologies and new forms of dialogue.

Technical assistance:

Apart from the technical assistance measures financed under the CSFs, OPs and SPDs, the Commission may undertake technical assistance operations of Community interest to meet specific needs relating to the implementation of the Structural Funds. Sometimes the Commission has to undertake tasks which it cannot accomplish without the aid of outside experts. Such aid may take the form of contracts or grants.

For the programming period 2000-06, this technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission is defined by Article 23 of the general Regulation, which limits the maximum amount of technical assistance to 0.25% of the annual allocation of each Fund.

Financial implementation of technical assistance at Community level in 2000 was as follows (EURmillion):

>TABLE POSITION>

Annex 2 lists the types of measures and the amounts committed.

At the beginning of the year, in accordance with Article 48(3)(c) of the Regulation, the Directorate-General for regional policy, which is responsible for management of the ERDF, sent the forecasts of consumption during the year to the Committee for the Development and Conversion of Regions (comprising representatives of the Member States) for its opinion.

2.1.4. The ex-ante verification of additionality

Since 1989, the rules governing the Structural Funds have provided for application of the principle of additionality, which requires the Member States to maintain at least the same level of national structural expenditure (excluding the EU contribution), in real terms, from one programming period to another. Public structural expenditure includes both expenditure which is co-financed under Structural Funds programmes and those which would have been eligible for such finance.

For the period 2000-06, the process of evaluating additionality has been simplified. Instead of the previous annual verification there will be three stages: ex-ante, mid-term (2003) and before the end of 2005. Furthermore, the expenditure level to be maintained in 2000-06 by comparison with 1994-99 takes account of the prevailing general macro-economic conditions in each Member State and certain specific situations such as privatisations, exceptional levels of structural spending in the previous period and any reduction in Structural Fund assistance in 2000-06 compared with 1994-99.

Additionality is verified if:

- with the exception of certain cases mentioned in Article 11 of the general Regulation on the Structural Funds, the ex-ante evaluation shows that average annual expenditure planned for 2000-06 is at least as high as average annual expenditure during the previous period;

- the evaluation at the end of 2003 shows that average annual expenditure in 2000-02 is at least as high as the average annual expenditure for 2000-06 agreed during the ex-ante evaluation;

- the evaluation at the end of 2005 shows that average annual expenditure in 2000-04 is at least as high as the average annual expenditure for 2000-06 agreed during the ex-ante evaluation or revised at mid-term.

This condition must be met by each Member State, overall in the case of expenditure for all the Objective 1 regions. In the case of those eligible under Objectives 2 and 3, it is the expenditure undertaken at national level which is taken into account.

Link between programming and additionality

Additionality is linked to programming and the various stages of evaluation of the Structural Funds programmes, ex-ante, interim and final evaluation, and so it is a factor in the various decisions taken by the Commission during programming:

- under Article 11 of the general Regulation, the Commission cannot approve the CSF/SPD unless additionality has been verified ex-ante;

- the Commission has included a clause in the CSFs/SPDs, under which it will not approve mid-term reprogramming unless by the end of 2003 the Member State has provided relevant data concerning the mid-term verification of additionality. In exceptional and duly justified cases, and to avoid excessive delay in the programming process, the Commission may include in the decision on the mid-term re-examination a clause permitting the suspension of new commitments until full information on the mid-term verification of additionality has been provided;

- at the end of 2005, if the information it has available shows that a Member State is not in fact complying with the principle of additionality (because it is not maintaining its level of expenditure rather than failing to provide information), the Commission may consider reducing planned Structural Funds allocations to that Member State in the following period.

Ex-ante verification 2000-06

The ex-ante verification of additionality had to be concluded before any Member State's programme for the new period could be adopted. This exercise was carried out separately for the Objective 1 regions on the one hand, and for Objectives 2 and 3 together on the other, which means that the methodology of verification has changed radically compared to the previous programming period.

Objective 1

For Objective 1, the regulation stipulates the need to determine the level of public or equivalent structural expenditure that the Member State is to maintain in all its Objective 1 regions. In general, the level of this expenditure shall be at least equal, in real terms, to the amount spent in the previous period. The main outcomes of these calculations, which were provided by the Member States and scrutinised by the Commission, can be seen in the table below.

In interpreting the table, a comparison between the Member States is difficult, not least because of the varying sizes of the populations and economies of Objective 1 regions in different Member States. Moreover, the different institutional arrangements in each Member State require appropriate methodologies and assumptions in order to keep the administrative costs of verification within reasonable proportions. For this reason, when defining the methodologies, more emphasis has been put on the comparability of data over time within a Member State than on full comparability between Member States.

The crucial figures are those in the column for 2000-06, which gives the level of average annual expenditure that Member States have to achieve and that will be verified before the end of 2003 and again before the end of 2005. Expenditure in 1994-99 provided some guidance in determining the level for 2000-06 although, due to the timing of the ex-ante verification which was to be concluded at the end of 1999 or in early 2000 for most Member States, many figures for the years 1998 and 1999 were still provisional. When comparing the percentage changes between 1994-99 and 2000-06, it should be noted that:

- the Commission considered Germany's 10% decline in expenditure as in line with additionality requirements. This is because the regulation states that, when determining ex-ante the level of expenditure to be achieved during the period, "account should be taken of (...) an exceptional level of public structural effort or equivalent effort on the part of the Member State during the previous programming period". This was clearly the case in the aftermath of German unification;

- in the cohesion countries, substantial increases arise both from the co-financing requirements and from the efforts needed to close further the gaps in physical and human capital relative to the rest of the EU. In the specific case of Ireland, the planned increase of nearly 100% is due to a very ambitious National Development Plan which was set up to reduce development bottlenecks and allow continuing high growth;

- in Italy, the 20% increase in expenditure is to be considered in relation to the lower than expected level of spending in 1994-99, and is based on the government's commitment to increasing capital expenditure in order to stimulate the economic development of the South;

- elsewhere, the economic and social problems in the Objective 1 regions are often less pronounced and do not necessarily justify substantial increases from one period to the next.

Table: Annual average national public or equivalent structural expenditure in Objective 1 and Objective 1 transitional regions (in EURmillion, at 1999 prices)

>TABLE POSITION>

For Objectives 2 and 3 together:

The Member States must provide the national expenditure relating to the active labour market policy and, where appropriate (as demonstrated by the Member State), other expenditure required to implement Objectives 2 and 3. Accordingly:

- a single verification, based on the same data, is carried out for Objectives 2 and 3;

- expenditure concerns the whole of the country, including the Objective 1 regions. The data are therefore derived directly from statistics at national level.

To facilitate the development of a transparent benchmark for public expenditure, the Commission encouraged Member States to draw on data on active labour market policies (ALMPs) collated by the OECD. For over a decade, the OECD has produced an annual series of data on expenditure on ALMPs in Member States. The series is internationally recognised, has a proven track record, and Member States themselves provide the data to agreed definitions. Most Member States chose to adopt the data as the starting point for discussions over trends in expenditure to help assess additionality.

However, in promoting the use of a common dataset, the aim was not to have a rigid system for reviewing additionality. Where Member States provided a convincing case that the data did not fully reflect the range of labour market programmes (Sweden) or the underlying changes in economic circumstances (Finland), then the additionality tables were modified to take account of these factors. Over the programming period, the use of the OECD data will provide a valuable benchmark to assess Member States' commitment to the principle of additionality in Structural Fund programmes under Objectives 2 and 3.

2.2. Implementation of programming in the Member States

2.2.1. BELGIUM

1994-99

The final outturn of commitments under the Objective 1 SPD for Hainaut, closed at the end of 1999, shows a rate exceeding 98%. The measures providing direct aid to firms (aid for investment and research) and indirect support (preparing industrial areas) were the main beneficiaries of the Structural Funds. The development of and facilities for research centres and centres of excellence also continued. The number of jobs created may be considered a success since the only measure providing aid for investment had already resulted in the creation of 6 692 jobs as compared with the 4 800 originally expected. The evaluations available suggest that 12 000 jobs may reasonably be expected.

Measures to modernise education continued. These measures were linked with, and more importantly preceded by training of, teaching staff in both the new technologies and their implications for schools. The fields of new information and communications technologies were given pride of place both in schools and in contacts with job seekers and workers in small firms. This measure resulted in the emergence of new structures such as the CEMI (Centre d'excellence en maintenance industrielle - Centre for excellence in industrial maintenance), the Centre de technologies avancées (Centre for advanced technologies) and CEqual.

The measures under the Objective 2 SPD for Meuse Vesdre continued. By mid-June, 906 jobs had been created and 63 research projects supported. Work on most of the infrastructure projects (improved access, reception, R&D, tourist projects and restoration of waste land) was continuing or completed. In the Aubange SPD, construction of the distance support centre on the triple point industrial area began and the economic development projects were continuing.

In Flanders, after the last amending decisions in 1999, all available funds were committed. The rhythm of payments indicates that the two Objective 2 programmes are on schedule. For both areas (Limburg and Turnhout), the programmes focus on encouraging the services sector, in particular services which are expected to create additional jobs for women.

As regards human resources, the short-term training measures for workers and job seekers and the training measures in the field of the new technologies were very successful. The ESF/ERDF integrated measures concerning improvements to research centres achieved satisfactory results. The measures for the development of the social economy did not really begin until 2000, so the results are expected to be satisfactory, but well below expectations.

Objective 3: in Flanders, the available resources were used mainly for measures to help the long-term unemployed, ex-convicts, immigrants, the handicapped and those with poor educational records.

In the French Community (Wallonia and Brussels), the establishment of pathways to integration brought results. The "Training Carrefour" played its full part in providing information and advice, so ensuring transparency in supply and the dissemination of information to all those operating at local level.

In Brussels, the bulk of the resources for the Objective 3 programme went to develop supporting and accompanying measures and centres to promote social assistance (local missions).

Objective 4: in Flanders, extra efforts were made as regards training. The sectoral Funds asked consultants to carry out promotional work and draw up potential training dossiers in firms. These plans came to fruition in 2000 and became training projects.

Almost all the funds for the French Community were used by the end of 2000, despite initial problems. The Walloon employment observatory, which was established under Objective 4, produced studies and surveys on sectors undergoing change and conversion, the new sectors and the non-merchant sector. The various measures for small and very small firms continued, including the PLATO project which combines a management training programme for small firms with sponsorship by managers in large firms to train managers in small firms, so facilitating the exchange of experiences and know-how.

2000-06

The Commission approved the Objective 1 SPD for Hainaut (transitional support) on 15 May 2000. The Community Structural Funds will provide EUR645 million.

The six priorities selected are:

* focussing growth through development of the productive base,

* developing and exploiting local potential for research and technological innovation,

* exploiting the potential of agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and the countryside,

* making the area more attractive by restoring and promoting its image,

* preventing unemployment, and

* encouraging a skilled labour force and improving professional reintegration.

A task-force to examine the match between the priorities of the SDP and the projects submitted by operators began work and will, early in 2001, send its findings to the Walloon Government, which will select the projects to receive support from the Structural Funds.

The projects under the Objective 2 SPD for the Meuse-Vesdre basin (assistance from the ERDF and the ESF totalling EUR158 million) and for the rural area of Dinant-Philippeville (assistance from the ERDF and the ESF totalling EUR58 million) were submitted to the Commission and judged acceptable in July 2000. Negotiations on these two SPDs took place during second half of the year 2000.

The same was true of the Objective 2 SPD for Brussels-Capital (assistance from the ERDF of EUR43 million) which was submitted to the Commission and judged acceptable in May 2000.

Flanders proposed four Objective 2 programmes, each of which includes a transitional component as well: Limburg, Antwerp, West Flanders and East Flanders. The total allocation for these programs (ERDF and ESF) is EUR148.2 million for the new Objective 2 areas and EUR38.2 million for the transitional areas. The programmes focus on the development of tourism in rural areas, increasing the attractiveness of industrial city districts for business and potential inhabitants, the reutilization of former mining sites and measures to increase the potential of the local labour force. The negotiations on the four programmes are about to be completed and they are expected to be adopted during April-May 2001.

The Commission adopted five programmes under Objective 3 in Belgium for vocational training and employment for a total de EUR737 million and a programme of transitional support for Hainaut with an ESF contribution of EUR192 million.

Federal Ministry of Employment and Labour SPD: EUR9.1 million. Half the budget will go to measures to reintegrate disadvantaged groups into the labour market. Other measures will concern the consolidation of employment and measures to promote equality for men and women at work.

Flanders SPD: EUR376.2 million. The labour market in Flanders suffers from a shortage of skilled labour, a low rate of employment among older workers and high unemployment among young people, women and immigrants.

Wallonia/Brussels SPD: EUR285.5 million. The priority remains reducing unemployment. Social and vocational exclusion also affects a large number of men and women.

Brussels-Capital SPD: EUR23.7 million. Although it is the major source of employment in the country, Brussels has the highest unemployment rate in Belgium. The measures adopted concern the socio-professional integration of job seekers.

German-speaking Community SPD: EUR10.7 million. This assistance is intended to reduce long-term unemployment, encourage the integration into the labour market of disadvantaged groups, promote training and education, develop capacity to adapt and the business spirit and promote equality for men and women.

Hainaut SPD: EUR191.9 million. These resources will be used mainly under two ESF monofund priorities: a preventive approach to the labour market and improving vocational reintegration and social inclusion.

Non-Objective 1 FIFG: The programme adopted includes an allocation of EUR35.3 million for fish processing and the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet.

2.2.2 DENMARK

1994-99

The Objective 2 programmes for Lolland and Nordjylland 1997-99 are in the final phase of implementation.

Both programmes performed well in 1997-99 in terms of both financial and physical implementation. Job creation, for example, exceeded the targets set out in the programme. Demand was also high for these programme and consequently all the funding available was committed by the end of 1999.

In the fisheries sector, the programme continued as planned during 2000. The Commission has effected all payments to this programme, except the final payment, which is not due until the programme has been wound up.

2000-06

On 9 November 2000 the Commission took the final decision on the Objective 2 programme for Denmark for 2000-06. The programme totals EUR617 million, EUR189 million of which (including EUR27 million for the transitional areas) comes from the EU.

In general, the Commission found the programme proposal to be of a high quality but suggested some amendments concerning mainly the SWOT analysis and the focus of the strategy. The Danish authorities agreed to these adjustments and revised the programme accordingly.

The programme aims to create the conditions for self-sustaining growth in the regions of Denmark that are facing structural difficulties. Most importantly the programme will - in an environmentally sustainable way - create and safeguard over 6 000 jobs, decrease the income gap, increase the capacity for innovation in new and existing small businesses and provide training for thousands of people thereby increasing the educational level (especially of women).

The programme combines measures under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF), which will receive respectively 71% and 29% of the Community resources.

Three priorities have been selected to achieve this objective: 1) Development of the region - focusing on the conditions for growth (infrastructure, counselling, studies, etc.), 2) Business development - primarily development of SMEs (investment support, counselling, development plans etc.) and 3) Development of skills/human resources (more specifically development of skills in companies, development of strategic infrastructure and optimising usage of ESF resources). In addition funding is made available for technical assistance (monitoring, evaluation, information campaigns, seminars, etc.).

The first meeting of the Monitoring Committee for the Objective 2 programmes took place on 6 March 2001 when the programme complement was presented.

Objective 3: A EUR379 million programme to support education, training and employment in Denmark for the next seven years was approved by the Commission in 2000.

The programme sets out five priorities, which reflect the objectives of the country's 1999 National Action Plan for Employment:

* improving active labour market policies to prevent long term unemployment and to improve labour market structures;

* promoting equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market;

* developing skills and training;

* encouraging entrepreneurship and innovativeness.

* A further 3% of the budget (EUR12 million) is set aside for technical assistance to manage, implement and evaluate the results of the programme.

The overall budget for the Danish programme is EUR758 million, of which EUR285 million will be contributed by the public sector, EUR379 million by the EU and EUR94 million from other sources.

Responsibility for day-to-day coordination, management and monitoring of the SPD lies with the National Labour Market Authority within the Ministry of Labour. The Regional Social Fund Committees of the counties will also play a role in the implementation of measures and projects. The Monitoring Committee will comprise representatives of the relevant ministries, the European Commission, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Local Councils, the social partners and other relevant interest groups.

EUR205 million is available from the FIFG for the Fisheries programme. The major focus areas will be processing, port facilities and the fleet, which is in need of modernisation in order to improve working conditions and selectivity of the fishing gear.

2.2.3. GERMANY

1994-99

By the end of 1999 the last commitments under the 1994-99 programming period had been made. Implementation of the most recently selected projects continued throughout 2000 and should be completed by the end of 2001. On the basis of the expenditure incurred under the different programmes, the Commission was able to commit the total available amount of funds, with the exception of two programmes (Saarland Objective 5(b) and Nordrhein-Westfalen Objective 5(b)). Full commitments were achieved for all the Community Initiatives.

The situation as regards ERDF payments from the Commission is best for Objective 1, where on average 93% of the funds available from the ERDF has already been paid to Germany. For some Objective 2 programmes (1997-99) and some specific Community Initiative programmes, the rate of payments by the Commission is behind schedule and needs further attention during 2001, which is the last year for payments.

2000-06

Objective 1: the negotiations on the Community support framework (CSF) were concluded in 2000. Ten years after German unification, the new Länder are entering a critical phase in their structural adjustment, when the process of catching up has virtually stalled. By committing a substantial aid package to the new Länder, the European Union will help to develop and realise the available potential in order to overcome the economic and social problems in these regions. The federal and Land governments will implement nine operational programmes (including one transitional programme for east Berlin) within the Community support framework for the new Länder and east Berlin:

- a regional multi-fund programme for each Land, in which the contribution from the ERDF, ESF and EAGGF Guidance Section is co-ordinated;

- three sector-specific monofund programmes for the whole eligible region: transport infrastructure measures of supra-regional importance (ERDF); federal development programme for employment (ESF); restructuring programme for the fisheries sector (FIFG).

The total EU contribution amounts to EUR20.7 billion. The main change compared to the previous CSF is the shift (in relative terms) from productive investment to infrastructure (basic infrastructure, R&D, education and urban infrastructure). The most important priorities in the CSF are infrastructure (receiving 27.7% of Structural Funds assistance) and human resources (27.1%), followed by productive investment (19.3%), agriculture and fisheries (17%), the environment (7.2%) and technical assistance (1.8%).

The CSF should result in up to 370 000 jobs being maintained and created and 265 000 full-time equivalent temporary jobs. Around 1.35 million people will be trained under ESF-supported schemes. One of the main objectives of the human resources measures is to reduce the number of long-term unemployed (at present around 31% of total unemployed).

In the agricultural and rural development domain, priority is given to investments in agricultural holdings, forestry measures, reparcelling, the renovation and development of villages and protection and conservation of the rural heritage. Assistance for early retirement and financial engineering are of less importance in the programmes.

The programme for fisheries is particularly focused on investment in fishing ports.

Within the framework of the CSF approved, the negotiations on the different operational programmes continued in all but two cases and were finalised before the end of 2000. Negotiations on the transport infrastructure OP were finished and those on the human resources OP almost finished before the end of the year. Approval followed early in 2001.

The first Monitoring Committees for the new programmes met in 2000 and discussed their rules of procedure and the draft programme complements. By the end of the year it appeared necessary to introduce a first amendment to the CSF in order to ensure that financing table in the CSF was fully consistent with those in the nine underlying programmes.

Objective 2: for the programme period 2000-06 Germany is entitled to EUR3 096 million for Objective 2 and EUR530 million for the transitional areas (eligible until the end of 2005).

During the first half year of 2000 the Commission received 11 proposals for Objective 2 programmes. Eight programmes were submitted before 30 April 2000 and accepted by the Commission for negotiation: expenditure on these programmes is therefore eligible from 1 January 2000. The draft programmes for Baden-Württemberg, Hamburg and Berlin were not received or assessed as complete before 30 April: the starting date of eligible expenditure for these programmes is therefore the date of receipt of the last element required for the document to be complete.

The Commission gave approval in principle to six programmes at the beginning of 2001 and commitments from the budget year 2000 could be carried forward to 2001 for these programmes. Negotiations on the other five programmes (Hesse, Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, West Berlin and Bavaria) continued into 2001; for these five programmes the budget year 2000 had to be split up and divided across the other budgetary years.

In addition to the topics already mentioned under Objective 1, discussions between the Commission and the German authorities on the Objective 2 programmes focused on:

* the introduction of multi-fund priorities in the programmes where ESF and ERDF measures are integrated in the same priority and where the ESF measure are tailor-made for the Objective 2 strategy (in contrast to the broader horizontal measures under Objective 3);

* the partnership principle: role of the different partners before and after approval of the programmes;

* the introduction of new financial instruments in the programmes

* the focus of the business development priorities on SMEs;

* the differentiation in strategies between the Objective 2 areas and the transitional areas under the same programme;

* the differentiation in strategies between Länder covering cities (Hamburg, Bremen), Länder with a large share of urban areas covered by Objective 2 and Länder with a larger share of rural areas covered by Objective 2: specific attention has been paid to urban problem areas.

The German authorities had presented one single programming document (SPD) for Objective 3 which regroups all activities by the federal Government and the 11 Länder concerned by this Objective. Negotiations which had already started at the end of 1999 continued until summer 2000 and focussed on the following points:

* reinforcing the preventive approach to long-term unemployment at federal and Land level;

* improving skills for older workers;

* improved services;

* reducing the risk of dropping out of school

* improving the systems of monitoring and evaluation.

Because of its importance with respect to the European Employment Strategy, the first topic (reinforcing the preventive approach) dominated the negotiations. As a result of the negotiations the Commission acknowledged the efforts made in the German labour market policy to reinforce its preventive thrust while the German Federal and Land authorities gave an undertaking to increase the proportion of short-term unemployed in ESF-assisted measures during the programme.

The improvement of the monitoring and evaluation system was another important result of the negotiations with agreement on a "common minimum" of output data to be collected in the monitoring process. Most important is the agreement to collect data on each individual beneficiary, enterprise and training provider (Stammblattverfahren). Work relating to monitoring and evaluation will be coordinated by a pilot group made up of representatives from the Federal Government, the Länder and the Commission, which will also include representatives of Objective 1 administrations.

The SPD was eventually approved on 10 October. ESF assistance amounts to EUR4 756 000, 95% of which will finance the five policy fields of the ESF Regulation. In addition, 1% is set aside for small-scale projects to promote employability and local social development, with a further 4% earmarked for technical assistance measures. The SPD also describes how the horizontal themes - local employment initiatives, information society and gender mainstreaming - have been taken into account in developing the strategy for Objective 3 and in selecting priorities.

The non-Objective 1 fisheries measures (EUR111.1 million) focus on the processing and marketing of fish and on the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet.

2.2.4. GREECE

The year was primarily a period for negotiations, as regards both the CSF for 2000-06 and the 24 operational programmes it includes - 11 for specific sectors at national level and 13 regional operational programmes, one for each region of the country.

The conclusion of the negotiations for the CSF enabled the Commission to approve the CSF in November. It provides an overall development strategy for the use of EUR22.71 billion in grants from the Structural Funds and EUR3.32 billion in grants from the Cohesion Fund). The total investment plan, also taking into account the national contribution and private funds, exceeds EUR50 billion.

The main priorities of the development strategy under the CSF for 2000-06 are as follows:

* improving skills (around 10% of total investment under the CSF);

* continuing efforts to complete the main communications infrastructure (around 27%);

* increased competitiveness of the productive sector (around 18%);

* development of rural areas and agriculture (around 8.5%);

* improved quality of life for the country's citizens (around 4%);

* access to and use of information society technology (around 4%);

* measures to promote the balanced development of the regions (26%).

Both the Commission and the Greek authorities are fully aware that this ambitious CSF is a major challenge for the management capacity of implementing organisations. The Structural Funds Regulation requires Greece to introduce new management structures to manage the CSF and the ensuing operational programmes. Success will depend to a great extent on their effectiveness and, more particularly, on the quality of the project development and selection process.

On 31 October, the Greek Parliament passed a law on the organisation of the management of the CSF. This is an important step forward, and creates the new legal framework which is necessary for efficient and transparent management of the CSF and its operational programmes.

As far as these programmes are concerned, negotiations made substantial progress by the end of 2000. Most of the operational programmes were approved during the first quarter of 2001, and a small number in April. At the same time, the Greek authorities should have made substantial progress in establishing and making operational the new managing authorities and structures, on the basis of the procedures provided by the new law referred to above. The new Management Information System covering all CSF and Cohesion Fund projects should also be operational by then. This will permit implementation of the CSF in Greece to start on a sound basis and in a way which will best guarantee the success of this huge investment and development effort.

The ESF measures are particularly concentrated in two operational programmes ('employment promotion and continuing training' and 'education and initial vocational training'). The main objectives of these measures are: to prevent long-term unemployment through active, preventive and individualised assistance; to promote equal opportunities for all in access to the labour market; to promote and improve training and education; to promote entrepreneurship and the adaptability and performance of the workforce and to improve women's access to the labour market.

As regards agriculture and rural development, the EAGGF Guidance Section will contribute a total of EUR2 260.3 million to co-finance the Agriculture and Regional Development priorities throughout the period 2000-06.

The EAGGF Guidance Section acting alone will contribute EUR1 233.4 million to the Agriculture priority and EUR1 026.9 million with the other Funds to the Regional Development priority. The main measures are intended to achieve:

* enhanced competitiveness of agriculture through integrated assistance to holdings, assistance for the processing, standardisation and marketing of agricultural and forestry products and assistance for agricultural products,

* sustainable and integrated development of rural areas and the restoration of social balance, improved support mechanisms to inform and raise awareness among the rural population and plans for the integrated development of rural areas,

* the maintenance of the environment and social cohesion through the development and protection of natural resources and the environment.

No forecast expenditure was committed during 2000.

The guidelines for the fisheries programme (FIFG contribution EUR211.1 million) are similar to those for the previous period except that there is more emphasis on improving the quality of fish products and working conditions as well as fighting environmental pollution.

2.2.5. S P A I N

1994-99

Objective 1: Since all the resources for programmes for the period 1994-99 have been committed, all that remains to be paid are the closing balances for the programmes. The Commission already has an initial assessment of the work of the ERDF during this period carried out by an independent assessor at the request of the Spanish authorities.

The overall view of the report is clearly positive, stressing the results achieved, which are in line with the initial needs, effectiveness in terms of the objectives sought, the degree of efficiency in using resources and compliance with Community policies and principles.

Nevertheless, the report also points to a number of shortcomings regarding mainly the complexity of the system, inter-institutional coordination, the excessively traditional nature of the assistance, the inadequate resources for non-material investment by firms and the lack of sensitivity by managers to the principle of gender equality. Negotiations on the current CSF have taken all these points into account.

Objective 2: Reprogramming decisions for the 1997-99 programmes were signed in May (OPs for the Balearic Islands, La Rioja and Navarre), June (OP Aragon) and October (OP Basque Country); the remaining two decisions were signed in 2001 (OPs for Catalonia and Madrid).

Payments made by the ERDF at the end of 2000 for the seven items of assistance concerned ranged from 50% for the Basque Country to 84% for Aragon.

As regards the programmes for 1994-96, following completion of the closure reports for ERDF assistance, by the end of 2000 all payments had been completed except for the Madrid OP (final payment in 2001). In four cases (Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre and the Basque Country) all the available Community appropriations were used and in two cases (Balearic Islands and La Rioja) virtually all.

2000-2006

Objective 1: The Commission approved the CSF for Spain for 2000-06 on 19 October; at current price and excluding the performance reserve, it contains EUR39 548 million in Community appropriations, almost 28% of the resources of the Structural Funds allocated to Objective 1, for total investment of EUR84 754 million. With finance from the Union's four Structural Funds (ERDF 61.2% of the total, ESF 22.4%, EAGGF 12.6% and FIFG 3.8%), it is the largest financial instrument for structural assistance for the period 2000-06. The regions of Spain eligible under this Objective are the same as in the previous period (Andalusia, Asturias, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castile-León, Castile-La Mancha, Extremadura, Galicia, Murcia, Valencia and Ceuta and Melilla); however, Cantabria is eligible for only transitional support under Objective 1.

The programme priorities are: improving the competitiveness of and developing the productive fabric; innovation, R&D and the information society; the environment, countryside and water resources; development of human resources, employment and equal opportunities; local and urban development; transport and energy networks; agriculture and rural development; fisheries and aquaculture structures.

The most significant innovations compared with the previous CSF are:

* strengthening of the principle of partnership as regards both programming and the management of the funds. In the regional OPs, this involves giving practical expression to the concept of coresponsibility shared by the central and regional authorities in the functions allocated to the managing authority and, as regards the economic and social partners, through their attendance, for the first time in the implementation of the Funds in Spain, at meetings of the Monitoring Committees for the CSF and the various OPs;

* integration of the various Funds (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF) at regional level in the 'Integrated Operational Programmes' which increases their coordination in practical terms, their efficiency and their flexibility on the spot;

* in consequence, there is a significant reduction in the number of forms of assistance in the current CSF (23 as compared with 73 in the previous period). This both simplifies the management instruments and improves the concentration of resources at regional and sectoral level;

* in terms of the main sectoral balances, development options have given greater priority to measures concerning the knowledge society and the environment, mainly at the expense of transport and energy networks.

The ex-ante evaluation of the CSF suggests extra annual average growth in GDP of 0.34%, which should mean by the end of the period that GDP in the eligible regions of Spain is 2.4% higher than it would have been without the CSF. The same forecast suggests an annual average of 219 000 jobs created or maintained in 2000-06 thanks to the CSF.

The CSF will be implemented through 23 operational programmes: twelve regional programmes, one for each of the regions eligible under Objective 1 and eleven multi-regional programmes. On 29 December 2000 the Commission approved the OPs for Andalusia, Extremadura, Murcia and Ceuta and Melilla. Technical reasons prevented the remaining programmes for which negotiations had been completed from being adopted on the same date. They were approved in the first quarter of 2001, apart from the information society programme which the Spanish authorities sent later than the others.

Objective 2: the Spanish authorities again opted for a CSF divided into seven OPs, one for each of the seven areas eligible under Objective 2. All these programmes, apart from the one for Madrid, were approved in principle by the Commission on 29 December.

Community assistance for the eligible areas amounts to EUR2 649 000, or 12.93% of total assistance from the Union for the areas eligible under Objective 2, the same percentage as the eligible population of Spain in terms of the Community total. The breakdown of this amount among the seven OPs is in proportion to the percentage population covered in each in terms of the total for Spain.

Planned Community assistance for the transitional areas is EUR99 million.

The seven OPs comprise five priorities for assistance, plus a sixth priority for technical assistance measures: improving competitiveness and employment and developing the productive fabric; the environment, countryside and water resources; the knowledge society (innovation, R&D, information society); development of communications and energy networks; local and urban development and technical assistance.

The measures to be co-financed by the ESF in the six items of assistance amount to 5% of total co-financing by the Funds for five OPs and 7% in the case of Madrid. These measures are the responsibility of the central administration. The ESF percentage exceeds 21% in the Catalonia OP. The ESF has three priorities for action: increasing entrepreneurial capacity; increasing stability and adaptability in employment and support for local initiatives to create jobs.

On 27 September the Commission took a decision approving the Objective 3 CSF for Spain. The CSF will be implemented through 12 operational programmes, eight of which were approved on 9 November. Seven of the programmes are regional (one per Autonomous Community) and will be implemented by the regional government in question (Aragon, Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Madrid, Navarre, the Basque Country and La Rioja). The other five programmes are thematic and multiregional, and are intended to promote employment, vocational training systems, the business spirit and life-long learning, social inclusion and technical assistance.

The European Social Fund will contribute EUR2 221.8 million to financing Objective 3. The largest OPs in financial terms are the two multiregional programmes: 'Promoting employment' (36.2%) and 'Business initiative and continuing training' (20.4%).

The priorities for Objective 3 lie in the following fields: integration of the unemployed into the labour market; expanding business skills, promoting non-salaried employment and the creation of small and medium-sized firms; promoting the adaptability of the workforce and stability of employment for those whose jobs are most at risk; improving vocational training; developing human potential in research, science and technology, with particular stress on improving the transfer of results to industry; increasing the participation of women in the labour market; integrating disadvantaged groups into the employment market and promotion of the local economy.

Non-Objective 1 fisheries measures will receive support from the FIFG of EUR207.5 million. The investments planned concern mainly the processing and marketing of fisheries products and the restructuring and renewal of the fleet.

2.2.6. FRANCE

1994-99

Objective 2: The Commission wound up 12 of the 19 SPDs from the 1994-96 programming period. Applications for payment of the balances for the SPDs for 1997-99 were submitted on 30 June 2001.

2000-06

The Commission approved the 6 SPDs for Objective 1 and transitional support under Objective 1 between October and December. The regions concerned are the four overseas departments (Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana and Réunion), which are fully eligible under Objective 1, and the two regions of metropolitan France eligible for transitional support: Corsica and part of Nord/Pas-de-Calais (the districts of Douai, Avesnes and Valenciennes). Total assistance from the Structural Funds for these six programmes amounts to about EUR4 billion.

Overall these SPDs will result in the creation of over 55 000 net jobs and provide direct aid to about 10 000 small firms and finance for over 560 000 individual training measures.

The main measures concerning agriculture relate to modernisation and diversification. In the overseas departments, the stress is on support for those sectors of agriculture which have a market organisation (banana and the sugar cane-sugar-rum industry).

The priorities for fisheries in the overseas departments are improvements to port facilities, better marketing of products and the development of aquaculture. In Corsica the priorities are the preservation of employment, rationalisation of the fishing effort and increasing aquaculture capacity.

The Commission also took a decision in principle on 28 December on a multi-regional and multi-objective (Objectives 1 and 2) computer science programme ('Présage') submitted by the French authorities. This programme entails the allocation of EUR19.3 million of Community resources towards investment totalling almost EUR34.7 million. The programme will permit the management, monitoring and evaluation of Community assistance totalling over EUR10 billion through a single software used by the 26 regions of France. The national computer programme will provide the managing authorities with a powerful tool, help solve some of the difficulties encountered in the past and strengthen the partnership through transparency in management, monitoring, evaluation and surveillance.

Objective 2: the draft SPDs were sent at the end of April, the partnership meetings were concluded at the end of September and the Commission took a decision in principle on 28 December. The SPDs concern the 21 regions of metropolitan France (since the whole of Corsica is eligible for transitional support under Objective 1, it is not eligible under Objective 2).

The population of the eligible areas is about 19 million, 31.3% of the population of France compared with 41.3% in the previous period (1994-99).

The French authorities proposed to the Commission that 15% of the appropriations for the EAGGF Guarantee Section should go to the Objective 2 SPD.

Total assistance from the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) and the EAGGF Guarantee Section for these 21 regional programmes and the computer programme Présage for 2000-06 is about EUR7 billion.

Together, these SPDs will permit the creation or maintenance of several hundred thousand direct jobs, direct assistance to several tens of thousands of small firms and the financing of several hundred thousand individual training measures.

Of the Commission's priorities included in the SPD, special mention must be made of the effort to spread the new information and communications technologies, the measures to protect the environment and support equal opportunities for men and women, and a political option to support the creation and the maintenance of jobs and develop human resources in general in close coordination with the European employment strategy by means of a genuinely integrated approach.

In the case of human resources, the ESF measures are not combined in a single priority but spread throughout the SPD priorities to promote integration and complementarity with the other Funds. France's priority for assistance concerns measures for very small firms and those taken as part of urban policy. However, complementarity with the measures financed under Objective 3 and their compatibility with the National Action Plan for employment has been checked and respected. In addition, the three horizontal priorities, gender equality, training measures and local initiatives, are well integrated.

As regards implementation, it should be noted that the partnership has been extended to all the institutions and those active in economic and social life. The strengthening of this partnership is also reflected in the fact that the Monitoring and Programming Committees are co-chaired by the Prefect of the region and the President of the Regional Council.

Objective 3: The main feature of 2000 was the negotiation and adoption of the SPD.

During the period 2000-06 France will receive co-financing for Objective 3 totalling EUR4 713.56 million.

The Objective 3 SPD stressed a preventive approach using six priorities:

* Priority 1 'Active labour market policies' accounts for 20.5% of total funding and is intended to offer a new start to young people and the adult unemployed, fight unemployment by improving guidance and the definition of training projects for job seekers and to develop skills training for the 'New departure' public.

* Priority 2 'Equal opportunities, social integration' concerns those worst affected by unemployment, and all the different problems which prevent them securing a job. It accounts for 26% of total funding.

* Priority 3 'Life-long education and training' represents 23% of total funding and is intended to help young people succeed in sandwich training, promote access to the validation of professional and personal experience and provide a training system which systematically validates the professional experience acquired.

* Priority 4 'Adaptation of workers, business spirit, research, innovation and technology' will absorb 22.5% of total funding and is designed to modernise work organisations and enhance skills, develop the business spirit in all sectors of activity and encourage innovation, research and technology, creativity and measures on an international scale by promoting investment in skills.

* Priority 5 'Improving access to and participation by women in the labour market' concerns specific measures to offset inequalities between men and women on the labour market and supplements the integrated horizontal approach of the first four priorities. Along with priority 6 (local initiatives for equal opportunities) it will absorb 5% of total funding.

The development and utilisation of information and communications technologies occupies an important place in supporting and supplementing the measures in the national action plan for employment.

Inclusion of equal opportunities for men and women is another key point of the programme. Particular attention has been paid to the horizontal dimension. The quantified objectives regarding the proportion of women have been specified in the various measures in the first four domains.

The promotion of local initiatives for employment is consistent with the efforts made to develop a regional approach further and takes account of the specific responsibilities for employment and training which the local administrations have.

For the first time, Regional Steering Committees, co-chaired by the Prefect of the region and the President of the Regional Council (or their representatives) have been set up. Their composition is identical to that of the national Monitoring Committee. The Regional Steering Committees bring together the representatives of the decentralised departments of the State, the Region, the other territorial bodies, the social partners, those active in the economy and the cooperative sector.

Non-Objective 1 fisheries measures (EUR233.7 million) concentrate on the long-term management of fisheries resources, modernisation of firms to enable them to increase value added and improving the socio-economic environment of areas dependent on fishing.

2.2.7. IRELAND

1994-99

By the end of 1999, the final adjustments to the programmes for 1994-99 had been made. Implementation of the remaining projects continued throughout 2000 with completion planned in 2001. In a number of cases, short extensions to the period for the completion of payments were granted by the Commission. The annual reports for 1999 for most programmes were received by the Commission during 2000.

2000-06

For the period 2000-06, in Ireland, the Border, Midlands and Western region, with 26.6% of the country's population, remains eligible for Objective 1 funding. The rest of the country, in the Southern and Eastern region previously covered by Objective 1, will benefit from gradually decreasing transitional support during the programming period.

The National Development Plan (NDP) was submitted to the Commission in November 1999 and covered the whole of Ireland. The plan includes not just co-financed expenditure but also the very substantial non-co-financed spending of the Irish authorities. The co-financed element amounts to EUR7 billion, including a Structural Funds contribution of EUR3.2 billion, out of total spending of the order of EUR57 billion.

This integrated approach means that the advantages of the programming system will now be enjoyed by other areas of public spending. Many of the non-co-financed areas will be supportive of and closely related to the Structural Funds; some will indeed be in areas eligible under the Regulations but which cannot be co-financed because of the reduced level of EU assistance.

Main features of the Community support framework

The Commission transmitted the negotiating mandate for the Community support framework to the Irish authorities at the end of January 2000. The mandate underlined the key messages the Commission wished to highlight in the negotiations, notably the need to avoid overheating in the Irish economy in view of the very ambitious spending programmes contained in the NDP; the welcome emphasis on "balanced regional development" through the regional programmes and the proposed national spatial strategy; the need to tackle bottlenecks throughout the economy, notably in infrastructure and the labour market, through investment but also by way of horizontal measures to improve the performance of the sectors and finally the priority attached by the Commission to environmental questions and in particular the protection of Natura 2000 sites.

The formal negotiations on the contents of the Community support framework took place in February and March 2000 and resulted in a number of changes to the original Irish proposals. In terms of the organisation of the CSF, the support for agriculture and rural development was transferred from the national to the regional level. Also, in view of the presence in the programmes of non-co-financed expenditure, special care was taken to highlight the co-financed expenditure, through the inclusion of separate financing tables on co-financed and overall expenditure. On the substance of the proposals, there was a greater concentration of the co-financed expenditure in the research and development area on a number of key measures. The research and development effort at the regional level was also strengthened.

Six programmes out of a total of seven were adopted in 2000.

The first meeting of the NDP/CSF Monitoring Committee took place in October. It undertook a brief overview of developments to date and agreed to the preparation of a common template for reports to future meetings of Monitoring Committees. The NDP/CSF Monitoring Committee also agreed to the establishment of four horizontal coordinating committees covering the environment, equal opportunities and social inclusion, rural development and employment and human resources.

Political priorities for assistance in human resources: The transformation of the Irish labour market over the last six years has required a decisive shift in policy, resulting in some significant changes in emphasis for the ESF. While a more preventive approach to unemployment has been evident in the National Action Plans for Employment to date, the policy emphasis now is re-weighted towards mobilisation of labour supply. This approach is coupled with more intensive efforts to improve employability through education, training and lifelong learning. There is also emphasis on a more generalised effort to raise the amount and quality of in-company training, and strong support for the implementation of a life-long learning operational framework. In addition, the need to improve labour market participation rates for all, and especially women, takes on a new prominence. The ESF, along with the ERDF, is co-financing significant investment in childcare (EUR115 million through the regional OPs), the lack of which is seen as a particular barrier to women's participation in work and education.

The allocations to the four pillars of the European Employment Strategy is as follows: over 50% of the ESF will be allocated to support employability of people and over 17% will be dedicated to both entrepreneurship and adaptability. About 12% of the ESF will be used to strengthen gender equality and childcare provision in Ireland. Under the 2000-06 Community support framework, the ESF will provide slightly over EUR1 billion to Ireland, about 34% of the total Structural Funds available (a higher proportion than in other Objective 1 regions). A further EUR32 million in ESF funding is available under the EQUAL Community Initiative.

The agricultural and rural development measures under the priority 'Balanced regional development' form part of two regional operational programmes (Border, Midlands and Western Regions and Southern and Eastern Regions) for priorities in 'Local enterprise development' (Forestry) and 'Agriculture and rural development' and under a Peace operational programme. The EAGGF Guidance Section will contribute EUR182.0 million to the Irish CSF (2000-06).

The co-financed measures form a part of larger package of measures to be financed under the relevant programmes by national means. EAGGF Guidance Section funding for the year 2000 was fully committed.

During the year 2000 a plan for a Peace programme was submitted jointly by Ireland and the United Kingdom.

In the fisheries sector, the FIFG contributes to the two regional programmes and the 'Productive sector' horizontal programme. The total FIFG contribution amounts to EUR67.6 million. The priorities are mainly the development of aquaculture, the modernisation of ports and enhancing the quality and safety of the fishing fleet

2.2.8. I T A L Y

1994-99 and earlier periods

Italy has by far the greatest backlogs in the closure of assistance co-financed by the Structural Funds (particularly the ERDF) in the periods before 1989 and from 1989 to 1993.

At the beginning of 2000 88 forms of assistance still awaited closure, of which 35 were in fact closed during the year. It is expected that the rest will be closed in 2001.

As regards the 1994-99 programming period, the latest financial information sent to the Commission by the Italian Government suggest that, except in the case of the Community Initiatives, most of the delay in implementing the Structural Funds in Italy has been made up: all the funds available were committed by the authorities managing the programmes before the deadline of 31 December 1999 although care is still required to ensure that the projects still open are completed and expenditure carried out in the time allowed (by 31 December 2001), which will require the pace of expenditure to accelerate.

2000-06

The Commission approved the Objective 1 Community support framework for 2000-06 on 1 August. The amount allocated to Italy for the Objective 1 regions is EUR23 758 million plus a further EUR201 million for transitional support, making a grand total of EUR23 959 million.

The CSF contains six development priorities: 1) natural resources; 2) cultural resources; 3) human resources; 4) local development systems; 5) cities; 6) service networks and forums. It includes a series of specific objectives to be achieved through the 14 operational programmes: 7 regional programmes (Campania, Apulia, Basilicata, Calabria, Sicily, Sardinia and, receiving transitional support, Molise) and seven multiregional programmes. The Commission approved 12 operational programmes (the seven regional programmes and five multiregional programmes 'Local development', 'Research, technological development and advanced training', 'Public safety for the development of the Mezzogiorno', 'Schools' and 'Fisheries') during 2000.

This was a substantial achievement, the fruit of long and profitable negotiations. The strategy for the assistance presupposes a fundamental rebalancing between policies to improve the context and schemes providing direct aid to firms. This entails:

a) the gradual reduction of the share of resources used for aid and the introduction of more competitive methods of securing such aid;

b) integrated assistance in the economic context on uniform territorial systems;

c) the use of targeted rather than broadcast aid.

Implementation of the operational programmes approved began late in 2000 with the first meetings of the Monitoring Committees and submission of the programme complements.

The year was a turning point for the Objective 1 regions of Italy as regards the strategy for ESF assistance there. For the first time, programming could take account of and implement in practical terms the four pillars of the European Employment Strategy. Programming for the new period gave expression in the CSF and OPs to the Council's recommendations to Italy on employment policy.

The innovations which were the subject of negotiations during the first half of 2000 and incorporated into the programming approved by the Commission include first of all stress on the preventive approach, which is difficult to implement in regions hard hit by rates of unemployment which are very high in general and particularly so as regards long-term unemployment. The special attention given to promoting equal opportunities and reducing the amount of undeclared work is also closely linked to the features of the labour market in the Mezzogiorno. Other innovations include support for the reform of public services for employment and the establishment of a system of accreditation for training centres. The programmes approved in 2000 for the whole period contain a total of EUR4 092 million in ESF assistance of which EUR2 931 million will go to the seven regional programmes and EUR1 161 million to the five programmes managed nationally.

In the field of agriculture and rural development, the EAGGF Guidance Section will contribute EUR2 983 million alongside the other Funds to co-financing the priorities 'Natural resources', 'Cultural resources' and 'Local development systems'. The main measures are intended to assist the modernisation and improved competitiveness of agricultural holdings and the agri-food industry with due rega