COMMUNICATION OF THE COMMISSION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF E.U. REGIONAL POLICIES IN AUSTRIA, FINLAND AND SWEDEN
Date: 1996-07-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Austria, EU regional policy, Finland, Structural Funds, Sweden

COMMISSION  OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 03.07.19% 
C()M(%)  116  final 

COMMUNICATION OF THE COMMISSION 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATTON OF E.U. REGIONAL POLICIES 
IN AUSTRIA, FINLAND AND SWEDEN 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

Introduction 

2. 

Starting up Structural Fund actions 

Financial allocations 

*  Definition of eligible areas 

Submission and approval of SPDs and Community Initiatives 

3. 

The implementation of Union regional policy 

Approval of programmes: 

Organisation of the implementation 

*  Relevance and visibility of actions 

Page 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

5 

5 

8 

9 

4. 

The added value resulting from the introduction of the Structural Funds 

10 

Annex  1 : 

Adoption of Regional Development Programmes in the New Member States 

Annex 2: 

Submission and approval of SPDs and Community Initiatives 

Annex 3: 

Community Initiatives 

Annex 4: 

Dialogue and Regional Partnership 

Annex 5: 

Expenditure structure of SPDs according to standard  classification 

\&, 

COMMUNICATION  OF THE  COMMISSION 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION  OF E.U. REGIONAL  POLICIES 
IN AUSTRIA. FINLAND AND SWEDEN 

1.  INTRODUCTION. 

This  Communication  concerns  the  implementation  of  E.U.  regional  policy  in  Austria,  Finland, 
and  Sweden  (i.e. Objectives  1, 2 and  6 and  Community  initiatives) from January  1995 to  May 
1996.  It  complements  a  Communication  adopted  by  the  Commission  last  year  relating  to  the 
other twelve Member States*. 

A  detailed  presentation  of  the  funding  decisions  taken  in  the  period  covered  by  this 
Communication  is given  in Annex  1.  The Communication  reports on the start-up of  Structural 
Fund actions in the new Member States, and on the added value of Structural  Fund interventions 
in those countries. 

2.  STARTING UP STRUCTURAL  FUND ACTIONS 

Structural Fund measures are one of the most tangible and visible benefits of Union membership. 
That is why it was felt to be important that Fund assistance should become a, reality for  citizens 
and companies in assisted areas as soon as possible. 

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  4253/88  amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EEC) 3193/94  provided 
that  eligibility  for  assistance  from  the  Structural  Funds  could  be backdated  to  1 January  1995 
provided  that  funding  proposals were submitted  before  the 30 April  1995. It was desirable that 
this deadline should be met wherever possible. 

A  great  deal  of  preparatory  work  had  been  done  prior  to  Accession  by  the  administrations 
concerned,  and  assistance  had  been  provided  by  the  Commission's  services  through  a  series  of 
workshops,  seminars  and  other training  support.  This  effort  gathered  pace especially  after  the 
référendums in each of the countries concerned. 

Financial  allocations 

In January  1995, the Commission decided the allocation of Structural Funds between  Objectives 
2 to 5(b)2 - the Act of Accession having already determined the total amount for each of the new 
Member  States and within that the allocation  for  Objectives  1 and 6.  In the case of Finland,  it 
was made clear in that decision that the allocation for  Objective  2 for the whole period could be 
reviewed. 

1  COM(95) 111 final,  29.3.1995. 
2  SEC(95) 28/3, 14.1.1995. 

Subsequently  minor  adjustments  were  made  by  the  Commission  to  the  initial  allocations  in 
Sweden  and  in  Finland,  in  favour  of  Objective  6  areas-*,  at  the  request  of  the  Member  States 
concerned. 

Definition  of eligible  areas 

The Act  of Accession  determined  the geographical  delimitation  of assisted  areas  for  Objectives  1 
and  6.  In  February  and  May  1995,  the  Commission  adopted  decisions  determining  areas  to  be 
covered  under  Objectives  2  and  5(b)^.  Finland  chose  to  limit  the  duration  of  the  decision  for 
Objective  2 areas  to  the  period  1995-96.  The  other  new  Member  States  took  up  the  opportunity 
offered  by  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  4253/88  for  all  programmes  to  be  approved  for  the  whole 
period  from  1995-99.  Finland's choice  resulted  from  a desire to keep a margin  of flexibility  in the 
allocation  of resources  between  Objectives. 

Submission  and  approval  of SPDs  and  Community  Initiatives 

All  three  new  Member  States  chose  to  submit  single  programming  documents  for  Objectives.  In 
the case of Finland,  in view of the exceptionally  small  populations  of assisted  areas, the  similarity 
of the  problems  encountered,  and  the  need  to  avoid  excessive  administrative  complication,  it  was 
agreed  that  one  Single  Programming  Document  could  be  adopted  for  the  Objective  2  areas  as  a 
whole  and  one  for  the  Objective  6  areas  as  a  whole.  For  the  same  reasons  one  Single  Planning 
Document  was  adopted  for  the  Objective  6  areas  as  a  whole  in  Sweden.  On  the  other  hand, 
separate  Single  Programming  Documents  were  adopted  for  each  individual  Objective  2  area  in 
Sweden  and  in  Austria. 

The  dates  of  submission  and  of  approval  of  SPDs  and  Community  Initiatives  are  given  in  the 
tables  at  Annex  2.  As  can  be  seen  in  these  tables,  almost  all  Objective  SPDs  were  submitted 
before the end of April  1995.  The somewhat  slower timetable  for  Sweden  (Objective  2) reflects  a 
decision  by  the  Swedish  authorities  to  await  the  results  of the  Referendum  and  General  Election 
before  launching  preparatory  work  on  a  scale  comparable  to  the  effort  already  under  way  in  the 
two other Member  States  concerned. 

Progress  in  adopting  the  SPDs  released  national  and  Commission  staff  resources  to  deal  with 
Community 
implementation 
arrangements  have  prolonged  the  time  taken  to  approve  certain  INTERREG  programmes  in 
Finland  and  Sweden.  Similar discussions  are under way regarding  URBAN. 

initiatives*,  but  discussions  on  decentralised  and  simplified 

3  COM(95)  123 final/2, 12.5.1995. 
4  OJ No L 51, 22.2.1995 for Austria and Finland and OJ No L 123, 10.5.1995 for Sweden. 
5  Further details on the content of the above-mentioned  Community initiatives are given in 

Annex 2. 

3. 

THE IMPLEMENTATION  OF UNION  REGIONAL  POLICY 

The implementation of Union regional policy requires:- (a) the definition  of national development-
related expenditure and setting the base line for  monitoring additionality,  (b) the approval  of EU 
funding  proposals,  (c)  the  setting  up  and  practical  application  of  a  partnership  system  for  the 
management  of  EU  credits  and  associated  national  and  regional  credits,  and  (d)  ensuring  that 
actions are seen to be relevant to their needs and to be effective  by citizens and companies in the 
assisted areas, and by politicians and representatives of the social partners. 

The first of these issues (additionality) has been dealt with in a manner closely comparable to the 
approach  followed  for  all  other  Member  States.  In  the  same  way,  comparable  treatment  is 
emphasised  for  the  remaining  three  issues, but  some  specific  aspects  do arise  in  relation  to the 
new Member States , as is explained below: 

3.1 

Approval of programmes 

The  approval  of  funding  proposals  generally  involves  a  clarification  of development  priorities, 
and of the organisation  and content of individual  measures and of the eligibility of actions. This 
task in itself can require, on occasion, quite extensive redrafting  of the initial proposals, and can 
be relatively time-consuming. 

But the adoption of the funding  proposals was also the occasion for a policy debate with each of 
the three Member States, which can be summarised in schematic terms as follows: 

Austria1 

The definition  by the Union of assisted areas under Objectives  1, 2 and 5(b) and the consequences 
that had for  state aid  intensities  in particular  in conformity  with  the Union's  competition  policy, 
widened differences  of treatment between areas in the Austrian territory. 

The  Union's  regional  policy  aims to create  or  attract jobs  to the  areas  where  the  less  favoured 
population lives.  In contrast, Austrian regional policy takes account also of the contribution that 
access to jobs created or maintained outside the assisted area can have. 

For these reasons, the high  levels of assistance  accorded  to  Burgenland  as  an  Objective  1 area, 
and the new locational advantage of the region as a result of the comparatively high levels of aid 
to businesses that became possible, were a new factor in Austrian regional policy. 

Other points were: 

- 

the quantification  of development targets, in particular job creation.  The Austrian  authorities 
wished  to  avoid  a  mechanistic  or  simplistic  approach  to  the  evaluation  of  results  obtained, 
without denying the need to set precise goals; 

a focus on job creation, especially through S M Es.  The Austrian authorities stressed that it is 
also important to maintain quality jobs where possible, including in larger companies. In their 
view, the scope for job creation through SMEs in assisted areas risked being overstated; 

the integration of labour market policy with other development action - the Commission urged 
a stronger focus on retraining those in work, and on the special problems of women; 

It  was  agreed  that  possible 
the  complexity  of  the  aid  system  for  business  in  Austria. 
simplification  and  concentration  of  action  should  be  examined  in  a  mid-term  review  of 
regional  action,  on  the  basis  of  an  initial  experience.  In  the  negotiation,  the  Commission 
sought  to  obtain  the  agreement  of  the  Austrian  authorities  to  a  concentration  on  a  limited 
number of priority project selection criteria, and to a clarification  of co-ordination  procedures 
and responsibilities; 

the  accent  put  on  'regional  management'  structures  in  the  regions  -  new  structures  directly 
linked to EU programmes  designed  to stimulate and animate  project  ideas on the ground  are 
proposed by the Austrian authorities  in the majority  of programmes,  implying  comparatively 
large allocations of EU funds to technical assistance. 

Finland 

Accession  to the  Union  in  Finland  took  place  in  parallel  with  an  important  reform  in  regional 
government organisation and regional policy methods.  Indeed these changes had been introduced 
in  part  in  anticipation  of  the  introduction  of  structural  funding,  and  the  approval  and 
implementation of EU-cofinanced  actions is the practical test of these new arrangements. 

As  regards  Objective  6  regions,  the  Finnish  authorities  proposed  measures  both  for  economic 
development  and job  creation,  and  social  action  for  maintaining  viable  settlements  in  sparsely 
populated areas. The Commission, without wishing to make a sharp distinction between these two 
complementary  types  of  action,  nevertheless  sought  to  strengthen  the  emphasis  on  the  former  -
economic development and job creation  - as a means to the same end. 

Naturally,  it  was  necessary  to  take  account  of  the  results  of  the  Accession  negotiations,  in 
particular  concerning the payment of compensatory  allowances to farmers  under  Objective  5(a). 
For  this  reason,  the  share  of  Objective  5(a)-typc  actions  in the  Objective  6  SPD  is  very  high. 
Despite an very low co-financing  rate, in some regions within the Objective  6 area this  left  little 
scope  for  the  funding  of  general  economic  development  actions,  including  other  5(a)-type 
measures,  even  though  some  rebalancing  was  agreed  in the  course  of  negotiations  prior  to  the 
approval of the SPD. This problem has since been alleviated by increased national  funding. 

It was also agreed: 

- 

to  strengthen  action  related  to  information  society  applications  and  to  reduce  conventional 
infrastructure  investment.  This  was  also  agreed  for  the  Objective  2  SPD,  with  increased 
emphasis on encouraging international networking of SMEs, 

- 

- 

to  adopt  an  integrated  package  of  rural  policy  actions  with  special  arrangements  for  their 
implementation  at  a  local  level; in general  to broaden  the  range  of  measures  supporting  the 
maintenance  of  population  in  rural  areas  and  promoting  development  in  addition  to  direct 
income support; 

to strengthen  training actions  in particular those related to the specific  development goals of 
the programme.  There  was only  limited  scope  for  co-financing  Objective  3-type actions in 
Objective 6 areas in view of overall resource constraints. 

For both Objective 6 and Objective 2 SPDs, it was also agreed to strengthen the quantification of 
development aims and base-lines from which progress could be measured. 

Sweden 

In Sweden, the discussion mainly concerned how to focus the programmes better on job  creation 
and  enterprise  especially  in  the  private  sector,  and  how  to  define  more  precisely  the  types  of 
action  to  be  funded.  In  parallel  with  Accession,  new directions  were  introduced  into  Swedish 
regional  policy,  with  greater  emphasis  on  making  the  best  of  the  productive  potential  of  each 
area.  Proposals  coming  up  from  the grassroots  level  needed  some adjustment  to  reflect  better 
these changes in national policy guidelines (which fitted well with EU policy guidelines also). 

The Swedish authorities proposed an ambitious quantification  of development goals. 

As regards the Objective 6 area more particularly, 

-  an innovative feature of the Swedish proposals is that a part of the county allocation should be 
determined  by  competitive  bid.  The  practical  organisation  of  this  system  is  now  being 
defined; 

- 

the proposal  to establish  a new Centre for  Space and Environment  Research  in Kiruna is an 
important  project  to  provide  for  the  long-term  viability  of  this  settlement  by  continuing 
diversification  into space-related activities, with a potential to stimulate in the local economy a 
new generation of commercial activities in related sectors. 

As  regards  Objective  2,  a  special  feature  in  the  Swedish  approach  has  been  the  decision  to 
concentrate on innovative forms of indirect support to SMEs, with a very limited place for the co-
financing  of the continuation of existing policies, in particular direct aids to enterprises.  A strong 
emphasis  is  placed  on  the  promotion  of  networking  activities  of  SMEs,  both  within  their 
respective regions (co-operation with other local companies and with regional knowledge centres) 
and internationally. 

A feature of all Swedish development programmes is the strong emphasis on: 

-  equality  of  opportunity  and  environmentally  sustainable  development,  which  are  both 
horizontal themes and which are as such  reflected  in the specification  of the programme as a 
whole; 

- 

information  society  applications  -  both  in  terms  of  measures  specifically  addressed  to  this 
theme, and as a method of work for the implementation of many other actions. 

3.2 

Organisation of the implementation 

Turning  now  to  the  management  of  EU  credits,  the  Commission  has  sought  an  in-depth 
discussion  with the national  and  regional  administrations  of each of the new Member  States on 
the main characteristics  of the management  system envisaged and  its conformity  with  regulatory 
requirements, and the standard clauses attached to funding proposals. 

For this purpose, temporary working groups on organisational matters were set up in Sweden and 
Finland,  bringing  together  the  national  and  regional  administrations  with  the  Commission's 
services to review systematically all the main aspects  of the implementation  arrangements.  The 
Monitoring Committees in these two Member States will have available to them a full  report, and 
the  opportunity  to  verify  that  the  arrangements  are  comprehensive  and  sound,  and  that 
appropriate  arrangements  are  being  made  to  inform  all  those  involved  at  every  level.  The 
Austrian  authorities  considered  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  set  up  a  formal  group.  They 
preferred  a question and answer method whenever clarification  of the standard clauses attached to 
the  SPDs  was  required. 
In  the  case  of  Austria,  Monitoring  Committees  are  informed  of 
implementation  arrangements  agreed  by  ôsterreichische  Raumordnungkonferenz  (ÔRÔK), 
especially as regards financial monitoring, evaluation  procedures, publicity arrangements and the 
management of technical assistance credits. 

In  tjie  course  of  these  discussions,  a  number  of  concerns  have  been  expressed  by  all  three 
Member States: 

- 

- 

the  need  to  simplify  administration  as  much  as  possible  given  the  small  size  and  limited 
resources of the national and regional administrations involved; 

the  need  for  greater  clarity  on  eligibility  rules.  At  the  same  time,  the  need  for  flexibility 
reflecting  the  specific  characteristics  of each  Member  State - for  example the  characteristics 
of the public service in Sweden; 

- 

the need for  the Commission  to improve  internal  co-ordination between services  particularly 
as regards the specification  of monitoring, evaluation and financial  reporting requirements. 

For  its  part,  the  Commission  has  also  been  concerned  that  financial  flows  should  be  clearly 
defined  and as simple and rapid  in operation as possible.  Equally the Commission has sought to 
satisfy  itself that project  selection procedures take account of the specific  aims of SPD measures 
and,  more  particularly,  the  project  selection  criteria  laid  down  in  the  SPD.  Finally  the 
Commission  has  been  concerned  to  ensure  the transparency  (ex  post)  of  funding  decisions,  by 
ensuring  the  availability  of  appropriate  data  through  the  monitoring  system  or  in  other  ways. 
Sweden and Finland have agreed to work towards establishing in  1996 capabilities for the on-line 

exchange of electronic data  including monitoring  information.  In Austria,  a priority  is given to 
establishing better internal networking capabilities  within the Austrian public administration,  but 
links to the Commission's  services  are also envisaged and should be operational  already  for  the 
ESF in 1996. 

3.3 

Relevance and visibility of actions 

As regards the relevance and visibility of EU credits to final beneficiaries  (especially citizens and 
SMEs), the Commission  and the  national  and  regional  administrations  have  reviewed publicity 
arrangements  and  support  for  project  promoters,  and  the  definition  of  project  submission 
procedures (open call or other methods).  The Commission  has pressed  for  a wider use of open 
calls for projects. 

Partnership 

The  Commission  has  made  constant  efforts  to  encourage  the  full  involvement  of  local  and 
regional partners in implementation.  It has equally encouraged a reflection  on the involvement of 
elected  representatives  at  every  level, not only in programme definition  but also  in the  strategic 
guidance  of  programme  implementation.  It  has  also  encouraged  the  involvement  of  the  social 
partners as members of the Monitoring Committees.  This has been accepted without difficulty  in 
all three of the new Member  States, since it reflects the established  institutional practice in all of 
those countries.  A more extensive description of partnership arrangements is given in Annex 4. 

Visibility 

Particular  attention  needs  to  be given  to the  visibility  of  the  Structural  Funds  to  SMEs,  since 
these play a key role in job creation.  Typically, existing aid schemes are used in conjunction  with 
EU structural funding,  although  in Sweden a particular emphasis is placed on innovative actions. 
Elsewhere  also,  new  schemes  are  established  (for  example  for  INTERREG  in  Austria).  The 
visibility  of  the  Structural  Funds  is  most  evident  for  new  schemes,  since  special  application 
procedures are then needed. 

When Structural Funds co-finance existing aid schemes, visibility depends on it being possible to 
explain  clearly  the advantage  to  SMEs that  results.  This  could  be different  criteria  (or  a more 
focused  set of criteria); it could be a more simple and transparent, more equitable, or more rapid 
project selection procedure; it could be higher rates of grant; it could be new categories of eligible 
expenditure (clean technologies for example) or it could be simply the possibility to support more 
projects  and more firms because of a larger budget for assistance in assisted areas.  If,  however, 
there is no perceptible difference  on any of these grounds to SMEs, it is unlikely to be effective  to 
mention  on  the  application  form  or  on  the  letter  granting  assistance  that  EU  co-financing  is 
involved.  This concern  is most acute in situations  where the introduction  of Structural  Funding 
does not coincide with any changes to the established aid system, particularly if the EU assistance 
is spread  across  a  large  number  of  schemes  with  the  result  that  even  the  budget  effect  is very 
limited in the majority  of cases. 

It is still very early to draw conclusions, but, at least potentially, the visibility of EU assistance to 
SMEs is likely to be good in Sweden and also in Finland (perhaps to a lesser extent).  In Austria, 
the difficulty  has  been  and  remains that  no change to the existing  aid  system, which  involves  a 

very  large  number  of  schemes,  is  presently  foreseen  by  the  Austrian  authorities,  although  a 
concentration of aid schemes is on the political agenda. 

THE  ADDED  VALUE  RESULTING  FROM  THE  INTRODUCTION  OF  THE 
STRUCTURAL FUNDS 

The introduction of the Structural  Funds in the three new Member States is a unique opportunity 
to test the added value of Structural  Funds in relatively prosperous Member  States.  Although it 
is  always  difficult  to  disentangle  policy  changes  that  resulted  from  the  introduction  of  the 
Structural  Funds from  those that would have happened anyway, the issues that have arisen in the 
negotiation of funding decisions and implementation systems are a clear pointer. 

In this concluding section  however, some further  considerations can be highlighted. The first and 
perhaps  the  most  important  of all  is the  attitude  of  the  national  and  regional  administration.  If 
there  is a positive  agenda  for  change  in  national  regional  policy,  the movement  and  adjustment 
created  by the introduction  of the  Structural  Funds can  help carry that  agenda  forward.  In both 
Finland and Sweden, this appears to be the impression generally held.  In the case of Austria, the 
strong emphasis on the geographical  concentration  of state aids, and the differential  in aid levels 
between Objective  1  areas (Burgenland) and other areas has given rise to some criticism.  The EU 
is said  to  focus  too much  on  problem  regions,  whereas  national  Austrian  policy  was aiming to 
address structural problems across the whole territory. 

Beyond  those general  considerations,  the  introduction  of  the  Structural  Funds  has  undoubtedly 
had some important  effects. 

Firstly,  the  precise  definition  of  the  concept  of  development  expenditure  within  the  national 
budget  combined  with  the  principle  of  additionality,  gives  a  privileged  position  to  cohesion 
policies at a time of general  budgetary  rigour.  It shields  cohesion  policies  for  the duration of the 
programming  period  from  cutbacks  required  for  economic convergence.  It  makes  it possible to 
discuss in operational ways the combination of cohesion and convergence goals. 

Secondly, in all three new Member  States, the introduction  of the Structural  Funds has been the 
occasion  for  a  detailed  review  of  partnership  arrangements.  In  Finland  and  Sweden  there  has 
undoubtedly  been  some move towards  further  decentralisation  of the  management  of  structural 
adjustment  as  a  result. 
In  all  three  Member  States,  the  quality  of  the  dialogue  within  the 
administration  and  with  the  social  partners  has  been  further  strengthened.  Again,  in  all  three 
Member States, the introduction of the Structural  Funds has created pressure for better and more 
comprehensive  monitoring  and  evaluation  of the development  effects  of public  expenditure.  In 
general the transparency of the use of public finance  is increased, and the need to show results in 
ways understandable to the general  public is more strongly felt.  Over time, the benefits  in terms 
of the quality and effectiveness  of development projects funded  should become apparent. 

Thirdly,  structural  funding  has  undoubtedly  influenced  the  national  and  regional  agenda  of 
structural  adjustment  policies  in the three new Member  States.  It has done so both through the 
SPDs  and  through  Community  initiatives  and  Article  10  pilot  actions,  which  latter  especially 
serve to focus  attention on issues of special  importance  for the Union.  A special mention should 
be  given  to  the  benefits  in  terms  of  a  widening  of  horizons  within  the  Member  States  but 

especially  with  other  Member  States  and, 
the  combination  of  INTERREG, 
ECOS/OUVERTURE  and PHARE and TACIS programmes, with neighbouring third countries. 
The co-operation between INTERREG and PHARE programmes  in particular can be seen as an 
element  in  the  pre-accession  strategy  vis-à-vis  countries  which  are  candidates  for  future 
enlargement. 

through 

The expected contribution to the building of democracy and new economic structures in the Baltic 
Sea Region and in areas of Russia bordering the Union  represent an  important opportunity.  In a 
modest but still significant  way, this contributes to building a better understanding and a sense of 
a community of interest. 

This widening of horizons may yet bring another  benefit,  namely the transfer  of know-how  from 
the three new Member States tor other assisted regions especially in the Union.  The Accession of 
the three new Member  States  brought  into the  Union  three countries  with  much to  offer  in this 
respect,  whether  in  terms  of  open  government  partnership  arrangements,  the  mastery  of 
technology, modern labour market policies, or the reform  of public services - the list  is far from 
exhaustive.  These potential benefits are not yet fully  exploited, but networks of co-operation are 
growing very rapidly both within the framework  of Structural Fund assistance and outside. 

10 

ANNEX 1 
ADOPTION OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES 
IN THE NEW MEMBER STATES 

ADOPTION OF THE SINGLE PROGRAMMING  DOCUMENTS 

1.  Objective 1: Burgenland  (Austria) 

The Burgenland region of Austria is the only Objective  1  region in the three new Member 
States.  In  1995, the  average  GDP  of this region  which borders three  Central  European 
countries was some 70% of the EU average. Its population of 270 000 inhabitants lives in 
a predominantly rural area with a surface of 4 000 km2. 

The Single Programming Document,  submitted  to the Commission  on 20 April  1995 was 
adopted  on  15 November  1995. It  provides  for  a  Structural  Fund  contribution  of ECU 
165.6 million towards a total programme cost of ECU 831 million. 

Table  1. 

Objective J Burgenland: EU contribution by Fund 

1995  prices 

Trade  and  Industry 
Research  and  Development 
Tourism 
Agriculture  and  Environment 
Promotion  of growth  and  stability 
in  employment 
Technical  assistance 
Total 

Total  cost 
Ecu  million 
56.8 
15.5 
38.7 
24.2 

ERDF 
Ecu  million 
53.8 
12.5 
38.7 

ESF 
Ecu  million 
3.0 
3.0 

26.3 
4.1 
165.6 

0.7 
2.0 
107.6 

25.6 
1.5 
33.1 

EAGGF 
Ecu  million 

24.2 

0.6 
24.8 

Table 2: Objective J Burgenland: EU,  national public and private contributions 

1995  prices 

Trade and  Industry 
Research  and  Development 
Tourism 
Agriculture  and  Environment 
Promotion  of growth  and 
stability in  employment 

Technical  assistance 
Total 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu  million 
360.9 
82.6 
191.5 
125.0 

Ecu  million 
56.8 
12.5 
38.7 
24.2 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu  million 
114.4 
26.9 
63.2 
48.2 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu  million 
187.7 
40.2 
89.6 
52.6 

63.0 
8.4 
831.4 

26.3 
4.1 
165.6 

26.8 
4.2 
283.6 

10.0 

382.1 

S}1 

The overall goals of the development programme are : 

(i) 

(ii) 

to  create  a central  European  region  with  a strong  dynamic  in industry,  commerce, 
tourism and agriculture; 
to narrow internal economic disparities, providing for  a more homogeneous quality 
of life throughout Burgenland. 

A number of interesting general themes run through the programme : 

special  attention  is  given  to  increasing  job  opportunities  for  women,  for  poorly 
qualified  and  young  people  in  mainly  rural  areas  as  an  essential  contribution  to 
maintaining the population and reducing the need for commuting; 
actions  to  train  and  upgrade  of  the  local  workforce  are  aimed  at  meeting  the 
requirements  of the local economy (training for  SME entrepreneurs,  in technology, 
and for promoting local economic development); 
care for the unique environment;. 
Internationalisation, 
geographical situation and co-operation with Hungary and other CEEC countries 

reflecting  Burgenland's 

and  networking, 

co-operation 

_..J 

The  opportunities  provided  by  the  new  situation  in  central  Europe  and  by  Austria's 
membership of the Union  should be fully  exploited  to obtain  a 'leap forward'  in economic 
and  social  development  between  1995  and  1999.  In  this  respect,  external  growth 
potentials  in  surrounding  countries  and  regions  of  Austria  should  have  a  strongly 
favourable  effect  on  prospects  for  north  and  central  Burgenland.  However,  south 
Burgenland  does not benefit from  the same degree of external stimulus, and must rely on a 
special  effort  to  develop  indigenous  potential  (mainly  Spa  tourism),  while  taking  every 
possible advantage of cross-border  co-operation. 

As a result  of the measures funded  under this programme, 7 300 new jobs will be created 
of  which  6  000  in  industry,  1000  in  technology  related  SMEs  and  another  300  in 
technological centres. 

The  programme  will  be  implemented  in  a  partnership  involving  the  Commission,  the 
Federal  Government,  and  the Lander  and  local  authorities  comprising  all  local  interests, 
including the  social  partners.  A Monitoring  Committee  has been  set  up.  It  held  its  first 
meeting in January 1996. 

2.  Objective 2 

2.1 

List of Objective 2 areas in Austria, Finland and Sweden 

The Commission,  in accordance with the regulations governing the  Structural  Funds and 
with the  provisions  laid  down  in  the  Act  of Accession  of Austria,  Finland  and  Sweden, 

Wl 

adopted  on  22  February  1995*  and  on  10  May  1995^,  after  receiving  the  unanimous 
approval of the Advisory Committee for the Development  and Conversion of Regions, the 
list of areas eligible under Objective 2 in the three new Member States. Summary statistics 
for the Objective 2 areas in the three new Member States are given below: 

Table 3:  Key statistics for  the Objective 2 regions in the new Member States 

Number of 
Objective 2 
regions 

Total population 
in Objective 2 
regions 

Total  surface 
of Objective 2 
regions 
8 692 km2 (10 %) 
17 000 km2 
(5%) 
35 325 km2 
(8%) 

Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
Figures  in  brackets  represent  the  percentage  share  in  the  national  total  (national 
population and total surface of the country concerned) 

640 000 
(8%) 
790 000  (15%) 
970 000  (11%) 

4 
6 
5 

2.2  Austria 

The Austrian authorities submitted  proposals for the four  Austrian Objective 2 regions on 
26  April  1995.  The  SPDs  for  Steiermark,  Niederôsterreich,  Oberôsterreich  and 
Vorarlberg  (total  population  640  000)  were  approved  by  the  Commission  on  15 
November  1995.  The programmes  cover  the  period  1995-1999. The total  cost  of these 
programmes  is  some  ECU  816  million,  of  which  the  Structural  Funds  will  contribute 
ECU  101 million. 

The SPDs are based  on the  strategy  to  modernise  and  diversify  the economy  of the  four 
regions concerned which were hit by the rapid decline in the metal and steel sector and in 
the  textile  industry.  Emphasis  is  placed  on  the  creation  of  new  enterprises  and  on  the 
strengthening  of  existing  enterprises  (and  of  SMEs  in  particular)  by  developing  new 
technological  competence  in  the  regions.  About  60%  of  the  resources  available  will  be 
used  for  the  strengthening  of  crafts  and  industry  and  related  technological  competence; 
30%  is  allocated  to  measures  to  upgrade  human  resources  with  a  further  7%  for  the 
development and promotion of tourism. 

As a result  of the actions financed  under the four  SPDs, it is estimated  that  some  11 000 
jobs can be created or maintained  in the regions concerned. 

The  protection  of  environment  is  an  integral  part  of  the  SPDs.  Positive  effects  on  the 
environment  are  expected  from  the  support  to  encourage  the  introduction  of  clean 
technologies and the use of alternative energy sources.  Special  measures to facilitate  the 
re-integration  of women  in  the  labour  market  are  foreseen  in  particular  in Nieder-  and 
Oberôsterreich.  Assistance  will  also  be  provided  to  strengthen  and  set  up  regional 
management structures. These could support the development and launching of innovative 
project ideas and the co-ordination of regional development  efforts. 

1 
2 

OJ No L 51, 08.03.1995 
OJ No L  123,03.06.1995 

H 

The  programme  will  be  implemented  in  a  partnership  involving  the  Commission,  the 
Federal Government,  and the Lander and local  authorities  comprising  all  local interests, 
including the social partners.  Four Monitoring Committees have been set up, one for each 
SPD.  They have held their first meeting in February 1996. 

Table 4:  Objective 2 Austria:  EU contribution by Fund 

1995 prices 

Steiermark 
Niederôsterreich 
Oberôsterreich 
Vorarlberg 
Total 

Total cost 
Ecu million 

ERDF 
Ecu million 

ESF 
Ecu million 

463.399 
199.162 
66.987 
86.562 
816.110 

38.770 
17.931 
7.143 
6.402 
70.246 

19.200 
4.481 
3.614 
3.459 
30.754 

Table 5:  Objective 2 Austria:  EU, national, public and private contributions 

1995 prices 

Steiermark 
Niederôsterreich 
Oberôsterreich 
Vorarlberg 
Total 

2.3  Finland 

Total cost 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu million 
463.399 
199.162 
66.987 
86.562 
816.110 

Ecu million 
57.970 
22.412 
10.757 
9.861 
101.000 

National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
123.739 
33.730 
18.708 
11.993 
188.170 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu million 
281.690 
143.020 
37.522 
64.708 
526.940 

Six industrial areas were selected for assistance under Objective 2 in Finland for the years 
1995  and  1996.  Three  are located  on the  coast  (parts  of the  regions  of  Satakunta and 
Varsinais Suomi on the west coast, of Ità-Uusimaa and Kymenlaakso on the eastern Gulf 
of Finland coast and Kokkola on the north-west coast) and three inland in the regions of 
Pâijât-Hàme  (Lahti),  Central  Finland  (Jyvâskylâ)  and  South  Karelia  (Lappeenranta). 
Altogether  around  790  000  people  live  in  these  areas,  about  15.5%  of  the  country's 
population. The main problem of the areas is high unemployment, due to structural change 
and steady job losses in the main industries, which are dominated by large, export-oriented 
companies in the forestry products, metals and chemicals sectors. The structural decline in 
employment in these industries was accelerated by the collapse of the Russian trade after 
1990. In 1994 the average unemployment rate in the areas stood ar. 23%, compared with a 
national average of 20%. 

Dependence on a few large employers is identified  as a key weakness of the areas. Hence 
the accent of the programme is on diversification  and development of small and medium-
sized  enterprises.  In addition to  helping the  start-up  of  new businesses,  the programme 
encourages the development of existing small and medium-sized f.rms through investment, 

r<< 

research  and  product  development,  and  improvement  of  skills  in  technology  and 
marketing.  Training  and  networking  with  other  SMEs  or  larger  firms  (cluster 
development) is therefore  prominent. Finally, the programme aims to help develop the role 
of Finland  as  a  "gateway"  to  Russia  and  the  Baltic  States,  especially  through  selected 
investments in ports used in the transit trade. 

The  programme  was  presented  to  the  Commission  on  8 March  1995  and  approved  on 
11 July  1995. It  is divided  into three  parts,  business  development,  skills and  technology, 
and environment, infrastructure  and tourism. The EU is contributing ECU 69.2 million to 
the programme, which will involve total expenditure of ECU 283 million. 

The breakdown by EU Fund is as follows: 

ERDF. 
ESF: 

55.2 
14.0 

79.8% 
20.2% 

The breakdown by sector and fund  is shown below. 

Table 6:  Objective 2 Finland: EU,  national public and private contribution 

1995 prices 

Total  cost 

EU 
contribution 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu  million 
49.4 
20.1 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu  million 
86.8 
9.2 

Ecu  million 
172.8 
45.6 

Ecu  million 
36.6 
16.3 

Business  development 
Skills and  technology 
Environment, 
and  tourism 
Technical  assistance 
Total 

infrastructure 

61.8 
2.8 
283.0 

14.9 
1.4 
69.2 

37.0 
1.4 
107.9 

9.9 

105.9 

The Finnish authorities have set the following objectives for the programme : 

a net increase of around  10 000 in the number of jobs in manufacturing  and services 
in the areas; 
a reduction in the local unemployment rate in line with the national average; 
a 3% increase in the number of SMEs; 
a 3% increase in the number of SMEs engaged in exporting. 

Management  of  the  programme  is  divided  between  the  regions  and  the  central 
administration.  Each  area  has  adopted  its  own  programme,  which  it  implements  in 
accordance  with  a  common  framework  of  procedures  and  selection  criteria  through  a 
regional  management  committee  composed  of  representatives  of  the  region,  the  district 
offices  of  the  ministries  and  both  sides  of  industry.  For  this  reason  the  programme  is 
contained  in  one  Single  Programming  Document  with  a  single  national  Monitoring 
Committee.  Two  meetings  of  the  Monitoring  Committee  were  held  in  September  and 
November 1995. 

For  1997-99 a new Objective 2 programme will be submitted. 

/) 

2.4 

Sweden 

Proposals for the five Swedish Objective  2 regions were  submitted to the Commission  on 
16  June  1995.  The  SPDs  for  Angermanlandskusten,  Bergslagen,  Blekinge,  Fyrstad  and 
Norra Norrlandskusten  (total  population  970  000)  were  approved  by the Commission  on 
the 22 November  1995.  The programmes will cover a five-year period  1995-1999.  Total 
expenditure under these five SPDs  is forecast  at around ECU  800  million.  The  Structural 
Funds  will  contribute  ECU  160  million,  the  national  and  regional  authorities  a  further 
ECU 350 million. The private sector contribution is estimated at some ECU 290 million. 

The  five  Swedish  Objective  2  regions  are  characterised  by  a  high  dependency  on 
traditional industries (forestry,  mining, engineering), dominance of local  labour markets by 
one  or  two  major  employers,  a  weak  entrepreneurial  spirit,  outward  migration  and  an 
ageing population. 

The main challenge facing these areas is to create new jobs to  replace recent job losses in 
the traditional industrial  sectors and expected job losses in the public sector. 

The principal  aim of the SPDs is to modernise and diversify  the economy  as a sound basis 
for  job-creation  in  the  private  sector.  The  five  programmes  focus  on  improving  the 
entrepreneurial  climate  in  the  regions  concerned  and  on  the  strengthening  of  small  and 
medium  sized  firms  in  manufacturing  and  in  business  services.  In  addition,  the 
programmes  aim  to  develop  tourism  activities  based  on  the  rich  cultural  heritage  and 
beautiful  nature  of  the  areas  concerned.  It  is  estimated  that  the  implementation  of  these 
programmes will result in the creation of some 21 000 new jobs. 

To  implement  the  strategic  aims  of  the  programmes,  priorities  focus  on  entrepreneurship 
and  business  development,  tourism  development  and  human  resource  development. 
Support will be given to  advisory  services,  networking,  research  and training  activities  to 
encourage  diversification  and  help  businesses  increase  their  competitiveness  and  export 
potential.  To  encourage  innovation  in  SMEs,  aid  will  be  made  available  for  networking 
activities between companies, for collaborative actions between companies and knowledge 
centres  and  for  the  training  of  SME  staff.  Furthermore,  efforts  will  be  made  to  attract 
inward  investment  (restructuring  and  clearing  up  of  industrial  sites  and  promotional 
activities).  Finally,  the  programmes  will  bring  support  for  actions  to  support  the 
development  of  tourism  activities  (for  example  small  tourist  infrastructures,  organisation 
of  cultural  events which  bring  to  life  the  rich  heritage  of the  areas,  development  of  new 
attractions.) 

Underlying  these  priorities  are  horizontal  themes  especially  the  development  of 
Information Technology,  promotion  of equality between men and women,  preservation  of 
the  environment  and  increasing  skills  and  competences.  The  main  beneficiaries  of  the 
programs  are small  and medium  sized  enterprises,  potential  entrepreneurs,  municipalities, 
various local organisations and educational  and R&D establishments. 

The programmes will  be  implemented  in  a partnership  involving  the  Commission,  central 
government,  regional  and  local  authorities  comprising  all  local  interests,  including  the 
social  partners.  Each  programme  has  a  Management  Committee  reporting  to  an  SPD 

\b 

Monitoring  Committee.  The five SPD Monitoring  Committees held their first meeting in 
December  1995, a second in March  1996 and a third in June 1996. 

Table 7:  Objective 2 Sweden: EU contribution by Fund 

1995  prices 

Angermanlandskusten 
Bergslagen 
Blekinge 
Fyrstad 
Norra  Norrlandskusten 
Total 

Total  cost 
Ecu  million 
89.45 
321.40 
85.81 
145.50 
161.02 
803.18 

ERDF 
Ecu  million 
14.20 
47.50 
12.30 
19.00 
28.66 
121.66 

ESF 
Ecu  million 
3.80 
19.50 
2.70 
5.00 
7.34 
38.34 

Table 8:  Objective 2 Sweden: EU, national public and private contributions 

1995  prices 

Angermanlandskusten 
Bergslagen 
Blekinge 
Fyrstad 
Norra  Norrlandskusten 
Total 

3.  Objective 6 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu  million 
89.45 
321.40 
85.81 
145.50 
161.02 
803.18 

Ecu  million 
18.00 
67.00 
15.00 
24.00 
36.00 
160.00 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu  million 
29.45 
150.90 
33.11 
56.00 
83.02 
352.48 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu  million 
42.00 
103.50 
37.70 
65.50 
42.00 
290.70 

3.1 

Objective 6 areas in Finland and Sweden 

The  Accession  Treaty  introduced  a  new  Objective  for  the  Structural  Funds,  namely 
Objective  6, the development  of the sparsely  populated  areas. Regions with  a population 
density  of eight  or  less inhabitants  per  square  km could  qualify  for  assistance under this 
Objective.  The areas eligible for  Objective  6 in Finland  and  in Sweden were laid  down in 
Protocol 6 to the Act of Accession. 

Table 9:  Key statistics for  the Objective 6 regions in Finland and Sweden 

Finland 
Sweden 

Total population 
in Objective 6 regions 
840 000(17%) 
449 000 (5%) 

Total surface area 
of Objective 6 regions 
206 000km2 (60%) 
241 640 km2 (49%) 

Figures  in  brackets  represent  the  percentage  share  in  the  national  total  (national 
population and total surface area of the country concerned) 

it 

3.2  Finland 

The Finnish areas eligible for Objective 6 cover a continuous area consisting of the regions 
of Lapland, Kainuu, North Karelia and South Savo and parts of the regions of Northern 
and Central Ostrobothnia, Northern  Savo and  Central Finland. Altogether some 840 000 
people,  16.6% of the Finnish population,  live in the area which accounts for 60% of the 
surface area of Finland. The population density averages four persons per km2. 

In the Objective 6 area of Finland the increased level of unemployment following the early 
1990s  depression  has  exacerbated  the  area's  traditional  problems  of  a  gradual  overall 
decline  in  population  and  a  drift  from  the  countryside  to  the  towns.  The  area  is  over 
dependent  on  the  agricultural  and  forestry  sectors  and  public  services.  These  sectors 
alone  are  not  sufficient  to  support  the  population  in  rural  areas.  The  industrial  base  is 
unbalanced,  with  manufacturing  concentrated  on  a  few  large  firms  in  the  forestry 
products,  metals  and  chemicals  industries.  There  are  relatively  few  small  and  medium-
sized firms. The  loss  of jobs  in  public  services  is  affecting  women  more  than  men  and 
leading to a gender skew. 

The  strategy  of  the  Objective  6  programme  is  to  develop  the  strengths  of  the  areas, 
especially  in  forestry  and  wood  products,  specialised  branches  of  agriculture,  metals 
electronics  and  tourism.  A  stronger  SME  base  is  to  be  built  up  through  incentives  for 
starting up new small businesses both  in local  manufacturing  and private services and  for 
training  and  research  and  development.  Maximum  use  is  also  to  be  made  of  the 
possibilities  offered  by  new  technology,  especially  in  telecommunications,  to  overcome 
long distances. Because of the importance of agriculture especially for the more southerly 
parts of the area, around a quarter of the programme is to be spent on subsidies to  farmers 
under the system of support for  agriculture in "less-favoured  areas". The programme also 
includes  Social Fund  measures to  help the unemployed  and  assist  in training.  The  Social 
Fund also finances Information  Society projects. 

The  programme  was  submitted  to  the  Commission  on  8 March  1995  and  approved  on 
11 July  1995.  In  negotiations  with  the  Finnish  authorities  before  the  programme  was 
adopted,  a  number  of  changes  to  the  originally  submitted  plans  were  agreed.  The  EU 
cofinancing  rate for  "less-favoured-area"  payments was reduced  to leave more money  for 
development.  Basic  infrastructure  projects  were  dropped  and  human  resources  actions, 
including Information  Society projects,  stepped up. Finally, a number of smaller measures 
were  combined  into  a  flexible  rural  development  package  which  will  fund  mainly  local 
projects  in  a  wide  variety  of  areas,  including  projects  concerning  the  Sami  minority  in 
northern Lapland. 

The final programme  is made up  of three  parts:  business  development,  funding  business 
start-ups  and  investment  in  existing  firms,  human  resources  including  training  and 
counselling  for  the  unemployed,  research  and  Information  Society,  and  agricultures 
forestry,  fisheries,  rural  development  and  the  environment.  The  EU  is  contributing 
ECU 459.9  million  to  the  programme,  which  will  involve  total  expenditure  of 
ECU  1326.1 million.  The breakdown by sector and fund is shown in the table below. 

r» 

Table  10:  Objective 6 Finland: EU, national public and private contributions 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu million 
513.4 
189.8 

Ecu million 
153.7 
87.9 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
153.7 
87.9 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu million 
106.0 
14.0 

604.5 
18.4 
1326.1 

209.1 
9.2 
459.9 

280.5 
9.2 
513.3 

114.9 

234.9 

Business development 
Human resources 
Agriculture,  forestry, 
fisheries,  rural development 
and the environment 
Technical assistance 
Total 

The breakdown of EU funding  is as follows: 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

172.5 
105.8 
177.6 
4.0 

37.5% 
23.0% 
38.6% 
0.9% 

The Finnish authorities have set the following objectives for the programme : 

to reduce unemployment  in the area by 2.1% and 8 000 unemployed  per year (1994 
level 23.8% and 90 600); 
to  increase  the  number  of jobs  in  private  services  and  manufacturing  to  135  000 
(1994 level 117 500); 
to  reduce  the  gap  between  local  GDP  and  the  national  average  by  5 percentage 
points from 20% to  15%. 

Management  of  the  programme  is  divided  between  the  regions  and  the  central 
administration.  Each  area  has  adopted  its  own  programme,  which  it  implements  in 
accordance  with  a  common  framework  of  procedures  and  selection  criteria  through  a 
regional  management  committee  composed  of  representatives  of  the  region,  the  district 
offices  of  the  ministries  and  both  sides  of  industry.  For  this  reason  the  programme  is 
contained  in  one  Single  Programming  Document  with  a  single  Monitoring  Committee. 
Four meetings of the Monitoring Committee have been held: in September and November 
1995, in early March and mid-Junel996. 

3.3 

Sweden 

The Objective  6 region  in Sweden  encompasses  most  of the northern  half of the  country 
but  includes  only  5%  of  the  total  Swedish  population.  The  Swedish  opted  for  Single 
Programming Document (SPD) approach in drawing-up their plan for the allocation of the 
252 MECUs Structural Funds aid assigned to the region (a further  28 MECUs is available 
to the Objective 6 region from  the Community Initiatives budget and Article  10 (ERDF). 

ii 

The plan was presented to the Commission in April  1996 after an extensive consultation 
process within the area.  The  SPD was eventually  approved  on 6 November  1995. The 
programme is designed to help overcome the difficulties  posed by the regions peripheral 
location, job-losses in traditional industries (e.g. mining) and population imbalances due to 
the migration of women and young  people.  On the other hand, the region has inherent 
strengths which the programme will build on, a pristine environment,  a wealth of natural 
resources and a relatively well-developed infrastructure. 

The  aim  of  the  SPD  is  to  promote  job  creation  in  the  private  sector  to  reduce 
unemployment and replace forecast job-losses in the public sector.  The latter will impact 
mainly  on  women  thereby  exacerbating  the  trend  for  women  to  leave  the  area.  The 
viability  of  the  small  widely-scattered  communities  which  make-up  Objective  6  will 
depend  on their  ability to  create  new jobs  and maintain the  region's  attractiveness  as a 
place to live and work. The jobs target in the SPD is to create and/or preserve 9.500 jobs 
during the relevant period 1995-99. 

A number of horizontal themes underpin the programme strategy viz. 

making  the  best  use  of  information  technology  in  all  areas  of  socio-economic 
activity 
ensuring equality of opportunity for men and women 
preserving the exceptional natural environment and the cultural heritage 
exploiting the competitive advantages of the region 
increasing the skills and competences of people 

Five priorities have been selected. They are given in table 11  below. 

A  range  of  measures  have  been  included  to  encourage  businesses,  to  increase 
competitiveness,  to  increase R&D and  information  technology  capacity,  to  develop  the 
agricultural and natural resources in an environmentally sensitive way, to develop tourism, 
to encourage initiatives at the local level and to increase educational and skills levels. The 
special priority for the Sami people will assist in the preservation of their nature and the 
traditional livelihood of reindeer herding. 

Table 11:  Objective 6 Sweden: EU, national public and private contributions 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu million 

Ecu million 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu million 

1.  Development of Jobs, 
Trade and Industry 
2.  Promoting know-how 
3.  Agriculture, Fisheries and 

natural Resources 
4.  Rural and Community 

Development 

5.  Sami Development 
Technical assistance 
Total 

289.4 
102.7 

151.5 

85.5 
15.6 
10.3 
635.0 

80.16 
40.42 

61.01 

41.70 
7.56 
5.16 
236.05 

106.61 
13.50 

24.36 

2.00 
0.50 

146.97 

82.6 
48.8 

66.1 

41.7 
7.6  N 
5.2 
252.0 

10 

Zo 

The  SPD  Monitoring  Committee  held  its  first  meeting  in  December  1995,  a  second  in 
March  1996 and a third in June 1996. 

The bulk of the programme resources (80%) will be implemented by County and Regional 
Management  Committees  drawn  from  existing  local  and  regional  structures.  Certain 
measures e.g. Objective 5(a) measures will be managed by central agencies while the Sami 
will receive a global grant. Implementation and project  approvals have begun. 

Targets have been set through out the programme at the overall level these include: 

the creation and / or maintenance of approximately 9 500 jobs; 
a  reduction  in  the  gap  between  GDP  per  capita  (excluding  energy  production) 
within Objective 6 and the national average; 
a reduction in unemployment; 
the creation of 900 new  firms; 
the  increased  use  of  Information  Technology  applications  and  the  acquisition  of 
Information  Technology skills and expertise. 

11 

It 

ANNEX 2 
SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF SPDS AND COMMUNITY  INITIATIVES 

SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF SPDS 

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

Objective 1 
Objective 2 

Objective 2 
Objective 6 

Objective 2 
Objective 6 

Date of submission 
20.3.1995 
26.4.1995 

Date of approval 
15.11.1995 
15.11.1995 

8.3.1995 
8.3.1995 

16.6.1995 
27.4.1995 

11.7.1995 
11.7.1995 

22.11.1995 
6.11.1995 

SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 

AUSTRIA 

INTERREG:  Czech Republic 
Slovak Republic 
Hungary 
Slovenia 
Italy 
Bodensee/Hochrhein 
Bavaria 

~ 

SME 
RECHAR 
RESIDER 
RETEX 
ADAPT 
EMPLOYMENT 
URBAN 

Vienna 

~| 

Date of submission 
17.7.95 
17.7.95 
17.7.95 
17.7.95 
21.8.95 
17.7.95 
17.7.95 
21.9.95 
28.12.95 
28.12.95 
7.11.95 
21.9.95 
4.7.95 
Ï7.7.95 

Date of approval 
21.12.95 
21.12.95 
21.12.95 
21.12.95 

24.4.96 
17.4.96 
3.4.96 
(July 1996} 
(July 1996} 
20.5.96 
22.12.95 
6.12.95 

| 

I T l ^ ^ T " "" 

I'l 

FINLAND 

INTERREG:  Barents 
Karelia 
South  East  Finland/ 
St  Petersburg 

North  Calotte 
Kvarken/Mi ttskand i a 
Islands 
South Finland  Coastal 

Zone 

SME' 
ADAPT 
EMPLOYMENT 
URBAN 

Date  of  submission 
22.11.95 
22.11.95 
22.11.95 

Date of approval 
(June  1996} 
{June  1996} 
(June  1996} 

25.9.95 
25.9.95 
25.9.95 
22.11.95 

15.9.95 
21.6.95 
21.6.95 
22.11.95 

{June  1996} 
{June  1996} 
{June  1996} 
{July  1996} 

{Autumn  1996} 
22.12.95 
16.12.95 
{June  1996} 

*  The  proposal  by  the  Finnish  authorities  for  the  SME  initiative  is  being  revised  to 
take  better  account  of  the  need  for  complementarity  with  proposals  for  the  second 
phase  (1997-99)  of  Objective  2.  This  too  has  led  to  some  delay  in  adopting  the 
initiative in question. 

SWEDEN 

INTERREG:  North  Calotte 

Kvarken/Mittskandia 
Sweden/Norway 

(3 plans) 

Islands 
Barents 
Ôresund* 

KONVER 
SME 
ADAPT 
EMPLOYMENT 
URBAN Malmô** 

-_ 

| 

Date of submission 
25.9.95 
18.9.95 

Date  of  approval 
{June  1996} 
{June  1996} 

18.9.95 
18.9.95 
22.11.95 
31.10.1994/ 
18.9.1995 
29.4.96 
22.11.95 
19.9.95 
14.7.95 
23.10.95 

{June  1996} 
{June  1996} 
{June  1996} 
30.04.1996 

{July  1996} 
{July  1996} 
22.12.95 
12.12.95 
[  {September  1996} 

Programme  originally  submitted  by Denmark  on 31.10.94  and, following  Swedish 
accession, the  Swedish  element  of the programme  was submitted  on  18.09.95. 

** An initial  proposal  for  Urban  I was  submitted  in  October  1995.  After  a  preliminary 
discussion  with  the  Commission,  the  Swedish  authorities  agreed  to  combine  the 
resources  available  under  Urban  I  and  Urban  II  and  to  resubmit  the  modified 
programme  in July  1996. 

Is 

ANNEX 3 
COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 

1. 

Financial allocations for the three new Member States 

At  its  meeting  on  4  April  1995,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  the 
application of Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. On 8 May  1996, the 
Commission approved the allocation of the reserve for Community Initiatives. 

Table 1:  Financial allocations for  regional Community Initiatives  in the new Member 

States (without the reserve,  see also table 13) 

1995 prices 

Interreg 
Leader 
Employment 
Adapt 
Industrial Change 
-  of which Rechar 
-  of which Résider 
-  of which Retex 
-  of which Konver 
-  of which SME 
Urban 
Pesca 
Total 

Austria 
Ecu million 
42.68 
23.27 
23.01 
11.57 
18.24 
1.80 
5.13 
2.57 

8.74 
9.77 

128.54 

Finland 
Ecu million 
43.73 
24.70 
29.15 
19.70 
10.80 

Sweden 
Ecu million 
39.47 
14.17 
20.69 
11.25 
20.02 

10.80 
3.89 
3.00 
134.96 

3.26 
16.76 
3.37 
3.49 
112.46 

Table 2:  Allocation from reserve for regional Community Initiatives 

in the new Member States 

1995 prices 

Interreg 
Leader 
Employment+Adapt 
Urban 
Pesca 
Total 

Austria 
Ecu million 
6.14 
3.17 
4.72 
3.50 

17.53 

Finland 
Ecu million 
4.20 
3.37 
6.66 
3.77 
0.41 
18.41 

Sweden 
Ecu million 
7.08 
1.93 
4.36 
1.50 
0.48 
15.35 

11, 

2. 

Austria 

2.1 

Interreg 

Around  one  third  of  the  total  Structural  Funds  resources  available  in  the  period  1995-
1999  for  the  fimding  Community  Initiatives  in  Austria  is  allocated  to  Interreg  H  (Ecu 
48.82 million out  of a total of Ecu  146 million). 

Austria  lias  a  long  frontier  including  borders  with  Germany  and  Italy  but  also  with  4 
Central European  countries. Both  Austria  and  the  Community attach great  importance  to 
tifc-se  new external EU  frontiers.  This is why it was decided to  concentrate the bulk of the 
îrttsrsreg K A  resources  (Ecu 30 million) on. the four  Interreg programmes for the external 
borders.  -

Interreg  HA  (external  borders) 

Proposals  for  these  programmes  were  submitted  on  17 July  1995  and  were  approved  by 
the  Commission  on  21 December  1995. Allocations  by  operational  programme  are  given 
in the table below: 

Table  3:  Interreg  (external)  EUt  national  public  and private  contribution 

1995 prices 

Austria - Czech Republic 
Austria -  Slovak Republic 
Austria -  Slovenia 
Austria -  Hungary 
Total 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu million 
12.1 
16.0 
22.6 
28.2 
78,8 

Ecu million 
4.5 
5.5 
9.0 
11.0 
30,0 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
4,5 
5,5 
9,0 
11,8 
30,8 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu million 
3,1 
5,0 
4,6 
5,4 
18,0 

The principle aim of the development  strategy is to  support - in hanriony with the  PHARE 
Cross-Border  Co-operation programmes - the  common border areas in their adaptation to 
the new European  framework  and to promote bilateral local and regional  co-operation  via 
the creation  of co-operation networks. 

Almost  60%  of  the  total  expenditure  under  these  four  programmes  is  allocated  to  the 
improvement  of  the  economic  co-operation  and  development.  Further  priorities  are 
technical  infrastructure,  human  resources,  environmental  protection  and  cross-border 
studies. 

These Interreg TI programmes  can be seen as an element in the pre-accession strategy  vis-à-vis 
coontries which  are  candidates  for  future  enlargement.  Although  the  available  resources  are 
relatively  modest,  the  actions  which  will be  funded  are  an  expression  of the  commitment 
of all partners involved to achieve better cross-border contacts and  co-operation. 

Interreg IIA (internal borders) 

The proposals for the Interreg programmes at the internal borders with Germany and Italy 
were submitted on the  17 July  1995. The programme Bayern-Austria was approved on 17 
April  1996, the programme Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein  on 24 April 1996. 

Cross-border  co-operation  along  the  external  borders  is  sometimes  hampered  by 
differences  in the procedures  for  PHARE  and  INTERREG.  This problem  does not  arise 
along  the  internal  borders.  The  programmes  for  the  internal  borders  were  submitted  as 
joint proposals by Germany, Italy and Austria and will also be implemented  and monitored 
by the  Commission  as joint  programmes.  Important  partners  in  the  implementation  are 
EUREGIOS as cross-border co-operation structures. 

The  programmes  are  focusing  on  tourism,  economic  development,  environmental 
protection  and  development  of  endogenous  potential.  They  also  emphasise  the 
development of human resources and the diversification  of agriculture. 

Table 4:  Interreg (internal borders) EU,  national public and private contribution 

1996 prices 

Austria - Bavaria (*) 
Austria-Italy  (**) 
Alpenrhein-Bodensee-
Hochrhein (*) 
(*) 
(**)  Not yet approved 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu million 
56.26 

Ecu million 
24.6 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
26.6 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu million 
5.1 

13.8 

6.9 

6.9 

0 

Amounts given are for both sides of the border. 

2.2 

Urban Vienna: Gurtel Plus 

A  proposal  for  an  Operational  Programme  for  Vienna  in  the  framework  of  the  Urban 
Initiative was submitted by the Austrian Authorities on  17 July  1995. The programme was 
approved on 21 December 1995. 

The  programme  (total  cost:  Ecu  31.926  million;  EU  contribution:  Ecu  9.77  million) 
targets  an  inner  city  zone  in  Vienna  with  a  population  of  130  000  inhabitants.  The 
resources available will be used to finance  an integrated  package of economic, social and 
infrastructural  measures  aimed  at  the  regeneration  of  the  area  concerned.  Quantified 
targets  have been  set  throughout  the  programme  and  include the  creation  of  some  400 
new jobs, the renovation and redevelopment  of 7000-10000 m2 of new business premises 
and the (re-)training of up to 3000 people. 

U 

2.3 

Industrial Change initiatives 

Austria  is eligible  for  four  of the  industrial  change initiatives:  SME, RETEX,  RECHAR 
and RESIDER. 

Table 5: Industrial change initiative: EU,  national public and private contribution 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu  million 
34.8 
16.2 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Ecu  million 
8.9 
2.6 
1.8 
5.2 
18.5 

National  and 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu  million 
8.9 
2.6 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu  million 
16.8 
11.1 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

1996  prices 

SME 
RETEX 
RECHAR 
RESIDER 
Total 

SME Initiative 

A proposal  for  this  programme  was  submitted  on  21  September  1995. The  programme 
was approved  by the  Commission  on  3 March  1996.  Summary financial data  is given in 
table 8 above. 

The  main  objective  of  this  programme  is  to  improve  the  competitiveness  of  SMEs  in 
Objective  1, 2 and  5b regions. Resources  will  be concentrated  on  three  priority themes, 
namely: 

promotion of the use of information technology and telematics in SMEs; 

promotion of the use of clean and energy-saving technologies 
promotion of strategic planning in SMEs. 

The RETEX Initiative 

A proposal for this programme was submitted on 7 November  1995. The programme was 
approved by the Commission  on 20 May  1996. Summary financial  data is given in table 8 
above. 

The main objective  of the programme is to modernise textile industry  and to  diversify  the 
economic structure to break the dependency of the regional economy on textile industry in 
objective 2 and 5b regions in Steiermark, Niederôsterreich  and Vorarlberg. Resources will 
be concentrated on 

know-how improvement 
co-operation between companies 
qualification  and training 

o 

The RESIDER and RECHAR initiatives 

Proposals  for  these  programmes  were  submitted  on  28.12.1995.  They  are  likely  to  be 
approved  by the  Commission  in  June-July  1996.  Allocations  by  operational  programme 
are given in table 8 above. 

The  programmes  are  tailored  to  complement  the  objective  2  SPDs  and  to  tackle  the 
specific  problems  of  declining  mining  and  steel  regions  in  Steiermark,  Niederôsterreich 
and Oberôsterreich. 

The programmes concentrate on: 

environmental  improvement  of  derelict  mining  sites  and  on  their  preparation  for 
business or tourism purposes 
promotion  of  new 
technologies and new materials 
technical  infrastructure 
human resources 

in  particular  environmental 

technologies  and  products, 

3. 

Finland 

3.1 

Interreg 

About  31% of the total  Structural  Fund  resources  available  in the  period  1995-1999  for 
funding  Community  initiatives  in  Finland  is  allocated  to  INTERREG  II  (ECU  47.93 
million out of a total of ECU  153.37 million). 

Finland has an exceptionally long land border ( some 1300 km) with Russia, and also land 
borders with Norway and  Sweden  and  maritime borders with  the Baltic  States.  The bulk 
of INTERREG II A resources ( ECU 30.5 million is for the external borders with Russia. 

Interreg IIA  (external borders) 

Proposals  for  these  programmes  were  submitted  on the  22 November  1995  and  are  on 
course to  be approved  before  the summer break  this year.  Although figures are not yet 
finalised,  allocations by operational programme are expected to be as follows: 

Table 6:  Interreg (external) EU,  national public and private contribution 

1996 prices 

Barents 
Karelia 
South East  Finland 
Southern  Finland 
Total 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu  million 
36.2 
32.0 
41.0 
22.2 
131.4 

Ecu  million 
10.5 
13.9 
9.7 
6.0 
40.1 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu  million 
23.2 
14.0 
15.5 
10.0 
62.7 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu  million 
2.5 
4.1 
15.8 
6.2 
28.6 

\1 

The  programmes  focus  on  developing  economic  co-operation  with  neighbouring  border 
areas  in  Russia  and  in  the  Baltic  States.  The  priorities  are  the  improvement  of  border 
crossing  installations,  and  co-operation  in  the fields of  environmental  protection,  SMEs 
networking and development  and human resources. For  1996, the Budgetary Authority of 
the  Union  established  a  new  budget  line  for  TACIS  cross  border  co-operation.  This 
should  facilitate  the  financing  of  related  cross  border  projects  on Russian  territory.  The 
basis for multiannual development planning compatible with the INTERREG programmes 
remains to be established. 

These  INTERREG  programmes  are  a  special  challenge  for  the  Union.  Sustained  effort 
will  be  needed  in  the  coming  years  to  build  good  partnership  arrangements  and  ensure 
effective  implementation on the ground on both sides of the border. 

Interreg IIA  (internal borders) 

The proposals for  INTERREG II programmes for  the internal borders were submitted on 
the  25  September  1995.  One  of  the  programmes  concerns  Norway  as  well  as  Sweden 
(North Calotte), the other two are bilateral with Sweden.  Their approval is also expected 
before  the  Summer break this year.  They will be ambitious in the degree of  cross-border 
joint management which is envisaged:- there will be a pooling of resources to be managed 
by a single implementing body  at  the  regional  level  covering  action  on both  sides of the 
borders. 

Table 7:  Interreg (internal borders) EU*, national public and private 

contribution 

1996  prices 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Private 
contribution 

North  Calotte (with  Norway) 
Kvarken 
Islands 
Total 
All figures  including Sweden and Norwegian contributions as relevant. 

Ecu  million 
41.3 
16.8 
9.4 
67.5 

Ecu  million 
12.2 
6.6 
4.0 
22.8 

Ecu  million 
4.8 
1.4 
1.4 
7.6 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu  million 
24.3 
8.8 
4.0 
37.1 

3.2  Urban 

The  Finnish  authorities  submitted  a  proposal  for  an  URBAN  programme  on  the  22 
November  1995,  and  the  expectation  is that  it  too  can  be  approved  before  the  summer 
break  or  shortly  afterwards.  It  concerns  Joensuu,  the  second  settlement  in  terms  of 
population  (50 000 inhabitants)  in the Objective  6 area.  The total  cost  of the programme 
is  expected  to  be  approximately  ECU 5.5 million  with  an  EU  contribution  of  ECU  3.9 
million.  The  resources  will  be used  to  finance  an  integrated  package  of urban  renewal 
linked  to  industrial  heritage,  and  special  actions  to  reintegrate  the  socially  excluded 
especially  the  long  term  employed,  by  means  of  a  series  of  projects  to  be  set  up  and 
managed by the target groups themselves. 

3.3 

Industrial Change initiatives 

SME Initiative 

i 

Finland  is eligible for only one of the industrial  change initiatives, the  SME initiative. An 
initial proposal  was submitted  on the  15 September  1995, but the Commission's  services 
have asked for  substantial amendments to bring out more clearly the innovatory character 
of the actions envisaged and the coherence with proposals for Objective 2 in particular in 
the  period  1997-99.  As  a  result  ,  the  likelihood  is that  this  initiative  will  not  be  finally 
approved  until  the  Autumn  of  1996.  The  total  cost  is  ECU  26.8  million  with  an  EU 
contribution of ECU 10.8 million. 

4. 

Sweden 

About  36% of the total  Structural  Funds resources available in the period  1995-1999  for 
the  funding  of  Community  initiatives  in  Sweden  is  allocated  to  INTERREG  II  (  ECU 
46.55 million out of a total of ECU  127.81 million). 

INTERREG 

Sweden has a long border with Norway, and also a border with Finland. Both the Swedish 
and Norwegian authorities attach great importance to INTERREG programmes in present 
circumstances.  The Norwegian  authorities  have  made  available  from  national  resources 
full  matching funding which is managed at the county level. 

Interreg IIA  (external borders) 

Sweden participates in the North Calotte and Barents programmes described  above in the 
section concerning Finland. In addition to these programmes there are three  programmes 
for bilateral cross border relationships with Norway  Inner Scandinavia, The Nordic Green 
Belt  and  A  Borderless  Co-operation.  The  programmes  were  submitted  on  the  18 
September  1995 and  their  approval  is  also expected  before  the  summer  break  this year, 
subject  to  agreement  on  the  details  of  the  decentralised  implementation  arrangements 
proposed. 

Table 8:  Interreg (external) EU, national public and private contributions* 

1996 prices 

Inner Scandinavia 
The Nordic Green Belt 
A Borderless Co-operation 
Total 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu million 
21.56 
26.08 
26.00 
73.64 

Ecu million 
4.5 
5.5 
4.5 
14.5 

National  & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
13.5 
16.5 
16.5 
46.5 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu million 
3.56 
4.08 
4.00 
11.64 

including Finnish and Norwegian contributions as relevant. 

Interreg IIA  (internal borders) 

Sweden  participates  in  the  Kvarken  and  Islands  programmes  with  Finland  which  have 
already been  described  in the section  on Finland,  and  a programme  with  Denmark.  The 
programme with Denmark was approved  on the 30 April  1996, and the others  should be 
approved before the summer break. 

4.2  Urban 

The initial proposal was submitted on the 23 October  1995, but the Commission has asked 
for substantial revisions which have not yet been received. 

4.3 

Industrial Change initiatives 

Sweden is eligible for two of the industrial change initiatives, the SME and the KONVER 
initiative. 

Total 
expenditure 

EU 
contribution 

Ecu million 
47.60 
11.14 

Ecu million 
16.80 
3.26 

National & 
regional 
contribution 
Ecu million 
16.80 
3.26 

Private 
contribution 

Ecu million 
14.00 
4.62 

SME 
KONVER 

SME Initiative 

The  proposal  was  received  on  the  22  November  1995.  Limited  complementary 
information  has been requested  from  the Swedish authorities and has been provided  at the 
end  of  May  1996.  It  focuses  on  international  market  development,  the  use  of  IT 
technologies and clean technologies to strengthen competitiveness. 

KONVER 

The proposal for KONVER has been submitted  very recently (29 April  1996) It concerns 
two  cities,  Karlsborg  and  Karlskoga,  one  of  which  (Karlsborg)  is  outside  the  assisted 
areas under Objectives  2 , 5(b) and 6. It  envisages urban renewal  and  SME  development 
measures. 

Ii 

ANNEX 4 
DIALOGUE AND REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP 

1.  Austria 

The plans submitted to the Commission under Objectives  1 and 2 were prepared by 
a  partnership  involving  national,  regional  and  local  authorities.  An  extended 
partnership, comprising also the European Commission and the social partners will 
be represented on the  SPD Monitoring Committees. 

Project  approval  and  implementation  is  co-ordinated  in  a  network  of  informal 
relationships between the managers of aid  schemes at  a regional  and  at  a Federal 
level. It is intended  that  new Regional Management  structures being  set up in the 
majority  of Regions  should  further  strengthen  and to  some extent  systematise  the 
co-ordination of project approvals. 

A simpler system  of management  is envisaged  for  most  Community  initiatives. In 
particular  for  Interreg  and  URBAN  a  clearing  system  for  project  approvals  and 
other  implementation  issues  is  established.  The  decisions  taken  in  this  clearing 
system  are  implemented  by  a  simplified  structure  at  the  Regional  level  -  one 
organisation  managing  all  funds  in  many  cases  but  not  all.  However  at  Federal 
level, the organisation  of implementation  is along the same lines as those  foreseen 
for the mainstream SPDs. 

2. 

Finland 

The  Finnish  Objective  2  and  6  programmes  were  prepared  and  are  being 
implemented from  the bottom up. The first stage was the preparation  of individual 
programmes  in  each  of  the  regions  concerned.  Then  the  central  government 
authorities  put  the  regional  programmes  together  into  a  draft  outline  programme 
which  the  Commission  approved  as  a  Single  Programming  Document  for  the 
whole country,  containing the planned  allocation  of the budget  between  activities 
and  the various  regions  and  rules  for  implementing  the  programme.  In  charge  of 
management of the programme in each region is a regional management committee 
consisting  of  representatives  of  the  region,  the  district  offices  of  the  central 
government  ministries  and  the  social  partners.  The  regional  management 
committee  draws up  its  own  plan  for  implementing  the  programme  in the  region 
based on the original plan it submitted to the central authorities. Though legally the 
decisions  to  fund  individual  projects  are taken  largely by the  district  branches  of 
the  central  ministries  or  by  the  ministries  themselves,  the  regional  management 
committee  discusses  and  in  practice  must  approve  all  projects  and  so  maintains 
control  of  implementation,  being  able  in  effect  to  decide  very  largely  how  the 
programme is implemented in its area. 

11 

The  programme  is  monitored  by  a  single  programme  Monitoring  Committee 
composed  of  representatives  of  all  the  regions,  the  funding  ministries,  the 
Commission and the social partners. 

3. 

Sweden 

The  regional  partnership  in  Sweden  was  fully  involved  in  the  preparation  of  the 
plans  submitted  to  the  Commission.  The  partnership  comprises  representatives  of 
local  and  regional  government,  county  councils,,  employers, 
trade-unions, 
agricultural  and  environmental  interests,  community  groups  and  others.  The 
partnership will be represented  on the  SPD Monitoring  Committees  along with the 
national  government  and the European  Commission.  In the case  of the Objective  6 
SPD,  seven  County  Management  Committees  have  been  set  up  to  oversee  the 
detailed  implementation  of the  programme  in each  County  concerned.  In addition, 
a Regional Management  Committee  covering the entire Objective  6 region is to be 
responsible for the implementation  of certain  measures (i.e.  tourism,  IT and R&D) 
which are deemed to be of strategic importance for the region as a whole. Both the 
County Management  Committees and the Regional Management  Committee  report 
directly  to  the  SPD  Monitoring  Committee.  Similarly,  for  Objective  2,  each  area 
has a decision-making group which reports to the relevant Monitoring Committee. 

-2 

V 

ANNEX 5 

EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE OF SPD'S 
ACCORDING STANDARD CLASSIFICATION 

The  services  of  the  Commission  established  a  standard  classification  to 

analyse  and  compare  the  structure  of  the  expenditure  under  all  SPDs 

throughout 

the  Union.  The 

table  overleaf  provides  estimates  of 

the 

expenditure  under  the  SPDs  in  the  three  Member  States  according  to  this 

standard classification. 

There  are  some  discrepancies  between  the  figures  in  the  table  overleaf  and 

the tables in annex  2. These  are due to the fact that the  definitions  and sub 

divisions used in the SPDs for the three new Member States differ  from those 

used in the standard tables. 

^ 

•wIDQC 

j 

Basic  infrastructure 
Transport 
Telecom 
Energy 
Environment  &  water 
Heafih 

Human  resources 
Education 
Training 
RTD 

Productive  environment 
Industry  and  services 
Agric.  & rura:  oeve'opm. 
Fisheries 
Tourism 

Structural  Fund expenditure  by  sector 
Austria,  Finland  and Sweden - objectives  1 and 6 

SF  Total 

ERDF 

Austria 
ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

SF  Total 

ERDF 

Finland 
ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

SF  Total 

ERDF 

Mecu 

Sweden 
ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

10,0 

0,0 

4,0 

0,0 

8,5 
0,0 
3,7 
4,0 
0,8 
0,0 

43.0 
14.4 
18,6 
10,0 

110,0 
47,9 
23.4 
0,0 
38,7 

7,7 

3,7 
4,0 

11,4 
4,4 

7,0 

86,6 
47,9 

38,7 

0,0 

0,8 

0,0 

0,8 

0,0 

0,0 

31,6 
10,0 
18,6 
3,0 

o.o 

23,4 

0,0 

23.4 

23,8 
0.0 
9,4 
8,0 
6,4 
0,0 

120,4 
42,6 
51,6 
26,2 

306,5 
116,4 
174,0 
3,9 
12,2 

23,8 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

9,4 
8,0 
6,4 

16,7 

16,7 

128,6 
116,4 

12,2 

0,0 

0,0 

103,7 
42,6 
51,6 
9,5 

0,0 

174,0 

3,9 

174.0 

3,9 

14,0 
0,0 
10,0 
0.0 
4,0 
0,0 

78,3 
28,1 
24.9 
25,2 

154,6 
67.7 
60,1 
4.0 
22.7 

10,0 

25,7 
3,0 

22.7 

84,4 
52.7 
9,0 

22.7 

52,6 
25,1 
24.9 
2,5 

10,0 
10,0 

Technical  assistance 

4,1 

2,0 

1,5 

0,6 

0,0 

9,2 

3,4 

2,1 

3,6 

0,1 

5.2 

2,5 

1.3 

1,2 

TOTAL 

165,6 

107,6 

33,1 

24,8 

0,0 

459,9 

172,5 

105,8 

177,6 

252,0 

122,6 

63,9 

61,4 

40 

~\ 

4,0 

0,0 

0,0 

56,2 
5,0 
51,1 

4,0 

4.0 

0,1 

4.1 

Productive  environment 
Industry and services 

- AH types of industries & services 
-SME 
Tourism 
Support infrastructures 

Human  resources 
Training,  employment 
Training centres and equipment 
RTD 

Rehabilitation  &  restructuring 
Industrial sites 
Urban zones 

Environmental  protection 

Technical  assistance 

Structurai Fund expenditure by sector 
Austria, Finland and Sweden - objective 2 

Austria (95-99) 

Finland (95-96) 

Sweden (95-99) 

Mecu 

total 

52,1 
36,7 
7,3 
29,4 
7,1 
8,3 

44,0 
20,4 
3,5 
20,1 

0,6 
0,6 
0,0 

0,5 

3,7 

ERDF 
52,1 
36,7 
7,3 
29.4 
7,1 
8,3 

14,5 

3,5 
11,0 

0,6 
0.6 
0,0 

0,5 

2,5 

ESF 

29,5 
20,4 

9,1 

1,2 

total 
38,5 
26,8 
9,9 
16.9 
4.8 
6.9 

22,4 
13,1 
0,0 
9,3 

6,9 
0,0 
6,9 

0,0 

1,4 

ERDF 
38,5 
26,8 
9,9 
16,9 
4,8 
6,9 

8,7 

0,0 
8,7 

6,9 
0.0 
6,9 

0,0 

1,1 

ESF 

13,7 
13,1 

0,6 

0.3 

total 
89.7 
73,8 
32,5 
41,2 
13,1 
2,8 

62,1 
34,1 
0,0 
28,0 

3,0 
3,0 
0,0 

0.6 

4,6 

ERDF 
89.7 
73,8 
32,5 
41,2 
13,1 
2,8 

25,0 

0,0 
25,0 

3,0 
3,0 
0,0 

0,6 

3,4 

TOTAL 

101,0 

70,2 

30,8 

69,2 

55,2 

14,0 

160,0 

121,7 

ESF 

37.1 
34,1 

3,0 

1,2 

38,3 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 316 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

13 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-96-332-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-06029-1 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg