7th ANNUAL REPORT on the STRUCTURAL FUNDS - 1995 - ERDF - ESF - EAGGF - FFIG
Date: 1996-10-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Structural Funds, activity report, implementation of the budget, regional development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.10.1996 
COM(96) 502  final 

7tk  ANNUAL  REPORT 

m  tte  STRUCTURAL 

FVNBS 

Î99S 

(Presented by the Commission) 

L 

This Report has been  prepared  by the Directorate-General  for Regional  Policy and  Cohesion  (DG  XVI) 
in collaboration  with  the Directorates-General  for  Employment,  Industrial  Relations  and  Social  Affairs 
(DG V), Agriculture (DG VI), Fisheries (DG XIV) and Budgets (DG XIX) and with contributions  from 
the  Directorates-General  for  Competition  (DG  IV), Transport  (DG  VII),  Environment,  Nuclear  Safety 
and  Civil  Protection  (DG  XI), Science, Research  and  Development  (DG  XII), the  Internal  Market  and 
Financial  Services  (DG  XV),  Energy  (DG  XVII),  Financial  Control  (DG  XX)  and  Enterprise  Policy, 
Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives (DG XXIII). 

7 th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

A. 

1995 

1.  The  new  Commission  and  the  group  of  Members  responsible  for 

economic and social cohesion 

2. 

Integration  of the new Member States into the structural policies 

3.  Launch of the Community Initiative programmes 

4.  The first  full  year of implementation  of assistance 

B.  A REPORT WITH A STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL BIAS 

1.  Background 

2.  Complementarity  between cohesion policy and environmental  policy 

C. 

EMPLOYMENT, A MAJOR CHALLENGE FOR THE UNION 

D. 

THE MAIN  ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT 

1. 

Implementation  of appropriations  in  1995 

2.  Concentration 

3.  Programming 

4.  Additional ity 

5.  Partnership 

6.  Monitoring and evaluation 

CHAPTER  I 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF PROGRAMMING 

A.  ASSISTANCE  BY OBJECTIVE 

1. 

Introduction 

1.1.  1995  in the context of the  1994-99 programming  period 
1.2.  Greater  integration  of the "environment"  factor 
1.3.  Monitoring and  interim assessment 
1.4.  Verification  of additionality 

2.  Objective  1 

Implementation  of Objective  1  in  1995 

2.1. 
2.2.  Country-by-country  survey 

15 

17 

17 

18 

18 

18 

19 

19 

19 

20 

21 

21 

21 

22 

22 

23 

23 

25 

27 

27 

27 
29 
32 
34 

37 

37 
39 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

3.  Objective  2 

Implementation  of Objective  2 in  1995 

3.1. 
3.2.  Country-by-country  survey 

4.  Objectives 3 and 4 

Implementation  of Objectives  3 and 4 in  1995 

4.1. 
4.2.  Country-by-country  survey 

5.  Objective  5(a) 

5.1.  Objective  5(a) for agriculture 

5.2.  Objective  5(a) for fisheries 

6.  Objective  5(b) 

, 

6.1.  Programming for  1994-99 
6.2. 
6.3.  Country-by-country  survey 

Implementation  of Objective  5(b) in  1995 

7. 

Integration  of the new Member States into the structural  policies 

7.1.  Objectives  1  and 6 
7.2.  Objective 2 
7.3.  Objectives  3 and 4 
7.4.  Objective  5(a) 
7.5.  Objective  5(b) 

B.  OTHER ASSISTANCE 

1.  Community Initiatives 

Introduction 

1.1. 
1.2.  The individual  Initiatives  in the Twelve Member  States 

ADAPT (1994-99) 
EMPLOYMENT and HUMAN RESOURCES (1994-99) 
LEADER II (1994-99) 
PESCA( 1994-99) 
SME (1994-99) 
REGIS (1994-99) 
RECHARII (1994-97) 
KON VER (1994-97) 
RESIDER II (1994-97) 
RETEX (1994-97) 
URBAN (1994-99) 
INTERREG II (1994-99) 
PEACE (1994-97) 

1.3.  Community Initiatives  in the three new Member  States 
1.4.  Summary by Member State - EUR  12 

62 

63 
64 

80 

80 
81 

...93 

93 

98 

103 

103 
106 
108 

116 

117 
121 
125 
129 
131 

134 

134 

134 
141 
141 
142 
146 
148 
149 
150 
151 
153 
154 
156 
158 
161 
165 
166 
170 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

2. 

Innovative measures and technical assistance 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

Innovative measures and technical assistance  under 
Articles 7 and  10 of the ERDF Regulation 
Innovative measures and technical assistance  under 
Article 6 of the ESF Regulation 
Innovative measures and technical assistance under 
Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation 
Innovative measures and technical assistance  under 
Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation 

CHAPTER II 

BUDGET  IMPLEMENTATION,  CHECKS  AND  FINANCIAL 
MANAGEMENT,  COORDINATION  OF  THE  VARIOUS 
FINANCIAL  INSTRUMENTS,  COMPLEMENTARITY  WITH 
THE OTHER COMMUNITY  POLICIES 

A.  BUDGETARY  IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE STRUCTURAL  FUNDS 

1.  Budget  implementation  in  1995 

1.1.  General  implementation  in  1995 
1.2. 

Implementation  of each Fund in  1995 in the context  of 
1994-99 

2. 

Implementation  of programming for  1994-99 

2.1. 
2.2. 

Implementation  1994-95 
Implementation  of each Fund  in  1994-95 in the context of 
1994-99 

B. 

CHECKS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

1.  Checks 

1.1.  Checks carried out by the Commission's  Structural  Funds 

departments 
Inspections carried out by Financial Control 

1.2. 

2. 

Improving financial  management 

C. 

COORDINATION  OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS 

1.  Cohesion  Fund 

2.  EIB 

3.  ECSC 

4.  European  Investment Fund 

5.  The financial  mechanism  of the European  Economic Area 

5 

174 

174 

176 

178 

179 

181 

183 

183 

183 

189 

197 

197 

198 

202 

202 

202 
204 

205 

207 

207 

208 

209 

209 

210 

6 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

D.  COMPLEMENTARITY  WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY  POLICIES 

1.  The  Structural  Funds,  equal  opportunities  and  combatting  social 

exclusion 

2.  The  Structural  funds,  the  common  agricultural  policy  and  rural 

development 

3.  The Structural  Funds and the common fisheries  policy 

4.  The Structural  Funds and  SMEs 

5.  The Structural  Funds, research and technological  development 

6.  The Structural  Funds and trans-European  networks 

7.  The Structural  Funds and the transparency of public contracts 

8.  The Structural  Funds and competition  policy 

9.  Structural  policy and education  and training 

CHAPTER III 

INTER-INSTITUTIONAL 
REGIONAL 
PARTNERSHIP,  DIALOGUE  WITH THE  SOCIAL  PARTNERS 
INFORMATION  AND COMMUNICATION 

DIALOGUE, 

A. 

INTER-INSTITUTIONAL  DIALOGUE 

1.  Dialogue  with  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Economic  and  Social 

Committee 

- 

1.1.  The European  Parliament 
1.2.  The Economic and Social Committee 

2.  Relations with the Committee of the Regions 

3. 

Informal  meetings of the ministers responsible  for regional  policies and 

spatial  planning 

4.  Committee opinions 

B. 

REGIONAL  PARTNERSHIP 

1.  Overview 

2. 

Implementation  of the regional  partnership in the Member  States 

C.  DIALOGUE  WITH THE ECONOMIC  AND SOCIAL PARTNERS 

1.  The socio-economic  partnership  in monitoring structural  assistance 

1.1.  Overview 
1.2. 

Implementation of the socio-economic partnership  in the 
Member States 

211 

212 

213 

214 

214 

215 

216 

218 

218 

219 

221 

223 

223 

223 
225 

225 

226 

227 

229 

229 

230 

235 

235 

235 

235 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural Funds (1995) 

7 _ O 

D. 

INFORMATION  AND  COMMUNICATION,  DISSEMINATION  OF 

BEST PRACTICE 

1. 

Information  and communication 

2.  Measures to disseminate good practice 

CHAPTER IV 

FURTHER REVIEW OF THE  1989-93 PERIOD 

A. 

EX POST EVALUATION  OF ADDITIONALITY 

1.  Objectives  1 and 2 

2.  Objectives  3 and 4 

B. 

EX POST EVALUATION  OF OBJECTIVES 

1.  Objectives  3 and 4 

2.  Objective  5(a) 

3.  Objective  5(b) 

C. 

EX POST EVALUATION  OF THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES 

1.  Regional  development  Initiatives 

2.  Human resources Initiatives: NOW, HORIZON and EUROFORM 

3.  The rural development  Initiative: LEADER I 

ANNEXES 

ANNEX I: 
Financial  implementation  by Objective  in  1995 
ANNEX II:  Financial  implementation  by Objective,  1994-95 
ANNEX III:  Financial  implementation  of the Community Initiatives,  1994-95 
ANNEX IV:  Financial  implementation  of transitional  and innovative measures 
ANNEX V:  Regional  breakdown  of financial  implementation 
ANNEX VI:  Major  projects adopted  in  1995 
ANNEX VII:  Distribution  of ESF financing  by measure, theme, beneficiaries 

ABBREVIATIONS  AND ACRONYMS 

241 

241 

242 

245 

247 

247 

247 

248 

248 

248 

249 

250 

250 

257 

259 

261 

263 
273 
283 
295 
301 
315 
319 

337 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 1 

Table 2 

Table 3 

Table 4 

Table 5 

Table 6 

Table 7: 

Table 8: 

Table 9: 

Table 10 

Table 11 

Table 12 

Table 13 

Table 14 

Table 15 

Table 16 

Table 17 

Table 18 

Table 19 

Table 20 

Table 21 

Table 22 

Table 23 

Table 24 

Table 25 

Table 26 

Table 27 

Table 28 

Table 29 

Table 30 

Table 31 

Table 32 

Table 33 

INDEX QF TABLES 

Financial allocations  1994-96/99 

Number of programming documents adopted in  1994-95 

Assistance  adopted 
programmed for  1994-96/99 

in  1994-95  as  a  percentage  of  appropriations 

Commitments  1994-95 as a percentage of assistance committed 

Payments  1994-95 as a percentage of assistance paid 

; 

Regional  Objectives  of 
programming for  1994-96/99 directly related to the environment 

the  Structural  Funds 

-  measures  under 

Average annual investment required between  1993 and 2003 to provide the 
least-favoured  regions  with  environmental  infrastructure  in  conformity 
with European Directives 

Objective 

- 1995 in the context of programming for  1994-99 

Objective 
directly to 

and  the  environment  - breakdown  of  appropriations  allocated 
he environment in  1994-99 

Objective 

- Belgium - Financial implementation  of the SPD 

Objective 

- Germany - Financial implementation of the programmes 

Objective 

- Greece - Financial implementation of  the programmes 

Objective 

- Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes 

Objective 

- France - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Objective 

- Ireland - Financial implementation of the programmes 

Objective 

- Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes 

Objective 

- the Netherlands - Financial implementation  of the SPD 

Objective 

- Portugal - Financial implementation of the programmes 

Objective 

- United Kingdom - Financial  implementation of the SPDs 

Summary of Objective 2 OPs/SPDs adopted in  1994 and  1995 

Objective 2 -  1995 in the context of programming for  1994-96 

Objective  2 and  the  environment  - breakdown  of  appropriations  allocated 
directly to the environment in 1994-96 

Object 

ve 2 - Belgium - Financial implementationof the SPDs 

Object 

ve 2 - Denmark - Financial implementation of theSPDs 

Object 

ve 2 - Germany - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Object 

ve 2 - Spain - Programme priorities adopted in 1995 

Object 

ve 2 - Spain - Financial implementation of programmes 

Object 

ve 2 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Object 

ve 2 - Italy - Financial  implementation of the SPDs 

Object 

ve 2 - Luxemburg - Financial implementation of the SPD 

Object 

ve 2 - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Object 

ve 2 - United Kingdom - Financial implementationof the SPDs 

ves 3 and 4 -  1995 in the context of programming  for  1994-95  and 

Objecti 
1996-99 

27 

27 

28 

28 

29 

30 

30 

37 

38 

39 

42 

45 

48 

50 

52 

54 

55 

58 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

68 

70 

70 

72 

74 

75 

77 

.79 

80 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

10 

Table 34: 

Table 35: 

Table 36: 

Table 37: 

Table 38: 

Table 39: 

Table 40: 

Table 41: 

Table 42: 

Table 43: 

Table 44: 

Table 45: 

Table 46: 

Table 47: 

Table 48: 

Objectives 3 and 4 - Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Objectives 3 and 4 - Denmark - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Objectives 3  and  4  -  Germany  -  Financial 
programmes 

implementation  of  the 

Objectives 3 and 4 - Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes 

Objectives 3 and 4 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Objectives 3 and 4 - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes 

Objectives 3  and  4  -  Luxembourg  -  Financial  implementation  of  the 
programmes 

Objectives 3 and 4 - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Objectives  3  and  4  -  United  Kingdom  -  Financial  implementation  of  the 

SPD 

Extent of less-favoured  areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC 

Objective 5(a) agriculture - Implementation forecasts for  1994-99 

Objective  5(a) agriculture - Financial implementation  in 1995 

Objective  5(a) agriculture - Physical implementation  in 1994 
Objective  5(a)  agriculture  -  State  of  financial  implementation  of  the 
programmes 

Objective  5(a) for  fisheries  - Operational  priorities of single  programming 
documents for  1994-99 

Table 49: 

Objective 5(a) for fisheries -  1995 in the context of programming for  1994-

Table 50: 

Table 51: 

Table 52: 

Table 53: 

Table 54: 

Table 55: 

Table 56: 

Table 57: 

Table 58: 

Table 59: 

Table 60: 

Table 61: 

Table 62: 

Table 63: 

Table 64: 

Table 65: 

Table 66: 

Table 67: 

99 

Objective  5(a) fisheries - Financial implementation of SPDs 

Objective  5(b) - area and population of eligible areas and funding  allocated 
to each Member State, 1994-99 
Objective  5(b)  and  the  environment  -  breakdown  of  appropriations 

allocated directly to the environment,  1994-99 

Objective  5(b) - Summary of SPDs adopted in  1994 and  1995 

Objective  5(b) -  1995 in the context of programming for  1994-99 

Objective  5(b) - Belgium - Financial  implementation of the SPDs 

Objective  5(b) - Denmark  - Financial implementation of the SPD 

Objective  5(b) - Germany - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Objective 5(b) - Spain - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Objective  5(b) - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Objective 5(b) - Italy - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Objective  5(b) - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the SPD 

Objective  5(b) - Netherlands - Financial  implementation of the SPDs 

Objective  5(b) - United Kingdom - Financial  implementation  of the SPDs 

Objective  1  - Austria - Financial  implementation of the SPD 

Objective 6 in Finland and Sweden - basic statistics 

Objective 6 - Financial  implementation of the SPDs 

Objective 2 in the new Member States - basic statistics 

82 

83 

85 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

95 

96 

97 

97 

97 

99 

100 

100 

103 

104 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

113 

114 

115 

118 

118 

121 

121 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Table 68: 

Objective 2 - Austria - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund 

Table 69: 

Objective 2 - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Table 70: 

Objective 2 - Finland - Financial implementation of the SPD 

Table 71: 

Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund 

Table 72: 

Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Table 73: 

Objectives  3  and  4  -  Indicative  breakdown  of  appropriations  for  the  new 

Member States 

Table 74: 

Objectives 3 and 4 - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Table 75: 

Objectives 3 and 4 - Finland - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Table 76: 

Objective 3 - Sweden - Financial implementation of the SPD 

Table 77: 

Table 78: 

Objective  5(a) agriculture  - Forecast  implementation  in the  new  Member 
States  1995-99 
Objective  5(a) for  fisheries  - Priorities  for  assistance  in the  new  Member 

States 

Table 79: 

Objective  5(a) for fisheries - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Table 80: 

Objective  5(b) - SPDs adopted in 1995 in the new Member States 

Table  81: 

Objective  5(b) - Austria - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Table 82: 

Objective  5(b) - Finland - Financial implementation of the SPDs 

Table 83: 

Table 84: 

Table 85: 

Table 86: 

Number  of  Community  Initiative  programmes  presented  and  adopted  in 
1995 
Summary  of Commission  decisions  on  Community  Initiatives  in  1994-95 
(ECU million) 

Allocation  of  the  reserve  between  Initiatives  proposed  by  Commission 
in  1995 

Community  Initiatives  -  1995  in  the  context  of  programming  for  1994-
97/99 

Table 87: 

Summary  of  Community  Initiative  programmes  adopted  in  1994  and 

1995-EUR  15 

: 

Table 88: 

ADAPT Programmes adopted in  1995-EUR  12 

Table 89: 

Implementation  of EMPLOYMENT programmes - EUR  12 

Table 90: 

LEADER II programmes adopted in 1995-EUR  12 

Table 91: 

PESCA programmes adopted in 1995 and  1994-EUR  12 

Table 92: 

SME programmes adopted  in 1995 - EUR  12 

Table 93: 

REGIS programmes adopted  in 1995-EUR  12 

Table 94: 

RECHARII programmes adopted in  1995-EUR  12 

Table 95: 

KONVER programmes adopted in  1995-EUR  12 

Table 96: 

RESIDER II programmes adopted in  1994 and  1995-EUR  12 

Table 97: 

Situation of RETEX programmes in  1995 - EUR  12 

Table 98: 

URBAN programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR  12 

Table 99: 

URBAN - Detailed financing of the programme in Spain 

Table  100: 

INTERREG/REGEN programmes adopted  in 1995 - EUR  12 

11 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

125 

126 

128 

129 

129 

130 

130 

131 

132 

132 

134 

136 

138 

138 

139 

141 

143 

146 

148 

149 

151 

152 

153 

155 

156 

159 

160 

161 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

12 

Table 101: 

INTERREG  II  cross-border  cooperation  programmes  adopted  in  1995  -
EUR  12 

Table  101 bis: 

PEACE programme 

Table 102: 

Table  103: 

Table 104: 

Table  105: 

Table 106: 

Community Initiatives in the new Member States  - Indicative allocation of 
appropriations  1995-99 

Community Initiatives in the new Member States - Programmes adopted in 
1995 

Community  Initiatives  -  Summary  of  financial  allocations  by  Member 
State  1994-99 

Innovative  measures  (Article  10 of  the  ERDF  Regulation)  -  priorities  for 
assistance,  1995-99 

Measures  financed  under  Article 7  of  the  ERDF  Regulation  in  1995  -
commitments 

Table 107: 

Measures financed  under Article 6 of the ESF Regulation  in  1995 

Table 108: 

Measures financed  under Article 8 of the EAGGF Regulation,  1989-95 

Table 109: 

Table 110: 

Table  111: 

Table 112: 

Table 113: 

Measures financed  under Article 4 of the FIFG Regulation in  1995 

Origin and implementation of commitment appropriations in  1995 

Implementationof appropriations in  1995 

Implementation of appropriations in  1995 by budget heading 

Commitments in 1995\f 

Table  114: 

Payments in 1995 

Table 115: 

Payments in  1995 in respect of assistance prior to the second  programming 

Table 116: 

Table 117: 

Table  118: 

Table 119: 

Table  120: 

Table 121: 

Table  122: 

Table 123: 

Table 124: 

Table 125: 

Table 126: 

Table 127: 

Table 128: 

Table 129: 

Table 130: 

period 

Appropriations outstanding at 31 December  1995 

Implementation  in 1995 for the period  1994-99 

ERDF implementation  in  1995 for the period  1994-99 

ESF implementation  in  1995 for the period  1994-99 

EAGGF implementation  in  1995 for the period  1994-99 

FIFG implementation  in  1995 for the period  1994-99 

Implementation  in 1994-95 for the period  1994-99 

ERDF implementation  in  1994-95 for the period  1994-99 

ESF implementation  in  1994-95 for the period  1994-99 

EAGGF implementation  in  1994-95 for the period  1994-99 

FIFG implementation  in  1994-95 for the period  1994-99 

E1B - Financing for regional development 

ÊIB - Breakdown by sector of financing  for regional development 

Community  Initiatives  1989-93  -  Assistance  by  Initiative  and  Member 
State 
Interreg I: Breakdown of projects by sector 

162 

166 

166 

167 

170 

174 

176 

177 

178 

179 

183 

183 

184 

186 

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

194 

196 

197 

198 

199 

200 

201 

208 

209 

251 
257 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

1 3 - ^U 

NOTE TO THE READER 

A number of points  should  be borne  in mind when reading the tables  in this Report  because  it  looks at 
Structural  Fund  assistance  from  a variety  of viewpoints. As  far  as  possible,  these  are  indicated  in  the 
text. 

What are these various viewpoints? 

•  The programming  period: Usually this is 1994-99. Only in Chapter II.A Budgetary  implementation 
has a desire to be comprehensive resulted  in the inclusion of earlier programming  periods  in order to 
show all budgetary activity relating to the Structural Funds in  1995 (this relates only to the settling of 
payments). Naturally, Chapter IV refers to the period 1989-93. 

•  The  programming  phase: At Community  level, the first phase  is that of the  CSF. In the  summary 
tables  in Chapter  I, these  are  "programmed"  appropriations. The  second  phase  is that  of  operational 
programmes, global  grants or major  projects. This phase  is referred  to as  "adopted"  in the  summary 
tables. In the case of single programming documents, these two phases of programming coincide and 
the amounts are therefore the same. 

•  The number of Member States (EUR  15, EUR  12 or EUR 3) depending on the year (1994 or  1995) 
and  the  form  of  assistance  (Objective,  Community  Initiative,  technical  assistance,  innovative 
measure).  These  data  are  presented  in  integrated  form  in  the  Annexes  and  in  Chapter  II.A  on 
budgetary  implementation.  In Chapter  I a distinction  is made between  assistance  at the  initiative  of 
the Member State and studies and technical assistance carried out at the initiative of the  Commission 
and  relating  to this  assistance  because  the  regulatory  basis  is different.  These  studies  and  technical 
assistance  are,  however,  included  in  commitments  and  payments  in  the  Annexes  if  the  budget 
heading is the same. 

•  Assistance (operational programme, SPD, technical  assistance) without regard to the budget heading 
from  which  the  appropriations  were  committed  or  paid  or  the  budget  heading  from  which  the 
commitment  or  payment  was  made,  without  regard  to  the  form  of  assistance.  Commitments  and 
payments are presented  in accordance with the first criterion in Chapter I and according to the second 
in Chapter II.A and Annexes I to IV. 

•  The  type  of  appropriation,  that  is  appropriations  for  the  financial  year  or  appropriations  carried 
over  or  made  available  again.  This  distinction  is  made  only  when  considering  appropriations 
implemented  for  each  budget  heading,  i.e.  in  Chapter  II.A  and  the  Annexes.  Unless  otherwise 
indicated  in  the  title  or  a  note,  appropriations  carried  over  and  made  available  again  are  always 
included. 

•  The  year  of  reference  in  which  prices  are  expressed.  The  amounts  of  assistance  granted  are 
expressed  in  prices  in  the  year  of  adoption,  whether  this  was  the  point  of  programming  (CSF)  or 
adoption  (operational  programme,  SPD, etc.). Appropriations  implemented  are,  however,  expressed 
in prices of the year of implementation  (current prices). 

/5", At 

TNTJ^DJTO» 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

j 7 

This  report  is  compiled  pursuant  to  Article  16 of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2052/88  as  amended  and  the 
detailed  provisions  in  Article  31  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  4253/88  as  amended.  It  presents  the 
application  in  1995  of  the  Structural  Fund  regulations,  particularly  the  implementation  of  their 
Objectives  (Objectives  1 to  6).  The  report  is  structured  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the 
Regulations, but  is also  shaped  by the main activities or trends of the year  in question. It also  includes 
certain  innovations.  From  the point of view of content,  it deals with  new  matters  such  as the  practical 
implementation  of  partnership  with  the  regions  and  presents,  in  a  single  section,  all  the  measures 
implemented  by the  Commission  to disseminate  good  practice. In terms  of  form,  the  financial  aspects 
have been dealt with exhaustively and  1995 has been placed in the context of the  1994-99 programming 
process.  A  major  innovation  is  the  environmental  thread  which  runs  through  the  report,  reflecting 
various  aspects  of  the  way  in  which  environmental  considerations  are  taken  into  account  in  the 
programming of all measures. 

Chapter I  presents  the  implementation  of  the  various  structural  operations  in  1995  in  the  context  of 
multiannual programming. Attention  is given to measures under the different  Objectives, but also to the 
integration  of  the  three  new  Member  States  into  the  structural  policies  and  the  adoption  of  the  new 
Community  Initiative  programmes. In  accordance  with  Article 31 of  Regulation  (EEC) No  4253/88  as 
amended,  a list of the major  projects  is given  in the Annex, but a more detailed  assessment has  begun, 
the results of which will be presented in a future annual report. 

Chapter II  concerns  budgetary  implementation  in  1995, also  presented  in  its  multiannual  context,  and 
other  financial  matters  such  as  financial  management  and  monitoring  of  utilization.  As  in  last  year's 
report,  it pays particular  attention to the complementarity  between the  Structural  Funds and the  various 
Community policies, which  is highlighted by a horizontal treatment running throughout the report. 

Chapter HI  is  devoted  to  various  institutional  matters  concerning  the  Structural  Funds,  ranging  from 
relations  between  the  Community's  different  institutions  and  dialogue  with  the  social  and  regional 
partners  to  information  on  the  work  of  the  Funds.  As  mentioned  above,  there  is  a  special  focus  on 
partnership with the regions and measures at Community level to disseminate good practice. 

Chapter IV carries on where the same chapter in last year's report left off,  describing the achievements of 
the  1989-93 programming period. It deals only with those aspects not yet touched  on in previous annual 
reports (1993 and  1994). A more general assessment of the period is given in the first three-yearly  report 
on economic and social cohesion. 

This  introduction  will  deal  in  turn  with  the  main  features  of  1995  for  the  Structural  Funds,  an 
explanation of the importance of environmental concerns and the main elements of the report. 

A.  1995 

1.  The new Commission  and the group of Members responsible for economic and social 

cohesion 

In  1995 a new Commission  took office  under the presidency of Mr Santer. Right at the beginning of  its 
term, in order to stimulate its debate on certain broad areas of Community policy, the Commission  set up 
six working groups, on External Relations; Growth, Competitiveness and Employment;  Trans-European 
Networks;  Cohesion;  the  Information  Society  and  Equal  opportunities  for  Men  and  Women.  The 
working  group  on  Cohesion  is  chaired  by  Mrs  Wulf-Mathies,  the  member  of  the  Commission  with 
special  responsibility  for  the  regional  policies  and  cohesion,  and  includes  Mr  Flynn  (employment  and 
social affairs),  Mr Fischler (agriculture and rural development), Mrs Bonino (fisheries), Mrs Bjerregaard 
(environment), Mr Kinnock (transport) and Mr de Silguy (economic and financial  affairs). 

The group held its first meeting in March  1995 and gave itself the task of debating the broad lines of the 
following  issues:  improving  the  perception  of the  cohesion  policy  as  a way  in  which  the  Community 

18 

7{h Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

adds value;  improving  the implementation  of action  by the Structural  Funds (and the Cohesion  Fund), 
first thoughts on what a future  policy for economic and social cohesion might look like. 

The working group met a further  three times in 1995, to discuss the following  subjects: utilization of the 
budget  reserve  for the Community  Initiatives;  employment  and the Structural  Funds;  cohesion  policy 
and  the  environment;  guidelines  for  the  Community's  rural  development  policy;  information  and 
communication on the cohesion  policy. These discussions provided a basis for orienting the work of the 
Commission's departments  in the areas concerned  and for preparing the Commission's  decisions on the 
allocation  of  the  Community  Initiatives  reserve,  its  communications  to  the  other  institutions  on 
"Cohesion  policy and the environment" and "Employment and the Structural Funds". The meetings also 
gave Mrs Wulf-Mathies  an opportunity to brief her colleagues on the results of the informal  meetings of 
the ministers responsible for regional policy and regional planning held in Strasbourg and Madrid. 

2. 

Integration of the new Member States into the structural  policies 

In  1995 three new Member  States: Austria, Finland and Sweden acceded to the Community. A study of 
the  impact  of this  enlargement  on the structural  policies  began  starting  in  1994*  and preparations for 
adopting  operational  programmes  under  the different  Objectives  were  commenced  at the beginning of 
1995. Discussions with the three new Member States were concluded rapidly and effectively:  with a few 
exceptions, all the measures  under the different  Objectives  were adopted and underway  before  the year 
was out. As in the case of the other Member States, the programmes which had not yet been approved by 
the end of 1995 mostly concerned the Community Initiatives. 

3.  Launch of the Community Initiative  programmes 

After  adopting  guidelines  for the  13 Community  Initiatives  according  to a  timetable  staggered  over 
1994^,  the Commission  gradually  adopted  the Community  Initiative  programmes  during  1995. The 
profusion  of programmes presented  by the Member State (400 in all) required  intensive preparation and 
discussions  with  the various  national  authorities.  Two thirds  of the  envisaged  programmes  could  be 
adopted  in 1995, representing more than  80% of the funding  allocated to the twelve Member  States and 
almost 45% of the allocation for the three newcomers. 

4.  The first full year of implementation  of assistance 

Following  the  adoption  of  most  programmes  and  other  forms  of  assistance  in  1994,  actual 
implementation  for most  assistance,  i.e. programmes  (CSFs and SPDs)  under the different  Objectives, 
took  place  in  1995.  Further  new programmes,  mainly  under  Objectives  1 and 5(b), were  adopted  in 
1995,  bringing  the rate  of adoption  of programmed  appropriations  up to almost  100%  for the twelve 
Member States for the period  1994-99. 

During  this  first  full  year  of  implementation  of operations,  the Commission  had two main  concerns. 
Firstly, much  effort  went  into  seeking the  greatest possible degree of effectiveness.  To ensure  effective 
monitoring of operations,  Monitoring  Committees  were set up and criteria  for the selection  of projects 
adopted. The Commission  drew the attention of the different  partners to the need for rigorous monitoring 
and  the importance  of selecting  projects  most  likely  to attain  the objectives  of the programmes. The 
drive  for effectiveness  could  also be seen  in the intensive  work  on evaluation:  the preparation  of mid 
term  reviews,  prior  appraisal  of projects  and continuing  ex post  evaluation  of assistance  implemented 
during  the period  1989-93. Furthermore,  the effectiveness  of management  and of the  socio-economic 

1 See the 1994 Annual Report. 
2  See the  1994 Annual  Report. 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

\ 9 

impact of programmed  measures  is aided by thorough  cooperation  between  a wide  variety  of partners. 
Since  1994 the Commission  has invested  much  effort  in convincing the various  authorities  responsible 
for  structural  measures of the  importance of extending  partnership to a wide range of actors,  including 
local  and regional  authorities  and the economic  and social  partners.  Lastly,  in  1995  the Commission 
continued  to  encourage  rigorous  financial  management  of  operations,  stepping  up  its  checks  on 
utilization  of the  Funds  as well  as discussing  with  the Member  States  ways  of  improving  the joint 
management  of Community  appropriations  by the Member  States and the Commission  and making it 
more  effective. 

Another  major  concern  in the  implementation  of programmes  in  1995 was consistency  with  all the 
Community's  other  policies  and  financial  assistance.  Since  the  Structural  Funds  involve  very  large 
amounts of Community finance, the Commission takes great care to ensure that operations are consistent 
with the Community's  other  instruments, be they  legislative,  financial  or political.  Discussions  on this 
matter therefore  resulted in communications describing the links between the Structural  Funds and other 
policies  (employment,  environment,  equal  opportunities,  integrated  development  of certain  areas). In 
addition, the drive  begun  in  1994 to improve  coordination  between the different  financial  instruments 
was continued in 1995, particularly in the case of Cohesion Fund assistance. 

B. A REPORT WITH A STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL BIAS 

In the effort  to ensure  that  assistance  by the Structural  Funds is consistent  with the Community's  other 
policies, special attention has been given to environmental  concerns. Both the principle of economic and 
social  cohesion  and that  of environmental  protection  are mentioned  in the preamble  to the Treaty on 
European  Union.  In  practical  terms,  as  far  as  the  environment  is  concerned  this  means  that 
environmental  protection  measures  must be integrated  into the definition  and implementation  of other 
Community  policies  (Article  130r of  the  Treaty).  This  requirement  is  particularly  relevant  to the 
Structural  Funds  because  of the  context  in which  they  operate  as well  as the links  between  structural 
policy (particularly  its regional aspect) and environmental policy. 

1.  Background 

The  1993 review  of  the  regulations  governing  the  Structural  Funds  introduced  new  environmental 
requirements.  As a result,  there  has been  a clear  improvement  in the way in which  account  has been 
taken of the environment in the programming for 1994-99. The new rules also  require  greater  vigilance 
in  preventing  and  penalizing  infringements  of  Community  law  in  the  environmental  field.  The 
Commission  is keen to increase the awareness of its various partners to this  matter  and makes  sure the 
rules  are observed.  1995 witnessed  a  still  greater  commitment  to  the environment,  which  received 
special  attention  in the form  of the  mid-term  progress  report  on the Fifth  Programme  of  policy and 

action  in relation to the environment-'  and a communication  on cohesion  policy  and the environment  \ 
Both of these documents  stress that,  since the environment  is a horizontal  issue,  implementation  of the 
major objectives of the Fifth  Programme  is essential. 

2.  Complementarity  between  cohesion  policy and environmental  policy 

The  Commission's  communication  on  cohesion  -policy  and  the  environment  demonstrates  the 
complementarity  which  exists  between  cohesion  policy and environmental  policy, whereby  sustainable 
socio-economic  development  is sought taking care to preserve  natural  resources. This  complementarity 
should  also  be  illustrated  with  specific  examples.  Firstly,  the  environment  is  a  factor  in  regional 

3 COM(95) 624 final,  10 January 1996. 
4  COM(95)  509  final,  22  November  1995. 

20 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

development. A high-quality environment can play an important role in attracting potential  investors to a 
region. Furthermore, activities related to the environment can be a substantial source of employment and 
create  major  opportunities  for  SMEs  to  provide  goods  and  services.  Lastly,  the  environment  is an 
excellent justification  for diversification  as regards both  activities (in rural  areas, for example) and new 
skills and qualifications  for the work force. 

Secondly,  structural  policy  itself contributes to the environment  in two ways. Not only does it generate 
large  injections  of funds  with  direct  or indirect  spin-offs  for the environment,  which  also  enable  less-
favoured  regions  to  finance  the  investments  needed  to  comply  with  Community  environmental 
standards, but it is also a vector for other instruments which can promote sustainable development. It can 
encourage  a  more  rigorous  analysis  of  the  environmental  effects  of  projects  by  requiring  an 
environmental  impact  assessment,  reliable  statistical  data on environmental  aspects or the  development 
of  physical  indicators  for  the  evaluation  of  programmes.  Involvement  of  the  Structural  Funds  in 
environmental  measures  also  helps  increase  public  awareness  of environmental  issues, for example by 
providing  training  in new skills  related  to the environment  and encouraging  public  authorities  to give 
greater care to their town and country planning and the preservation of natural resources. 

This  complementarity  and its context  called  for a clear  description  of the  ways  in which  the need for 
environmental  protection  is taken  into account in the programming of the  Structural  Funds. Rather than 
dedicating a section  of the Annual Report on the Structural Funds to the complementarity  between these 
two  policies,  therefore,  it has been  deemed  appropriate  to  weave  a thread  throughout  the Report to 
demonstrate  that  each  aspect  of  the  implementation  of  the  Structural  Funds  has an  environmental 
dimension  and to  show  how that  dimension  is taken  into  account  to the greatest  possible  extent  in 
programmes which, it should not be forgotten, aim primarily at economic and social  development. 

C. EMPLOYMENT, A MAJOR CHALLENGE FOR THE UNION 

The serious employment situation  is a central concern of the European Union, where there are now some 
18 million  people  without  work. In December  1994 the Essen  European  Council  reaffirmed  the prime 
importance of combatting  unemployment and of equal opportunities. The Council took the view that the 
essential  return  to  steady  growth  also  required  the structural  reform  of the employment  market and 
identified  five  areas for priority  measures to overcome the structural  problems of employment. It asked 
the Member States to turn each of its recommendations  into a multi-annual  programme. 

In  its  1995  communication  "Community  Structural  Policies  and  Employment"^,  the  Commission 
proposed a number of guidelines to ensure coherence between the policy decided on in Essen and the use 
of the Structural  Funds and to increase their impact by incorporating them  into the European  strategy for 
employment. These were ensuring the conditions for long-term  growth, raising the employment  content 
of this growth, developing an economy of solidarity in addition to this performing  competitive  economy 
and making the most of partnership arrangements, and encouraging those involved at local level. 

In  practice,  this  means  using  the  flexibility  offered  by the  implementation  of  the  CSFs/SPDs and 
directing  the monitoring  and assessment  systems  towards  the gradual  implementation  of the  priorities 
selected  without  undermining the programming of the  Structural  Funds as adopted, for the most  part, in 
1994. 

The Madrid  European  Council  in December  1995 confirmed  the need for coordination  between  national 
job-creation  policies  and  the  Community  structural  policies.  The  Structural  Funds  are  essential 
instruments for the promotion of growth and employment, particularly in the Member States and regions 
which  benefit  most  from  them.  Structural  assistance  helps  support  demand  by  increasing  regional 

5 A  communication  originally  presented  to the informal  ministerial  meeting  in  Madrid  on 30 November and 

1  December  1995). 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

21 

income  through  finance  for  investment  in  infrastructure,  productive  capacity,  human  resources  and 
technological potential, all of which will make the region more competitive. 

This  approach  also  implies  stressing  proactive  and  preventive  measures.  This  is  particularly  true  of 
Objective 4, the implementation  of which occupied the whole of 1995. It is an approach which requires a 
concerted effort  from  all those  involved  in the implementation  of structural  assistance and one  in which 
the Commission has undertaken to support its partners. 

D. THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT 

1. 

Implementation  of appropriations  in 1995 

In  total,  of  the  ECU  24 069  million  available  in  1995  for  all  assistance,  ECU  21 938  million  was 
committed,  as  compared  with  ECU 21 323  million  and  ECU  19 246  million  respectively  in  1994. At 
91%,  the rate of  implementation  is high  (90% in  1994), with  82% of committed  appropriations  paid  as 
against  76% in  1994. There was a clear  improvement  in the  implementation  of  Community  Initiatives, 
with an implementation  rate of 91%  of available appropriations (i.e. ECU 2 358 million) compared  with 
12%  in  1994. This  improvement  is due  to the  fact  that  most  of the  new  programmes  were  adopted  in 
1995. 

Looking at the different  Objectives, commitments for Objective  1  amounted  to ECU  14 518 million;  for 
Objective 2,  to  ECU  1  735  million;  for  Objective 3  and  4,  to  ECU  1  607  million  and  94.5  million 
respectively;  for  Objective  5(a), to ECU 655.9 million  for  agriculture  and  179 million  for  fisheries;  for 
Objective  5(b), to ECU 571.9 million and lastly, for Objective 6, to ECU  125.9 million. 

In absolute terms, there is a great difference  in the value of the appropriations committed  for each of the 
Funds, ranging from  ECU 485.5 million for the FIFG (2% of total commitments) to ECU  12 211 million 
for  the  ERDF  (56%  of  total  commitments).  Nevertheless,  the  rate  of  implementation  of  the  available 
appropriations  is  similar  for  all  of the  Funds, at  99% (for  all  types  of  assistance),  except  for  the  ESF, 
with 76%. 

2.  Concentration 

The  principle  of  concentration  is  one  of  the  key  concepts  behind  the  1988  reform  of  the  Structural 
Funds.  It  involves  the  concentration  of  assistance  on  a  limited  number  of  objectives,  geographical 
concentration  on  certain  eligible  areas, concentration  of funding  on  the  severest  problems  and  areas  in 
greatest  difficulty  and  concentration  of  assistance  on  certain  thematic  areas.  There  has  been  little 
progress  in  geographical,  financial  and  thematic  concentration  in  1995  because  the  decisions  and 
guidelines  relating  to  these  aspects  for  the  entire  programming  period  (1994-99;  1994-96  for 
Objective 2) were taken  in  1993 and  1994.6 However, while the principle of financial  concentration  has 
mainly  meant the  fixing  of financial  allocations for  1994-99, activity  in  1995 has clearly  confirmed  the 
principle  in  practice:  the  greater  part  of the  Commission's  work  has been  concentrated  on  Objective  1. 
64%  of  all  the  appropriations  committed  in  1995  under  the  newly-adopted  Community  Initiative 
programmes  (taken  together)  were  allocated  to  Objective  1 regions.  The  same  trend  is  reflected  in 
budgetary  activity,  with  Objective  1 accounting  for  66% of all  commitments  and  70% of  all  payments 
implemented  in  1995.  These  figures  also  reveal  a  remarkable  dynamism  in  the  implementation  of 
Objective  1 in comparison  with other structural assistance. 

6 See the 1994 Annual Report. 

22 

3.  Programming 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Another characteristic of Structural Fund operations is multiannual programming over a six-year  period. 
It was introduced  in  1994, when most of the programming  documents for  assistance  under the  different 
Objectives  were adopted  (CSFs, followed  by operational  programmes;  single  programming  documents 
(SPDs)). The programming documents for the new Member States were adopted  in  1995 (36 in all, with 
a further  six Swedish  SPDs still to come) as were a large number of Community  Initiative  programmes 
(265 in all). 

Looking  back  on  the  first  two  years  of the  programming  period  (1994  and  1995),  implementation  has 
been  relatively  satisfactory.  With  regard  to  assistance  under  the  Objectives,  97%  of  the  funds 
programmed  in  CSFs  or  SPDs  have  been  committed  in  the  form  of  SPDs,  operational  programmes, 
global  grants  or  major  projects.  As  stated  in  last  year's  Annual  Report,  the  possibility  of  submitting 
single  programming  documents  has.enabled  the  arrangements  for  programming  to  be  simplified. 
Furthermore, a glance at the situation regarding overall financial  implementation  shows that in two years 
almost  one third  (31%) of available  assistance  has been  committed  and one fifth (19%)  has  been  paid. 
Although  generally  speaking  there  is  room  for  improvement  in  the  rate  of  payment,  which  reflects 
progress  in the actual  implementation  of measures, the situation varies depending on the Objective.  The 
rate  of  implementation  of Objectives  1, 3 and  5(a)  is  in  line with  the  overall  figures.  Objectives 4  and 
5(b),  however,  are  progressing  at  a  much  slower  rate  (Objective 4:  24%  of  assistance  has  been 
committed  and  12%  paid;  Objective  5(b):  18% committed  and  10%  paid).  Lastly,  while  the  rate  of 
implementation  of Objective 2 appears at first sight to be higher because  it is programmed  in three-year 
phases  (52% of assistance  committed  and 26% paid),  it  is actually  lower than  average  when  related  to 
the full  period  1994-99. The implementation  of programming  is also progressing at different  rates  in the 
different  Member States. Taking the Objectives as a whole, the percentage of total aid committed  ranges 
from  21% for  Belgium  and  Finland  to  41% for  the United  Kingdom, while the  percentage  of total  aid 
paid ranges from  10% for Finland and  11% for Italy to 25% for the United  Kingdom. 

Programming  has  turned  out  to  be  more  problematic  where  the  Community  Initiatives  are  concerned. 
The process has been  hindered  by the number  of programmes presented  by the Member  States (400  for 
all  15,  i.e.  about  the  same  number  of  operations  as  for  the  OPs/SPDs),  which  has  resulted  in  an 
administrative  overload. However, three quarters of the programmes  have been  adopted, accounting  for 
81%  of the appropriations  allocated to the Twelve and 42% of those allocated  to the three new  Member 
States. At the informal  Council meeting  in Venice in May  1996 the Commission  and the Member  States 
acknowledged  the  problem  caused  by  the  excessive  number  of  programmes  and  the  resulting 
complexity, especially for the Community Initiatives, and recognized the need to remedy the situation. 

4.  Additionality 

Compliance  with  the  principle  of  additionality  requires  continuous  financial  monitoring.  For  the  new 
programmes  for  1994-99, the detailed  procedures for this monitoring are laid down  in the  programming 
documents. It was thus possible  for  the prior appraisal  of additionality  to be  largely  carried  out  in  1994 
and  more  or  less  completed  in  1995.  Most  of  the  work  on  additionality  in  1995  concerned  expost 
evaluation of the period  1989-93 and ongoing monitoring of the second period. 

The results of the expost  evaluation  of the first  programming period vary according to the Objective  and 
the Member State concerned. The procedure has been successfully  completed  for Objectives  1  and 2 and 
additionality  was verified  in  1995 for five Member  States, although  it was  still  impossible  to verify  for 
others, either because  of  incomplete  data (three Member  States) or total  absence  of data (four  Member 
States).  Similarly,  for  Objectives  3  and  4  additionality  was  verified  for  four  Member  States,  is  still 
uncertain  for  two  and  is  impossible  to verify  for five others. Objective  5(b) was the  only  Objective  for 
which  it was possible to confirm  in  1995 that additionality had been observed  in all Member States. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

23  -  â .^ 

Ongoing  assessment  concerned  only  Objective  1 in  1995,  but  results  were  limited  because  only  one 
Member State observed the principle and the verification  procedures. 

5.  Partnership 

Implementation  of  partnership  entered  an  active  phase  in  1995  with  the  setting  up  of  Monitoring 
Committees  for  the  programmes.  Partnership  with  the  regional  authorities  is  now  a  widespread  and 
accepted  practice  and  functions  satisfactorily  on  the  whole.  However,  partnership  with  other 
geographically-based  authorities,  particularly  at  local  level,  is  less  well-developed.  This  report  reveals 
very different  situations depending on institutional arrangements and types of assistance. It also reveals a 
degree of complexity  which requires thought to be given to ways of simplifying  monitoring  methods  at 
regional  level.  The  trend  is  towards  greater  involvement  of  the  social  and  economic  partners  in  the 
Monitoring  Committees,  although  here  also the  situation  varies  greatly,  from  no  involvement  in  some 
Member  States,  through  indirect  representation  or  mere  information  procedures  in  others,  to  real 
involvement  in  decision-making  in  others.  In  order  to  avoid  the  danger  of  increasingly  unwieldy 
procedures  in  increasingly  complex  partnership  structures,  the  Commission  is  aware  of  the  need  to 
develop  the  most  appropriate  possible  procedures  for  involving  the  different  partners  more  closely,  to 
the degree called for by their respective roles and responsibilities. 

6.  Monitoring and  evaluation 

Intensive monitoring  and evaluation  continued  in  1995, in two directions. Monitoring  Committees  were 
set  up  for  the  current  programming  period  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  Commission  issued  a  Common 
guide  for  Monitoring  and  Interim  evaluation  intended  to  ensure  that  all  the  partners  use  the  same 
procedures for qualitative and quantitative monitoring of the financial  situation  and the progress made in 
implementing  programmes.  The  partners  also  launched  the  mid-term  review  process,  scheduled  for 
completion  in  1996, whereby  measures are subject to systematic critical  analysis.  However, the  process 
has been  slow to start, although there  is a clear  improvement  compared  to the past.  The other  aspect  of 
evaluation  work  has  been  the  continuing  ex post  evaluation  of  the  first  programming  period.  The 
preliminary  results  received  by  the  Commission  at  the  end  of  1994  for  Objectives  3  and  4  and 
Objective 5(b) were confirmed  during  1995 and results were received  for Objective  5(a) and for  some of 
the  1991-93 Community  Initiatives. Although these results arrived  after  the programmes  for the  second 
period had been adopted, their lessons will still be used to improve current operations, particularly  in the 
context of the mid-term  reviews. 

c?5\S6 

CHAPTER I 

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMING 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

27 

A.  ASSISTANCE BY OBJECTIVE • 

1. 

Introduction 

1.1.  1995 in the context of the  1994-99 programming  period 

Table 1:  Financial allocations 1994-96/99 (ECU million) 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

N 

AT 

P 

Fl 

SE 

UK 

TOTAL 

Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objective 3 
Objective 4 
Objective 5(a) 
agriculture 
fishaies 
Objective 5(b) 
Objective 6 

13.980,0 

0,0 

730,0 
160,0 
396,2 
25,4 
194,9 
roj 
24.5 

78,1 

13.640,0 
733,0 
1682,1 
104,5 
1.144,4 
1.069.9 
74.5 
1.229,0 

56,0 
263,0 
13,0 
266,9 
12'0 
139.9 

54,0 

26.300,0 
1.130,0 
1.474,4 
368,6 
445,6 
3260 
119.6 
664,0 

2.189,2 
1.763,2 
2 562,4 

299,6 
1.935,4 
1.745.5 

1S9.9 

2.239,4 

5.620,0 

0,0 

14860,0 
684,0 
1.316,3 
398,8 
814,4 
680.0 
134.4 
903,7 

13 980,0 

0,0 

150 0 
300,0 
922,8 
156,2 
164,6 
118,0 
46,6 
150,0 

165,6 
101,0 
334,0 
61,0 
387,8 
385.8 
2.0 
411,0 

7,0 
20,7 
0,9 
40,1 
39.0 

U 
6,0 

69,2 
258,4 
84,6 
354,0 
331,0 
23,0 
194,0 
459,9 

160,0 
347,0 
173,0 
130,1 
90,1 
40,0 
138,0 
252,0 

2.359,8 
2.142,0 
1.501,0 
329,7 
449,7 
361,0 
88.7 
820,5 

93.974,6 
7.305,4 
11.0783 
2.0153 
6327,9 
5.443,7 
884,2 
6.887,7 
711,9 

TOTAL 

1.584,6 

652,9 

18.533,0 

13.980,0 

30382,6 

10.989,2 

5.620,0 

18.977,2 

74,7 

1.843,6 

1.460,4 

13.980,0 

1.420,1 

1.200,1 

7.602,7 

128301,1 

Where  Structural  Funds  assistance  programmed  by  Objective  was  concerned,  1995  had  two  key 
elements: adoption  of the programmes for the new Member  States and the actual  implementation  of the 
programmes  adopted  and begun  in  1994 in the other  twelve.  Most  of the  last  remaining  programmes 
were  adopted  in  1995  and  implementation  (establishment  of  the  Monitoring  Committees,  project 
selection)  was on  the  whole  satisfactory.  The result  after  two years  of  launching  new programmes  is 
quite  significant.  A total  of 407  programming  documents  other  than  CSFs  (OPs, SPDs,  global  grants, 
major  projects) were adopted in 1994 and 1995 in the twelve Member  States. This was an average of 34 
per  Member  State,  but the number  varied  from  8 programmes  for  Denmark  and Luxembourg  to 83 in 
Spain. For the  15 Member  States a total  of 442  programmes  had been  adopted  by the end of  1995,  in 
other  words,  35  in the new Member  States. If we add the Community  Initiative  programmes,  mainly 
approved  in  1995, we obtain a total of 733 programmes for the 15 Member  States (an average of 49 per 
Member State: 29 OPs/SPDs and 17 CIPs). 

Table 2:  Number of programming documents adopted in 1994-95 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

N 

P 

UK 

EUR12 

AT 

FI 

SE 

EUR3 

EUR15 

Objective  1 
Objective  2 
Objective  3 
Objective  4 
Objective  5(a) agric. 
Objective  5(a)  fisheries 
Objective  5(b) 
Objective  6 

10 

31 

1 
4 
5 
5 
6 
1 
3 

18 
9 

12 
1 
11 
1 
8 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

53 
8 

11 
1 
2 
1 

7 

6 
19 
1 
1 
2 
1 
20 

24 
11 
16 
1 
2 
1 
13 

1 
2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 
5 
1 
1 

2 

1 

5 

17 

3 

13 
1 
0 
2 

1 
11 

164 
72 
50 
12 
31 
9 
69 

1 
4 
1 
1 

1 
7 

Total  -  objectives 

25 

8 

60 

31 

83 

50 

10 

68 

8 

16 

17 

31 

40' 

1' 

1 
1 
1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

9 

5 
I 
0 
1 
1 
0 

1 

9 

1 
10 
3 
2 
5 
3 
9 
2 

165 
82 
53 
14 
36 
12 
78 
2 

35 

442 

Community  initiatives 

Inlcrrt'g/l'eace 
Other  (1) 

16 

5 

rt7 

10 

23 

4' 

6 

19 

4 

12 

11 

28 

248 

4 

2 

2 

8 

291 

35 
256 

TOTAL 

41 

13 

127 

41 

106 

97 

16 

87 

12 

28 

28 

59 

655 

21 

11 

11 

43 

733 

(1) Including  Retex for  1993 

If we compare the actual adoption of programmes with what was programmed  for  1994-99, the situation 
at the end of the first two years seems satisfactory.  97% of the programmed  appropriations were adopted 
in the form  of SPDs, OPs, global grants or major projects. All the assistance in four Objectives (2, 3, 5(a) 

1 Readers should note the following: Measures in the new Member States have been grouped into one section, A.7; 
throughout the Report, unless otherwise indicated, amounts relate to prices in the year the measures were adopted 
(1994  or  1995) where  programming  is concerned  and to current  prices  where  budget  execution  in terms of 
commitments or payments is concerned. 

28 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

fisheries and 6) was adopted in 1995. Three other Objectives  (1,  5(a) agriculture and 5(b)) also had very 
high adoption rates (between  96% and almost  100%). All the SPDs for Objective  1 had been adopted in 
1994 (1995 for Austria), and of the measures in the various CSFs only technical  assistance in Germany 
and Ireland  and  some  OPs in Greece,  Spain  and Italy  remained  to be adopted. All the Objective 5(a) 
agriculture  SPDs  have  been  adopted  except  those  under  Regulations  (EEC) Nos  866/90  and 867/90, 
where a number of OPs in a single CSF in Italy have yet to be adopted. In the case of Objective 5(b), 
only  the SPDs  for  Sweden  and the technical  assistance  programme  for France  still  remained  to be 
adopted. Only Objective 4 had a lower rate of adoption, 75%, the reason being that the United  Kingdom 
did not present any programmes for 1994-96 and the SPD for Sweden had not yet been adopted. 

If we look  at the  situation  in each  of the Member  States, the vast  majority  of the Twelve,  taking all 
Objectives  together,  had programme  adoption  rates  of  100% (Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  France, 
Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal). Three Member  States had rates between  90%  and 
100%) (Italy, Spain and Greece); this was because a few Objective  1 OPs had still to be adopted  in each. 
The United Kingdom had a rate of 96% if Objective 4 is taken into account (the other programmes were 
adopted in their entirety). The situation  in the three new Member  States was also well  advanced  by the 
end of 1995, with all measures having been adopted in Austria and Finland and the SPDs for Objectives 
4 and 5(b) remaining to be adopted in Sweden. 

Table 3:  Assistance adopted in 1994-95  (SPDs, OPs global grants, major projects) as a percentage  of 

appropriations programmed for 1994-96/99 

Objective 1 

Objective 2 

Objective 3 

Objective 4 

Objective 5(a) agriculture 

Objective 5(a)  fisheries 

Objective 5(b) 

Objective 6 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

N 

AT 

100% 

100% 

100% 

101% 

101% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

98% 

94% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

91% 
100% 

99% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 

99% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

p 

99% 

TOTAL 

100% 

100% 

100% 

98% 

95% 

100% 

100% 

93% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

99% 

100% 

FI 

SE 

UK 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
0% 
100% 
100% 
100%. 

96% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

100% 

74% 

TOTAL 
96% 
100% 
100% 

75% 
100% 
100% 

98% 
100% 

97% 

The financial  progress of programme  implementation  appears normal. Overall, the rate of commitment 
of  the  funds  at the end of the first  two years  was nearly  one third  (31%),  which  reflects  mainly 
commitments made in 1995 given that most of the programmes were adopted  in the second half of or at 
the end of,  1994. 

Table 4:  Commitments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance committed (ECU million) 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

N 

AT 

P 

Fl 

SE 

UK 

Total 

Objective 1 

%of assistance 

Objective 2 

%of assistance 

Objective 3 

%of assistance 
Objective 4 

%of assistance 
Objective 5(a) (agriculture) 

%of assistance 

Objective 5(a) (fisheries) 

%of assistance 
Objective 5(b) 

%of assistance 

Objective 6 

%of assistance 

107,0 

15% 

62,2 

39% 

97,8 

24% 

4,6 

18% 

53,0 

31% 

4,1 
17% 

9,2 

12% 

-

30,3 
54% 

85,0 

32% 

6,0 

46% 
38,7 

30% 

46,6 

33% 
9,8 

18% 

3.892,1 

4.544,9 

8.372,4 

497,6 

1.680,1 

3.024,7 

29% 

286,9 

39% 

307,8 

18% 

29,6 

28% 
322,7 

30% 

24,9 

33% 

261,7 

21% 

33% 

; 
-

-

• 

• 

-

34% 

659,2 

58% 

23% 
904,4 

51% 

426,6 

778,4 

29°/< 

118,1 

32°/< 
101,9 

31°/ 
39,8 

33% 

162,1 

24% 

30% 

95,4 

32% 

678.6 

39% 

63,3 

33% 
373,2 

17% 

30% 

; 

-
-

• 

; 

• 

22% 

299,9 
44% 

200,5 

15% 
60,6 

15% 

117,5 

17% 

44,8 
33% 

107,0 

12% 

-

8,0 

114% 

6,5 

31% 

0,5 
59% 

12,2 

31% 

1,1 
100% 

0,8 

14% 

37,2 
25% 

105,0 
35% 

282,3 

31% 

22,2 
14% 

25,3 

21% 

9,2 
20%: 

25,6 

17% 

28,8 

4548,8 

17% 

54,1 

54% 

64,1 
19% 

11,7 

19% 
61,5 

16% 

2,0 

100% 

78,3 

19% 

33% 

; 

• 

. 
• 

-

TOTAL 

337,8 

216,3 

5.125,6 

4544,9 

9.880,1 

3.390,9 

1.680,1 

3.855,0 

29,1 

506,8 

300,5 

4.548,8 

"/oofaxsislcaxx 

21% 

33% 

28% 

33%, 

34% 

31% 

3(f% 

22% 

3<M 

27% 

21%, 

33% 

-

31,1 
45% 

60,3 

23% 

14,8 
18% 

61,4 

19% 

23,0 

-

532,3 
23% 

105,8 

1.250,0 

27.265,9 

30% 
3.796,9 

66% 

73,0 

21% 

0,0 

13,7 

15% 

40,0 

58% 

52% 

975,0 

3.357,1 

65% 
0,0 

85,2 

24% 

14,8 

17% 

30% 

363,6 

24% 
1.571,6 

29% 

313,4 

35% 

100% 

100% 

32,8 

17% 

81,0 
18% 

304,5 

21%, 

0,0 

120,7 

1.181,2 

15% 

. 
2.978,0 

18% 

125,9 

18% 
37.975,8 

41% 

31% 

44,9 

18% 
277,4 

31%, 

Payments, which  represent the actual  progress of the measures  since they are a function  of applications 
from  the final  beneficiaries, stand at 19%, which is evidence of the delay in 1994 but is logical given that 
most payments were made in 1995. 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

29 

Table 5:  Payments 1994-95 as a percentage of assistance paid (ECU million) 

Ubjective  1 

% of assistance 
Objective 2 
% of assistance 
Objective i 

% of assistance 

Objective 4 

%of  assistance 

Objective i(a)  (agriculture) 

%of  assistance 

Objective 5(a) (nshenes) 

% of assistance 
Objective  5 ( b )— 
% of assistance 

Ubjective  b 

% of assistance 

TJK 

2.470,1 
18% 
T553T 
21% 
3 3 43 
14% 
7478! 
14% 
3 0 93 
20% 
3 63 
22%| 
7 3 47 
11% 

3 0 7/ 
36% 
"747? 
2 8% 
370] 

2 3% 
T97I 
15% 
303 
22% 
" 37 
10% 

"793 
11% 
7 93 
18% 
"743 
19% 

7 63 
10% 
" 3J 
13% 
33 
6% 

TT 
2.76U.7 
20% 

537071 
23% 

40% 
"2443 
17% 

18% 

TRTT 
1.369,6 
24% 

3 8 67 
13% 
3233 
24% 
30377 
20%| 
"477 
16% 

25% 
23% 
70701  TTJ 
22% 

307 

7T874 
18% 

1.555,4] 
12% 
75070" 
22% 
7007 
8% 
3 03 

8% 

3 83 

9% 

3J 

I9£j 
13% 
3 23 
18% 
"7533 
27%| 
TTJ 
7%| 

10%| 

&7 
13% 

T01 
57% 

27%| 

lT3 
3 8% 

14% 
" 37 
15% 

3.263,4 

2 3% 

TTT 
7 43 
9% 
7 T3 
21% 

10%i 

10% 
3077 
8%| 

10%| 
397 
10% 

TOTALI 
% oj'assistance 

3 T 03 
13% 

7527* 
23% 

3.236,2 
17% 

77607 
20% 

6.5J7,0| 
23% 

T9733 
17% 

1.307,0 

24% 

11% 

3 57 
21% 

35731 
20% 

143,9 

3.263,4 

10% 

23% 

"FT 

"75751 

22% 
3 07 
12% 
"774" 
9%| 
3 03 
9% 

30%,| 

T579] 
8% 
3 03 
9% 
7 4 77 
10% 

26% 
2.4U7.6 

l'otal 
17.721,1 
20% 

3 8 7T 
2 4% 
3 63 
11% 
TJTJ 

"SE"  TJIT 
"33T7T 
14% 
3T879| 
24% 
"8TB751 
55% 
2 2% 
73701  7 8 87 
12% 
3T479" 
17%, 
7 4 93 
17% 
3 6 77 
10% 

TTJ 
12% 
7T7S| 
30% 
13% 
7J7J  3974" 
8%| 

"679" 
8%| 

7 23 
9% 

7T57  1.791,8 
25% 

337OI 
9% 
23.984,2 
79% 

1.2.  Greater  integration of the "environment"  factor 

Implementation  of  the  second  Structural  Funds  programming  period  coincided  with  the  desire  to 
integrate  the  environment  more  fully  into  Community  policies  with  the  aim  of  promoting  sustainable 
development. Thus, the 5th Environmental Action Programme was aimed more at a preventive  approach 
and  extended  the  range  of  measures,  targeting  live  activity  sectors  (industry,  transport,  energy, 
agriculture  and  tourism)  to  which  the  Structural  Funds  give  major  financial  support  under  the 
development and conversion objectives. In addition, the regional development analyses conducted by the 
Commission  identified  persisting  environmental  infrastructure  requirements  in  the  least-favoured 
regions2, and, more  broadly, territorial  development  requirements  linked to the distribution  of  activities 
or infrastructures,  in particular in the 5th Action Programme's target sectors3. 

The  revised  Structural  Funds  regulations  introduced  the  principle  of  sustainable  development  into  the 
programming  process  and  defined  the obligations to be respected  by the regional  development  plans to 
be  submitted  by  the  Member  States  (assessment  of the  environmental  situation,  environmental  impact 
assessment  for  the  proposed  measures,  quantified  environmental  objectives  for  the  development 
priorities  and  involvement  of  the  environmental  authorities).  The  obligations  helped  to  markedly 
improve the appraisal of the environmental  impact of the programmes4. But alongside that appraisal and 
the  obligation  to  comply  with  environmental  legislation  during  programme  implementation,  the 
Structural  Funds grant very  substantial  and varied  financial  support to environmental  protection  where, 
in accordance  with  the  tasks  of the  Funds,  such  support  is  linked  to the  economic  development  of  the 
regions. This is all the more important since the operators involved in implementing the Structural Funds 
at  all  levels  are  agreed  that  the  environment  should  no  longer  be  seen  as  an  isolated  sector  but  as  an 
essential dimension  of sustainable  development  and a source of economic  initiative and  innovation, and 
so of job creation, particularly at local and regional levels. 

The Structural  Funds,  instruments for  promoting  sustainable  development 

Between  1989 and  1993 ECU 2 751 million  (about  7% of the total) was  allocated  to  measures  directly 
relating to the  environment  in Objective  1, 2 and  5(b) regions. The protection  and  improvement  of the 
environment  is therefore  a dimension  that  has been  taken  into account  since the  1988  Structural  Funds 
reform.  For the  new  period  1994-99 (1996  in the case of Objective  2), a total  of ECU 9 445  million  is 
currently earmarked  for those regions (9% of the total programmed). 

2  See  the  5th  periodic  report  on  the  social  and  economic  situation  and  development  of  the  regions  in  the 

Community. 

3 See Europe 2000+ - cooperation for European territorial development. 
4 See 1994 Annual Report. 

30 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

Table 6:  Regional Objectives of the Structural Funds - measures under  programming for 1994-96/99 directly 

related to  the environment (EUR  12 - ECU million- 1994 prices) 

Cbj.  1 

Obj.2 

(1994-99) Total 
environment 
(1994-96) Total 
environment 

Obj.5(b (1994-99) Total 

environment 

Total Objectives 

IRL 

L 

N 

B 

DK 

730 
92 
160 
8 
78 
7 
968 
107 

-
-
56 
pm(l) 
54 
pm(i) 
110 
0 

D 
13.640 
1.106 
733 
52 
1229 
•  207 
15.602 
1.365 

EL 
13.980 
624 
-
-
-
-
13.980 
624 

C 
26300 
3.034 
1.130 
40 
664 
67 
28.094 
3.141 

F 
2.189 
323 
1.763 
103 
2239 
245 
6.191 
671 

I 
14.860 
1.867 
684 
48 
904 
94 
16.448 
1009 

5.620 
74 
-
-
-
-
5.620 
74 

P 
13.980 
1.056 
-
-
-
-
13.980 
1.056 

UK 
2.360 
146 
2.142 
138 
820 
64 
5.322 
348 

Total 

93.809 
8J27 
6.975 
397 
6.144 
721 
106.928 
9.445 

100% 
8,9% 
100% 
5,7% 
100% 
11,7% 
100% 
9°/, 

150 
5 
300 
5 
150 
36 
600 
46 

-
-
7 
2 
6 
1 
13 
3 

TOTAL environment 
(1)  Impossible to give an exact figure since aivironmental measures are largely incorporated into other categories of expenditure 

The work  of the Structural  Funds  in favour  of sustainable development  is multi-facetted.  It can  be seen 
as acting at two different  times, when the assistance is planned and when  it is actually implemented, and 
as taking on four different  aspects. 

At  the  time  the  assistance  is  planned,  it  is  Structural  Funds  assistance  which  provides  for  investment 
directly relating to the environment. Such investment is aimed at two types of measure: 

•  Direct investment in environmental projects. This is most often  investment in the modernisation  and 
development  of  infrastructure  for  some  of  the  target  areas  in  the  5th  Environmental  Action 
Programme  (water,  waste, coastal  areas  and  river  basins,  industrialised  urban  environments,  natural 
areas  and  biodiversity).  In  these  areas  infrastructure  requirements  are  long-term,  particularly  in the 
least-favoured  regions (see Table below), or they are taking on a new urgency as a result of the need 
for  industrial  or agricultural  conversion.  However,  they vary greatly  according  to region,  and this  is 
clear  from  the  respective  proportion  of  the  different  investments.  For  example,  it  is  water  -  the 
purification,  collection,  distribution  and  management  of  coastal  or  inland  water  resources  -  which 
dominates  (83%)  environmental  investments  in  Objective  1  regions.  In  contrast,  cleaning  up 
pollution  and waste treatment dominates  in the industrial  Objective  2 areas (53%), although  it is also 
important (30%) in the rural Objective  5(b) areas. Lastly, among the directly environmental  measures 
under Objective  5(b), nearly 60% relates to the management of the  natural  environment,  preservation 
of the countryside and biodiversity. 

Table  7:  Average annual investment required between  1993  and 2003  to provide the least-favoured regions 

with environmental  infrastructure  in  conformity  with European  Directives  (ECU million - 1994 
prices) 

Member  State 

Urban  waste 
water 

Urban  waste 

Industrial  or 
dangerous  waste 

Water 
distribution 

TOTAL 

Spain 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Portugal 
Total 
Source1. Fifth  periodic report on the social  and economic situation  and development  in the regions 
of the  Community 

458 
240 
95 
208 
113 
656 

19 
35 
20 
15 
35 
105 

372 
95 
30 
288 
149 
562 

10 
2 
7 
14 
14 
37 

859 
372 
152 
525 
311 
1.360 

Investments  of a preventive  nature. These are measures which  are applying the  basic principles and 
recommendations  of the 5th Environmental  Action  Programme,  in other words, action  at the source, 
encouraging  the  development  of  production  processes  by  combining  direct  and  indirect  incentives 
and  diversifying  the  action  instruments.  More  specifically,  the  measures  financed  relate  to  certain 
sectors: 
in  "green  products",  "clean 
technologies"  and  energy-saving  processes);  energy  (promotion  of renewable  energy  sources,  more 
rational  use  linked  to trans-European  networks); transport  (promotion  of  urban  public transport  and 
multimodal  transport  at  European  level,  coordination  within  the  framework  of  trans-European 
towards  "cleaner"  methods, 
networks);  agriculture  (promotion  of  agricultural  diversification 

industry,  particularly  SMEs  (productive 

investments 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

3 \ 

combination  with  the agri-environmental  measures  under the  CAP  reform);  and  tourism,  where  the 
aim  is  to  develop  it  more  rationally  with  less  pressure  on  the  environment  (in  particular  "green 
tourism").  Preventive  measures  also  comprise  indirect  long-term  action,  such  as  environmental 
research  linked  to  technological  applications  and  the  training  of  workers  in  new  environmental 
technologies.  These  two  fields,  research  and  training,  also  benefit  from  appropriations  specifically 
earmarked  for them  under Objectives  1 and 2; they represent  1% of the environmental  resources  for 
Objective  1  and 6% for Objective 2. 

When  the  programmes  are  implemented,  measures  in  favour  of  the  environment  are  directed  more  at 
compliance with legislation and rules. Major  efforts  have been made in two directions, and these need to 
be pursued and  intensified: 

• 

Intensification  of assessment and monitoring.  This was particularly evident  in the prior appraisal  of 
regional  development  plans  and  programmes  in  compliance  with  the  new  rules  which  stress 
assessment  of  the  environmental  impact  of  programming.  So  environmental  objectives  were 
systematically  included  and  quantified  in the  programming  documents  (CSFs  or  SPDs)  and  special 
care  was  taken  to  specify  environmental  impact  indicators,  a  process  which  has  been  improved. 
However, there is no doubt that the environmental assessment and monitoring of the programmes can 
be improved (see below): 

Quantified environmental objectives: 
The  1994-99 programming documents include  a  series  of quantified 
environmental objectives.  In Objective  1 regions water and waste management 
predominates.  To take a few examples: in Spain,  waste water treatment capacity 
should increase from 59% to  75%  of the population  and for  dangerous  and 
toxic  waste treatment it should rise from 0.5 to 1.2  million  tonnes;  in  Greece, 
surface  water quality should improve  by 10%  and the urban  waste  treatment 
rate should increase from 25% to 45%; in Ireland,  urban waste  recycling 
should increase from 8% to 15%;  in Italy (Mezzogiorno), population coverage 
by  waste treatment facilities should increase from 50% to  70%; lastly,  in 
Portugal,  the percentage  of  the population  having access to  mains  public 
drinking water should increase from 77% to 95%. 

•  The  selection  and  implementation  of projects.  The  integration  of  environmental  concerns  at  this 
stage  is vital  to guarantee  the  impact  of the  investments  and to ensure that the  prior  appraisals  are 
correctly  applied.  The  new  rules  allow  environmental  authorities  to  be  associated  with  the 
the 
implementation  and  monitoring  of  environmentally  sensitive  measures.  In  addition, 
environment  Directives have to be complied  with, the main ones for the Structural  Funds being the 
Environmental  Impact  Assessment  (EIA)  Directive5  and  the  "Birds"  and  "Habitats"  Directives. 
The  rules  and  the  standard  clauses  in the programming  documents  expressly  stipulate  compliance 
with  those  provisions.  However,  experience  has  shown  that  progress  is  needed  in the  quality  and 
transparency  of these studies. In addition, when  it comes to project  eligibility, the selection  criteria 
must take  account  of a project's  environmental  sustainability.  The  Monitoring  Committees  are  the 
forum  for considering what progress remains to be accomplished  on these two points. 

The Communication  on cohesion policy  and the environment 

In order to report  on the  progress  already  accomplished  in  integrating the environment  into  economic 
and  social  cohesion  policy  and  to  discuss  the  options  for  future  action  towards  sustainable 
development,  the  Commission  adopted  in  1995  a communication  entitled  "Cohesion  policy  and  the 
environment"6.  It  recognised  the  progress  already  made,  but  identified  various  aspects  which  would 
promote  still further  the environmental  dimension of Structural  Fund  assistance: 

5 Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, OJNoL 175,5.7.1985. 
6 COM(95) 509 final of 22 November 1995. 

32 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

The  Commission  will  intensify  its  work  towards  a  better  understanding  of  preventive  measures, 
which  are  the  key  to  sustainable  development.  It  plans  to  undertake  a  critical  review  of 
programming documents to identify  preventive measures which could be emphasised  in the  future. 
To  encourage  environmentally  sustainable  investment,  the  Commission  will  give  priority  to 
environmental  measures when  new programmes  are adopted  or existing ones revised. To that  end, 
it plans to make more use of the opportunity to differentiate  the Community's  rate of assistance  for 
environmental  measures, as provided for  in Article  13 of the Framework  Regulation. 
The Commission  intends to intensify  discussions with the Member  States  and  regions with  a view 
to  improving  environmental  objectives  and  impact  indicators  in  programmes.  This  will  include  a 
strategic  assessment  as  well  as  an  appraisal  of  projects.  The  Monitoring  Committees  will  play  a 
key role here, given that the Member States are responsible for  implementing the programmes. 
With  regard  to  project  selection  and  implementation,  the  Commission  wishes  to  see  better 
application  of  environmental  legislation  such  as  the  EIA  Directive.  The  Commission  intends  to 
play a more active role  in preventing  infringements  of environmental  legislation  and,  if  necessary, 
will  make  vigorous  use  of  sanctions,  including  the  repayment  of  Community  funds.  To  improve 
and  speed  up  information  on  this,  dialogue  with  representative  non-governmental  environmental 
organisations could be  improved. 
Structural  Fund  assistance  should  go  beyond  mere  conformity  with  environmental  rules,  so  the 
Commission  will  require  project  eligibility  and  selection  criteria  to  reflect  the  imperatives  of 
sustainable  socio-economic  and  environmental  development.  The  Commission  will  intensify  its 
discussions on this topic with the Member  States and regions in the Monitoring  Committees. 
The  experience  of the  environmental  authorities  is essential  for  the  planning  and  implementation 
of  the  environmental  dimension  of  the  programmes,  so the  Commission  will  encourage  Member 
States to increase their capacity and  participation. 

1.3.  Monitoring  and  interim  assessment 

Reinforcing  monitoring 

The monitoring  and  assessment  of Fund  assistance, the  improvement  of which  is one of the  elements 
of  the  revised  rules  and  a  key  factor  in  their  impact,  are  carried  out  in  the  Member  States  by 
Monitoring Committees, taking full  account of the special nature of the Funds concerned  and of local, 
regional  and  national  circumstances.  The  new  rules  insist  on  the  need  for  better  appraisal  and  for  a 
procedure  which  goes  beyond  mere  financial  monitoring  in  order  to  identify  how  Community 
resources have actually been  used, in other words, to monitor physical  implementation, results and the 
impact  of  the  measures  part-financed.  With  regard  to  the  purely  quantitative  aspects  of  such 
monitoring,  the  current  generation  of  programmes  (1994-96/99)  can  be  regarded  as  considerably 
better  than  the  previous  one.  Where  the  more  qualitative  aspects  are  concerned,  it  is  certainly 
necessary to improve the monitoring systems and methods applied to appraisals and  assessments. 

To  that  end,  the  Commission  has  drawn  up  a  working  document  entitled  "Common  guide  for 
Monitoring and Interim  Evaluation" which contains guidelines  intended to assist those responsible  for 
implementing  the  Structural  Funds  in the  Member  States. It  should  provide  a clearer  picture  of  what 
monitoring  and  assessment  cover  and  act  as a reference  manual. It  is flexible  enough  to be  adaptable 
to  the  very  varied  situations  in  each  of  the  Member  States  while  presenting  a  coherent  approach  at 
Community  level.  As  such  it supports  the  monitoring  requirements  contained  in  each  CSF  and  SPD. 
The  Commission  has  no  intention  of  imposing  a  single  framework  on  Member  States,  but  rather  of 
providing a working document which can be used as a common  reference  work. To establish  effective 
monitoring rules, the guide requires: 

•  a definition  of the data to be collected, which have to provide the  information  needed  to assess the 

measures, their results and their  impact; 

•  a definition  of the content of the  information  to be supplied  to the Monitoring  Committees,  whose 
meetings  are  the  culmination  of  the  work  on  monitoring  the  assistance  and  which  provide  the 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

3 3 

• 

opportunity  for  examining  the  data  on  monitoring,  the  results  of  interim  assessment  work  and 
proposals for amending the programmes; 
recognition  of the  importance  of the annual  progress  reports  submitted  to the  Commission,  which 
supply  information  on the measures taken  and their results, progress  in administration,  the  general 
operational  bases,  the  results  of  interim  assessments  and  the  discussions  and  decisions  in  the 
Committees during the programming period. 

Implementation  of the interim  assessments 

General  principles:  The  main  purpose  of  the  interim  assessments  is  to  reinforce  the  monitoring 
mechanism  and  to  give  the  Monitoring  Committees  a  genuinely  useful  management  tool.  They 
therefore  consist  of  a  critical  analysis  of  all  the  data  collected,  in  particular  during  the  monitoring 
procedure,  and  a  measurement  of  the  way  in  which  the  objectives  pursued  are  gradually  achieved, 
while providing an explanation  of any deficiencies  and a forecast  of the results of the assistance. They 
also  assess  the  validity  of  the  assistance  in  progress  and  the  relevance  of  its  objectives.  The 
assessments  provide  the  Monitoring  Committees  with  assessment  factors  and  specific  proposals 
relating to problems  arising, with the aim of improving or adjusting,  if necessary, the  implementation 
of the  measures  using  the  possibilities  for  amendment  offered  by  the  regulations.  As  a  general  rule, 
assistance  lasting  longer than three years  is subject to a mid-term  assessment  after  the end  of the third 
year; this  is  intended  to  provide  a basis  for  any necessary  amendments.  It  also  undergoes  an  ex  post 
evaluation  at  the  end  of  the  reference  period.  In  the  case  of  Objective  2,  where  assistance  lasts  for 
three  years,  the  mid-term  assessment  is  to  be  replaced  by  a  provisional  report  on  the  assistance 
provided  during the first  programming  period. 

Operational procedure:  The  interim  assessment  consists  in  adopting  a  systematic  procedure  for  the 
critical  analysis  of the  information  provided  by the monitoring  system. This procedure,  which  should 
be established  by  each  Monitoring  Committee, must permit the collection  of quantitative  data  on  the 
physical  and  financial  execution  of  the  measures  and  on  the  observed  results  and  impact.  In 
partnership  with  the  Commission,  the  Monitoring  Committees  must  also  organise 
the  assessment 
procedure:  selection  of  an  independent  assessor  (expert  or  group  of  experts),  preparation  of  work 
specifications,  establishment  of the timetable for reports, information  for the assessor,  appraisal  of the 
assessment  reports.  This  procedure  must  fit  in  with  the  Monitoring  Committee  timetable  and  its 
administration  work.  As  a  general  rule,  because  of  legal  requirements,  it  is  intended  to  organise  the 
interim  assessment  process for the 6-year  Objectives  in the following  way: 

•  a  preliminary  report  on  the  feasibility  of the  assessment,  covering  an  analysis  of  the  quality  and 

content of the programming document and of the monitoring  system  established; 

•  a  mid-term  assessment  report  prepared  after  the  third  year  of  activity,  followed  by  additional 

reports; 

•  a first  summary  report  at the end  of  1999 which  will  provide the  preparatory  work  for  the  final  ex 

post  assessment. 

In the case of Objective  2, the mid-term  report will be replaced  by an analysis  before  the end  of  1996 
of the initial  results; this will be reinforced  by the Objective  2 expost  evaluation  for  1989-93. 

Implementation:  After  adoption  of the CSFs, SPDs and other forms  of assistance  under Objectives  1, 
2  and  5(b),  the  Commission  discussed  the  general  interim  assessment  approach  with  the  Member 
States. At the  end  of  often  laborious  negotiations,  a general  consensus  was  reached  which,  allowing 
for sometimes  substantial  nuances of interpretation,  finally  resulted  in support  for that approach  at the 
informal  ministerial  meeting  in  Madrid  in  December  19957.  However,  the  Committees'  assessment 
procedures  are  being  introduced  very  slowly  and  often  run  up against  problems  of  an  organisational 
nature. For  instance, by the end of December  1995, eight of the nearly  130 Objective  1 committees  or 

7 See Chapter III.A.3. Informal  meetings of the ministers responsible for regional policy and planning. 

34 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

sub-committees  had  appointed  their  experts  (Ireland,  Belgian  Hainaut  and  Corsica),  80  had 
programmed  invitations  to  tender  for  the  first  half  of  1996  and  40  had  not  yet  taken  a  decision.  In 
respect  of  the  80  which  have  programmed  invitations  to  tender,  the  Commission  has  ensured  that 
special  work  specifications  are  being  established  and  adopted  by the  Monitoring  Committees  so  that 
assessor selection  procedures can be  launched. 

With  regard  to  Objective  2, the  specifics  of the  interim  assessments  appear  to  vary  from  country  to 
country and will be detailed  separately  in each case. The Monitoring Committees  have paid  particular 
attention  to the  operational  implementation  of the method.  By the  end  of  December  1995  only  three 
committees  (two  in Germany  and  one  in Belgium) out of  80 had  appointed  their  assessors.  Denmark, 
Sweden  and  Finland  had  launched  invitations  to  tender,  France  and  the  Netherlands  were  planning 
them but Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom  and Austria had not yet adopted  any provisions. This  made 
it  difficult  at  the  end  of  1995  to  forecast  how  many  summary  reports  could  actually  be  prepared 
before the end of  1996 and be usable for the second Objective 2 programming period  (1997-99). 

Similarly, for  Objectives  3 and 4, the guidelines contained  in the  "Common  guide for  Monitoring  and 
Interim  Evaluation"  were  presented  in  the  Member  States  at  special  meetings  or  at  meetings  of  the 
Monitoring  Committees.  There  was  a  need  to  make  ESF  partners  more  aware  of  the  assessment  of 
programming  and  management  activities  so that  the  Monitoring  Committees  could  use the  results  of 
assessments  for  the  management  of  measures.  In  order  to  formalise  the  methodology  of  assessment 
work, technical  assessment  groups were  set up in the Monitoring  Committees; this was  accomplished 
with  some  difficulty  because  of the  schedule  for  the  procedures  for  the  selection  of  the  independent 
assessors, which  had  not yet started  by December  1995  in all  Member  States. An  initial  report  by  the 
independent  assessors  was  awaited  at  the  beginning  of  1996.  This  will  provide  an  analysis  of  the 
existing  monitoring  and  assessment  systems  to  be  drawn  up  and  recommendations  for  their 
improvement  within  the  framework  of  the  interim  assessments.  The  first  report  assessing  the 
measures will be available at the beginning of 1997. 

With  regard  to  Objective  5(b),  the  interim  assessment  is  based  on  the  guidelines  approved  in 
September  1994  by  the  Committee  for  Agricultural  Structures  and  Rural  Development.  That 
assessment  will  provide  the  initial  results  of the  execution  and  impact  of  the  programmes  up  to  mid 
1997. The  assessors,  whose  selection  is  in progress, will  also  provide  their  support  for  the  collection 
and analysis of data used for preparation  of the annual reports by the Monitoring  Committees. 

In  general,  considerable  progress  was  made  compared  with  the  previous  programming  period  but  it 
will be necessary to ensure that Community expenditure has a significant  economic and social  return. 

1.4.  Verification  of  additionality 

Work  on  verification  of  additionality  in  1995  was  a  very  heavy  statistical  and  accounting  exercise 
both  for  the  Commission  and  for  the  Member  States.'  It  made  all  partners  aware,  sometimes 
reluctantly,  of  the  importance  of the  question:  to  guarantee  that  eligible  public  expenditure,  whether 
or not part-financed  by the Structural  Funds, in eligible regions  is maintained  at at least the same  level 
in the current programming  period  as it was in the previous period,  1989-93, so that the funds  granted 
have  a  genuine  impact.  However,  the  results  of  the  work  vary  greatly  according  to  the  stage  of  the 
verification  process, the Objective  and the Member State concerned. 

Prior appraisal of  additionality 

Objective  1 : The principle of additionality had been verified  by prior appraisal  for the eligible  regions 
in  1994 for the period  1994-99 and for  the ten Member  States concerned  at the time the  programming 
documents  were  being  prepared  and  adopted.  In  1995,  this  was  also  confirmed  for  Austria 
(Burgenland).  However,  in  1995  there  was  still  a  problem  with  France,  which  had  undertaken  to 
provide, before  31 December  1994, an update of the data  in the financial tables  included  in the  SPDs, 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

3 5 

those  figures  being  insufficiently  representative  of  the  total  amount  of  eligible  national  expenditure 
under Objective  1. That  undertaking  was not respected  in  1994, nor was  it in  1995. At the end  of that 
year the Commission  had still not received  any updating of the French  SPD data under Objective  1. 

The principle of additionality  for  the regions eligible  under Objective  2 had  also  been  verified  by  prior 
appraisal  in  1994 for  the  nine  Member  States  concerned,  with  the  exception  of  Belgium,  France,  Italy 
and  Luxembourg;  a  suspensory  clause  was  inserted  in  the  decisions  adopting  the  programming 
documents  for  those  countries.  That  clause  suspends  payment  of the  second  Structural  Funds  advance 
until  the relevant  information  needed  for  a prior appraisal  of additionality  is provided.  The  clause  was 
lifted  in May  1995 for  Belgium  and  in December  1995 for France after  the figures  needed to verify  that 
the principle of additionality had been correctly respected ex ante were transmitted. It was, however, still 
in force  at the end  of  1995  for  Italy  and  Luxembourg8.  The additionality  principle  was verified  for  the 
three new Member States in  1995 during the adoption of the Objective 2 programming documents. 

Objective  5(b): Here, verification  has run up against methodological  problems. Definition  of the eligible 
areas  does  not  always  correspond  to  the  administrative  units  and  this  poses  problems-regarding  the 
availability  of  data  on  public  expenditurein  those  areas.  In  such  cases,  Member  States  fell  back  on 
methods  for  estimating  expenditure  within  the  areas.  For  a  large  number  of  the  eligible  areas, 
additionality  information  was  included  in  the  programming  documents  or  supplied  separately  by  the 
national  administrations.  In  those  cases  the  Commission  was  able  to  verify  additionality  before 
approving  the  programmes.  Where  the  information  was  not  yet  available  the  approval  decisions 
contained  a  clause  suspending  Community  payments  (for  example  in  Germany  and  the  Netherlands) 
pending transmission  of the necessary  information.  Since then the information  has been  supplied and the 
Commission  has  been  able  to  verify  compliance  with  the  additionality  principle  in  all  Objective  5(b) 
areas. 

The  additionality  principle  also  applies  to  all  measures  under  Objective  5(a).  However,  verification 
poses  problems  relating  to  the  nature  of  the  measures.  Although  it  has  proved  possible  to  verify 
application  of  the  principle  for  measures  intended  to  improve  structures  for  the  processing  and 
marketing of agricultural  and forestry  products (Regulations (EEC) Nos 866/90 and  867/90) which  were 
subject  to  programming,  the  principle  is  only  partly  applicable  to  measures  intended  to  improve 
production  structures.  The  diversity  of  national  aid  measures  for  identical  purposes  and  the  vast 
dispersion  of administrations  makes the gathering of coherent and comparable  data difficult.  A working 
paper  was  discussed  in  depth  with  the  Member  States  at  a  STAR  Committee  meeting  and  in  the 
Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 Monitoring Committees during 1995. 

The two Member  States affected  by Objective  6, Sweden and Finland, have both  respected  the principle 
of additionality. 

On-going assessment  of  additionality 

Nearly  all  the  Objective  2  programming  documents  were  adopted  at  the  end  of  1994  so  the  on-going 
assessment  of additionality  for  those zones did not commence  in  1995, so as not to  place  an  additional 
burden on procedures. The Commission was to start work in  1996, as for Objective 6. 

Objective  1  programmes were adopted earlier, in mid  1994, and the rules for the on-going assessment of 
additionality  were  included  in  the  programming  documents.  This  is  therefore  an  obligation  resulting 
from  a partnership  agreement  between  each  Member  State  and  the  Commission  which  consists  in  the 
annual  updating  of the  information  initially  provided  in the programming  documents. The  Commission 
did not receive any updated  information  from  the Member States except for Portugal, so in October  1995 
it  restarted  the  procedure  by  sending  a  letter  to  all  Member  States  concerned  by  Objective  1.  At  that 
time, three countries (France, Italy and the United Kingdom) had still not respected the time limits in the 

8 The suspensory clause has since been lifted  for Italy. 

36 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

programming documents. At the end of  1995 the situation  was varied: Germany, Belgium, France, Italy 
and  the  Netherlands  had  supplied  no  figures;  Spain,  Greece,  Portugal  and  the  United  Kingdom  had 
supplied  incomplete  figures  (to varying  degrees), while Ireland  had  supplied  satisfactory  figures  which 
allowed verification  of the fact that in  1995 additionality was respected. 

Objectives  3  and  4:  Figures  for  the  on-going  assessment  of  additionality  were  requested  from  all 
Member  States  in  1995. Nevertheless,  since  the  Objective  3  programmes  were  adopted  at  the  end  of 
1994  and  given  the  new  character  of  Objective  4, the  majority  of  the  replies  were  expected  in  1996. 
Figures received  by the end of  1995 (from  France and Luxembourg) suggest that additionality  has been 
respected there. 

In  general  terms,  despite  the  relatively  slow  progress  in  submitting  data,  the  Commission  and  the 
Member States have worked closely and intensively to clarify  the methodology for the collection of data 
and to increase their  transparency.  Once these bases are in position,  future  work  on verification  will  be 
made much easier. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

37 

2.  Objective 1 

2.1.  Implementation  of Objective  1 in 1995 

The  second  programming  period  (1994-99)  was  for  the  most  part  launched  in  1994;  the  process 
continued  in 1995. 24 operations were adopted in 1995: one SPD (Austria9),  16 OPs, 5 global grants and 
two major projects, as compared with a total of 141 in 1994 (127 OPs,  11 SPDs and three global grants). 
Thus,  in  1994 and  1995  all  the  Objective  1  CSFs  (6)  and  SPDs  (12)  were  adopted,  together  with 
143 OPs, 8 global grants and two major  projects (i.e. a total of 165 operations not including the CSFs). 

With  regard  to  integration  between  the  Funds,  88 of  the  165  operations  adopted  in  1994-95  (53%) 
concern only one Fund (49 the ERDF, 20 the ESF, 16 the EAGGF and three the FIFG). Of the 34 (21%) 
financed  by two Funds, the vast majority  (31) are joint  operations by the ERDF and the ESF, with one 
by the ERDF and the EAGGF, one by the ERDF and the FIFG and one by the ESF and the EAGGF. No 
operations  were  adopted  involving  the  EAGGF  and  the  FIFG  or  the  ESF  and  the  FIFG.  31  (19%) 
operations  are financed  by three Funds. These all concern the ERDF, the ESF and the EAGGF  (not the 
FIFG), except  for one, which  involves the FIFG but not the EAGGF. Lastly,  12 (7%) operations  were 
adopted which include financing  from  all four Funds. 

Table 8:  Objective 1 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-99 (ECU million) 

B 
730,0 * 
730,0 
100% 
107,0 
15% 
79,8 
11% 

D 
13.640,0 ** 
13.621,9 
100% 

3.892,1 
29% 
2.470,1 
18% 

EL 
13.980,0 *• 
13.661,1 
98% 
4.544,9 
33% 
2.760,7 
20% 

E 
26.300,0  •• 
24.668,3 
94% 
8.372,4 
34% 
5.570,0 
23% 

F 
2.189,2* 
2.189,2 
100% 
497,6 
23% 
286,7 
13% 

IRL 
5.620,0  •* 
5.622,5 
100% 
1.680,1 
30% 
1.369,6 
24% 

I 
14.860,0 ** 
13.491,6 
91% 
3.024,7 
22% 
1.555,4 
12% 

N 
150,0  * 
150,0 
100% 
37,2 
25% 
19,6 
13% 

AT 
165,6  • 
165,6 
100% 
28,8 
17% 
14,4 
9% 

P 
13.980,0 ** 
13.905,8 
99% 
4.548,8 
33% 
3.263,4 
23% 

UK 
2.359,8  • 
2.359,8 
100% 
532,3 
23% 
331,4 
14% 

Total 
93.974,6 
90.565,7 
96% 
27.265,9 
30% 
17.721,1 
20% 

Progiammed 
Adopted 
% adopted 

Commitments  1994-95 
% of assistance 
Payments  1995-95 

% of assistance 
* Programmed by SPD 
** Programmed by CSF 

Progress  on  the  implementation  of  Objective  1  at  the  end  of  the  first  two  years  of  the  1994-99 
programming  period  is  fairly  satisfactory.  Almost  all  (96%)  the  assistance  programmed  has  been 
adopted,  as  SPDs  and  as  OPs,  global  grants  and  major  projects.  Actual  implementation,  which 
commenced for some operations in  1994, is now underway. Almost one third of total assistance has now 
been committed to the adopted  operations, with most progress  in this respect by the four  Member  States 
which  are  beneficiaries  of  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  Belgium  in  the  rear  with  the  lowest  level  of 
commitments. Naturally,  there has been  less progress  in terms of payments  since, apart  from  advances 
paid  out  when  assistance  is  adopted,  Community  payments  are  made  only  at  the  request  of  national 
authorities  as actual  implementation  progresses. The fact  that the rate of payment  of assistance  is only 
20%  is  therefore  mainly  due  to  the  adoption  of  programmes  in  late  1994. However,  this  has  been 
remedied  in some cases in  1995. The situation  varies from  one Member  State to another, again with the 
four  Member  States  which  are  beneficiaries  of  the  Cohesion  Fund  in  the  lead,  with  payments 
approaching one quarter of available aid, and Belgium and Austria bringing up the rear. 

9 See Chapter I.A.7, Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies. 

38 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

to  bring 

environmental 

investments,  most  of  which  concerns  measures 

the  regions  they  serve  from  ecological  damage  and  important  for 

Consideration  of the  environment  in  Objective  1  measures: 
Environmental  assistance  by  the  Structural  Funds  in  Objective  1 regions  and  Member  States  mainly 
involves  direct  investment  in environmental  projects,  often  on a very  large  scale.  For  the period  1994-
earmarked 
99,  ECU  8 327  million,  or  9%  of  total funding  programmed  for  Objective  1,  is  explicitly 
for 
environmental 
infrastructures  up  to  standard.  The  Fifth  Periodic  Report  on  the  social  and  economic  situation  and 
development  of  the  regions  in  the  Community  revealed  that  these  infrastructures  are  particularly 
they  are  both  vital  for 
lacking  in  the  most  backward  regions,  despite  recent  progress.  Moreover, 
protecting 
to 
their  contribution 
economic  activity  in the  regions  and  localities  concerned. 
The  main  ecological  problems  facing  Objective  1 regions  concern  the protection  and  management  of 
water  resources,  be  they  coastal  or  inland,  urban  or  natural,  and  the  disposal  of  domestic, 
industrial 
and  toxic  waste;  86%  of  the  appropriations  granted  directly  for  the  environment  under  Objective  1 
are  allocated  to  these  two  areas.  The projects  and  measures  financed  concern  the  treatment  of  waste 
water,  water  capture  and  supply,  the  collection,  treatment  and  recycling  of  waste  and  the-elean-up  of 
coastal  areas  and  river  basins. 
In  these  regions,  much  of  the  support  for  productive  investments  also  has  an  indirect  beneficial  effect 
on 
of 
transport, 
tourism  or energy-saving  measures  (particularly  in  SMEs). 
environment-friendly 
A  number  of  agricultural  programmes  provide  for  measures  to protect  the  environment,  for  example 
by  controlling  farm  pollution  and  protecting 
supplement 
the  environmental  measures  adopted  in the  wake  of the  CAP  reform. 
Despite 
infrastructure  projects  financed  under  Objective  1  are  subject 
evaluation  and  environmental 

the 
to  the  same  rigorous  monitoring, 

landscapes  in  rural  areas.  These  measures 

investments  mainly  concern  public 

impact  studies  as all  other  projects. 

the  countries  benefiting 

their  scale,  particularly 

the  Cohesion  Fund, 

the  environment. 

the  promotion 

Such 

from 

in 

Table 9:  Objective 1  and  the  environment  -  breakdown  of  appropriations  allocated  directly  to  the 

environment  in 1994-99 (EUR  12 - ECU million - 1994 prices) 

Drainage  and  d i s t r i b u t i on  ot  water  r e s o u r c es  (a) 
Urban  and  industrial  e n v i r o n m e n t,  p r o t e c t i on  of  nature  (b) 
Collection  and  t r e a t m e nt  of  w a s te  (e) 
R e s e a r c h,  train  in g  and  o t h e rs  (d) 

T o t a| 

6.970 
1.057 
225 
75 
8.327 

( b )1 3% 

<C> 3 % ( d ) l% 

(a)  83% 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

39 

2.2. Country-by-country  survey 

BELGIUM 

SPD programming for 1994-99 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

ECU million 
EAGGF 

FIFG 

Stimulation of economic activity (a) 
Improving attractiveness (b) 
Transport  infrastructures (c) 
Equal opportunities (d) 
Technical assistance (e) 

480,1 
90,6 
30,9 
124,6 
3,8 

388,9 
85,9 
30,9 
7,6 
2,6 

Total 
% 

730,0 
100% 

515,9 
71% 

45,5 
3,0 

45,3 
1,7 

0,4 

117,0 
1,2 

166,7 
23% 

47,0 
6% 

0,4 
0% 

(C)  4% 

(b)  12% 

(d)i7% 

( e>1% 

(a)  66% 

Implementation in 1995 

Hainault  is the only  Belgian  province  eligible  under  Objective  1. Its programming  was adopted  in  the 
form  of an SPD in June  1994. The total contribution  from  the four  Structural  Funds amounts to ECU 730 
million. The most important priority in the SPD concerns aid to industry. By the end of 1995 investment 
aid had been granted for the creation or expansion of 250 businesses and this will  lead to the creation of 
some 2 000 jobs during the period  from  July  1994 to the end of 1996. The SPD provides for the creation 
over  six years  of some  4 800 jobs  under  these  two measures  and about  15 000 jobs  under  the entire 
programme.  These  two  measures  have  been  given  priority  by  the  Walloon  authorities  and are 
progressing rapidly. 

The technical  and financial  committees  approved  fewer  projects  under  the  other  priorities  in  1994  and 
1995,  so no significant  results  have  yet been  attained  for these.  Approved  measures  mainly  concern 
strengthening the research  and development poles, cleaning  up derelict  industrial  and  urban  sites, access 
to and facilities for industrial zones, water and waste management and transport  infrastructure. 

The environment in the SPD for  Hainault: no separate priority  is dedicated to the environment,  but 
it forms  part  of two different priorities.  Firstly, the priority  concerning economic revival  includes a 
special  measure for  the industrial environment, aiming at reclaiming derelict  industrial and  urban 
sites  and so  on  (with  ECU 42  million  from  the ERDF).  Secondly,  the priority  to  enhance the 
attractiveness of the  area  includes environmental measures for  the management  of water resources 
and  waste  (with  ECU 47  million  from  the ERDF)  and for  training  in  environmental  protection 
(ECU 3 million from the ESF). In all, the Community's contribution to these environmental measures 
amounts to ECU 92 million, i.e. 13% of the entire allocation to Hainault. 

1995 in the context  of the 1994-99 programming  period 

Overall,  not  enough  appropriations  have  been  taken  up yet  for  the  1995 ERDF  instalment  to be 
committed  (but  this  is now planned  for  1996). By contrast,  utilization  of the  EAGGF,  ESF  and FIFG 
appropriations  is proceeding  normally  and the  1995 instalments  have been committed.  In addition.  ;it its 
second  meeting  in  1995  the Monitoring  Committee  decided  to transfer  some  EAGGF  appropriations 
from  measures for the food  industry to aquaculture projects financed  by the FIFG. 

Table 10:  Objective 1 - Belgium - Financial implementation of the SPD (ECU million) 

Programme and year ol adoption 

T9W 

Sl'DHainaut 

Total cost  S K assistance 

Commitment 
1995 

(1) 

Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) 

(2yo) 

Payments 
1995 

Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 

(3y(2> 

2.411,7) 

"W5T 

yjn 

15% 

"TÏÏ7 ï 

~?m 

79,}J|  75%' 

40 

GERMANY 

CSF pmgrumnùngfor 1994-99 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ECU million 

Productive  investirent  (a) 
AidforSMEs(b) 
R&D, innovation  (c) 
Environment  (d) 
Human  resources, training (e) 
Agriculture, rural areas, fisheries  (0 
Technical assistance (g) 

2.430,6 
2.317,9 
613,1 
1.105,7 
3.648,2 
3.224,3 
300,2 

2.375,2 
2.064,7 
485,0 
805,7 
584,1 
425,3 
80,0 

55,4 
253,2 
128,1 
300,0 
3.064,1 
107,3 
183,9 

2.608,2 
36,3 

Total 
% 

13.640,0 
100% 

6.820,0 
50% 

4.092,0 
30% 

2.644,5 
19% 

83,5 

83,5 
1% 

(9) 2% 

(a) 18% 

(f)  24% 

(b) 17% 

(e) 27% 

(d)  8% 

A  CSF  was  adopted  for  the  new  German  Lander  in  1994.  It  is  being  implemented  by  means  of  18 
operational  programmes  entailing  Community  assistance totalling  ECU  13 622  million.  The CSF  takes 
an  integrated  approach  with  three  OPs  for  each  of  the  new  Lander  relating  to  economic  development 
(mainly  funded  by  the  ERDF, with  additional  measures  by the  ESF and the  EAGGF),  development  of 
the  labour market  (mainly  funded  by the  ESF, with additional  measures by the  ERDF and the  ESF) and 
development  of rural  areas (mainly  funded  by the EAGGF, with additional  measures  by the ERDF and 
the  ESF).  In  Eastern  Berlin,  measures  by  all  three  Funds  are  integrated  into  a  single  OP.  Two  other 
programmes, one  funded  by the  ESF and  the other  by the FIFG, are being  implemented  horizontally  in 
all the Lander. 

Implementation in 1995 

Implementation  of  the  priorities  in  the  CSF  is  progressing  well.  At  31 December  1995,  about  9 300 
projects  had  received  aid  from  the  ERDF.  64 600  new  jobs  had  been  created,  and  about  117 000 
maintained,  thanks  to  productive  investments  and  aid  to  SMEs.  The  rural  development  programmes 
opened the way for 20 300 jobs to be created or maintained in  1994-95. 

Measures  to improve  the environment  in the new Lander have a priority  to themselves  in the  CSF. 
They are mostly financed  by the ERDF (ECU 806 million, or 12% of all ERDF appropriations for  the 
CSF),  with  a  substantial  contribution  from  the  ESF  (ECU 300  million).  In  all,  this  represents 
ECU 1 106  million  from  the  Structural  Funds,  accounting for  8%  of  aid  under  the  CSF.  The 
environmental priority  in  the  CSF  is  implemented by  means  of  measures  included  in  each  of  the 
regional  OPs.  The  ERDF  measures  concentrate  on  industiy  and  commerce,  businesses  supplying 
environmental products  and services and the development of environmental protection  infrastructure 
(rehabilitation  of  derelict  industrial  and  commercial sites,  creation  of  water  treatment  facilities, 
environmental technology activity centres, sei"vice enterprises and environmental agencies whose task 
is to advise and inform SMEs). ESF funding  goes to skilling in the context of employment projects  and 
the promotion  of ecological  occupations, for  example by providing  training for  employees  in SMEs. 
At the end of 1995, 461 projects  had already received aid under this priority. 

Under the CSF priority  relating to aid  for  productive  investments  and economic  support  infrastructures, 
most  aid  for  productive  investment  has gone towards  setting  up subsidiaries  and  independent  activities, 
in  support 
rationalizing  and  converting  existing  firms,  and  commercial 
infrastructure  concern  the development  of commercial  and  industrial  sites, technology  centres,  industrial 
and  business  parks,  supply  and  waste  disposal  facilities  and  public tourism  services.  About  35% of the 
ERDF  appropriations  available  for  the  programming  period  have  been  allocated  to  this  priority,  under 
which  2 480  projects  had  received  ERDF aid by the end of  1995 (including  1  308  in Saxony) and  about 
24 400  jobs had  been  created  and  some  57 700 maintained  (including  32 800  in  Saxony). Although  the 
ESF's contribution  to this priority is relatively meagre (1.4% of appropriations),  it is important because it 
goes towards placing job-seekers, particularly young people, and creating in-house training places. 

tourism.  Investments 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

41 

Under  the  CSF  priority  relating  to  aid  to  SMEs,  an  initial  set  of  measures  concerns  productive 
investment  (creation  of  SMEs  and  expansion,  rationalization  and  conversion  of  existing  SMEs).  A 
second  set  of  measures  concerns  support  services  for  SMEs  (creation  and  utilization  of  infrastructures 
such  as industrial  and  business parks, supply and waste disposal  services; shared  premises  and  services 
such as technology and  innovation centres and business incubators; creation  of shared business  facilities 
for  vocational  training;  mobilization  of  local  development  potential;  market  access  and  business 
management  assistance).  About  30% of  ERDF  appropriations  for  1994-99  have  been  allocated  to  this 
priority.  The  ESF  contribution  (about  6%  of appropriations)  goes  towards  continuing  training  and  job 
stabilization.  Particular  effort  is  being  focused  on  improving  management  in  SMEs  in  the  following 
areas: organization  of work and staff, management, marketing, product creation and quality. With  regard 
to the  Eastern  Berlin  OP, at the  end  of  1995 the Commission  authorized  the  transfer  of about  ECU 48 
million  from  the priority concerning aid for productive  investments to the development  of industrial  and 
commercial  sites, to make available  a greater number of sites for  leasing to regional  SMEs. By the end 
of  1995, 5 536  projects  had  received  aid  under  this  priority,  and  about  35 000 jobs  were  created  and 
some 53 500 maintained. 

Another of the CSF's  priorities concerns research, technological  development  and  innovation.  Measures 
include,  for  example,  investments  in  research  services  and  laboratories,  aid  to  technology  centres  and 
product  creation  and  advice  on  technology  and  marketing.  ESF  assistance  under  this  priority  concerns 
mainly  investments  in  vocational  training  and  the  placement  of  young  researchers  (as  innovation 
assistants,  for  example).  It  has  not  been  possible  to  utilize  all  of  the  available  funds  (3% of  all  ESF 
appropriations).  Given  the  importance  of  this  priority  for  the  economic  development  of  the  Lander,  a 
special  effort  will  be  made  to  catch  up.  By  the  end  of  1995  307  projects  had  received  aid  under  this 
priority, 40% of which are in Eastern Berlin. 

The  operational  programmes  to  stimulate  employment  cover  a  wide  range  of  measures  to  assist  the 
labour  market  and  restructure  education  and  training  systems.  About  80%  of  ESF  appropriations  for 
1995  were  concentrated  on  these  OPs  (ECU 489  million).  The  lion's  share  of  ESF  assistance  is 
channelled towards young people (Youthstart type measures) to guarantee apprenticeship training places 
and  specific  packages  to  help  young  people  from  deprived  backgrounds.  Specific  modular  training 
courses  are  planned  for  the  unemployed  to  provide  vocational  and  social  skills,  language  training  and 
training abroad. Special attention  is given to vocational training for  women  and their (re)integration  into 
working  life;  in  addition  to  specific  measures,  provision  is  made  to  maintain  the  high  rate  of  female 
employment  (above  50%). Substantial  assistance  is  provided  for  the  creation  of  independent  activities 
and  management  for  SMEs.  ESF  assistance  makes  a  substantial  contribution  to  the  employment 
programmes  in  the  new  Lander,  accounting  for  20-35%  of  their  expenditure.  An  estimated  100 000 
people have taken  part  in measures part-financed  by the ESF. The ERDF will  also contribute  under  this 
CSF priority, to the tune of ECU 584.1 million (9% of ERDF appropriations  for  1994-99), for  measures 
to  create  and  develop  training  places  and  training  workshops  for  industry  and  business,  vocational 
schools and specialized colleges as well as vocational training centres. 

The  operational  programmes  relating  to rural  development  aim  at  improving  the  economic  situation  in 
agriculture. The ERDF will contribute  ECU 425.3 million  (about 6% of ERDF appropriations  for  1994-
96)  for  the  development  of  infrastructure  in  rural  areas  (equipping  of  industrial  and  business  sites, 
infrastructure  to support economic activities).  By the end of  1995 439 projects  had received  ERDF aid 
under  these  OPs. In  the  food  industry  there  has been  a transfer  of  activities  away  from  milk  and  meat 
(the  drastic  reduction  in  livestock  production  has  resulted  in  overcapacity  in  slaughterhouses)  towards 
flowers  and plants and fruit  and vegetables. As a rule, investment  is concentrated  on new products which 
require  more  sophisticated  processing.  Lastly,  village  renewal  is  without  doubt  a  motor  for  rural 
development.  It mobilizes a great deal of private capital  in a multitude of small  investments which  have 
a  remarkable  impact  on  local  craft  activities  and  the creation  of jobs  outside  agriculture  in  rural  areas. 
The  ESF  is contributing  ECU  107.3  million  (3% of  ESF  appropriations  for  1994-99)  to these  OPs  for 
measures  to  strengthen  and  maintain  jobs  (SMEs)  in  areas  such  as  tourism,  commerce  and 
environmental  improvement.  Priority  is  given  to  the  skilling  and  (re)integration  of  the  unemployed 
(more than  50% women), where measures often  include contributions from  other Funds. 

42 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

It was necessary  to reprogramme  FIFG  measures to assist  fisheries  to cope  with  an accelerated  rate of 
investment in certain areas of assistance. 

Lastly, the  1994-99  CSF contains  ECU 300.2  million  for technical  assistance. At the end of  1995, 269 
ERDF  measures  had  been  approved  and set up, mostly  for the  implementation  and  monitoring  of the 
OPs. 

With regard to the mid-term  review of the programmes, ad hoc committees  set up in the second  half of 
1995 have drawn  up a detailed  timetable for the presentation  of assessment  reports at Lander  level (the 
final  reports are scheduled  for April  1997) and the summary report at CSF level  (final  report  scheduled 
for July  1997) and have fixed  the terms of reference  for the evaluation, which  have been adopted  by the 
Monitoring Committee. 

1995 in the context  of the 1994-99 programming  period 

With  regard to the financial  implementation  of the CSF, commitments  are quite  satisfactory  at 29% of 
Structural  Fund  assistance. At the end of  1995, payments  for  1994 and  1995  amounted  to  ECU 2 470 
million, ERDF payments were ECU 1  027, i.e. 15% of ERDF appropriations for  1994-99 and 95% of the 
instalments  for  1994 and  1995. Good  progress  is  also  being  made  in  EAGGF  operations  in  the new 
Lander. Investments  and projects  have been  launched  on a large scale and the take-up  of appropriations 
is  satisfactory. 

Table 11:  Objective 1 - Germany - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 

Programmes  and  year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

SF  assistance 

(1) 

743,1 
964,8 
729,9 
471,9 
785,1 
676,6 
362,2 

2.081,2 
621,5 
659,8 
1.190,8 
583,5 
590,6 
1.021,8 
521,0 
457,9 

2.442,9 
6.141,4 
2.417,8 
889,1 
5  819,0 
1.880,7 
808,6 
8.908,0 
1.679,4 

948,3 
9.488,8 
2.059,0 
974,2 
8.240,4 
2.432,9 
778,6 

Commitments 
1995 

Commitments 
1994-95 

(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 

(2) 

Payments 
1994-95 

(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

110,0 
95,4 
107,3 
70,2 
117,7 
197,8 
54,9 
267,4 
86,9 
107,3 
177,1 
81,3 
80,2 
152,6 
77,2 
68,1 

211,4 
226.3 
207.2 
134,8 
224,2 
296,6 
104,6 
590,1 
179,8 
146,2 
338,6 
173,9 
161,1 
291,3 
149,4 
130,8 

28% 
23% 
28% 
29% 
29% 
44% 
29% 
28% 
29% 
22% 
28% 
30% 
27% 
29% 
29% 
29% 

47,2 
87,2 
85,3 
55,8 
123,8 
79,0 
44,7 
156,3 
76,9 
65,3 
48,1 
77,5 
40,1 
10,6 
52,1 
66,5 

107,0 
155,8 
162,1 
104,5 
177,1 
156,4 
69,5 
391,9 
142,3 
84,8 
128,8 
124,2 
102,8 
118,8 
89,4 
97,9 

51% 
69% 
78% 
77% 
79% 
53% 
66% 
66% 
79% 
58% 
38% 
71% 
64% 
4 1% 
60% 
75% 

197,2 
2.360,5 
58.466,9 

83,5 
1.076,7 
13.621,9 

12,0 
159,5 
2.022,6 

19,0 
306,7 
3.892.1 

23% 
28% 
29% 

8,1 
127,6 
1.252,0 

11,6 
245,4 
2.470,1 

6 1% 
80% 
6 3% 

1994 
Regional  OPs 

OP  Eastern  Berlin 
OP  Brandenburg  (1) 
OP  Brandenburg  (2) 
OP  Brandenburg  (3) 
OP  Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania (1) 
OP  Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania  (2) 

OP  Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania  (3) 
OP  Saxony  (1) 
OP  Saxony  (2) 
OP  Saxony  (3) 
OP  Saxony-Anhalt (1) 
OP  Saxony-Anhalt  (2) 
OP Saxony-Anhalt  (3) 
OPThunngia(l) 
OPThuringia(2) 
OPThuringia(3) 
UP  Multircgionul 
OP  Fisheries 
OP Training  of labour  force 

TOTAL 

(\)  Economic  development 
(2)  Rural  development 
(3)  Labour  market 

In  1995 the CSF for  1991-93 was still being completed. By the end of the year  100% of Structural  Fund 
appropriations  had  been  committed.  ECU 1  437  million,  or  92%  of  the  total  ERDF  appropriations 
available  under the  1991-93  CSF (ECU 1  567 million), had been  paid  by the end of  1995 without any 
payments  actually  having  been  made  during  1995 itself,  because  the  final  reports  and  final  payment 
requests  for  the  completed  OPs  were  not  yet  available  at  the  end  of  the  year.  The  deadline  for 
presentation  of  these  reports  is  30 June  1996 for  Mecklenburg-East  Pomerania,  Saxony  and  Saxony-
Anhalt.  The deadline  for  Eastern  Berlin,  Thuringia  and  Brandenburg  was  postponed  to  30 June  1997 
because the payment deadline had to be extended as a result of organizational  difficulties  arising from an 
unclear legal position concerning property and delays in the call for funds by private investors. 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

43 

GREECE 

CSF  programming  for  1994-99 

Axes 

prioritaires 

Total 

FEDER 

FSE 

FEOGA 

1FOP 

Major  infrastructure  (a) 
Improvements  in  living  s t a n d a r ds  (b) 
Economic  competitiveness  (c) 
Human  resources  and  employment  (d) 
Reduction  of  regional  disparities  (e) 
Technical  assistance  (f) 

2.737,1 
I  456,8 
2684,3 
2.556,3 
4.474,4 
71,1 

2.699,5 
1.436,8 
1  210,2 
377,0 
3.707,4 
58,6 

37,6 
20,0 
75,1 
2.179,3 
236,0 
12,5 

1.269,0 

130,0 

531,0 

ECU  million 

(e)  32% 

(01% 

(a)  20% 

(b)  10% 

Total 
% 

13.980,0 
100% 

9.489,5 
68% 

2.560,5 
18% 

1.800,0 
13% 

130,0 
1% 

(d)  1 

(C)  19% 

New  programmes  adopted  in  1995 

Most  of the  OPs  and  major  projects  in the  Greek  CSF  for  1994-99  were  adopted  in  1994. The  remaining 
OPs,  concerning  tourism  and  culture,  telecommunications  and  postal  services,  were  negotiated  and 
adopted  in  1995.  The  only  OP  remaining  to  be  adopted  in  1996  concerns  technical  assistance  and 
includes the accompanying  measures  needed  to adapt Greece's  public  administration  to the  second  CSF. 

The  OP  relating  to  tourism  and  culture  was  adopted  in  November  1995.  It  consists  of  two  sub-
programmes,  one  for  tourism  and  one  for  culture.  The  total  cost  to  the  public  sector  is  ECU  479.3 
million,  of  which  the  Structural  Funds  will  contribute  ECU  229.1  million  (ECU  219.1  million  from  the 
ERDF  and  ECU  10  million  from  the  ESF).  The  private  sector  is to  contribute  ECU  316.3  million  to  the 
subprogramme  for  tourism.  The  aim  of  this  subprogramme  is  to  alleviate  the  problems  besetting  the 
Greek  tourist  industry  by  extending  the  tourist  season,  achieving  a  more  balanced  geographical 
distribution  of 
(particularly 
accommodation  and  human  resources).  The  cultural  infrastructure  receiving  funding  is directly  linked  to 
the  development  of tourism  (museums,  restoration  of monuments,  conference  centres). 

tourist  activities  and 

tourism  products 

the  quality  of 

improving 

The  telecommunications  OP  has  been  allocated  ECU  172.7  million  from 
the  Structural  Funds 
(ECU  142.2  million  from  the  ERDF  and  ECU  30.5  million  from  the  ESF).  Its  objective  is  to  bring  the 
Greek  regulations  into  line  with  European  legislation,  bring  the  network  up  to  standard  in  the  outlying 
improve  the  quality  of  telecommunications  services  by  digitizing  the  network  and 
regions  and 
developing  new  advanced  services. 

The  OP  for  the  postal  services  will  receive  Community  assistance  worth  ECU  78  million  (ECU  70.9 
million  from  the  ERDF  and  7.1  million  from  the  ESF).  The  total  cost  of  the  programme  is  ECU  117.1 
million.  Its objective  is to  improve the  quality  of the  service, to reorganize  and  upgrade  operations  and  to 
review  the  legislation  in this  area. 

Implementation 

in  1995 

is the  subject  of a subpriority  in the  improvements  in living  standards  priority  of  the 
The  environment 
the  various  sources 
Greek  CSF.  The  main  objectives  concern  several  types  of  operation:  monitoring 
of  pollution 
(water,  noise,  air);  management  of  water  resources  and  waste  Matter; management  of 
household  and  toxic  waste;  prevention  of  major  environmental  risks;  improvement  of  air  quality, 
including  the  creation  of  a  register  giving  priority  cover  to 
particularly 
biotopes.  This  subpriority  will  absorb  35%  of  the  ERDF  contribution.  It  is  the  subject  of  a  national 
OP  with  ECU  376. 7 million  from  the  ERDF.  In  addition,  environmental  measures  are  included  in  the 
different  regional  programmes. 
In  total,  the  Community  will  contribute  ECU  624  million  to  the  Greek 
environment  (4%  of  the  CSF). 

in Attica;  regional  planning, 

Among  the  programmes  adopted  in  1994,  the  agriculture  OP  stands  out.  This  single-fund  OP  financed 
by  the  EAGGF  is  part  of  the  national  section  of the  CSF  and  consumed  almost  all  its appropriations  for 
1995.  This  was  due  to  the  excellent  progress  made  by  certain  measures,  such  as  those  under 
Objective  5(a),  the  completion  of  projects  commenced  earlier  and  forestry  measures.  In  1995  the 

44 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

programme  was  allocated  a  further  ECU  13.3 million  following  the  indexing  of  the  CSF,  so  that  new 
measures  could  be  launched.  The  situation  with  regard  to  the  regional  section  of  the  CSF  is  more 
complex because of the great variety of assistance and the plethora of aid schemes, the innovative  nature 
of many of the rural  development  measures and the introduction  of new management  arrangements  for 
the regional OPs. Progress was therefore  slower than expected. However, all the initial teething troubles 
were resolved  in  1995 and  most of the delays should be made up in  1996. In  general, the regional  OPs 
are  progressing  faster  than  the  national  OPs.  This  is  because  they  involve  smaller-scale  projects  and 
could therefore  be launched  more quickly, while major  projects  require new  implementing  structures to 
be set up first. 

Agricultural structures and rural development: some important achievements 
•  170 000 holdings received compensatory allowances; 
•  1  327 new investment plans were approved; 
•  900 ha were reafforested,  630 ha of national  forests  and  parks  improved, 

1 160 ha of ravines improved, 2 030 ha of forest protected; 

•  58 water management projects were completed and 8 important new projects 

started; 

•  420 ha  of  vine  (affected  by  phylloxera)  were  included  in  the  new 

programme. 

The  institutional  framework  and  the  arrangements  for  coordination  of the  network  were  set  up  for  the 
human resources priority. A central agency is responsible for planning and general programming. It also 
coordinates  "observatories"  of  trends  in  industry,  the  labour  market  and  skills  and  qualifications. 
Another  of  its  tasks  is  to  develop  training  specifications  and  study  programmes,  as  well  as  generally 
monitoring  the  implementation  of  continuing  training  activities.  In  addition,  arrangements  for  the 
certification  of continuing training have been  introduced. Under these arrangements  approval  was given 
first  to  training  centres  and  then  to  instructuors  and  continuing  training  courses.  The  objective  of 
certifying  thos responsible  for training and instructors  is to ensure that continuing training  is compatible 
with the initial training system run by the Ministry for National  Education. 

The  fisheries  OP  was  implemented  in  two  phases  in  1995.  In  the  first  phase  the  national  authorities 
adopted  the  legal  framework  for  the  application  of  the  OP;  in  the  second  phase  the  first  ministerial 
decisions  were  taken  concerning  potential  beneficiaries  and  measures  were  implemented.  The 
Monitoring Committee held two meetings, which helped to speed  up the  launching of the first  measures 
under the programme,  particularly  those concerning sea fisheries.  80% of FIFG  appropriations  for  1994 
have  been  paid  to  Greece  and  implementation  of  measures  progressed  well  enough  for  the  1995 
appropriations to be committed. 

Two  other  programmes  were amended  in  1995: the  industry  and  services  OP  and  the  environment  OP. 
The  amendments  were  decided  by 
financial 
reprogramming to take account of delays in launching the programmes. This  late start was caused  by the 
major  legislative and preparatory work needed because of the innovative nature of some of the measures. 

the  Monitoring  Committee  and  concern  only 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

45 

New  structures: 
Success  of  the  Greek  CSF  depends  on  the  creation  of  effective  implementing 
structures,  such  as  agencies  for  the  construction  of  motorways  and  railways, 
realization  of the cadastral  survey, etc. (Egnatia  S.A.,  Ergose,  Cadastre). These 
agencies were set up in  1995 and have already started to  function. 
Another  major  innovation  is the two  structures  provided  for  in the  CSF, never 
before  seen  in Greece, the  "one-stop-sliop"  for  productive  investments  and  the 
"management  organization  unit"  to  improve  the  management  and  monitoring 
of 
the  quality  of 
implementation  of structural operations in Greece. 
Considerable  effort  has  also  been  made  to  improve  the public  works  system. 
Great progress has been made on the public works programme and many of the 
points have already  been  implemented  and become  law  (e.g. the  amendment  to 
the basic law on public works and the adoption of presidential  decrees, circulars 
and ministerial decisions). 

innovations  will  help 

the  CSF.  These 

improve 

to 

1995  in  the  context  of  the  1994-99  programming 

period 

The CSF  has taken  up  70% of total  appropriations  for  1995  and  an  aggregate  of  55% for  1994 and  1995. 
Progress  made  in  1995  on the  implementation  of OPs  and  major  projects  made  it possible to  commit  and 
pay  large  amounts  (ECU  2 653  million  committed  and  ECU  Î  706  million  paid).  ERDF  commitments 
have  already  exceeded  forecasts  and  the  ERDF  allocation  for  Greece  for  1995  (ECU  1 813  million 
committed  instead  of ECU  1 405  million). 

Table 12:  Objective 1 - Greece - Financial  implementation of  the programmes  (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  and  year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

S F a s s i s t a n ce 

C o m m i t m e nt 

C o m m i t m e nt 

( I) 

1995 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(2) 

% 
( 2 ) / (D 

Payments 
1995 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

% 
(3V(2) 

1995 

Muttircgional 

OPs 

OP  Culture,  tourism 

OP  Postal  services 

OP  Telecommunications 

1994 

Regional 

(IPs 

OP  Attica 
OP  Crete 

OP  Northern  A e g e an 
OP  Southern  Aegean 
OP  Epirus 

OP  Continental  Gieece 
OP  Western  Gieece 
OP  Ionian  Islands 
OP  Central  M a c e d o n ia 
OP  Western  M a c e d o n ia 
OP  Macedonia-Thrace 
OP  P é l o p o n n è se 
OP  T h e s s a ly 

Muttircgional 

OPs 

OP  Agriculture 
OP  Railways 

OP  Urban  d e v e l o p m e nt  ( u n d e r g r o u nd  railway] 
OP  Education  and  basic  training 
OP  Energy 
OP  Environment 
OP  Social  exclusion 
OP  Continuing  training 
OP  Natural  gas 
OP  Industry  and  services 
OP  Modernization  of  the  civil  service 
OP  Fisheries,  A q u a c t u l t u re 
OP  Research  and  t e c h n o l o gy 
OP  Roads-Ports-Airports 
OP  Health  and  prevention 

795,6 

117,1 

321,8 

938,6 
435,3 
327,9 
380,0 
346,9 
623.0 
501,6 
228,2 
816,9 
308,1 
689,0 
440,2 
560,9 

2.795,3 
490,1 

1.566,0 

1.847,6 
946,3 
515,0 
328,0 

1.283,0 
825,4 

2.808,9 
305,4 
311,7 
579,3 

3.182,4 
339,0 

229,1 

78,0 

172,7 

685.7 
312,3 
210,2 
224,1 
236,5 
371,8 
301,5 
170,7 
588,5 
219,4 
494,3 
286,0 
375,8 

1.247,7 
294,1 
783,0 

1.385,7 
352,1 
376,7 
246,0 
756.0 
354,6 
720,0 
168,6 
150,0 
316,2 

1.327,4 
226,4 

19,5 

10,8 

45.9 

19,5 

10,8 

45,9 

8% 
14% 

27% 

195,9 

298,7 

84,2 
58,3 
32,9 
57,8 
54,1 
44,3 
24,7 
86,5 
31,9 
72,7 
42,0 
55,2 

354,0 
85,9 

294,5 

205,6 

108,3 
57,6 
35,0 

105,0 
75,8 

110,2 
25,0 
22,3 
48,4 
205,6 
3,1 

131,0 
89,8 
66,6 
93,2 

109,9 
89,5 
50,3 

174,8 
64,4 

146,8 
84,9 

111,6 

535,4 

138,1 
411,0 

395,8 
152.7 

95,3 
68,8 
208,8 

116,5 

182,2 

48,2 
42,8 
80,0 
455,9 
25,7 

44% 
42% 
4 3% 
30% 
39% 
30% 
3 0% 
29% 
30% 
29% 
30% 
30% 
30% 

4 3% 
47% 
52% 
29% 
4 3% 
2 5% 
2 8% 
2 8% 
3 3% 
2 5% 
29% 
29% 
25% 
34% 
11% 

TOTAL 

25.954,6 

13.661,1 

2 . 6 5 3 , 0| 

4.544,9 

3 3% 

9,7 

0,5 

1,7 

106,5 
49,7 
32,7 
26.7 
24.0 
56,8 
45.2 
26,4 
90,1 
34,5 
74,4 
17,6 
59,6 

253,3 
84,4 
119.7 

157,2 
55.0 

30,3 

23,3 
79,6 
62,3 
56,3 

13,5 
5,3 
32,8 
75,1 

1,6 
1.705,8 

9.7 

0,5 

1.7 

50% 

4% 

4% 

158,0 
73,1 
48,5 
43.5 
41,7 
84.7 
67,9 
39,2 

134,2 
50.7 

111,5 
39,1 
87,7 

405,8 
110,5 
212,9 

252.2 

77.2 
49,1 

40,2 
131,5 
94,9 
92,3 
25,1 
15,6 
48,6 
200,3 
12,9 

5 3% 
56% 
5 4% 
6 5% 
4 5% 
77% 
7 6% 
7 8% 
77% 
7 9% 
76% 
4 6% 
79% 

76% 
80% 
52% 
64% 
5 1% 
52% 
5 8% 
6 3% 
8 1% 
5 1% 
52% 
3 6% 
6 1% 
4 4% 
50% 

2.760,7 

6 1% 

46 

7th Annual Report on the. Structural Funds (1995) 

It should  be remembered  that for practical  purposes  1995 was the year  in which  the OPs under the CSF 
for  1989-93  were  finally  terminated.  National  payments  were  extended  into  1995  (up  to  30 September 
1995  for  most  OPs)  and  the  amounts  still  not  spent  on  the  OPs  and  Community  Initiatives  could 
therefore  be fully  utilized. 

SPAIN 

CSF  programming  for  1994-99 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

(a)  35% 

ECU  million 

(d)  7% 

Adjustments  to  the  system  of  production  (a) 
Human  resources  (b) 
Access  to  isolated  areas  (c) 
Basic  infrastructure  (d) 

9075,4 
8779,8 
6.517,6 
1.927,2 

4.340,4 
3.159,0 
6.517,6 
1 927,2 

426,2 
5.620,8 

3.313,8 

995,0 

(C)  25% 

Total 
% 

26.300,0 
100% 

15.944,2 
6 1% 

6.047,0 
23% 

3.313,8 
13% 

995,0 
4% 

(b)  33% 

Since  1  February  1994,  33  regional  OPs,  13  multi-regional  OPs  and  seven  global  grants  have  been 
approved  for  Spain.  Of  the  ECU 26 300  million  allocated  to  Spanish  Objective  1 regions  in  the  CSF, 
94% (ECU 24 668 million) have therefore  been programmed for the different  forms of assistance. 

New programmes  adopted in 1995 

Seven  new  operations  were  adopted  in  1995, with  Community  assistance  totalling  ECU 627.2  million. 
These  operations  include  four  global  grants, all  under the main  priority  of the CSF,  namely  adjustment 
and  development  of  the  production  structure.  These  global  grants  are  for  the  regions  of  Salamanca, 
Castile-Leôn  and  Andalusia  and  for  SMEs.  The  global  grant  for  Salamanca  will  be  implemented  by 
"Consorcio Salamanca  Emprende",  a  public  body  set  up  by  agreement  between  the  province,  the 
municipality of Salamanca and partners such as the chamber of commerce, the unions and the  university. 
Its  main  objective  is  economic  development  (investments  in  industry,  crafts  and  services,  RDT 
measures,  promotion  of  local  products  and  the  region's  tourist  image,  creation  of  a  service  centre  for 
businesses)  and  the  provision  of  technical  assistance  to  change  the  mentality  of  local  operators  and 
encourage them to invest  in their businesses. The global  grant for  Castile-Leôn  is to be  implemented  by 
a  public  company  the  "Sociedad para  el  Desarrollo Industrial  de  Castillo  y  Leôn  SA"  intended  to 
stimulate  the  development  and  consolidation  of  entrepreneurial  projects  seeking  to  modernize  and 
diversify  the  region's  industry.  It  will  achieve  this  by  offering  venture  capital  formulas  or  technical 
assistance to entrepreneurs. The global  grant for  Andalusia,  which  is the  largest  global  grant  adopted  in 
financial  terms  (ECU 223.9  million),  will  be  implemented  by  the  regional  authorities  and  has  three 
objectives: modernization  of productive structures by supporting  investments  in businesses (industry and 
services, mainly tourism), technological  modernization  of businesses and upgrading of human  resources. 
Lastly,  the  non-regional  global  grant,  to  be  implemented  by  the  Council  of  Chambers  of  Commerce, 
Industry  and  Navigation,  focuses  on  internationalizing  SMEs  by  means  of  measures  to  prepare  for 
external promotion  and support, information  and promotion  measures. 

The three other operations  approved  in  1995 are single-fund  OPs. The  first  provides  for  ESF  assistance 
in Cantabria  (ECU  8.96  million)  and  the  other two  are  EAGGF  programmes  worth  ECU 355.8  million 
for  Andalusia  and  technical  assistance.  Adoption  of  the  multi-regional  programme  for  economic 
diversification  in  rural  areas  would  mean  that  all  the  CSF  appropriations  for  the  EAGGF  had  been 
programmed. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

47 

Implementation  in 1995 

Environmental  concerns  have, for  the first  time, been integrated into all the operations provided  for 
under the Spanish  CSF, through the national strategic plan for  the environment. This concern can be 
seen in the objectives  and the priorities for  assistance. The objectives concern persistant problems  in 
Spain:  the fight  against  desertification  (reafforestation,  forest  hydrology,  combating  erosion  and 
forest  fires) ;  improvement  of  water quality  and  water  management  (with the  objective  of  reducing 
demand,  particularly 
in  farming);  management  of  human  and  industrial  waste;  promotion  of 
renewable  sources  of  energy;  upgrading  the  urban  environment  by  means  of  mechanisms  to 
coordinate  the different  authorities  (urban planning,  traffic in and around cities, noise,  atmospheric 
pollution). 
The CSF priority  relating  to human resources includes a subpriority containing training measures in 
sectors  concerned  with  the  environment,  with an ERDF  allocation of ECU 1 730 million.  However, 
most of  the  environmental  measures can  be found  under the priority  relating  to  the development  of 
infrastructure  and  concern  either  energy  or  water.  This  priority  has  an  ERDF  allocation  of 
ECU 1 927  million  and  accounts  for  7.3%  of  total  Community  funding 
to  the  CSF.  Water 
infrastructure  alone  will  receive  ECU 1 304  million  (43%  of  the  environment  budget).  In  all,  the 
direct  investment  for 
the  environment  in  Spain  (training  and  water  infrastructure)  represents 
ECU 3 034 million,  or 11.5% of CSF appropriations. 

Most of the decisions  approving  investments  in  1995 had to contain  suspensory  clauses  because, on the 
one  hand,  of  the  time  lag  between  the  official  date  when  the  programming  was  launched  and  the 
commencement  of  implementation  and,  on the other hand, the very  large  number  of  aid  schemes  part-
financed  by the  Structural  Funds which need to be scrutinized  for compliance with Articles 92 and 93 of 
the  Treaty.  EAGGF  assistance  progressed  satisfactorily  on  the  whole,  with  all  the  programmed 
appropriations  committed  except  for  the  OP for  Cantabria,  which  was delayed.  By contrast,  part  of the 
1996 instalment  for  the OP for Objective  5(a) measures was already committed  in  1995. It  is also worth 
noting  that  most  operations  were  reprogrammed  at the  request  of the  Spanish  authorities.  It  should  be 
stressed that commitment  appropriations were fully  utilized. 

With  regard  to operations  in the  fisheries  sector,  implementation  of the fisheries  OP did  not  commence 
until  1995  because  it  was  not  adopted  until  December  1994.  60%  of  the  1994  instalment  was 
implemented,  so that  the  second  advance  for  the  financial  year  could  be  paid  to the  Member  State  and 
the  1995  instalment  could  be  committed.  Nevertheless,  the  annual  timetable  had  to  be  reprogrammed, 
with  ECU 56  million  being  transferred  from  the  1994  instalment  to  the  1995  instalment  and  ECU 20 
million  from  the  1999 instalment to the  1995  instalment10. 

10 For aid granted to crews and shipowners affected  by the expiry of the fisheries agreement with Morocco, see also 

Chapter I.A.5.2 (Objective 5(a) fisheries). 

48 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

1995 in the context  of the 1994-99 programming  period 

Table 13:  Objective 1 - Spain - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 

Programmes  and year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

SF  assistance 

(1) 

Commitment 
1995 

Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) 

(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 

Payments 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

% 
(3)/(2)| 

1995 
Regional  OPs 

OP  A n d a l u s ia  (3) 
GG  A n d a l u s ia 
OP  Cantabria  (2) 
GG  Salamanca 
GG  Sodical  (Castile-Leôn) 

Multiregionul 

OPs 

GG  Chambers  of  commerce 
OP  Technical  a s s i s t a n ce  (3) 

1994 
Regional 

OPs 

OP  A n d a l u s ia  (2) 
OP  A n d a l u s ia  (1) 
OP  A s t u r i as  (3) 
OP  A s t u r i as  (I) 
OP  Asturias  (2) 
OP  Canary  Islands  (1) 
OP  Canary  Islands  (2) 
OP  Canary  Islands  (3) 
OP  Castile-Leon  (3) 
OP  Castile-Leon  (2) 
OP  Castile-Leon  (1) 
OP  Castile-La-Mancha  (1) 
OP  Castile-La-Mancha  (3) 
OP  Castile-La-Mancha  (2) 
OP  Ceuta  (1) 
OP  Extremadura  (3) 
OP  Extremadura  (1) 
OP  Extremadura  (2) 
OP  Galicia  (3) 
OP  Galicia  (1) 
OP  Galicia  (2) 
OP  Melilla 
OP  Murcia  (2) 
OP  Murcia  (3) 
OP  M u r c i a ( l) 
GG  M urcia 

OP  Cantabria  multiregional  (3) 
OP  Cantabria  multiregional  (1) 
OP  Cantabria  regional  (1) 
OP  Valencia  (1) 
OP  Valencia  (2) 
OP  Valencia  (3) 
M u I tir eg io nul  OPs 

OP  Regional  a s s i s t a n ce 
GG  Competitiveness  o f S M Es 
OP  Donana  Phase  2 ( 4) 
OP  Local  environment 
OP  FORCEM 
OP  Food  industry 
OP  1NEM 
OP  Scientific 
OP  Local 
OP  M  inistries 
OP  Ministry  of  Education 
OP  A u t o n o m o us  bodies 
OP  Fisheries 
GG  Industrial  t e c h n o l o gy 

infrastructure 

575,3 
1.894,5 
12,0 
39,1 
43,1 

37,0 
18.4 

434,0 
5.559,0 
116,5 
1.398,5 
41,6 
1.179,4 
215,2 
154,4 
746,3 
172,6 
2.752,3 
1.779,5 
628,5 
47,5 
70,9 
307,1 
1.577,5 
209,9 
464,1 
2.493,4 
242,0 
82,4 
59,4 
127,3 
767,3 
562,3 
110,8 
536,6 
158,6 
3.691,7 
413,2 
274,2 

3  125,9 
300,9 
213,9 
828,6 
447,6 
3.028,6 
3  426,3 
479,4 
812,5 
52,9 
1.935,8 
416,6 
2  158,0 
482,5 

342,0 
223,9 
9,0 
12,9 
6,5 

19,2 
13,8 

325,5 
2.938,9 
81,1 
809,2 
31,2 
694,7 
182,9 
80,7 
381,1 
129,4 
1.612,6 
936,6 
288,4 
35,6 
47,4 
174,8 
1.011,9 
167,9 
303,5 
1.544,5 
181,5 
42,1 
44,6 
55.6 
487,3 
79,2 
54,3 
343,0 
105,0 
1.207,9 
309,9 
103,5 

103,7 
67,9 

1.4 
6,3 
3,6 

1,1 
2,0 

50,3 
478,4 
12,8 
206,8 

5,1 
266,8 
29,7 
11,1 
58,1 
0,0 
228,1 
187,5 
46,7 
5,9 
13,3 
30,7 
124,5 
0,0 
44,5 
519,8 
25,5 
12,1 
0,0 
9,3 
160,1 
0,0 
0,0 
105,0 
0,2 
507,9 
64,2 
17,5 

387,0 
210,6 
146,6 
580,6 
262,5 
1.220,0 
2.569,8 
342,2 
580,6 
39,7 
1.451,9 
312,4 
995,0 
150,2 
24.668,3 

85,7 
36,0 
0,0 
0,0 
41,3 
234,7 
411,2 
72,7 
96,8 
0,0 
146,5 
56,8 
167,9 
21,5 
4.778,9 

103,7 
67,9 
1,4 
6,3 
3,6 

30% 
30% 
15% 
49% 
55% 

1,1 
2,0 

6% 
14% 

74,0 
1  033,9 
25,2 
303,0 
10,5 
368,4 
54,8 
29,8 
105,3 
19,7 
403,0 
310,1 
85,2 
11,7 
28,3 
47,4 
216,2 
21,4 
82,5 
806,6 
48,8 
15,9 
5,6 
17,4 
228,7 
12,3 
5,3 
134,7 
14,6 
726,3 
127,3 
32,4 

164,5 
66,7 
57,8 
96,8 
97,5 
443,5 
776,2 
135,6 
193,5 
5,6 
319,0 
92,7 
304,5 
26,5 

23% 
35% 
3 1% 
37% 
34% 
53% 
30% 
37% 
28% 
15% 
25% 
33% 
30% 
33% 
60% 
27% 
2 1% 
13% 
27% 
52% 
27% 
38% 
13% 
3 1% 
47% 
16% 
10% 
39% 
14% 
60% 
4 1% 
3 1% 

43% 
32% 
39% 
1 7% 
37% 
36% 
30% 
40% 
33% 
14% 
22% 
30% 
3 1% 
18% 

8.372,4 

3 4% 

51,8 
0,0 
0,7 
3,1 
1,8 

0,0 
1.0 

37,0 
549,4 
13,9 
111,7 
6,8 
225,0 
14,8 
14,5 
60,7 
0,0 
235,0 
211,3 
34,9 
6,6 
15,1 
20,4 
127,1 
0,0 
47,0 
315,1 
28,7 
7,2 
0,0 
7,1 
94,5 
0,0 

1,6 
39,7 

0,1 
340,4 
70,8 
18,5 

108.0 
53,4 
0,0 
0,0 
20,6 
183,4 
388,1 
21,2 
29,0 
0,0 
159,5 
32 2 
41,0 
22,5 
3.772,2 

51,8 
0,0 
0,7 
3,1 

48,9 
827,1 
20,1 
159,8 
8,3 
275,9 
27,4 
23,8 
84,2 
9,8 
322,4 
272,6 
54,2 

8,5 
22,6 
28,7 
172,9 
10,7 
66,0 
458,5 
37,4 
9,1 
2,1 
11,1 
128,8 
6,1 
4,2 
54,5 
7,3 
449,6 
95,2 
25.9 

147,4 
53,4 
28,9 
48,4 
48,8 

319,9 
570,5 
52,7 
77,4 
2,8 
245,7 
50 
109,2 
22,5 

50% 
0% 
50% 
50% 
50% 

0% 
50% 

66% 
80% 
80% 
53% 
78% 
75% 
50% 
80% 
80% 
50% 
80% 
88% 
64% 
73% 
80% 
6 1% 
80% 
50% 
80% 
57% 
77% 
57% 
37% 
64% 
56% 
50% 
80% 
40% 
50% 
62% 
75% 
80% 

90% 
80% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
72% 
74% 
39% 
40% 
50% 
77% 
54% 
36% 
85% 

5 3 7 0 ,0 

6 7% 

TOTAL 

(1) Single-fund  OP  -  ERDF 
(2)  Single-fund  OP  -  ESF 
(3)  Single-fund  OP  - E A G GF 
(4)  Including  appropriations  implemented  under  b u d g et  heading  B2-1820  (transitional  ar.d  innovative  measures) 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

49 

FRANCE 

SPD  programming  for  1994-99 
A 

vcsncs-Douai-Valencicnncs 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

ECU  million 

Stimulation  of  economic  activity  (a) 
Research  and  development  (b) 
Human  resources  (c) 
Regional  regeneration  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 

141,8 
38,6 
92,5 
165,1 
2,0 

Total 
% 

440,0 
100% 

100,8 
34,1 
43,9 
128,4 
0.9 

308,1 
70% 

22,3 
4,5 
48,6 
6,1 
0,9 

82,4 
19% 

18,7 

30,6 
0,2 

49,5 
11% 

(e)  0,01% 

(a  32% 

(d)  38% 

(c)  21% 

(b)  9% 

SPD  programming  for  1994-99 

Corsica 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ECU  million 

Reducing  isolation  (a) 
Agricultural  and  marine  production  (b) 
Universities,  research  (c) 
Tourist  and  cultural  heritage  (d) 
Environment  (e) 
Economic  development  (0 
Human  resources  (g) 
Technical  assistance  (h) 

67,9 
72,4 
12,5 
15,0 
30,7 
18,3 
31,0 
2,1 

67,9 

1,5 
12,5 
15,0 
30,7 

18,3 
0,6 
0,9 

Total 
% 

249,9 
100% 

147,4 
59% 

SPD  programming  for  1994-99 

Overseas 

departments 

63,4 

7,5 

(f)  7% 

(g)12% 

<h)1% 

(a)  27% 

30,4 
0,6 

31,0 
12% 

0,6 

64,0 
26% 

7,5 
3% 

(e)  12% 

(d)  6% 

(C)  5% 

(b)  30% 

ECU  million 

(g)  1% 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EA  GGF 

FIFG 

A c c e s s,  spatial  balance  (a) 
Environment  and  infrastructures  (b) 
Production,  competitiveness,  industry, 
crafts  (c) 
Human  resources,  social  balance  (d) 
Agriculture,  rural  development  (e) 
Fisheries  and  aquaculture  (f) 
Tourism  (g) 
Technical  assistance  (h) 

214,6 
305,9 
279,7 

394,3 
242,7 
24,5 
21,1 
16,4 

Total 
% 

1.499,2 
100% 

202,7 
291,1 
178,6 

1,8 

46,3 

35,1 

359,2 

10,1 
14,8 
48,7 

242,7 

21,1 
9,8 

738,4 
49% 

4,8 
412,1 
27% 

1,7 

318,0 
21% 

6,1 

24,5 

0,1 
30,7 
2% 

( e ) i6% 

( f)  1% 

i  <h>1% 

(a)  14% 

(d)27% 

(b)  20% 

(c)  19% 

Implementation in 1995 

Environmental concerns  in the French SPDs are very varied because of the diversity of the regions 
themselves.  In  all,  they  represent  a  Community  contribution  of  almost  ECU 323  million  (15%  of 
Objective 1 appropriations  in France).  In  the overseas departments,  the  main  concern  is  water:  in 
Guadeloupe  (environmental priority:  ECU 39.6 million from the ERDF  and  the  EAGGF),  the  main 
investment  is  a  major  irrigation project  financed  by  the  EAGGF;  in  Martinique  (environmental 
priority:  ECU 50.5 million from the ERDF) the chief concern is protection  against water and floods; 
in  Réunion  (environmental  priority:  ECU 178.5  million  from  the  ERDF),  appropriations  are 
concentrated  on  water  management  for  irrigation  purposes;  in  French  Guiana  (environmental 
priority: ECU 18.9 million from the ERDF), about half of the measures concern  upgrading the  M>ater 
system,  to  which  should  be  added  a further  ECU 2  million  from  the  EAGGF for  exploration  and 
protection  of  biodiversity  in  the  tropical forest.  In  Corsica,  environmental  protection  (ECU 30.7 
million from the ERDF) concerns measures to clean up the coastline and treat household waste (84% 
of  the  environment  priority),  and  to  upgrade  the  heritage,  i.e.  restoration  of  buildings  using 
traditional materials. Lastly, in Nord Pas-de-Calais, the lion's share of the Community's  contribution 
to  the  environment  will  go  towards  the  rehabilitation  of  derelict  industrial  and  urban  sites  and 
industrial pollution  management  (ECU29.1  million  from  the  ERDF),  as  well  as  to  research  and 
environmental  technologies  (ECU 11.3  million  from 
in  this  field 
(ECU 9 000 000 from the ESF). 

the  ERDF)  and  training 

50 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

The  six French  SPDs  (Corsica,  Guadeloupe,  French  Guiana,  Martinique,  Réunion  and Avesnes-Douai-
Valenciennes in Nord  Pas-de-Calais) were approved by the Commission  in July  1994 and represent total 
assistance from  the Structural  Funds worth ECU 2 189 million. These SPDs have been rather slow to get 
underway.  There  are still  problems  with  the monitoring of Community  programmes  in French  Guiana, 
since  the  planned  "Cellule  Europe"  has  not  yet  been  set  up.  However,  the  national  and  regional 
authorities  have  made  a  real  effort  to  develop  more  specific  methods  for  gathering  information  on 
projects at local level and to pass the information  on selection criteria for projects and lists of projects on 
to the Monitoring Committees. In three of the six regions, the assessment  structure  is already in place or 
being set up. 

In  the  context  of  partnership,  a  workshop  was  organized  in  Réunion  with  regional  officials  on 21-
23 November  1995 to discuss matters relating to the implementation of Community  programmes such as 
management of the Structural Funds and development engineering. 

1995 in the context  of the 1994-99 programming  period 

With the exception  of Corsica  and Martinique,  where  there  is considerable  delay  and where  no ERDF 
financial  operation  took  place  in  1995, all the other regions (Guadeloupe,  Réunion, Nord  Pas-de-Calais 
and  French  Guiana)  declared  sufficient  expenditure  to  enable  the  Commission  to  commit  the  1995 
instalment  of the  programmes  and to pay the second  advance  on the  1994 instalment.  However,  only 
Guadeloupe  and  French  Guiana  declared  enough  expenditure  (60% of the  1994 instalment)  to  trigger 
payments from  the first  advance on the 1995 instalment. With regard to fisheries,  fewer than ten projects 
were adopted for each of the regions, with the exception of Corsica, where the programme  is progressing 
at a satisfactory  rate. 

Table 14:  Objective 1 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  and  year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

SF  a s s i s t a n ce 

1994 

SPD  Hainaut 
SPD  Corsica 
SPD  Guadeloupe 
SPD  French  Guiana 
SPD  M art inique 
SPD  Réunion 

(1) 

440,0 
249,9 
344,8 
164,9 
329,8 
659,7 
2.189,2 

1.339,6 
679,4 
794,2 
304,4 
620,7 
1.267,2 
5.005,4 

T O T AL 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1995 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

Payments 
1995 

(2) 

Payments 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

9,4 
14,2 
54,0 
8,1 
24,4 
112,2 
222,4 

69,9 
48,5 
100,6 
26,9 
57,6 
194,2 
497,6 

16% 
19% 
29% 
1 6% 
1  7% 
29% 

2 3% 

8,9 
10,5 
32,4 
7,6 
21,9 
66,2 
14 7,4 

40,0 
27,4 
56,0 
17,0 
38,5 
107,9 
286,7 

57% 
56% 
56% 
63% 
67% 
56% 
5 8% 

Lastly, at the request  of the French  authorities the deadlines  for  payment  by the national  authorities to 
final  beneficiaries  were extended  for several  programmes from  the previous programming period (1989-
93). 

IRELAND 

CSF programming  for  1994-99 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

Productive  sector  (a) 
Economic  infrastructure  (b) 
Human  resources  (c) 
Local  development  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 

2  508,0 
1  1  13,0 
1.732,0 
257,0 
10,0 

1.099,0 
1.113,0 
160,0 
180,0 
10,0 

324,0 

1.038,0 

47,0 

(c)  31% 

1.572,0 
57,0 

20,0 

(d)  5%  (e)  o,2% 

(a)  44% 

Total 
% 

5.620,0 
100% 

2.562,0 
46% 

1.953,0 
35% 

1.058,0 
19% 

47,0 
1% 

(b)  20% 

New operations adopted in 1995 

The  only  new  operation  adopted  in  1995 for  Ireland  concerned  ERDF  assistance  to  a  major  project 
within  the  meaning  of  Article  16(2)  of  the  Coordination  Regulation,  the  Tallaght  Hospital.  ERDF 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

51 

assistance  amounts  to  ECU 39.4  million,  a  30% contribution  to  the  total  cost  of  ECU  131.2  million11 
This is the first  time that the ERDF has been  involved  in an operation  in the health  field  in Ireland. The 
project concerns the construction  and fitting  out of the Tallaght university hospital  in Dublin, which will 
have 513 beds and should create some  1  500 jobs directly and a further  1 100 indirectly. 

Implementation in 1995 

Environmental concerns  are the subject of a subpriority included in the priority  relating to economic 
infrastructure in the CSF which is being implemented in the form  of an OP with ECU  78 million  from 
the ERDF (1.4%> of Community appropriations). The programme focuses  on water supplies,  treatment 
of waste water, water supply systems, management of urban and dangerous waste, management  and 
protection  of coastlines and environmental monitoring and research. 

Implementation  of  the  Irish  OPs  proceeded  normally  in  1995. Only  the  OP  for  industry,  which  also 
includes measures for the food  industry, ran behind schedule because of delays in starting up. The slight 
overall  delay  will  probably  be made  good  thanks  to  an  increase  in  payment  rates  in  1996VProgress in 
attaining  the  quantified  objectives  (macro-  and  micro-economic  indicators)  fixed  in  the  CSF  is 
satisfactory.  Only  the  technical  assistance  programme  (with  ECU  10  million  of  Structural  Fund 
assistance), has yet to be adopted. This should happen early in 1996. 

Implementation  of the agriculture and rural development OP is in full  swing, with the exception of a few 
measures. Expenditure  is in line with the financing  plan. Certain measures are very popular,  particularly 
that  concerning  the  control  of  farm  pollution.  Other  measures  have  been  suspended  due  to  lack  of 
appropriations.  During  1995 an  independent  consultant  studied the compensatory  allowance  system  and 
the balance between  income support and development measures. 

In  the  fisheries  sector,  a  total  of  155  projects  funded  by  the  FIFG  were  approved,  relating  to 
modernization  of  the  fleet,  aquaculture  and  marketing/promotion  of  products.  The  total  investment  in 
these projects amounts to ECU 31 million. 

Monitoring of operations  is being carried  out at three levels: the Monitoring Committee for the CSF, the 
Monitoring  Committees  for  each  of the  OPs  and  the  committees  of the  eight  regional  authorities.  The 
Monitoring  Committee  for  the  CSF  is  made  up  of  representatives  of  the  ministries  involved,  the 
Commission  and  the  EIB.  The  Monitoring  Committees  for  the  OPs  consist  of  representatives  of  the 
social  partners  as  well  as  the  officials  concerned.  By  way  of  example,  the  Committee  coordinating 
human  resource  measures,  responsible  for  monitoring  horizontal  matters  affecting  the  quality  and 
effectiveness  of  the  training  system,  met  for  the  first  time  in  1995. It  examined  the  progress  made  by 
measures  part-financed  by the ESF throughout the CSF, as well as the measures  concerning the training 
of  instructors,  equal  opportunities  and  certification.  At  regional  level,  the  representatives  of  voluntary 
organizations  and  local  authorities  are  involved  in  the  committees  alongside  representatives  of  public 
authorities  and  agencies  and  the  social  partners.  The  Monitoring  Committees  of  the  chief  OPs  are 
assisted  by permanent,  independent  external  assessors. In addition, three full-time  evaluation  units  have 
been  set  up  and  a  fourth  will  be  created  at  the  beginning  of  1996. These  units  will  evaluate  specific 
aspects of the CSFs and OPs and will help the external assessors. They will also help to prepare the mid 
term review for all the programmes. 

1995 in the context  of the 1994-99 programming  period 

Although  payments  for  1994 were  lower than  expected  (ECU 513 million, as against  an  initial  forecast 
of  ECU 771  million),  most  of the  lag  was  made  good  by  the end  of  1995. Payments  by  the  Structural 
Funds  in  1995  amounted  to  ECU 856  million  out  of an  initial  budget  of  ECU 834  million.  85% of  the 
appropriations planned  for the first two years have thus been paid. 

See also Annex 6 Major projects adopted in 1995. 

52 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 15:  Objective J - Ireland - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 

Programmes  and year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

SF  assistance 
0) 

Commitment 
1995 

Commitment 
1994-95 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

Payments 
1995 

(2) 

Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1995 

MP  Tallaght  hospital 

| 

131,2| 

39,41 

39,41 

39,4|  100% | 

3 l , 5| 

"' 

31,5 j 

80% 

1994 

OP Agriculture,  rural  development 
OP  Local  development 
OP  Industry 
OP  Economic  infrastructure 
OP  Fisheries 
OP  Human  resources 
OP  Environmental  services 
OP  Tourism 
OP  Transport 

1.791,4 
420,1 
2.843,7 
319,6 
177,0 
2362,3 
125,6 
805,9 
1.406,2 
10.383,1 

956,7 
257,0 
1.029,0 
108,0 
78,0 
1.732,1 
78,0 
456,3 
888,0 
5.622,5 

160,1 
33,6 
127,1 
10,3 
12,3 
266,1 
6,2 
51,5 
247,6 
954,2 

299,4 
54,8 
261,1 
11,9 
20,5 
541,9 
24,0 
94,0 
333,2 
1.680,1 

3 1% 
2 1% 
25% 
11% 
26% 
3 1% 
31% 
21% 
38% 

3 0% 

178,6 
22,1 
102,9 
8,7 
10,6 
264,9 
10,3 
51,0 
175,8 
856,5 

263,0 
32,7 
196,0 
9,5 
14,7 
481,6 
19,2 
77,2 
244,2 
1.369,6 

88% 
60% 
75% 
80% 
72% 
89% 
80% 
82% 
73% 

8 2% 

T O T AL 

ITALY 

CSFprogrammin  g for  1994-99 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ECU  million 

Communications  (a) 
Industry,  crafts  (b) 
Tourism  (c) 
Rural  development  (d) 
Fisheries  (e) 
Economic  infrastructure  (f) 
Human  resources  (g) 
Technical  assistance  (h) 

2.159,6 
3.707,5 
862,1 
2.340,7 
257,4 
3.235,9 
2  209,1 
87,7 

2  159,6 
3.557,2 
774,6 
55,0 

2.992,5 
61,4 
59,7 

150,3 
87.5 
57,7 
24,4 
243,4 
2.147,7 
28,0 

2.228,0 

233,0 

(f) 21% 

Total 

14.860,0 
100% 

9.660,0 
65% 

2.739,0 
18% 

2.228,0 
15% 

233,0 
2% 

(9)  15 % 

(h)  1% 

(a)  i< 

(b) 24% 

(d)16% 

(°) 

The CSF for the Italian Objective  1  regions (Mezzogiorno) provides for total expenditure of ECU 32 440 
million, of which  ECU  14 860 million  will  come from  the Community.  The CSF  is being  implemented 
by  13 multiregional  OPs,  10 regional  OPs and one major project, adopted  in  1994 and  1995. 

New programmes  adopted in 1995 

During  1995  a  total  of  11  operations  were  adopted,  with  total  assistance  from  the  Structural  Funds 
amounting  to  ECU 8 085  million.  Six  of  these  operations  are  regional  OPs,  representing  ECU 4 289 
million  of  Community  assistance,  and  four  are  multiregional  programmes.  One  of these  alone,  the  OP 
for industry, accounts for 26% of total  ERDF assistance allocated  to the Mezzogiorno and  includes  part-
financing  of  the  general  Italian  aid  scheme  for  productive  investment.  Lastly,  a  major  project  was 
adopted  for  Calabria,  at  Gioia  Tauro  (ECU 40  million  towards  a  planned  total  cost  of  ECU  120 
million)12.  This  major  project  within  the  meaning  of  Article  16(2)  of  the  Coordination  Regulation 
concerns the conversion  of the Gioia Tauro port  into a large container  port  specializing  in  transhipment 
in order to adapt  its basic  infrastructure  to trends  in world  sea transport. The project  should  create  1  500 
jobs directly and  indirectly. 

A little  less than  10% of the total  resources  from  the  ERDF has yet to be programmed  at national  level, 
particularly  for  the  multiregional  OPs  for  energy,  environment  and  technical  assistance,  regional  and 
multiregional  operations to be implemented  by means of global grants (to be managed  at national  level) 
and certain  major  projects  (the Messina-Palermo  motorway). Commitments  relating to the coming years 
will  depend  on  these programmes  being  adopted  and  on the progress (in  terms  of  national  expenditure) 
of the programmes which have already been approved. 

12 See also Annex 6 Major projects adopted in 1995. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

53 

Implementation 

in  1995 

Some  of  the  delay  in  implementation  of  the  CSF  in  1994  was  retrieved  in  1995.  Italy's  difficulties  in 
utilizing  Community  funds,  which  were  also  very  visible  in  the  previous  programming  period,  can  be 
put  down  to  weaknesses  in  the  national  political  and  administrative  context.  In  order  to  improve  the 
general  implementing  conditions  for  Community  assistance  in  Italy,  the  Commission  and  the  Italian 
Government  concluded  an  agreement  on  26 July  1995. At  the  conference  for  the  State  and  the  regions 
held  on  29  September  1995, this  was  extended  to  include  the  regions  and  autonomous  provinces.  Under 
this  agreement,  the  Italian  Government  will  strengthen  central  and  regional  administrative  structures, 
improve  the  implementing  procedures  for  part-financed  measures,  strengthen  technical  assistance, 
particularly  the  arrangements  for  the  monitoring,  evaluation  and  control  of  the  programmes,  and 
if 
guarantee  financial  cover  for  national  matching  funds.  This  agreement  must  be  implemented 
Community  appropriations  are  to  be  better  utilized  during  this  programming  period.  At  the  end  of  1995 
the Italian  Government  showed  that  it had taken  a series of  initiatives, particularly  during the  second  half 
of  the  year,  relating  to  administrative  structures,  the  setting  up  of  new  integrated  arrangements  for 
monitoring  and  for  procedures  to  select  external  experts  and  the  making  available  of  counterpart  funds. 
These  initiatives  are  a  concrete  manifestation  of  the  spirit  of  the  agreement  and  augur  well  for 
improvements  in the  conditions  in which  programmes  are  managed. 

from 

the  ERDF),  with 
as  well  as  reducing 

the  objective  of  increasing  available  resources  and 

losses  during  supply  and  rationalizing  management 

is  the  subject  of  two  subpriorities  in the  Italian  CSF,  both  of  which  are  included  in 
The  environment 
the  priority  relating  to  infrastructures.  The first  subpriority  deals  with  water  resources  (ECU  1  119 
improving 
million 
and 
distribution, 
(ECU  748  million  from  the 
maintenance.  The  second  subpriority  relates  to  environmental  protection 
rundown  and  polluted  areas, 
ERDF  and  the  ESF),  with  the  objective  of  cleaning  up  particularly 
eliminating  situations  presenting  a  serious  danger  to  the  environment,  safeguarding 
the  natural 
heritage  and  promoting  public  environmental  services  (water  and  urban  waste).  Together,  the  two 
subpriorities 
the 
appropriations 
implemented  at 
multiregional 
level,  the  other  half  at  regional  level,  in  each  of  the  regional  OPs.  At  multiregional 
level,  the  OP  for  water  resources  was  adopted  in  1995  with  an  ERDF  contribution  of  ECU871 
million,  and  the  environment  OP should  be adopted  in  1996  (with  ECU  48  million  from  the  ERDF). 

represent  a  Community  contribution  worth  ECU  1 867  million,  or  12.6%> of 
to  the  CSF.  Half  of  these  appropriations  are  being 

allocated 

With  regard  to  EAGGF  assistance,  the  measures  in  most  of  the  programmes  are  organized  by  product 
sector  with  a  view  to  helping  modernize  production  and  marketing  in  line  with  market  demand.  There 
are also  measures  to  assist  alternatives  to traditional  farming,  such  as  farm  tourism,  rural  tourism,  small-
scale  processing  and  direct  sales  of  typical  traditional  farm  products.  The  programmes  also  include 
research  measures  and  technology  transfer  and  agricultural  advisory  services. 

Agriculture and rural development - some significant  achievements: 
In Sardinia  (OP adopted in  1994): 
• 

1  300 sheep and goat rearing holdings (417 000 head) received  Community 
assistance to improve the health and hygiene conditions for milk production; 

•  32 modernization  projects for cheese producing cooperatives; 
•  34 rural tourism projects to breed and train 'Anglo-Arab-Sardinian' horses. 
In Abruzzi  (OP adopted in  1995): 
• 

160 rural development projects financed,  including  110 for rural tourism. 

1995  in the  context  of  the  1994-99  programming  period 

With  regard  to  financial  implementation,  the  Commission's  commitment  of  appropriations  in  1995  was 
satisfactory  in  relation  to  the  amounts  provided  for  in the  CSF,  except  for  ESF  commitments,  which  fell 
well  short  of  forecasts.  However,  insufficient  funds  were  committed  to  fully  make  up  for  the  delay  in 
1994,  so  that  at  the  end  of  1995  there  was  a  shortfall  in  commitments  of  ECU  1.2  billion.  In  terms  of 
implementation  in  the  field  (i.e.  expenditure  by  the  implementing  authorities),  the  situation  of  the 

54 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

programmes  remained  critical  in  1995. In all, at the end of the second  year of the programming  period, 
only 2% of total appropriations for the six years had been spent. 

Table 16:  Objective 1 - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  and year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

SF  assistance 

(1) 

Commitment 
1995 

Commitment 
1994-95 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 

Payn-ents 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

% 
(3)/(2) 

(2) 

(3) 

•  • 

• 

l  y y 3 

OP  Abruzzi 
OP  Abruzzi  (1) 
OP  Calabria  (1) 
MP  Gioia  Tauro  Port 
OP  Campania 
OP  Apulia 
OP  Sicily 

M ultiregional  OPs 

OP  Industry  and  services 
OP  Agricultural  advisory  services  (1) 
OP  W ater  resources 
OP  Tourism 

1994 
Regional  OPs 
OP  Basilicata 
OP  Calabria 
OP  Molise 
OP  Sardinia 

Multiregional 

OPs 
OP  "Emergency"  Employment 
OP  Training  for  instructors 
OP  Training  for  migrant  workers 
OP  Ministry  of  Education 
OP  Fisheries 
OP  Research  and  development 
OP  Telecommunications 
OP  Rail  transport 
OP  Technical  assistance  (2) 

(1)  Single-fund  OP -EAGGF 
(2)  Single-fund ESF 

T O T AL 

333,4 
167,1 
482,0 
120,0 
2  890,8 
2.406,4 
2.603,1 

4.962,4 
231,4 
2.008,3 
302,8 

1.129,5 
1  308,0 
522,7 
2.103,4 

524,0 
271,4 
29,5 
395,0 
560,0 
1.341,3 
1  076,1 
1.756.6 
112,1 
27.637,4 

150,5 
83,9 
241,0 
40,0 
1.327,9 
1  148,4 
1.337,2 

2,592,7 
162,0 
871,0 
130,0 

583,2 
580,3 
292,0 
967,1 

355,7 
184,0 
20,0 
254,0 
233,0 
784,0 
376,7 
701,0 
76,0 
13.491,6 

75,0 
59,4 
76,2 
40,0 
124,0 
203,7 
189,4 

746,9 
34,4 
140,7 
22,2 

51,7 
1,0 
26,8 
50,9 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
48,9 
34,6 
8,2 
102,3 
192,6 
0,0 
2.228,6 

91,5 
59,4 
76,2 
40,0 
177,2 
203,7 
189,4 

750,3 
34,4 
140,7 
22,2 

98,1 
72,9 
37,7 
170,6 

32,7 
16,9 
1,8 
68,5 
66,5 
65,9 
215,9 
385,2 
7,0 
3.024,7 

61% 
71% 
32% 
100% 
13% 
1 8% 
14% 

29% 
21% 
16% 
17% 

17% 
13% 
13% 
18% 

9% 
9% 
9% 
27% 
29% 
8% 
57% 
55% 
9% 
2 2% 

37,5 
30,7 
41,8 
0,0 
63,2 
92,9 
74,1 

373,5 
17,2 
70,3 
11,1 

29,2 
19,1 
15,5 
25,5 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
24,4 
0,0 
4,1 
34,1 
211,9 
0,0 
1.176,1 

45,8 
30,7 
41,8 
0,0 
89,8 
92,9 
74,1 

375,2 
17,2 
70,3 
11,1 

52,4 
36,5 
19,3 
86,9 

50% 
52% 
55% 
0% 
5 1% 
46% 
39% 

50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 

53% 
50% 
51% 
5 1% 

16,3 
8,5 
0,9 
34,3 
16,0 
32,9 
90,9 
308,2 
3,5 
1.555,4 

50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
24% 
50% 
42% 
80% 
50% 
5 1 % 

Furthermore, the unsatisfactory  utilization of Community funds under the CSF for the first  programming 
period  (1989-93)  led the Commission  to  negotiate  with  the Italian  Government,  in the context  of the 
agreement of 26 July  1995, a final  extension of the national payment deadlines until  31 December 1995. 
At  the  end  of  1995,  since  the  Italian  Government  had  undertaken  some  steps  to  implement  the 
agreement,  the extension  of the  Community  payment  deadlines  was confirmed.  This  means  that  the 
Italian  authorities  now have two years after  the deadline for committing  national  funds  to finish  paying 
the amounts in question.  These extensions have enabled them  almost fully  to complete the national and 
regional  commitments  for  1989-93 (100% for the centrally  managed  OPs and 98.7% for the regionally 
managed  OPs), although  progress  is  still  required  as far as payments  are concerned,  particularly  with 
regard to the regionally  managed  OPs which, at the end of 1995, had an average  implementation  rate of 
65% (ranging from  44% for Apulia to 75% for Basilicata). 

NETHERLANDS 

SPD  programming  for  1994-99 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EA  GGF 

FIFG 

I n d u s t r i al  p r o m o t i on  (a) 

T o u r i sm  (b) 

A g r i c u l t u r e,  rural  d e v e l o p m e nt  ( c) 

Fisheries  (d) 

H u m an  r e s o u r c es  (c) 

B u s i n e ss  i n f r a s t r u c t u re 

(0 

T r a n s p o rt  i n f r a s t r u c t u re  ( g) 

Research  and  d e v e l o p m e nt  ( h) 

T e c h n i c al  a s s i s t a n ce  ( i) 

22,0 

5,2 

21,2 

8,2 

28,0 

17,0 

31,4 

14,4 

2,6 

T o t al 

% 

1 5 0 ,0 

100% 

11,9 

4,3 

10,1 

0,9 

0,9 

16,5 

31,0 

14,4 

1,0 

8 0 ,0 

53% 

27,1 

0,5 

0,4 

1,0 

4 0 ,0 

27% 

(h)  10% 

(02% 

( a )1 5* 

21,2 

8,2 

(g)  21% 

0,3 

2 1 ,5 

14% 

0,3 

8,5 

6% 

(On 

(e)  19% 

(d)  5% 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

55 

Implementation in 1995 

The SPD adopted  for  the Netherlands on 21 June  1994 concerns  Flevoland.  The total  contribution  from 
the  Structural  Funds  amounts  to  ECU  150  million.  Implementation  of  the  main  project  in  the 
programme, which  concerns the conversion  of the highway N27  into a motorway  (A27) to  improve the 
link  between  Flevoland  and  the  centre  and  south  of  the  country,  is  running  according  to  schedule. 
Another  part  of  the  programme  concerns  employment,  providing  for  aid  to  firms  which  create jobs, 
whether they are established  in Flevoland  or have just established  themselves there. The total number of 
participants  in  measures  receiving  funding  from  the  ESF  in  1995  exceeded  expectations  (1 788  as 
against  985).  The  regional  employment  office  has  launched  some  of  the  more  important  activities 
provided  for  in  the  SPD.  This  required  intensive  preparation  and  the  inclusion  of  new  partners,  and 
consolidates the basis for activities part-financed  by the ESF. 

Environmental protection  has no separate priority  in the SPD for  Flevoland. Instead, environmental 
measures are included in several different priorities:  agriculture, tourism and industry. An  estimated 
ECU 5 million (3% of the Community's total contribution) will go  towards environmental-protection, 
chiefly for  measures  such  as  assistance  to  SMEs  to  adopt  less polluting  and  more  energy-saving 
procedures,  measures  to control atmospheric and water pollution;  reduction  in the use of pesticides 
and  herbicides,  conservation  of  biodiversity,  management  of  water  sheets  from  the  polder, 
decontamination of the Ketelmeer. 

With  regard  to  monitoring  and  studying  the  impact  of  the  SPD,  the  regional  authorities  of  Flevoland 
have developed  the  DIN  network  {targets-efforts network) to  ensure  proper  monitoring  of the  SPE) by 
measuring  its  impact  on  the  Flevoland  economy.  The  programme  was  developed  in  1995  and  will 
become  operational  in  1996. It  is  expected,  for  example,  that  the  projects  approved  before  the  end  of 
1995  will  make  it  possible  to  create  1  600  permanent jobs  directly,  more  than  3 000  permanent  jobs 
indirectly and almost 2 800 temporary jobs. The objective  is to create  15 000 net jobs  between  1994 and 
1996.  In  addition,  the  University  of  Wageningen  has  drawn  up  a  working  document  for  Flevoland 
concerning extremely  strict criteria for the selection  of agricultural  projects  and criteria  for the appraisal 
of  innovative  projects  as  well  as  their  impact  on  employment  in  agriculture.  Lastly,  a  seminar  was 
organized  in  1995  bringing  together  other  Objective  1  regions  (Burgenland,  Highlands  and  Islands, 
Northern Ireland, Merseyside, Ireland)  to exchange experiences of the implementation  of programmes. 

1995 in the context  of the 1994-99 programming  period 

The  financial  implementation  of  the  SPD  has  been  satisfactory  in  terms  of  commitments  at  national 
level.  However,  there  is  a  serious  delay  in  payments  of  EAGGF  funds  because  of  the  slow  start  in 
getting  measures  underway.  Thus,  at  the  end  of  1995  public  expenditure  for  agriculture  amounted  to 
ECU  1.3  million, compared  with  total  planned  expenditure  of  ECU 24.8  million  for  the  1994 and  1995 
instalments. However, in December  1995 the province of Flevoland  applied  for commitment of the  1995 
instalment  of  ERDF  funding,  illustrating  that  all  of  the  planned  projects  are  progressing  normally. 
Similar progress is being made by the fisheries measures financed  by the FIFG. 

Table 17:  Objective 1 - the Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPD (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m me  and  year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

SF  a s s i s t a n ce 
(!) 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1995 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 
1995 

Payments 
1 9 9 4 - 95 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1994 

SPD  Flevoland 

95877Î 

150.01 

TTJ] 

~TH]—T&Ï] 

Wl—5T%" 

56 

PORTUGAL 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

CSF  programming 

for  1994-99 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

Human  resources  and  employment  (a) 
Economic  competitiveness  (b) 
Living  standards  (c) 
Regional  economic  b a se  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 

3059,6 
6.306,2 
1.264,0 
3.144,3 
205,9 

918,0 
4.073,2 
936,0 
2661,8 
134,9 

2.141,6 
414,0 
328,0 
194,1 
71,0 

1.637.0 

182,0 

257,2 

31,2 

ECU  million 

Total 
% 

13.980,0 
100% 

8.723,9 
62% 

3.148,7 
23% 

1.894,2 
14% 

213,2 
2% 

(d) 22% 

(»)  1% 

(a)  22% 

(c)  9% 

(b)  46% 

Assistance  adopted in 1995 

In  1995 the only  Commission  approval  was of a global  grant  for  municipal  investment.  The contract 
between  the intermediary  body and the Commission was signed on  15 November  1995. The Portuguese 
CSF is thus being implemented by means of nine multiregional OPs and seven regional OPs, all adopted 
in  1994,  and  a  global  grant  adopted  in  1995.  These  operations  account  for  all  of  the  assistance 
programmed  in the CSF. 

Implementation  in 1995 

On the whole,  progress  in  1995 was satisfactory.  Most of the programmes  attained  the objectives fixed 
for  the  year.  However,  progress  was  less  satisfactory  in  certain  cases,  although  the  delays  in  the 
programmes  in question  should be made  up thanks to the sustained  management  effort  and monitoring 
undertaken by the Portuguese authorities. 

The  environmental  measures  in  the  Portuguese  CSF  come  under  the priority  relating  to  living 
standards and can also be found  in the regional programmes as regional development measures. Very 
substantial  funding  is  provided  for  in  the  regional  OPs  (ECU 1 056  million,  or  7.6%>  of  CSF 
assistance) and concentrates mainly on the supply and distribution of water, collection and treatment 
of urban waste and waste water, reduction of river pollution, protection  of the coastline and biotopes 
and public  information.  Under the living standards priority,  the environment and urban renewal are 
the subject of an OP with ECU 559 million from the ERDF for  two subprogrammes. The environment 
section  (ECU260  million)  provides  for  conservation  and  upgrading  of  the  natural  heritage, 
improvement of the environmental impact of productive  activities, information and training measures 
and technical assistance.  The urban renewal section (ECU 299 million) provides for  the renovation of 
slums and degraded areas, EXPO  '98 and technical assistance. 

With  regard  to programmes  which  had already  been  adopted, two additional  allocations  from  the  1995 
indexing  operation  were  granted:  one, amounting  to  ECU 39.1  million,  was allocated  by the  EAGGF 
Guidance  Section  to the agriculture  subprogramme  to alleviate  the effects  of the persistent  drought  in 
1995,  the other,  amounting  to  ECU 14.5 million,  by the ESF to the knowledge  and  innovation  OP in 
order to strengthen the vocational aspect of the education  subprogramme. 

With regard  to the rate of implementation, there is a delay  in implementing the OP for the development 
of  regional  potential.  This  is mainly  due to the  innovative  nature  of the  programme  and the  need  for 
many  legal  instruments  in  order  to  decentralize  its  management  (protocols  with  local  development 
associations,  banks, etc.). Nevertheless,  it is expected  that  several  subprogrammes  and measures  under 
this OP (rural centres, historic villages, aid schemes) will started in practice at the beginning of 1996. 

The rate of implementation  of the urban  renewal  subprogramme  of the environment  and urban  renewal 
OP is very slow, at  16%). This is partly due to the difficulties  encountered  in the compulsory  purchase of 
land. 

The commerce  subprogramme  in the economic modernization  OP is to be reprogrammed.  Its low rate of 
implementation  (20% for  1994 and  1995) is due above  all to the fact  that  it finances  measures  which 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

57 

require  a long  implementation  period. Also  in the  economic  modernization  OP, the  first  six  months  of 
implementation of the fisheries  subprogramme was mainly spent selecting projects and adopting the first 
ministerial decisions on potential beneficiaries,  as well as implementing the programmed  measures. The 
rate of implementation  picked up in the second half of the year and preparations for the evaluation  of the 
OPs began. Invitations to tender  for  the appointment  of independent  experts are due to  be  issued  at the 
beginning of  1996. The Monitoring Committee held six meetings during  1995, which  helped to speed up 
implementation  of  the  first  measures.  However,  in  order  to  compensate  for  the  low  rate  of 
implementation  in  1994,  the  Monitoring  Committee  reprogrammed  the  financial  deadlines  at  its  last 
meetings. It also adopted  a specific  FIFG  measure to assist  Portuguese  crews  affected  by the  expiry  of 
the fisheries  agreement with Morocco13 The purpose of this measure  is to compensate for the temporary 
suspension  of activity  (from  May to November  1995) caused  by the  absence  of  a new  agreement.  The 
funding  for  the  measure  is restricted  to ECU 4.8 million. In addition,  some  of  the  FIFG  appropriations 
already  granted  to  Portugal  under the CSF  have been  reallocated  in order  to  indemnify  shipowners  for 
the  temporary  laying-up  of  their  vessels,  on  the  basis  of  Article  14  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  3699/93. 
ECU 4  million  has  been  mobilized  for  the  entire  laying-up  period,  to  which  the  Community  will 
contribute ECU 3 million. 

The  delay  in the  financial  implementation  of the  energy  subprogramme  in  the  infrastructure  OP  arose 
because  certain  projects  initially  included  in this  sub-programme,  for  which  a  heavy  take-up  of  funds 
was  expected  in  1994  and  1995,  were  transferred  to  the  Regen  section  of  the  Interreg  Community 
Initiative14.  The  subprogramme  was  reprogrammed  during  1995  in  order  to  adjust  the  1994  and  1995 
forecasts to take account of these transfers. 

The  Commission  did  not adopt the technical  assistance OP until  20  December  1994, which  is why  the 
implementation  rate is so low. It is planned to use the ERDF's appropriations for  1994 in  1996, while the 
Portuguese  authorities  have  requested  reprogramming  of the  ESF section  to  transfer  the  appropriations 
not used in  1994 (ECU  8.2 million) to  1996(ECU4.1  million) and  1997(ECU4.1  million). 

The  OP on  the development  of regional  potential  was the only  programme  to  be  amended  in  1995, by 
decision  of  the  Monitoring  Committee  on  13  November.  The  Community's  part-financing  of  the 
programme remains the same (ECU 595 million, of which  ECU 405 million  is from  the  ERDF, ECU 81 
million  from  the ESF and ECU  109 million  from  the EAGGF Guidance  Section). The  main  change  lies 
in the  introduction  of  an  aid  scheme  for  the  smallest firms with  the  chief  objective  of  encouraging  the 
creation  of new jobs  (estimated  at 20 000). This  scheme  is of the  utmost  importance  to  local  and  rural 
economies  affected  by  depopulation  and  other  development  problems.  The  undertakings  made  in  the 
initial version of the programme, particularly the creation of regional development  agencies (with a view 
to  gradually  increasing  the  degree  of  decentralization  and  partnership  between  public  and  private 
economic  operators)  and  the  strengthening  of  policy  for  medium-sized  towns  (as  a  factor  in  the 
development  of  towns  with  the  potential  to  play  a  role  in  regional  development)  are  taken  up  in  the 
revised version. 

1995 in the content  of the 1994-99 programming  period 

In  all,  financial  implementation  of  the  Portuguese  CSF  is  making  good  progress.  The  average 
implementation  rate  on  the  ground  in  1995  for  all  programmes  was  85% for  all  Funds  taken  together 
(93%  for  the  ERDF,  98%  for  the  ESF).  Community  commitments  represent  one  third  of  the  funding 
available for the entire period. 

13 See Chapter I.A.5.2 on Objective 5(a) fisheries. 
14 See Chapter I.B.I  on Community Initiatives. 

58 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 18:  Objective 1 - Portugal - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  and  y e ar  of  adopt.on 

Total  c o st 

SF  a s s i s t a n ce 

0) 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 9 4 - 95 
(2) 

V. 

(2)10) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

199 S 
Multiregional 

OP 
GG  S u p p o rt  for  local  i n v e s t m e nt 

J994 
Regional 

OPs 

OP  A zoers 
OP  A  lentejo 
OP  A l g a r ve 
OP  Centre 
OP  L i s b o n - T a g us  Valley 
OP  M a d e i ra 
OP  North 

PO 

pluri-rcgionaux 

OP  Environment  and  urban  r e n e w al 
OP  Technical  a s s i s t a n ce 
OP  Bases  for  k n o w l e d ge  and 
OP  Training  and  e m p l o y m e nt 
OP  Infrastructure 

innovation 

OP  M odern  ization  of  the  e c o n o m ic  fabric 
OP  PRINEST  (1) 
OP  D e v e l o p m e nt  of  regional  potential 
OP  Health  and  social  integration 

33,3 

25,0 

25,0 

25,0 

100% 

0,0 

0,0 

0% 

857,6 
250,6 
101,9 
490,5 
517,2 
665,2 
721,1 

973,7 
135,6 
2.257,0 
1.903,3 
3.915,8 
1)  678,8 
40,0 
1.231,8 
940,0 

616,0 
182,0 
76,0 
362,0 
382,0 
369,3 
537,0 

559,0 
101,7 
1  675,0 
1.384,6 
1.987,0 
4.3)9,2 
30,0 
595,0 
705,0 

84,7 
57,7 
24,9 
60,0 
94,0 
82,4 
97,8 

0,0 

11,0 
210,7 
219,3 
0,0 
284,3 
7,3 
14,0 
106,6 

216,2 
78,6 
28,5 
126,0 
124,5 
148,6 
210,0 

55,1 
28,6 
587,6 
409,3 
618,5 
1.526,2 
22,3 
67,2 
276,5 

35% 
4 3% 
3 7% 
35% 
3 3% 
40% 
39% 

10% 
28% 
3 5% 
30% 
3 1% 
3 5% 
74% 
11% 
39% 

96,9 
27,0 
15,9 
47,0 
65,1 
74,8 
77,8 

16,5 
8,2 
232,5 
251,8 
259,0 
403,8 
7,4 
1  1,1 
72,3 

181,2 
43,8 
18,8 
88,3 
89,5 
123,8 
148,3 

44,1 
17,0 
412,7 
346,7 
517,9 
998,4 
17,2 
37,7 
178,1 

84% 
56% 
66% 
70% 
72% 
8 3% 
7 1% 

80% 
59% 
70% 
85% 
84% 
65% 
77% 
56% 
64% 

T O T AL 

2 6.713,3 

13.905,8 

1.379,7 

4 . 5 4 8 ,8 

3 3% 

1.667,0 

3 . 2 6 3 ,4 

7 2% 

( 1  ) Statistical  infrastructure 

UNITED KINGDOM 

The environmental measures provided for  in the SPDs for  the United Kingdom are varied because of 
the diversity of the regions concerned.  In Northern Ireland action is chiefly focused  on protecting  the 
natural environment  (ECU 64.1 million, 5.2% of the appropriations in the SPD)  but also covers  the 
development of activities related to the environment such as services to businesses, product  quality or 
research and development  (ECU 19 million), conservation of the heritage  (ECU 8.1  million),  urban 
renewal (ECU 25.5 million) or energy-saving measures in businesses (ECU 5 million).  Environmental 
action for  Merseyside  (ECU 45  million,  or  5.5%  of  the  appropriations  in  the  SPD)  concerns  the 
treatment of industrial waste, the development of clean technologies and environmental skills  in firms 
(ECU 13  million  from  the  ERDF  and  the  ESF),  the  restoration  of  run-down  urban  areas  and 
protection  of the natural  environment  and architectural heritage  (ECU 29  million  from  the  ERDF). 
Lastly,  environmental  measures  in  the  Highlands  and  Islands  (ECU 16.3  million,  or  5.2%  of  the 
appropriations in the SPD) are financed  by the three Funds, each according  to its specific  vocation: 
recycling of waste and environmental research are funded  by the ERDF  (ECU  7.6 million), a  scheme 
for  the protection  of  the  natural  environment  is financed  by  the  EAGGF  (ECU 7.1 million)  and 
training  is funded  by  the  ESF 1.6  million)  In  total,  the  Community's  direct  contribution  to  the 
environment  in  the  United  Kingdom  amounts  to  about  ECU 146  million,  or  6%>  of  the  overall 
allocation. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

59 

Implementation  in 1995 

Implementation  of the  SPDs for the United Kingdom's Objective  1  regions (Northern  Ireland,  Highlands 
and Islands, Merseyside) has progressed  in line with the programming  forecasts. 

SPD  programming  for  1994-99 
Ireland 
Northern 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ECU  million 

Economic  development  (a) 
Local  communities  (b) 
Measures  to  reduce  remoteness  (c) 
Agriculture  and  fisheries  (d) 
Environment  (e) 
Technical  assistance  (f) 

315,1 
315,8 
321,2 
215,0 
64,1 
1,6 

Total 
% 

1.232,8 
100% 

199,3 
90,6 
321,2 

64,1 
1,6 

676,8 
55% 

115,8 
225,2 

13,0 

186,9 

15,1 

354,0 
29% 

186,9 
15% 

15,1 
1% 

(C)  26% 

(e)  5% 

(f)  0.13% 

(d)  17% 

(a)  26% 

Northern Ireland:  The  rate  of expenditure  in  1995 made  up  for  the  slow  start  and  the  initial  objective 
should  be  attained  during  1996.  The  main  delays  concerned  the  energy  measures  (undenthe  priority 
"measures  to  reduce  peripherality"),  with  public  enquiries  slowing  down  expenditure  on  an  important 
project to connect the electricity grids of Scotland and Northern  Ireland. By contrast, the priority  relating 
to environmental  services had made good progress at the end of  1995. In addition, after  the CAP  reform 
the climate for  investments in agriculture was good and several measures had to be suspended for  lack of 
appropriations  because the funds  allocated to agricultural  measure had been exhausted. The cessation  of 
violence  early  in  autumn  1994  led  to  an  increased  demand  for  investment  in  tourism  and  in  projects 
under the measure  for  the physical  and social environment, the objectives  of which  are reconciliation  of 
local  communities  and  urban  renewal  (the  local  communities  priority). These  activities  were  allocated 
additional  funds  by  the  Monitoring  Committee  in  November  1995.  A  first  step  was  also  taken  in 
considering whether the  SPD should  be adjusted  to take account of these developments, as proposed  by 
the British  Government  when  preparing the Peace initiative approved  in July  199515. With  regard  to the 
evaluation  of the  SPD, the  Monitoring  Committee  agreed  to appoint  an external  assessor  at  its  meeting 
in November.  External  assessors will also be appointed  for the different  priorities, with the exception  of 
the environmental  services priority. 

SPD  programming  for  1994-99 
Highlnnils  anil  hi  a nil s 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EA  GGF 

FIFG 

ECU  million 

B u s i n e ss  d e v e l o p m e nt  (a) 

T o u r i s m,  c u l t u re  (b) 

E n v i r o n m e nt  ( c) 

Primary  s e c t or  (d) 

L o c al  c o m m u n i ty  d e v e l o p m e nt  (e) 

C o m m u n i c a t i o ns  a nd  s e r v i c es  ( f) 

T e c h n i c al  a s s i s t a n ce  ( g) 

72,1 

24,2 

16,3 

68,7 

46,9 

79,7 

3,1 

54,3 

22,0 

7,6 

13,9 

79,7 

2,5 

T o t al 

% 

3 1 1 ,0 

100% 

1 8 0 ,0 

5 8% 

17,8 

2,2 
ï,6 

33,0 

0,6 

5 5 ,2 

18% 

(f)  26% 

(9)  1% 

(a)  23% 

7,1 

48,9 

19,8 

5 6 ,0 

18% 

19,8 

6% 

(e)  1 

(d)  22% 

Highlands and Islands:  Since the approval  of the  SPD in  1994,  1  500 projects  have been  presented,  of 
which  604  have  been  selected.  There  has  been  a significant  success, to judge  from  the  increase  in  the 
number  of  participants  in  the  programme:  on  the  basis  of  the  projects  selected,  more  than  130 
organizations  will  receive  assistance  from  the  ERDF  and  the  ESF. One third  of the  resources  available 
from  these  two  Funds  has  gone  to  the  "Highlands  and  Islands  Enterprise"  network.  A  substantial 
amount  of  ERDF  assistance  is being  pumped  into the  Western  Isles, Caithness,  Sutherland  and  Argyll 
through  a  set  of  projects  relating  to  the  development  of  communications,  tourism  and  businesses.  To 
judge  by  the  commitments,  the  programme  is  making  excellent  progress  with  regard  to  tourism  and 
cultural  heritage  measures,  but  progressing  more  slowly  in  other  fields  (research  and  development, 
access to information  by firms, advisory assistance). The agricultural  measures are being implemented  at 
a  satisfactory  rate,  with  the exception  of the environmental  and  forestry  measures.  Delays  in  payments 
have  arisen  between  the  phase  of  approval  of  the  projects  and  the  declaration  of  expenditure.  The 

15 See Chapter I.B.I  Community Initiatives. 

60 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

authorities responsible have promised to take the necessary steps in  1996 to ensure that these delays are 
not exacerbated. All the measures to be financed  by the FIFG have been  launched  and are progressing at 
a satisfactory  pace. The Monitoring Committee met twice in  1995, and the management committee  four 
times, to  assess  the  projects  to be approved.  In November  1995 the  Monitoring  Committee  decided  to 
review  the  programmes  implementing  procedures  in  order  to  encourage  greater  participation  by  local 
operators  in  line with  the  bottom-up  approach. A number  of local  groups  will  be  set  up  and  invited  to 
study the projects  in their respective areas and the local  strategies contributing  to the overall  attainment 
of the  SPD's objectives.  The Monitoring  Committee also  launched  several  thematic  studies  concerning 
the assessment of environmental  impact, regional GDP and the labour market. 

SPD  programming  for  1994-99 
Merseyside 

Priorities 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

ECU  million 

Large  firms  (a) 
Local  b u s i n e s s es  (b) 
Technological  development  (c) 
Culture  (d) 
Measures  benefiting  the  local  population  (e) 
Technical  assistance  (0 

186,0 
149,0 
62,0 
54,0 
361,0 
4,0 

178,0 
106,0 
42,0 
38,0 
109,0 
2,0 

8,0 
40,0 
20,0 
16,0 
252,0 
2,0 

3,0 

(e)  44% 

(f)  0,50% 

(a)  23% 

Total 
% 

816,0 
100% 

475,0 
58% 

338,0 
41% 

3,0 
0% 

(b)  18% 

(d)  7% 

(C)  8% 

Merseyside:  The Monitoring  Committee met five times during the year  and there were ten  meetings  of 
the  technical  committees  chiefly  responsible  for  project  selection.  A  points  scoring  system  was 
introduced  for  the  selection  of  measures  to receive  ESF  assistance  and  688  measures  were  selected  to 
receive  a  total  of  ECU 45  million.  In  the  context  of  local  economic  development,  38  seriously 
disadvantaged  areas were defined  as target areas. Local partnership was set up in these areas, made up of 
the  local  authorities  and  the  main  bodies  involved  in  the  programme,  and  a  specific  development 
strategy  was  drawn  up. More than  500 projects  relating to  industry  eligible  for  ERDF  assistance  were 
presented. A two-tier  selection  procedure and scoring system  were applied  and  181 of the projects  were 
selected.  An  important  innovative  project  was  approved  for  the  development  of  SMEs,  for  which  the 
Merseyside  special  investment  fund  will  receive  ECU  18.9  million  to  improve  the  functioning  of  the 
capital  market  by  creating  three  investment  funds  with  a  total  allocation  of  ECU 29.4  million.  The 
Commission's  approval  was  sought  and  the  fund  should  begin  to  operate  in  1996.  Another  important 
project  which  was  approved  concerns  the  Chevasse  Park  media  factory,  which  aims  to  manage  work 
places and to offer  training to facilitate  the growth of SMEs in the communications  sector. This measure 
should  help  to  create  a  cultural  and  communications  activity  pole  close  to  the  centre  of  Liverpool 
comprising,  in  particular,  the  Liverpool  Institute  of  Performing  Arts  financed  under  the  previous 
programme. 

The rules governing  applications for ERDF financing  and their evaluation  were reviewed  in partnership: 
calls  for  projects  will  be  issued  continuously  throughout  the  year  and  projects  will  be  assessed  using 
more rigorous criteria,  particularly with  regard to environmental  requirements.  Lastly,  in addition  to the 
Monitoring  Committee's  normal  meetings,  two  "strategy  days"  were  organized  by  the  local  partners, 
with more than  100 participants. During these days the implementation  of the programme was examined 
in greater detail  and technical  working parties were set up to assist the local  partners  in making the best 
strategic  choices.  With  regard  to  evaluation,  a  study  on  the  Merseyside  economy  was  launched  to 
produce  recommendations  on  implementation  of the programme. This  brought  to  light  the  Merseyside 
economy's  potential  for  growth  and  stressed  the  need  to  help  inhabitants  in  the  most  disadvantaged 
neighbourhoods to find jobs. 

1995 in the context  of the 1994-99 programming  period 

Financial  implementation  for  Merseyside  (commitments  and  payments)  is progressing  normally  for  the 
ESF, and  more  slowly  for  the  ERDF  and the  EAGGF. Although  65% of  all  the  available  ERDF  funds 
had  in  principle  been  approved  by the end  of  1995, there were  few  requests  for  payment.  The  same  is 
true  in the case of the Highlands and  Islands: financial  implementation  (commitments  and  payments)  is 
progressing  normally  for the ESF and the FIFG and more slowly for the  ERDF and the  EAGGF. In this 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

61 

case,  the  rate  of  commitment  of  ERDF  funds  at  31  December  1995  amounted  to  around  30%  of 
available funds  while payment requests were much lower. In December  1995 the financing schedule was 
amended so that the  1995 instalment for the ERDF could be committed. 

Table 19:  Objective 1 - United Kingdom - Financial  implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a n d y e ar  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

SF  a s s i s t a n ce 

(1) 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

% 
( 2 ) / (D 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

(2) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1994 

SPD  Highlands  and  Islands 
SPD  Northern  Ireland 
SPD  M e r s e y s i de 

1.012,4 
2.658,3 
2.000,0 
5.670,7 

311,0 
1  232,8 
816,0 
2.359,8 

39,1 
129,3 
50,2 
218,6 

81,9 
288,3 
162,1 
532,3 

26% 
23% 
20% 

2 3% 

16,6 
102,8 
44,5 
163,8 

40,7 
190,2 
100,5 
3 3 1 ,4 

50% 
66% 
62% 
6 2% 

TOTAL 

62 

3.  Objective  2 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 20:  Summary of Objective 2 OPs/SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 (ECU million) 

SPDs ADOPTED IN  1994 

OPs ADOPTED IN  1995 

Member  State/Region 

TOTAL 

ERDF 

Member  State/Region 

Belgium 

Aubange 
Liège 
Limburg 
Turnhotit 

Lolland 
North Jutland 

Germany 

Bavaria 
Berlin 
Bremen 

Hesse 

Lower  Saxony 
North Rhine  Westphalia 
Rhineland-Palalinate 
Sanland 
Schleswig-Holstein 

Alsace 
Aquitaine 
Auvergne 
Lower  Normandy 
Burgundy 
Brittany 
Centre 
Champagne-Ardcnne 
Franche-Comté 
Upper Normandy 
Langtiedoc-Roussillon 
Lorraine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Nord/Pas-de-Calais 
Loire  Region 

Picardy 
Poilon-( 'hare nies 

Provencc-Alpes-Côle  d'Azur 
Rhône-Alpes 

Italy 

Emilia-Romagna 
Friuli-Veneiia  Gitilia 
Lazio 
Liguria 
Lomhardy 
Marche 
Piedmont 
Toscany 
l Imbria 
l'aile d'Aosta 
l'eneto 

Luxembourg 
Netherlands 

Arhnem-Nijmegen 
Groningen-Drenlhe 
Twente-Overijsel 
Zuid-Limburg 
Zuidoost  Brabant 

United  Kingdom 

East London  and the Lee  I alley 
Eiist  Midlands 
Eastern  Scotland 
Gibraltar 
Greater Manchester,  Ixincashire,  Cheshire 
Industrial South  Wales 
North Fast  England 
Plymouth 

Thanet 
West ( 'umbria and Fiirness 
West Midlands 
Western Scotland 
Yorkshire and  Humberside 

TOTAL  1994 

160,0 
1,3 
88,5 
46,8 
23,4 

56,0 
9,5 
46,5 
733,0 

14,7 

158,3 

46,9 

21,3 

42,5 

361,4 

23,5 

49,1 

15,4 
1.763,2 

19,6 
107,1 
61,1 
57,8 
49,4 
89,7 
24,2 
77,5 
47,8 
146,0 
70,5 
127,4 
42,6 
318,1 
135,9 
122,4 
53,3 
113,1 
99,7 

684,0 
12,0 
24,0 
64,0 
96,0 
23,0 
21,0 
205,0 
127,0 
35,0 
6,0 
71,0 
7,0 

300,0 

56,0 
76,0 
58,0 
43,0 
67,0 
2.142,0 
74,0 
79,0 
121,0 
5,0 
329,0 
188,0 
308,0 

29,0 

14,0 
25,0 

371,0 
286,0 
313,0 

5.845,2 
100% 

259,9 
14,8 

1.6 
107,9 

1,4 

31,3 

5,1 
58,1 
39,7 

259,9 
23% 

130,0 

30,0  Spain 

1.130,0 

«70,1 

Aragon 
Balearic Islands 
Catalonia 
Riqja 
Madrid 
Navarre 
Basque Country 
Multi-regional 

64,2 
10,4 
510,1 
11,9 
145,0 
22,8 
325,9 
39,7 

TOTAL  1995 
% 

1.130,0 
100% 

402,2 
10,5 
113,7 
17,7 
267,8 
0,0 

870,1 

0,9 
75,3 
35,1 
18,7 
44,2 

7,0! 

37,2; 

513,7 
9,5 
102,1 
30,5 
18,3 
29,8 
263,8 
15,2 
34,4 
10,0 

1.452,6 

16,1 
91,5 
50,6 
46,6 
42,0 
77,6 
20,5 
62,1 
41,2 
112,1 
59,9 
102,9 
34,6 
265,5 
109,6 
98,8 
43,6 
95,7 
81,8 

542,3 
9,6 
18,4 
52,2 
67,5 
1 

17,9 

164,0 

103,0 
27,5 
5,8 
57,6 

6,0 

206,0 
39,4 
48,6J 
39,4 
31,7 
47,0 
1.606,9 
55,5 
59,3 
96,8 
4,1 
230,3 
141,0 

231,0 

23,3 
11,9 
1 
278,0 
222,9 
234,0 

0.4 
13,2 
11,7 
4,7 
11,8 

2193 
5,1 
56,2 
16,4 

3,0 

12,7 

97,6 

8,2 
14,7 
5,4 
310,6 

3,5 
15,6 
10,5 
11,3 

7,4 

12,1 
3,7 
15,4 
6,6 
33,9 
10,6 
24,5 
8,0 
52,6 
26,3 
23,6 
9,7 
17,4 
17,9 

141,7 

2,4 
5,6 
11,8 
28,5 
4,2 
3,1 
41,0 
24,0 
7,5 
0,2 

13,4 
1,0 
94,0 
16,6 

27,5 
18,6 
11,3 
20,0 

535,1 
18,5 
19,8 
24,2 
0,9 
98,7 
47,0 
77,0 
5,7 

2,1 

6,2 
93,0 
63,1 
79,0 

4.501,7 
"% 

1.343,4 
21% 

TOTAL  1994-1995 

6.975,2 
100% 

5.371,8 

1.603,3 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

63 

3.1.  Implementation  of Objective 2 in 1995 

As far as Objective  2 is concerned,  during  1995 work began on the programmes, which  will  run for an 
initial  three-year  period  from  1994 to  1996, in  all  the  twelve  Member  States.  All  the  Objective  2 
programmes  (SPDs)  had been  adopted  at the end of  1994, as had the CSF for  Spain,  leaving  only the 
eight  OPs to  implement  that  CSF and the  SPDs  for the three  new Member  States16  to be  adopted  in 
1995. This  means  that  in the  15 Member  States there are 82 operations  under  Objective  2: eight OPs 
within  a  single  CSF  in  Spain  and  74  SPDs  in the  other  Member  States.  Of the  SPDs,  64  had  been 
adopted  in 1994 while  18 operations (of which ten concerned the new Member States) were approved in 
1995.  As  far  as  the  integration  of  the  two  Funds  (ERDF  and  ESF)  which  finance  Objective  2  is 
concerned,  it should  be noted  that all but one programme (the multi-regional  OP in Spain)  provide  for 
joint financing by the ERDF and the ESF. 

Table 21:  Objective 2 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-96 (ECU million) 

B 

160,0  * 
160,0 
100% 
62,2 
39% 
29,3 
18% 

DK 
56,0  * 
56,0 
100% 

30,3 
54% 
20,0 
36% 

D 
733,0  * 
733,0 
100% 
286,9 
39% 
156,9 
2 1% 

E 
1.130,0  *• 
1.130,0 
100% 

659,2 
58% 
448,0 
40% 

F 
1.763,2 * 
1.763,2 
100% 
904,4 
5 1% 
423,3 
24% 

1 
684,0  * 
684,0 
100% 
299,9 
44% 
150,0 
22% 

L 
7,0  * 
7,0 
100% 
8,0 
114% 
4,0 
57% 

N 
300,0  • 
300,0 
100% 
105,0 
35% 
52,5 
18% 

AT 
101,0  * 
101,0 
100% 
54,1 
54% 
21,4 
2 1% 

Fl 
69,2  • 
69,2 
100% 
31,1 
45% 
15,6 
22% 

SE 
160,0  * 
160,0 
100% 
105,8 
66% 
38,1 
24% 

UK 
"2.142,0  * 
2.142,0 
100% 
1.250,0 
58% 
518,9 
24% 

Total 
7.305,4 
7.305,4 
100% 
3.796,9 
52% 
1.877,8 
26% 

Programmed 
Adopted 
% 
Commitments  1994-95 
% of  assistance 
Payments  1994-95 
% of  assistance 

* Programmed by SPD 
** Programmed by CSF 

The extent  of implementation  of Objective  2 at the end of the period  1994-95  can be looked  at from  a 
number of points of view. All the programming documents (mainly SPDs) were adopted and 52% of the 
commitments  for them  have been  made. Payments at the end of two years  stand  at one quarter  of total 
assistance. At first sight, these rates may appear  low but it should  be recalled  that the vast  majority  of 
SPDs and OPs were  not adopted  until the last quarter of  1994 or the beginning  of  1995. A  substantial 
increase  in absorption  is therefore  expected  for  1996. However,  the situation  varies  considerably  from 
one Member  State to another, with  commitments as a percentage of assistance  ranging from  35% in the 
Netherlands to almost 60% in the United Kingdom and 66% in Sweden while payments range from  less 
than 20% of assistance in Belgium to 57% in Luxembourg. 

16 See Chapter I. A.7. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies. 

64 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds  (1995) 

Consideration of the environment  in Objective 2 measures: 

Finance for  sustainable  development  in  the  Objective  2  areas  takes  many forms  since  special 
attention was paid  to  this sector  when the programmes  were prepared. Environmental  measures  in 
the strict sense of the term account for  ECU 597 million of the appropriations programmed for  1994-
96, or 5.7% of the total for  the Objective. In addition, investment in the renovation  of industrial and 
urban sites amounts to ECU 956 million, 14% of total funding for  Objective 2 for  1994-96. To these 
amounts should be added the appropriations for 1997-99. 
The main problems  experienced by the Objective 2 areas stem from industrial activities either past  or 
present  which have  resulted in the contamination of land or groundwater  by  industrial pollution  or 
the  failure  to  remove  waste  and  the  abandonment  of  industrial  or  urban  sites.  As  a  result, 
environmental  measures  are  concerned  mainly  with  cleaning  up pollution  and  encouraging  new 
productive  investment  to  use environmentally-friendly processes  and plant.  These account for  over 
half  (53%)  of  the  finance  allocated  directly  to  the  environment  under  Objective  2.  A  further 
substantial proportion  (41%) goes to the treatment and cleaning up of sites. 
Because of its long-term benefits, support for productive  investment including preventive  measures is 
also  of  considerable  importance  under  Objective 2.  This  includes  incentives, primarily  for  small 
businesses, for  the  use of environmentally-friendly products,  technologies and sources of energy, for 
the  adoption  of  "green  technologies"  and for  environmental  research  and  development  and  for 
increasing awareness  through  vocational training to help the  labour force  adapt  to changes  in the 
structures of production. 

Table 22:  Objective  2  and  the  environment  -  breakdown  of  appropriations  allocated directly to  the 

environment in 1994-96 (EUR 9 - ECU million -1994 prices) 

(C)  6% 

Removal  ot'pollution,  treatment  of  waste  and  clean  technologies  (a) 
Restoration  of  industrial  sites  and  urban  areas  (b) 
Training  and  other  (c) 

Total 

210,8 
162,0 
24.2 

397,0  *m_^ 

% 

(a)  53% 

3.2.  Country-by-country  survey 

BELGIUM 

Programming 

for  1 994-96  (ECU  million) 

Breakdown  by  sector 

: 

Productive  environment  (a) 
Human  resources  (b) 
Land  improvement  and  restoration  (c) 
Environmental  protection  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (c) 
Breakdown  by  Fund  : 

(d)5% 

(e)3% 

(C)  12% 

( a) 47% 

76,0 
52,8 
18,8 
8,1 
4,1 

ERDF 
ESF 
Total 

130,0 
30,0 
160,0 

81% 
19% 
100% 

(b)  33% 

TSTDT 

Average  per  SPD"]" 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

Implementation  in 1995 

65 

Each SPD  except  the  one for  Aubange  contains a priority  or subpriority dealing  with measures  for 
the environment.  The general contribution of the Structural Funds  is ECU 22 million (14% of total 
assistance), of which ECU 8 million will go to measures directly concerned with the protection  of the 
environment.  The bulk  of the appropriations will be  used for  the treatment of  industrial waste  with 
others  being  used  to  clean  up  disused  sites.  Limburg  and  Turnhout  are  allocating  5%  of  the 
appropriations for  the  environment  (using funding provided  by the ESF) to environmental research 
and training and employment in this area. 

The  total  contribution  of  the  Structural  Funds  to  the  areas  of  Belgium  eligible  under  Objective  217 
amounts to ECU  160 million  programmed  in the four  SPDs adopted  in December  1994. The progress of 
the  SPDs  varies,  with  the  programmes  in Turnhout  and  Limburg  already  operational.  The  priorities  in 
Turnhout  are  industry,  services  and  the  environment  and  the  main  project  selected  is  a  centre  for 
promotion,  demonstration,  research  and  advice  to  help  small  firms  develop  and  use  environmentally-
friendly  production  and management techniques. Limburg has the same priorities, with the main  project 
concerning  technology  to  promote  research  into  new  materials  for  use  in  industry.  In  botTTcases,  the 
Monitoring Committee and the Management Committee have operated  satisfactorily. 

Implementation  of the  programme  for  Liège, by contrast, whose priorities  are economic  diversification, 
technological  innovation,  improving the  attractiveness  of the  area  and  employment,  has  suffered  some 
delay  (the  1995  ERDF  instalment  could  not be committed  in that year). This  is greatest  in the  areas  of 
technological  innovation,  the  development  of tourist  potential  and  the  cleaning  up of  abandoned  sites. 
Measures  to  develop  locally  generated  potential  (information  for  small  firms,  assistance,  help  with  the 
establishment  of  firms)  are, however,  progressing  satisfactorily.  Approval  at the  end  of the  year  of the 
scheme  of  aid  for  productive  investment  (ECU  13.7  million  from  the  ERDF,  or  18%  of  its  total 
contribution) will enable this measure to get under way. 

Since the decision  was  taken  in  1994, only  one commitment  (ECU  1.3  million)  has  been  made  for  the 
Aubange  programme.  It  was  amended  in  autumn  1995  by  the  first  Monitoring  Committee,  which 
decided  to  abandon  the  measure  concerning  business  premises  in  favour  of  four  measures  relating  to 
reception  infrastructure  for  firms,  one  of  which  is a joint  services  centre,  on  the  site  of  the  European 
development pole. 

1995 in the context  of programming for 1994-96 

Table 23:  Objective 2 - Belgium - Financial implementationof the SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd  y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

T o t al  c o st 

S  F  a s s i s t a n ce 

1994 

S PD  A u b a n ge 

S PD  Liège 

S PD  Limburg 

S PD  T u r n l i o ut 

T O T AL 

(1) 

1,3 
88,5 
46,8 
23,4 

160,0 

3,2 
314,2 
121,8 
58,1 

4 9 7 ,2 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e nt 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(2) 

% 
(2)1(1) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

P a y m e n ts 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

% 
( 3 ) / ( 2) 

0,4 

4,2 

0,0 

0.0 
4,6 

1.3 
22,5 
14.9 
23.4 

100% 
2 5% 
3 2% 
100% 

62,2 

3 9% 

0.5 

1  1.3 
o.o 
0.0 

11,7 

0.5 
1  1.3 
7,5 
10.1 

3 7% 
5 0% 
•50% 
4 3% 

2 9 ,3 

4 7  % 

17 Aubange, Liège, Limburg and Turnhout. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

( a ) 4 2% 

66 

DENMARK 

Programming  for  1994-96  (ECU  million) 

Breakdown  by sector  : 
Productive  environment  (a) 
Human  resources  (b) 
Technical  assistance  (c) 
Breakdown  by  Fund  : 

23,4 
31,6 
1,0 

ERDF I 
ESF 
Total 

44,21 
11,8 
56,0 

79%" 
21% 
100% 

( b)  56% 

TsTiTs 

Average  perSPD) 

T$J) 

Implementation  in 1995 

The environment  is not regarded as a separate priority  in the Danish SPDs but is an integral part  of 
most of the other priorities,  such as aid to businesses, through, for  example, support for  the adoption 
of clean technologies. 

The  two  SPDs  decided  on  in  December  1994  for  the  eligible  areas  of  Denmark18  provide  for  the 
Structural  Funds  to  contribute  a total  of  ECU  56  million  in  1994-96.  During  1995  implementation  of 
these  two  programmes  was  satisfactory.  When  the  Monitoring  Committees  met,  it  proved  necessary, 
because  of  economic  conditions  in  these  areas,  to  increase  the  ERDF  allocation  for  support  for 
investment  in existing small firms and the establishment of new firms, particularly  in North Jutland. The 
financial progress  of the programmes  meant that the  1995 ERDF  instalment  for North  Jutland  could  be 
committed  and  80% of  it paid.  In the  case of the  SPD for  Lolland,  50% of the  single  ERDF  instalment 
has now been  paid. 

Table 24:  Objective 2 - Denmark - Financial implementation oftheSPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd  y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

Total  c o st 

S  F  a s s i s t a n ce 

(1) 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e nt 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(2) 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 3) 

( 3 ) / ( 2) 

1994 

S PD  Lolland 
S PD  N o r th  J u t l a nd 

TOTAL 

36,1 

185,3 
2 2 1 ,4 

9,5 
46,5 
56\0 

0,0 
6.0 
6,0 

9,5 
20,8 
36,3 

100% 
4 5% 
5 4% 

0.0 

8.3 
8,3 

4,3 
15,7 

4 5% 
7 6% 

2 0 ,0 

6 6 "/.. 

18 North  Jutland  and  Lolland. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

67 

GERMANY 

Programming  for  1994-96  (ECU  million) 

Breakdown  by sector  : 
Productive  environment  (a) 
Human  resources  (b) 
Land  improvement  and  restoration  (c) 
Environmental  protection  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 
Breakdown  by  Fund  : 

(d)  7% 

( e)  2% 

( a) 

3 3% 

245,0 
293,0 
132,0 
52,0 
11,0 

(C)  18% 

ERDF I 
ESF 
Total 

513,71 
219,3 
733,0 

70% 
30% 
100% 

(b)  40% 

9 SPDs 

Average  perSPD| 

SIT 

Implementation in 1995 

Environmental  protection  varies  in  the  nine  Lander  eligible  under  Objective  2.  The  Community 
contribution  amounts  to  a  total  of  ECU  198  million,  including  measures  directly  relating  to  the 
environment (ECU 52 million) and others. Together with Luxembourg, Germany is the Member State 
which devotes the largest proportion  of Objective 2 funding  to environmental protection.  Two of the 
Lander  eligible  under  this  Objective  (Rhineland-Palatinate  and  Schleswig-Holstein)  make  no 
provision for  the Structural  Funds  to finance environmental protection  but they receive only  a  very 
small amount of Community aid.  However, the Lander of Berlin, North Rhine-Westphalia and Hesse, 
which  have  more  substantial  environmental  problems  than  the  other  two,  have  allocated  an 
appropriate share of finance  to them. Interesting experiments include North Rhine-Westphalia, which 
is concentrating  on  the restoration  of  industrial wasteland for  an  international exhibition on  urban 
planning  (Internationale  Bauaustellung  Emscherpark).  This  includes  the  renovation  of  industrial 
areas  and  old  buildings  converted  into  technology centres  with  aid  also  being provided for  firms 
specializing  in the environment. Berlin  is also preparing programmes  of a new type (Environmental 
improvement  programmes  and  Initiatives  to  encourage  economic  activities  relating  to  the 
environment)  which  include the environment in a social  or economic programme.  In  this Land, the 
ESF will contribute ECU 14 million to employment and training relating to the environment. 

Nine  SPDs  for  the  German  Objective  2  areas19  were  approved  in  December  1994  for  the  1994-96 
programming  period.  These  programmes  are  intended  to  improve  the  competitiveness  of  these  areas, 
consolidate  and  expand  employment,  restore  certain  areas  of  land  and  encourage  research  and 
development  and  measures  to  protect  the  environment.  Total  assistance  from  the  Structural  Funds 
amounts to  ECU  733  million.  Each  Land  has its own development  strategy  and  so defines  for  itself the 
main aspects of its structural  policy. 

19  Bavaria,  western  Berlin,  Bremen,  Hesse,  Lower  Saxony,  North  Rhine-Westphalia,  Rhineland  Palatinate,  Saarland 

and  Sch leswi"-Hoi stein. 

68 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Examples  of past and present achievements in Germany: 
Saarland:  One of the priorities, receiving  ERDF assistance  of ECU  3.5  million 
towards  a  total  cost  of  ECU  14.8  million,  is  the  transfer  of  knowledge  and 
technology  through  the  promotion  of  institutional  cooperation  between  the 
Zentrale fur  Produktivitàt und Technologie  (ZPT - Centre  for  productivity  and 
technology),  the  Kontaktstelle fur  Wissens- und  Technologietramfer (KWT  -
Contact point for the transfer  of science and technology) in the University of the 
Saarland  and  the  Institut  des  Technologietransfers (FITT  -  Institute  for  the 
transfer  of technology) in the Hochschulefur  Technik und Wirtschaft (Technical 
and economic  institute). The ZPT offers  advice and services to small  firms  and 
has  established  departments  to  provide  information  on  Community  activities 
and to deal  with  patents. One of the main tasks of the FITT and the  KWT  is to 
promote  cooperation  between  various  educational  establishments  and  small 
firms  (on  the  training  available  in  higher  education,  the  organization  of 
cooperation  measures,  conferences  and  seminars  and  the  supply  of  services 
where use is made of public aid programmes). 
North  Rhine-Westphalia: The emphasis  is on the restoration  of industrial  areas 
and  the  refurbishment  of  factories  for  economic  purposes.  For  example,  the 
former  boiler  room  in the  Zollverein  XII  pithead  in  Essen  has  been  converted 
into  a design  centre  for  North  Rhine-Westphalia.  The  ERDF  contributed  ECU 
9.8  million  towards  a  total  cost  of  ECU  19.9  million.  Work  on  the  mine  has 
enabled  almost  300  unemployed  people  to  obtain  vocational  skills  in  a variety 
of construction  trades (ESF contribution  of ECU 2.1 million  towards  a total  cost 
of ECU 6.4 million). 
Lower  Saxony:  Two  business  parks  costing  a total  of  ECU  16.6  million  have 
been  built  at  Peine  near  the  Hannover-Berlin  A2  motorway  with  assistance 
amounting to ECU 750 000 from  the ERDF under Objectives  2 and  3 and  ECU 
the  Résider  I  Community  Initiative.20  They  provide 
3.1  million  from 
administrative  and  social  buildings  and  workshops  and  one  of  them,  Peine  II, 
received  the Deutscher Stcidtebaupreis  1995. A total  of 23 firms  have  acquired 
premises creating a total of 500 jobs. On one such  site, a municipal  promoter  is 
offering  training and job placement, mainly in connection with the environment. 
In  1994  160 people took part and the ESF contributed  about ECU 550 000. 

1995  in  the  context  of programming 

for  1994-96 

Programmes  show  a  low  rate  of  payments  in  1995 (55% of commitments  but  2 1% of the  aid)  because  of 
the  comparatively  late  approval  of  the  SPDs,  in  December  1994,  and  the  delay  in  getting  the  assistance 
programmed  under  way  in  1995. 

Table 25:  Objective 2 - Germany - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd  y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

Total  c o st 

S  F  a s s is  t a n ce 

1994 

SPD  Bavaria 

SPD  Berlin 

SPD  Bremen 

SPD  H e s se 

SPD  L o w er  S a x o ny 
SPD  N o r th  R h i ne  W e s t p h a l ia 
SPD  R h i n e l a n d - P a l a t i n a te 
S PD  Sa nia  nd 
SPD  S c h l c s w i g - l l o l s t e in 

T O T AL 

• 

33,5 
390,7 
172.5 

61.3 
126.4 
1.298.8 
49.0 
212,6 
32,0 
2 . 3 7 6 ,9 

(1) 

14,7 
158,3 
46,9 
21,3 
42.5 
361.4 
23.5 
49.1 
15.4 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

P a y m e n ts 
19  95 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

"A, 

( 3 ) / ( 2) 

(2) 

(3) 

0.0 
13,1 
2.6 
1,2 
6.5 
5.4 
3.1 
6.1 
0.0 

13,6 
49,2 
14,9 
21,3 
13,5 
115,0 
23,5 
20,5 
15.4 

9 3% 
31 % 
3 2% 
100% 

3 2% 

100% 

4 2% 
100% 

2.6 
1 1.9 
4.2 
0.6 

1.5 
5.8 
0.0 

29,9 
10.4 
10.6 
6.8 

57.5 
1  1,7 
12.9 
7.7 

6 9% 
6 1% 
6 9% 
5 0% 
50'!'.. 
50" o 
5 0 ". 
6 3% 
5 0% 

7 3 3 ,0 

3 8 ,0 

1 U ,9 

3 9  % 

3  2,5 

1  5 6,9 

5 5% 

Programmes  under  the  preceding  phase  (1992-93)  also  continued  and  most  of  them  were  completed  in 
1995.  These  were  seven  programmes  for  the  six  western  Lander,  which  received  a  total  of  ECU  303.2 

20 See Chapter  I.B.I. Community  Initiatives. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

69 

million  (ECU 266.4 million  from  the ERDF and ECU  76.9 million  from  the ESF). Commitments  for  all 
these  programmes  had  been  made  by  the  end  of  1993. During  1995 the  Commission  made  payments 
amounting to  ECU  60.6  million  for  four  programmes  (Berlin,  Lower  Saxony, North  Rhine-Westphalia 
and  Saarland)  so  that  the  western  Lander  had  received  ECU  185.6  million  (82%  of  commitments)  in 
Community aid for  1992-93 by the end of  1995. In the case of the Peine-Salzgitter (Lower  Saxony) OP, 
the applications  for  payment of the balance have already been  made, while an extension  of the time  for 
payment to 31 December  1996 has been  granted to two programmes, North  Rhine-Westphalia,  because 
of  delays  in  implementing  certain  projects,  and  Berlin,  because  of  problems  in  implementing 
infrastructure  projects and late applications for Community funds by certain private investors. 

SPAIN 

Programming 

for  1994-96 

(ECU  million) 

Breakdown 

by  sector  : 

Productive  environment  (a) 
Human  resources  (b) 
Land  improvement  and  restoration  (c) 
Environmental  protection  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (c) 
Breakdown 

by  Fund  : 

ERDFl 
ESF 
Total 

870,11 
259,9 
1.130,0 

/  CSF/ê  ÔPs 

Average  per  OPI 

Implementation  in  1995 

592,0 
317,0 
174,0 
40,0 
8,0 

77% 
23% 
100% 

141.3 

(c)  15% 

( d ) 4% 

( e ) i% 

(b)  28% 

( a)  52% 

Protection  of  the  environment,  a priority  under the CSF, is programmed  through  an  OP receiving 
ECU  40 million from  the ERDF  (3.5% of total assistance) and adopted in  1995. Eligible  measures 
under this OP include equipment to prevent and treat industrial pollution, the restoration of run-down 
industrial sites,  monitoring  the quality of the environment and  infrastructure to prevent  and  reduce 
the negative impact on the environment of productive activity. 

Spain  is  the  only  Member  State  whose  national  authorities  chose  to  programme  assistance  under 
Objective  2 through  a CSF  and  operational  programmes. The CSF was adopted  at the  end  of  1994 and 
implementation  began  with  the  approval  of eight OPs  in the  first  half  of  1995. These  comprised  seven 
the  ERDF  and  the  ESF  to  each  of  the  beneficiary  Autonomous 
containing  assistance  from 
Communities21  and the multi-regional  ESF programme, which contains the vocational  training  measures 
under  the  CSF  and  for  which  the  national  authorities  are  responsible.  The  Structural  Funds  are 
contributing  ECU  1  130  million  to these  eight  OPs  as a whole.  Each  of them  forms  part  of  the  CSF's 
priorities,  support  for  employment  and  the  competitiveness  of  firms,  environmental  protection,  aid  for 
technological  research  and  innovation,  the development  of transport  related  to economic  activity,  local 
and urban development and technical  assistance. 

21  Rioja,  Aragon,  the  Balearic  Islands,  Catalonia, Navarre,  Madrid  and  the  Basque  Country. 

70 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 26:  Objective 2 - Spain - Programme priorities adopted in 1995 (ECU million) 

Employment  and 

Environment 

the 

competitiveness 

of  firms 

Research, 

innovation 

Transport 

Local 
development 

Technical 
assistance 

Structural 
Funds 
assistance 

National 

public 

contribution 

28,3 

16.6 

11" 

8,8 

".6 

1.2 

167,0 

I2S. 1 

38.9 

62,5 

3-1.1 

28.4 

9,0 

1.3 

5,4 

4.4 

1.0 
123,6 
9 1.2 
32.3 
20,9 
425,5 
2S9, " 
135. S 

1.858.1 

0,6 
0.6 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
7,3 
7.3 
0.0 
0,6 
0.6 
0.0 

1,8 
If 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
29,2 
29.2 

0.0 
0,0 
39,5 

39.5 

0.0 

79,0 

8,5 

5.5 

3.0 

0,3 

0.0 

0.3 

20,5 

16.2 

4.4 

26,6 

25.6 

1.0 

4,5 

2.9 

1.6 

1,0 

0." 

0.3 

31,0 

~.H 

23.2 

18,8 

111,3 

58.8 

52.5 

234.2 

17,0 
17,0 
0.0 
o.o 
0.0 

0.0 
162,9 

162,9 

0.0 

30,6 

30,6 

0.0 

5.1 

5.1 

0.0 

3,6 

3.6 

0.0 

83,1 

83.1 

0.0 
0,0 

302,2 

302.2 

0.0 

774,9 

9,3 
9.3 
0.0 
0,9 
0.9 
0.0 
150,9 
8Z4 
63.5 
23,1 
21.2 
IS 
2,2 
0.0 
2 2 

1.7 
1~ 
0.1 
55,9 
53.6 
2.3 
0,0 
243,9 
1-4,0 
69.9 

525,0 

0,6 
0.5 
0.1 
0,4 
0.3 
0.1 
1,5 
0.4 
1.1 
1,6 
1.6 
0.0 
0,3 
0.2 
0,1 
0,1 
0.1 
0.0 
3,1 
2.9 
0.2 
0,0 
7,6 
5.9 
1.-

9,3 

64,2 
49.4 

14.8 

10,4 
*,« 
1.6 
510,1 
402,2 
107,9 
145,0 
113.7 
31.3 
223 

5,1 
11,9 
10.5 
1.4 
32S? 
26~,8 
58,1 
39,7 

1.130,0 

H~0.1 

259.9 

3.911,7 

73,8 

59.0 

14.9 

10,1 

S.8 

1.3 

606,5 
515.7 
90. 8 
162,8 
130.9 
31.9 
26,4 
20.6 
5.8 
14,1 
12.6 
1.5 
368,0 
iu-
53.4 
48,2 
1.310,1 
1062.3 
2478 

Aragon 

ERDF 

ESF 

Balearic  Islands 

ERDF 

IUSF 

Catalonia 

ERDF 

ESF 

Madrid 

ERDF 

ESF 

Navarre 

ERDF 

ESF 

Rioja 

EJUiF 

ESF 

Basque  Country 

ERDF 

ESF 

Multiregional  ESF 

T O T AL 

ERDF 

ESF 

Total  cost 

During  November  and  December  the  Monitoring  Committees  for  each  programme  held  their  first 
meetings in the appropriate regional capital and the Monitoring Committee for the CSF met in Madrid at 
the  end  of  October.  In  the  cases  of  Catalonia  (one  programme)  and  the  Basque  Country  (two 
programmes), assistance is subject to a suspensory clause. 

1995 in the context  of programming for 1994-96 

Financial  progress  in  the  OPs  may  be  regarded  as  remarkable  in  view  of  the  late  adoption  of  this 
assistance  and the fact  that,  while there  remains  in principle  one year  of programming,  there  are three 
years  to  finalize  national  commitments  and payments.  An  exception  is Aragon,  where,  as  a  result  of 
delays  in  implementation,  in December  1995 the Spanish  authorities  asked  for  reprogramming to  shift 
the bulk of the programme to  1996. The OPs for the Balearic Islands, Navarre and Rioja were  approved 
through a  single commitment of the total amount of Community assistance. 

Table 27:  Objective 2 - Spain - Financial implementation of programmes (ECU million) 

Programmes  and  year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

SF  assistance 

1995 

Regional  OPs 

OP  Aragon 

OP  Balearic  Islands 

OP  Catalonia 

OP  Rioja 

OP  Madrid 

OP  Navarre 

OP  Basque  Country' 

Multi-regional  OP 

OP  Multi-regional 

T O T AL 

(1) 

64,2 
10,4 
510,1 

11,9 
145,0 
22.8 
325,9 

39,7 

1.130,0 

199,3 

61,1 

1.994,0 
74,1 
398,8 

62,5 
1.033,4 

88,3 
3.911,7 

Commitments 
1995 

Commitments 
1994-95 

% 
(2)/(I) 

Payments 

1995 

(2) 

P a y m e n ts 

1994-95 

(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

13,9 
10,4 

289,0 
11,9 
79,1 
22,8 

192,4 

39,7 

659,2 

13,9 
10,4 

289,0 
11,9 
79,1 
22,8 

192,4 

22% 
100% 

57% 
100% 

5 5% 
100% 

59% 

39,7 

100'% 

659,2 

58"/..] 

6,9 

5,2 
220,4 
5.9 
29,5 
16,7 

148,4 

14,9 

448,0 

6,9 

5,2 
220,4 

5,9 
29,5 
16,7 
148,4 

50% 
50% 
76% 
50% 
3 7% 
7 3% 
77% 

14,9 

448,0 

3 8% 

6 8% 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  assistance  under  the  CSF  for  1992-93  continued  in  1995. That  CSF, 
approved  on  18 December  1992, contains  ECU 724 million  (at  1992 prices)  of Community  assistance 
for seven  ERDF OPs (ECU 520 million), seven ESF OPs (ECU 166.6 million), the Renaval  and Résider 
Community  programmes  in  the  Basque  Country  (ECU  34.2  million)  and  one  Renaval  Community 
programme  in Cantabria  (ECU 3 million). This, in the end, was not implemented  and the amount was 
subsequently  included  in the corresponding  regional  OP. The  14 national  initiative  OPs (seven  for the 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

71 

ERDF  and  seven  for  the  ESF)  were  implemented  in accordance  with  the  contents  of the  five  priorities  in 
the  CSF,  establishment  and  development  of  productive  activities,  protection  and  improvement  of  the 
environment,  support  for  research  and  development  and  training  facilities, 
to  the 
communications  network  and  technical  assistance.  In  the  case  of  the  nine  programmes  part-financed  by 
the  ERDF,  all  the  commitments  had  been  finalized  by  31  December  1993,  with  the  exception  of  the 
programmes  for  Aragon,  Cantabria  and  Madrid  where  an  extension  to  31  March  1994  was  granted.  The 
final  date for  payments  for  each  of these  OPs was  31  December  1995.  At the  end  of November  1995,  the 
Spanish  authorities  sent  the  Commission  requests  for  this  date  to  be  put  back  to  31  March  1996  in  the 
case  of  the  programmes  for  Aragon  and  Madrid  and  to  30  June  1996  for  that  for  Cantabria.  The 
Commission  agreed  to these  requests. 

improvements 

FRANCE 

Programming 

for  1994-96 

(ECU  million) 

Breakdown 

by  sector  : 

Productive  environment  (a) 
Human  resources  (b) 
Land  improvement  and  restoration  (c) 
Environmental  protection  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 

Breakdown 

by  Fund  : 

710,0 
614,0 
313,0 
103,0 
25,0 

(c)  18% 

(a)  4 0% 

ERDFl 
ESF 
Total 

1.452,61 
310,6 
1.763,2 

82%" 
18% 
100% 

(b)  35% 

19  SPDs 

Average  perSPDJ 

9ÏJ 

Implementation 

in  1995 

in  France  from  one  region 

total 
Environmental  measures  differ  considerably 
contribution  of  the  Structural  Funds  amounts  to ECU  234  million  (only  ECU  103  million  if  measures 
concerned  with  direct  protection  are  excluded),  13%  of total  assistance.  However,  this  figure  may  rise 
to 28%  in Alsace  and  not  exceed  3.5%  in  the  Loire  region.  In  Lower  Normandy 
it  is zero.  Most  of  the 
measures  are  for  urban  restoration  and  the  cleaning  up  of  industrial  sites,  mainly  by  removing 
is fairly  representative:  a  large  part  (18%)  of  the 
industrial  pollution.  The  example  of  Picardy 
the  use  of  clean  technologies  and  advisory 
Community  contribution  goes  to  environmental  projects, 
service 
the  environment  and  energy,  and 
employment  .,.•/., training  related  to  the  environment  will  be  encouraged. 

through  the  regional  fund  for 

fn,A  ^""<-  />  encouraged 

to  another.  The 

The  19  SPDs  for  the  Objective  2  regions  of  France22  were  approved  in  December  1994  and  all  the 
" ^  these  programmes  had  been  established  by  the  end  of  March  1995.  Most  of 
Monitoring  Committer 
the programmes  got  under  wa^  fairly  slowly  and  their  implementation  gives  grounds  for  a certain  degree 
of  concern. 

The  evaluation  structure  to  monitor  assistance  has  been  established  or  is  being  set  up  in  seven  of  the  19 
regions  and  in  most  regions  the  system  suggests  that  monitoring  will  be  more  rigorous  thanks  to  stronger 
teams  and  have  a  higher  profile  as  the  result  of  the  quality  of  information  sent  to  the  Monitoring 
Committees,  particularly  as  far  as  the  selection  of  projects  to  receive  Community  funding  is  concerned. 

22 Alsace,  Aquitaine,  Auvergne,  Brittany,  Burgundy,  Centre,  Champagne-Ardennes,  Franche-Comté,  Languedoc-
Roussillon,  Loire  Region,  Lorraine,  Lower  Normandy,  Midi-Pyrénées,  Mord/Pas-de-Calais,  Picardy,  Poitou-
Charentes, Provence-Alpes-Côte  d'Azur,  Rhône-Alpes and Upper Normandy. 

72 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Through  partnership  a meeting  with  the  regional  partners  organized  by the  DATAR23  was held  in May 
1995 and provided  an opportunity to exchange experience on a number of topics, including assessment. 

1995 in the context  of programming for  1994-96 

Statements  of expenditure  for  the  1994  instalment  sent to the Commission  at the end  of  1995 for  11 of 
the  17 regions24 show that it had proved possible to commit the  1995 instalment but the first advance  for 
that year had been  paid  in only three regions. This means that the level of public expenditure of the  1994 
instalment of the programme had not reached 40% in six regions and was below 60% in  14. It should be 
noted  that  Rhône-Alpes,  Nord/Pas-de-Calais,  Aquitaine,  Brittany,  Champagne-Ardennes  and  Franche-
Comté  had  not declared  sufficient  expenditure to justify  a call for  funds  or a request  for  commitment  of 
the  Community  instalment  for  1995. The  result  is that  at  the  end  of  1995  France  will  have  received 
payments  totalling  ECU  348.3  million  in respect of the  first  advance  for  1995  and  the  second  advance 
for  1994.  This  situation  is  particularly  worrying  because  programming  should  be  completed  and  fully 
committed  at national  level before the end of 1996. 

Table 28:  Objective 2 - France - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd  y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

T o t al  c o st 

S  F  a s s i s t a n ce 
0) 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

(2) 

P a y m e n ts 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 3) 

% 
( 3 ) / ( 2) 

1994 

S PD  A l s a ce 
S PD  A q u i t a i ne 

S PD  A u v e r g ne 
S PD  L o w er  N o r m a n dy 
S PD  B u r g u n dy 
S PD  Brittany 

S PD  C e n t re 
S PD  C h a m p a g n e - A r d e n ne 
S PD  F r a n c h e - C o m té 
S PD  U p p er  N o r m a n dy 
S PD  L a n g u e d o c - R o u s s i l l on 

S PD  L o r r a i ne 
S PD  M i d i - P y r e n e es 
S PD  N o r d / P a s - d e - C a l a is 
S PD  Loire  R e g i on 

S PD  P i c a r dy 

S PD  P o i t o u - C h a r e n t es 
S PD  P . A . C . A.  (1) 
S PD  R h ô n e - A l p es 

46,0 
379,2 
126,0 
169,5 
130,4 
262.3 
108,4 
211.3 
1  11,7 
396,9 
219,5 
282,7 
1 5 1,3 
923.1 
321,7 
429.2 
130.7 
295,7 
316,7 

T O T AL 
(1 ) P r o\  en ce-A  Ip e s - Cô te  d ' A z ur 

s.ôli.O 

19,6 
107,1 
61,1 
57,8 
49.4 
89,7 
24,2 
77,5 
47,8 
146,0 
70,5 
127.4 
42.6 

318,1 
135.9 
122,4 

53,3 

113,1 
99,7 
1.763,1 

07) 
3,8 
19,3 
17,1 
13.9 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
2,1 
45,2 
19,9 
40,0 
13,6 
12,0 
41.9 
37,6 
17,1 
29.6 
0.0 
313,1 

19,6 
37,9 
38,7 
35,5 
29,6 
28,5 
24,2 
24,6 
17,3 
91,6 
42,3 
80,4 
27.2 
114,1 
85,1 
76,5 
34,0 
65.6 
31.7 

100% 
3 5% 
6 3% 
6 1% 
6 0% 
3 2% 

100% 
3 2% 
3 6% 
6 3% 
6 0% 
6 3% 
6 4% 
3 6% 
6 3% 
6 2% 
6 4% 
5 8% 
3 2% 

904,4 

5  1  % 

o.o 
2.6 
15.6 
12,2 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
1,1 
18.5 
5.7 
15.5 
2,1 
1  1.7 
22,9 
30.5 
6.7 
0.0 
0.0 
145,1 

9,8 
19,6 
25,3 
21.3 
7.9 
14.3 
12,1 
12,3 
8,7, 
41,7 
16.9 
35,7 
8.9 
62.8 
27.0 
49,9 
15,2 
18,0 
15.8 
4 2 3 .3 

5 0% 
5 2% 
6 5% 
6 0% 
2 7% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
4 6% 
4 0% 
4 4% 
3 3% 
5 5% 
3 2% 
6 5% 
4 5% 
2 7% 
5 0% 

4 7  % 

At  the  request  of  the  French  authorities,  the  Commission  took  a  decision  to  extend  the  period  for 
national  payments for  final  beneficiaries  in respect of a number of programmes under previous phases of 
programming (1989-91  and  1992-93). 

23  Délégation  à  l'aménagement  du  territoire  et  à  l'action  régionale  (department  lor  spatial  planning  and  regional 

activities). 

24  Seventeen  rather  than  19 because  a  single  commitment  was  made  when  the  SPDs  for  Alsace  and  Centre  were 

adopted. 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

73 

ITALY 

Programming 

for  1994-96 

(ECU  million) 

Breakdown 

by  sector  : 

Productive  environment  (a) 
Human  resources  (b) 
Land  improvement  and  restoration  (c) 
Environmental  protection  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 
Breakdown 

by  Fund  : 

334,7 
204,3 
86,0 
48,4 
10,6 

(d)  7% 

(e)  2% 

(C)  13% 

a)  48% 

ERDF I 
ESF 
Total 

542,31 
141,7 
684,0 

79%" 
2 1% 
100% 

( b)  30% 

TTSTm 

Average  per  SPDI 

62,2 

The  new  programming  period  1994-96  provides  for  Community  assistance  totalling  ECU  684  million  to 
11  regions  in  northern  and  central  Italy25  All  the  SPDs  had  been  approved  by  the  end  of  1994  with 
Community  assistance  ranging  from  ECU  6  million  for  the  Valle  d'Aosta  to  ECU  205  million  for 
Piedmont.  As  regards  content,  the  programmes  lay  greater  stress  than  in the  past  on  activities  relating  to 
new  sources  of  employment.  This  includes  aid  to  small  firms  for  the  adoption  of  new  technologies 
through  support  for  R&D  and  the  transfer  of  technology  (science  and  technology  parks,  innovative 
services  for  small  firms,  specific  training  measures,  the  creation  of  consortia  of  producers  and  potential 
users  of  the  results  of  work  on  research  and  innovation).  Particular  attention  is  also  paid  to  the 
development  of  human  resources,  which  is a  specific  priority  in all  the  programmes  other  than  those  for 
Valle  d'Aosta  and  Lombardy.  This  priority  includes  horizontal  and/or  innovative  measures  concerning 
skills  and  support  for  the  economic  system  and  experiments  with  new  forms  of  assistance.  It  is 
structured  in three  parts: the  development  of human  resources  for  workers  in  large  firms  threatened  with 
or  suffering  from  unemployment,  innovative  projects  relating  to  training  linked  to  the  opportunities 
offered  by  new  sources  of  employment  (accompanying  measures  and  local  development  initiatives)  and 
improvements  to the training  system. 

Environmental  protection  has  received  particular  attention.  The  total  contribution  of  the  Structural 
Funds  is ECU  105  million  (ECU  48  million  if only  measures  directly  concerned  with  the  environment 
are  included),  15%  of  total  assistance.  However,  the figure  varies  sharply  from  one  region  to  another, 
is  concentrated 
ranging  from  zero  in  Emilia-Romagna 
mainly  on  industry,  particularly  control  systems,  environmental 
the  restoration  of 
abandoned  areas,  programmes  of  subsidies  for  investment  in  clean  technologies  and  some  specific 
training  measures.  For  example, 
firms 
modernize  their facilities  for  treating  waste  water  and  other  waste.  In  Piedmont  a  large  part  of  the 
finance  will  go  to clean  technologies,  the storage  or recycling  of  industrial  waste  and  the  reclamation 
of  abandoned  industrial  land. 

in  Lombardy  substantial  aid  will  be  given  to  help  small 

to  20%  in  Piedmont.  In  general,  attention 

infrastructure, 

The  programmes  also  give  greater  assistance  to  local  development  through  a  series  of  measures 
including  grants  for  new  investment,  services,  a  fresh  boost  to  the  economy  and  new  financial 
instruments  with  innovative  aspects. 

Implementation 

in  1995 

In  most  regions,  implementation  of  the  SPDs  began  immediately  the  programmes  had  been  approved. 
The  outturn  has,  however,  varied  widely  from  one  measure  to  another.  In  general,  programmes 
providing  grants  to  small  firms  (craft  firms,  tourism  and  services)  have  been  very  successful  with 

25  Emilia-Romagna,  Friuli-Venezia  Giulia,  Lazio, Liguria,  Lombardy,  Marche,  Piedmont,  Tuscany,  IJmbria.  Valle 

d'Aosta and Veneto. 

74 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

commitments  approaching  100%  in  many  regions.  However,  although  new  infrastructure  measures  have 
attracted  a  large  number  of  applications,  they  require  more  time  because  of  the  cumbersome  Italian 
legislation  on  invitations  to  tender.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  process  of  selecting  projects  eligible  for 
financing  has  encouraged  transparency  and  compliance  with  the  principle  that  assistance  from  the 
Structural  Funds  should  add  value  and,  in accordance  with the  selection  criteria,  only  the  most  promising 
projects  have  been  selected. 

The  Monitoring  Committees  for  all  the  SPDs  met  in  1995  and  took  the  steps  required  for  measures 
which  had  remained  in  suspense  when  the  SPDs  were  adopted  to  make  progress.  The  Committees 
approved  the  various  selection  criteria  for  the  projects  and  issued  calls  for  proposals.  Where  necessary, 
some  (Liguria  and  Tuscany)  adopted  various  corrective  measures  to  adjust  the  programmes  in  the  light 
of developments  in the  region. 

1995  in  the  context  of programming 

for  1994-96 

Table 29:  Objective 2 - Italy - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 

— 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd  y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

T o t al  c o st 

S  F  a s s i s t a n ce 

C o m m i t m e nt 

C o m m i t m e nt 

(1) 

1 9 95 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(2) 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

% 
( 3 ) / ( 2) 

1994 

SPD  Emilia-Romagna 

SPD  Friuli-Venczia  Giulia 
S PD  Lazio 

SPD  Liguria 
SPD  L o m b a r dy 
SPD  M a r c he 
SIM)  P i e d m o nt 
SPD  T u s c a ny 
SPD  L m b r ia 
SPD  Valle  d ' A o s la 
SPD  V e n e to 

39,4 
104.8 
193,4 

274,7 

76,1 
57,0 
695,9 

485,1 
80,1 
15.4 
223.7 

12,0 
24,0 
64,0 
96,0 
23,0 
21,0 
205.0 
127.0 
35.0 
6,0 
71,0 

T O T AL 

2 . 2 4 5 ,7 

6 8 4,0 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0,0 

12,0 
24,0 
20,3 
30,5 
23,0 
21,0 
65,1 
40,4 
35,0 
6,0 
22.6 

100% 
100% 
3 2% 
3 2% 
100% 
100% 

3 2 % 

3 2% 
100% 
100% 
3 2% 

2 9 9 ,9 

4 4% 

0,0 
0.0 
o.o 
0.0 
o.o 
0.(1 
0.0 
0.0 
O.d 
O.d 
o.o 
0.(1 

6,0 
12,0 
10,2 
15,3 
11,5 
10,5 
32,6 
20.2 
17,5 

3.0 
11.3 

5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
5 0% 

1 5 0 ,0 

5 0% 

In  terms  of  financial  implementation  at  national  level,  payments  by  the  national  authorities  responsible 
for  the  implementation  of the  programmes  give  rise  to  considerable  concern  because  of  the  low  level  of 
implementation  at the  end  of  1995 (between  0% and  8% of the total  planned  for  1994-96). 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  implementation  of  the  first  phase  (1989-91)  of  the  previous  programming 
is  now  complete.  While  total  payments  amounted  to  80%  to  90%  of  the  total  available 
period 
appropriations  (ECU  158  million),  this  under-utilization  is  partly  the  result  of  difficulties  encountered 
during  implementation  (long  and  obscure  administrative  procedures,  the  abandonment  of  projects  to 
which  appropriations  had  already  been  committed)  and  partly to the devaluation  of the  lira. As  a result  of 
this  devaluation,  full  utilization  of  ERDF  assistance  would  have  required  the  national  authorities  to  make 
additional  resources  available,  which  was  not  considered  compatible  with  efforts  to  achieve  budgetary 
discipline  at  national  level.  Each  region  has  made  an  initial  assessment  of  the  impact  on  the  economy 
and  employment  in  its  final  report.  However,  a  more  complete  ex post  evaluation  study  will  be  carried 
out  by  an  outside  assessor  selected  by  the  Commission.  In  addition,  information  and  publicity  measures 
have  been  undertaken  to  raise the  profile  of the ESF  measures. 

In  the  second  phase  (1992-93),  the  Community  contribution  to  the  nine  programmes  amounted  to  ECU 
183  million  (ERDF:  ECU  127  million;  ESF:  56  million).  Total  investment  under  these  programmes, 
including  national  public  and  private  resources,  amounts  to  ECU  1  billion  and  the  average  multiplier 
effect  is  about  5.7.  Although  commitments  at  regional  level  have  reached  100%  in  almost  all  cases, 
implementation  has  been  delayed  because  of the  adoption  of  the  programmes  at  the  end  of  1992  and  the 
impact  this  had  on  payments  on  the  ground.  As  a  result,  the  final  date  for  payment  has  been  put  back  by 
six  months  in seven  regions.  By the  end  of  1995 the overall  rate of  payments  was  around  50%.  However, 
since  the  rate  of  expenditure  normally  rises  sharply  during  the  last  few  months  before  the  final  dates  for 
payment,  there  is every  reason  to expect  the  situation  to  improve  in  1996. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

75 

LUXEMBOURG 

Programming 

for  1994-96 

(ECU  million) 

Breakdown 

by  sector  : 

Productive  environment  (a) 
Human  resources  (b) 
Land  improvement  and  restoration  (c) 
Environmental  protection  (d) 
Breakdown 

by  Fund  : 

ERDFl 
ESF 
Total 

6fi\ 
1,0 
7,0 

TJFD 

Average  per  SPDI 

Implementation  in 1995 

1,0 
2,0 
2,0 
2,0 

86%" 
14% 
100% 

770" 

( d)  29% 

( a)  14% 

( C ) 2 9% 

( b)  28% 

Protection  of the  environment  receives  the largest share  of appropriations  under  Objective  2  in the 
SPD for  Luxembourg:  30% of the appropriations from  the Structural  Funds  (ECU 2.2  million).  This 
priority  is concerned  with cleaning up industrial -waste land and the treatment of waste. 

Progress  in  implementing  the  SPD  for  Luxembourg,  which  was  adopted  in  1994,  is  rather  variable. 
Some  measures  (the  equipping  of  reception  areas  and  the  construction  of  tourist  infrastructure)  are 
proceeding  as  planned  while  others  had  not  really  begun  in  1995  because  of  start-up  problems.  Some 
adjustments  will  be  made  during  1996  (particularly  the  project  to  cover  over  the  waste  tip  at 
Ronnebierg). 

Table 30:  Objective 2 - Luxembourg - Financial implementation of the SPD  (ECU million) 

Programme  and  year  of adoption  I  Total  cost 

S F assistance 
(1) 

Commitment 
1995 

Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 
199 5 

Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 

% 
(3 1/(2) 

T99~4 

SPD  Luxembourii 

NETHERLANDS 

TrJTl 

(LOT 

8TJ1 

i l 4 %| 

Programming 

for  1994-96 

(ECU  million) 

Breakdown 

by  sector  : 

P r o d u c t i ve  e n v i r o n m e nt  (a) 
H u m an  r e s o u r c es  (b) 
Land  i m p r o v e m e nt  a nd  r e s t o r a t i on  (c) 
E n v i r o n m e n t al  p r o t e c t i on  (d) 
T e c h n i c al  a s s i s t a n ce  (e) 
by  Fund  : 
Breakdown 

ERDFl 
ESF 
Total 

206.01 
94,0 
300,0 

5  SPDs 

A v e r a ge  p er  SPD  | 

141,4 
112,8 
41,5 
5,0 
9.2 

69%" 
31% 
100% 

60,0 

(c)  13% 

( d ) 2%  ( e )3% 

( a)  46% 

( b)  36% 

76 

Implementation 

in  1995 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

(Groningen, 
Environmental  measures 
appropriations 
Zuidoost  Brabant  and  Zuid-Limburg)  make  specific  provision 
amounting  to ECU  13 million  (ECU  5 million for  direct  measures),  or  4.5%  of  total  assistance.  These 
measures  concentrate  on  improvements 

in  the  Netherlands  are  very  varied.  Three  of  the  SPDs 

to make  urban  and  industrial  areas  more  attractive. 

for  Community 

The  areas  of  the  Netherlands  eligible  under  Objective  226  receive  a  total  of  ECU  300  million  from  the 
Structural  Funds  in  the  form  of  five  SPDs  adopted  in  1994. In  general,  the  launch  of  these  programmes 
in  1995  was  satisfactory,  as  shown  by  the  level  of  Community  commitments,  but  actual  implementation 
on  the  ground  varied  from  one  programme  to  another.  The  SPD  for  Zuidoost  Brabant  got  off  to  a  slow 
start  because  of  its  late  approval  but  progress  speeded  up  at the  end  of  1995  so  that,  by  the  beginning  of 
1996,  54%  of  the  total  appropriations  had  been  committed  for  approved  projects  (ERDF:  48%;  ESF: 
66%).  These  included  a number  of major  projects,  which  gave  an  important  stimulus  to  private  investors 
(some  250  companies).  In  the  case  of  the  Arnhem-Nijmegen  programme,  actual  expenditure  committed 
by  the  final  beneficiaries  now  amounts  to  40%  of  the  total  costs  for  1994.  In  the  case~of  the  ESF, 
however,  some  ECU  2  million  out  of  a  total  of  ECU  16.6  million  had  been  committed  so  that  a  special 
working  party  was  set  up  to  encourage  a  larger  number  of  projects  part-financed  by  the  ESF.  This  has 
made  encouraging  progress. 

industrial  grouping) 

Good progress in  implementation: 
In  Zuidoost  Brabant,  the  measure  for  the  restoration  of  areas  for  the 
establishment  of economic  activities will be completed  early  in  1996 and  there 
are  high  expectations  of  the  K1C  (Kennisintensieve  Industrie  Clustering  -
Knowledge-intensive 
involving  technical  cooperation 
between  firms  not  only  in Zuidoost  Brabant  but also  in Zuid-Limburg,  another 
Objective  2 area, and  in northern  and centra! Limburg, which  are eligible  under 
Objective 5(b). 
//; Arnhem-Nijmegen,  the  aim  of the  programme  is to create 3 000 jobs  and  it 
appears  that  the  total  number  of  jobs  created  by  the  projects  approved  has 
already reached that  figure. 
///  Twente,  the  main  project  approved  in  1995 was  the  general  programme  of 
assistance  to  small  firms  (total  cost:  ECU  11.4  million,  ERDF  aid:  ECU  8.5 
million)  which  has  three  strands:  assistance  and  advice,  invesnnent  grants  and 
loans  for  innovative  projects.  The  Commission  approved  the  first  two  parts  in 
spring  1995. 

In  the  case  of  the  Twente  SPD,  about  43%  of  the  ERDF  assistance  (ECU  39.4  million)  was  used  for 
individual  projects.  This  means  that the  ERDF  provided  about  ECU  24  million  in  part-finance.  While  the 
schedule  of commitments  was  complied  with, there are delays  in payments  since the  1995  instalment  has 
not  been  paid.  The  situation  with  regard  to  the  Groningen-Drenthe  programme  is  similar.  While  almost 
40%  of  ERDF  assistance  (ECU  48.6  million)  has  been  committed,  there  is  a  delay  in  payments  and  the 
1995  instalment  will  have  to  be  committed  in  1996.  The  Zuid-Limburg  programme  became  operational 
in  a  few  months,  mainly  because  it  was  the  continuation  of  earlier  programmes.  By  the  end  of  1995, 
32%  of  the  assistance  had  been  committed.  Because  a  number  of  the  projects  decided  on  are  on  a  large 
scale  (the  development  of  sites  and  facilities  for  economic  activities),  actual  payments  will  be  made 
later. 

26  Zuidoost  Brabant, Arnhem-Nijmegen,  Groningen-Drenthe, Twente and Zuid-Limburg. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

77 

1995  in the  context  of programming  for  1994-96 

Table 31:  Objective 2 - Netherlands - Financial implementation of the SPDs (ECU million) 

Programmes  and  year  of adoption 

Total  cost 

S F assistance 
0) 

Commitment 
1995 

Commitment 
1994-95 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 

Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1994 

SPD  Arhnem-Nijmegen 
SPD Groningen-Drenthe 
SPD  Twente-Overijsel 
SPD Zuid-Limburg 
SPD Zuidoost  Brabant 

TOTAL 

171,6 
252,7 
197,5 
130,3 
172,0 
924,1 

56,0 
76,0 
58,0 
43,0 
67,0 
300,0 

0,0 
9,1 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
9,1 

17,9 
33,4 
18,6 
13,8 
21,4 
105,0 

32% 
44% 
32% 
32% 
32% 
3 5% 

0.0 
12,3 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
12,3 

9,0 
16,7 
9,3 
6,9 
10,7 
$2,5 

50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
5 0% 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Programming 

for  1994-96 

(ECU  million) 

Breakdown 

by  sector  : 

Productive  environment  (a) 
Human  resources  (b) 
Land  improvement  and  restoration  (c) 
Environmental  protection  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 
Breakdown 

by  Fund  : 

1.038,0 
755,0 
189,0 
138,0 
22,0 

ERDFl 
ESF 
Total 

1.606,91 
535.1 
2.142,0 

75%" 
25% 
100% 

(b)  35% 

13  SPDs 

A v e r a ge  p er  S P D| 

164~8~ 

Implementation 

in  1995 

( d)  6% 

( e)  1% 

( a)  49% 

Measures  to protect  the  environment  are  included  in  virtually  all  the  SPDs  for  the  United  Kingdom. 
They  total  ECU  138  million,  or  6.5%  of  Community  assistance.  Despite  their  variety,  they form 
two 
distinct  group.  Many  areas  are  trying  to  improve  their  image  and  so  are  targeting  measures  on  the 
renovation  of  urban  centres  while  other  have  concentrated  measures  on  (he  development  of  clean 
technologies  in  firms  in order  to reduce  industrial  pollution. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  year,  the  bulk  of  the  work  involved  establishing  the  Monitoring  Committees  for 
the  13  SPDs27  approved  at  the  end  of  1994  and  defining  the  procedures  and  criteria  for  the  selection  of 
projects.  In  each  region  the  Monitoring  Committees  set  up  a  number  of  sub-committees  (working 
parties,  advisory  groups,  etc.)  to  assist  in  programme  implementation,  and  particularly  the  assessment 
and  selection  of  projects.  The  groups  are  organized  on  a  regional  or  sub-regional  basis  (e.g.  for 
Yorkshire  and  Humberside  there  is  a  separate  advisory  group  responsible  for  selecting  projects  in  the 
three  areas  eligible,  South  Yorkshire,  West  Yorkshire  and  Humberside)  or  on  a  sectoral  basis  (e.g.  a 
sectoral  group  for  each  of  the  programme  priorities:  small  firms,  R&D,  local  development,  etc.).  The 
Commission  is represented  on  all these  committees. 

27  Eastern  Scotland,  Western  Scotland,  East Midlands, Gibraltar,  East London  and the  Lee  Valley,  Industrial  South 
Wales,  North  East  England,  Greater  Manchester  Lancashire  Cheshire,  Plymouth,  Thanet,  West  Cumbria  and 
Furness, West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside. 

78 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Original methods of operating: 
The  Monitoring  Committees  and  working  parties  are  assisted  by  secretariats. 
The  Commission  has  attached  great  importance  to  the  establishment  of 
independent  secretariats  responsible  to the  Monitoring  Committees  but  only  in 
Scotland  have  such  secretariats  (with  externally  recruited  staff  and  their 
establishment  financed  partly  by  technical  assistance)  been  set  up  with  the 
support  of  local  partners.  They  have  given  very  good  results.  In  England  and 
Wales the secretariats have been  set up with staff  from  the regional  government 
offices  or  the  Welsh  Office  and  in  some  cases  staff  seconded  from  the 
partnership paid partly through technical assistance. 
In all the regions, the Monitoring Committees have adopted transparent criteria 
for  the  selection  of  projects.  All  the  projects  are  assessed  using  a  system  of 
points based on criteria agreed jointly by the respective Monitoring Committees. 
The  criteria  used  include  the  capacity  of the  project  to  create  permanent  jobs. 
Other  criteria  include  the  cost/benefit  ratio,  the  life  of  the  project  and  its 
complementarity  with  other  projects.  Projects  costing  less  than  ECU  5 million 
are  normally  considered  and  selected  by  working  parties  reporting  back  to  the 
appropriate  Monitoring  Committee. Projects  costing more than  that  amount  are 
normally approved by the Monitoring Committee. 

Operational  mechanisms  were  introduced  in  all  the  regions  in  February-March  1995.  The  main  task  in 
the  following  months  was  to  issue  calls  for  projects,  which  was  done  at  regular  intervals  throughout  the 
year,  and  to  select  projects.  Measures  under  the  ESF  were  selected  on  the  basis  of  a  single  call  in  each 
region,  as  were  those  under  the  ERDF  in  the  case  of  the  smallest  programmes.  In  the  case  of  larger 
programmes,  a  number  of  calls  for  projects  were  issued  with  varying  results.  For  example,  under  the 
West  Midlands  SPD,  over  800  proposals  were  received  in  response  to  the  first  call.  Replies  varied 
depending  on 
the  measure.  Traditional  measures  such  as  "industrial  sites  and  premises"  and 
"development  of  tourism"  sometimes  reached  the  allocations  fixed  rapidly.  More  innovative  measures 
such  as  the  development  of  clean  technologies  and  local  economic  development  made  slower  progress. 
Some  applicants,  particularly  associative  bodies, often  had  problems  in  finding  the  part-finance  required 
to  implement  their  projects. 

The  Monitoring  Committees  also  resolved  certain  basic  questions  on  the  implementation  of  the  SPDs. 
including  the  implementation  of  priorities  for  local  development,  where  programmes  sought  to  stimulate 
a  bottom  up  approach,  and  combatting  the  social  exclusion  of  the  least  favoured  social  groups 
concentrated  in  certain  areas  of  each  region.  Where  these  areas  had  not  been  defined  in  the  SPDs  this 
was  done  by  the  Monitoring  Committees  during  1995. Plymouth  is the  area  where  the  target  population 
is most  concentrated  with  14% of the  population  of the Objective  2 areas. 

A  certain  amount  of  aid  was  provided  under  technical  assistance,  for  example  for  the  preparation  of 
work  programmes  or  to  bolster  secretariats  through  staff  seconded  from  the  enlarged  partnership. 

As  far  as  monitoring  and  evaluation  are  concerned,  the  local  partners  undertook  to  complete  the  basic 
indicators,  some  of  which  were  not  yet  available  when  the  SPDs  were  approved  at  the  end  of  1994.  By 
the  end  of  1995  some  major  indicators  still  remained  to  be  established  in  some  beneficiary  areas. 
Evaluations  of  earlier  programmes  (such  as  that  for  Eastern  Scotland)  or  studies  on  specific  subjects 
were  launched  and  the  results  will  be  considered  by the  Monitoring  Committees.  In  addition,  in  1995  the 
Commission  launched  a study  on  local  economic  development  in Great  Britain.  In  some  regions,  such  as 
North-East  England,  special  seminars  were  organized  to  make  the  opportunities  in  this  field  better 
known. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

79 

1995 in the context of programming for  1994-96 

Table 32:  Objective 2 - United Kingdom - Financial implementationof the SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd  y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

Total  c o st 

S F  a s s i s t a n ce 
0) 

C o m m i t m e nt 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e nt 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(2) 

% 
( 2 ) / { l) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

P a y m e n ts 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

"A, 
(3)/(2) 

(3) 

1994 

S PD  East  L o n d on  &  t he  Lee  valley 
S PD  E a st  M i d l a n ds 
S PD  E a s t e rn  S c o t l a nd 
SPD  Gibraltar 

SPD  G r e a t er  M a n c h e s t er 
SPD  I n d u s t r i al  S o u th  W a l es 

S PD  N o r th  E a st  E n g l a nd 
SPD  P l y m o u th 

SPD  T h a n et 
SPD  W e st  C u m b r ia  &  F u r n e ss 
SPD  W e st  M i d l a n ds 
SPD  W e s t e rn  S c o t l a nd 
S PD  Yorkshire  &  H u m b e r s i de 

191,3 
218.2 
293,0 
11,5 
814,5 
526,4 
723,7 

69,2 
69,1 

65,3 
938,4 
665,8 
813,7 

74,0 
79,0 
121,0 
5,0 
329,0 
188,0 
308,0 

29,0 
14,0 
25,0 
371,0 
286.0 
313.0 

6,1 
6,5 
40,1 
0,0 
32,7 
15,6 
95,7 
0,0 

0,0 
0,0 
123.0 
94,8 
103,8 

29,7 
31,7 
78,6 
5.0 
137,3 

75,3 
193,6 
29,0 
14,0 
25.0 
240,9 
185,7 
204,4 

4 0% 
4 0% 
6 5% 
100% 
4 2% 
4 0% 
6 3% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
6 5% 
6 5% 
65%. 

4.4 
5,8 
6.6 
0.0 
27,5 
14.3 
37,4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
19.1 
18,5 
19,3 

16.1 
18.4 
25,9 

2.5 
79.8 
44,2 
86.3 
14,5 

7.0 
12,5 
78.1 
63.9 
69,6 

5 4% 
5 8% 

50% 
5 8% 
5 9% 
4 5% 
50% 
5 0% 
5 0% 

3 4% 
3 4% 

T O T AL 

5.400,1 

2 . 1 4 2 ,0 

5 1 8 ,3 

1.250,0 

5 8% 

15  3,0 

5 1 8 ,9 

4 2% 

In  general,  measures  under  the  programmes  have  given  impressive  results  in  terms  of  the  level  of 
commitment  of the  Structural  Funds. By the end of the year, the programmes  which  had  been  approved 
in principle  represented  about  half  the  total  assistance  for  that  purpose.  However,  progress  in  terms  of 
actual expenditure was rather slower. 

In December  1995 adjustments  were made to four  SPDs (Eastern  Scotland,  Western  Scotland,  Yorkshire 
and  Humberside  and  West  Midlands), mainly  to define  better the  contribution  of the  private  sector  and 
to transfer  to  1995 instalments of ERDF and ESF appropriations not used  in  1994. 

80 

4.  Objectives 3 and 4 

4.1.  Implementation  of Objectives 3 and 4 in 1995 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

All the programmes under Objective 3 have now been approved for the new period, as all the CSFs, OPs 
and  SPDs  for  the nine  existing  Member  States  were  adopted  in  1994 and the three  SPDs  for  the new 
Member  States  were  adopted  in  199528.  In  all, therefore,  Objective 3  is  being  implemented  by  four 
CSFs,  46  OPs  and  seven  SPDs  (including  three  for  the  new  Member  States).  All  the  Objective 4 
programmes  for the Nine were also  adopted  in  1994, and in the new Member  States, only the SPD for 
Sweden  remained  to  be  approved  in  1995. Thus,  Objective 4  is  being  implemented  by  nine  SPDs 
(including two in the new Member States), one CSF and five OPs. 

Implementation  of Objective  3 in the Member  States in  1995 was satisfactory.  Emphasis was placed on 
the  new  guidelines  for  the  1994-99  programming  period,  which  introduced  new  possibilities  for 
assistance  as regards  both  the targeted  recipients  (all those  threatened  with  exclusion  from  the  labour 
market) and measures (integration pathways, basic and continuing training and apprenticeship schemes). 

Since the CSFs and SPDs for Objective 4 were approved  in December  1994,  measures were prepared in 
1995  at  differing  speeds  in  the  different  Member  States.  Priority  was  given  to  the  dissemination  of 
information  (mainly  through  seminars  and  information  campaigns),  setting  up  the  partnership  and 
selecting projects. In some Member States measures were launched in 1995, in others this will happen in 
1996.  The innovations  in Objective 4, particularly  with  regard  to pre-emptive  measures,  the  extended 
partnership and the need to comply with  competition  rules have resulted  in delays  in implementation in 
relation to initial  forecasts. 

Table 33:  Objectives 3 and 4 - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-95 and 1996-99 (ECU million) 

D 

| 

F 

| 

F 

| 

1 

| 

L 

| 

N 

|  AT 

| 

FI 

| 

SE 

|  UK 

|  Total 

| 

| 
Objective  3  (1994/95-99  except  for  UK:  1994-96) 
Programmed 
A d o p t ed 

DK 

B 

| 

396,2  ** 
400,9 
101% 
97.8 
24% 
74.5 
19% 

263,0 * 
263,0 . 
100% 
85,0 
32% 
74,2 
28% 

1.682,1  ** 
1  682,1 
100% 
307,8 
18% 
234,3 
14% 

Commitments  1994-1995 
%  of  assistance 
Payments  199*4-1995 
%  of  a s s i s t a n ce 
Objective  4  (1994/95-96  except  for  E, I , N , U K:  1994-99) 
104,5  * 
Programmed 
104,5 
A d o p t ed 
% 
100% 
29,6 
Commitments  1994-1995 
28% 
%  of  assistance 
14,8 
Payments  1994-1995 
14% 
%  of  assistance 

13,0* 
13,0 
100% 
6,0 
46% 
3,0 
23% 

25,4  ** 
25,7 
101% 
4.6 
18%  . 

9% 

1.474,4  ** 
1.480,3 
100% 
426,6 
29% 
244,5 
17% 

2362,4  * 
2.562,4 
100% 
778,4 
30% 
503,7 
20% 

1.316,3  ** 
1.300,1 
99% 
200,5 
15% 
100,2 
8% 

20,7  * • 
20,7 
100% 
6,5 
31% 
5,6 
27% 

368,6  * 
368,6 
100% 
118,1 
32% 
65,8 
18% 

299,6  * 
299,6 
100% 
95,4 
32% 
47,7 
16% 

398,8  * 
398,8 
100% 
60,6 
15% 
30,3 
8% 

• 

0,9 
0,9 
99% 
0,5 
59% 

0,3 
38% 

922,8  * 
922,8 
100% 
282,3 
31% 
253,3 
27% 

156,2  * 
156,2 
100% 
22,2 
14% 

11,1 
7% 

334,0  * 
334,0 
100% 
64.1 
19% 
32,0 
10% 

61,0  * 
61.0 
100% 
11,7 
19% 

5,9 
10% 

258,4 * 
258.4 
100% 
60,3 
23% 
30,2 
12% 

84.6  * 
84,6 
100% 
14,8 
18% 

"<A 
9% 

347,0 * 
347,0 
100% 
73,0 
21% 
36,5 
11% 

1.501,0  * 
1.501,0 
100% 
975.0 
65% 
818.6 
55% 

11.078,3 
11.072,7 
100% 
3.357,1 
30% 
2.407,6 
22% 

173,0* 
0,0 
0% 

0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 

329,7  * 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0.0 
0% 

2.015,3 
1.512,9 
75% 
363.6 
24% 
188,7 
12% 

Programmed  by  SPD 
**  Programmed  by  CSF 

The under-utilization of ESF appropriations  for  199529 was noted by the various  parties  involved  in the 
Community  institutions  and  the  Member  States.  The  main  reasons  for  this  situation  have  been 
weeknesses and delays  in implementation  in certain  Member  States and delays  in the adoption  of many 
decisions. The situation  varies according to the Objective and the Member State concerned, but a plan of 
action  comprising  steps  to  be taken  by the  Member  States  and the  Commission  has  been  adopted  in 
order to improve implementation  and achieve better control from  1996 on. 

28 See Chapter l.A.7. Integration of the new Member States into the structural policies. 
29 See also Chapter II.A Budgetary implementation. 

7th  Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

81 

The environment in Objectives 3 and 4: 
Since Objectives 3 and 4 concern human resource measures to combat long-term  unemployment and 
facilitate  vocational integration (Objective 3) and to facilitate  the adaptation of workers to industrial 
changes  (Objective 4)  environmental  considerations  are  necessarily  indirect  and  concern  work 
experience and vocational training. However, in the long term they contribute to adapting employees 
to new jobs  and  increasing public  awareness of environmental issues.  Thus,  under  Objective 3  the 
ESF  is  supporting  environmental  action  by  part-financing  employment  aid  for  environmental 
improvement operations like the restoration of industrial sites, cleaning of rivers or beaches and the 
conservation of natural sites.  Objective 4 includes vocational training and advisory  measures  in the 
context  of re-skilling  workers in the face  of industrial changes. In  the main,  these  measures  aim  to 
raise skill levels to enable workers to adapt to new, environmentally friendly procedures  which often 
require advanced technical skills. 

4.2.  Country-by-country  survey 

BELGIUM 

Objective  3 - programming 

for  1994-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 

Integration  o f t he  long-term  unemployed  (a) 
Vocational  integration  of  y o u ng  people  seeking  employment  (b) 
Integration  o f t h o se  threatened  with  exclusion  (c) 
Equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women  (d) 
Aid  for  training  and  integration  facilities  (e) 

FSE 

( d ) 7% 

( e)  7% 

( a)  34% 

133,0 
84,8 
124,6 
26,4 
27,4 

396,2 

Total 

(C)  31% 

( b)  2 1% 

Objective 3:  Objective  3  in  Belgium  is  programmed  in  a CSF  and  five  OPs,  all  adopted  in  1994  and 
representing ESF assistance worth  ECU 396.2 million. Measures programmed  for  1995 progressed  well. 
The Monitoring Committees  for the OPs studied the ways and means of achieving optimal  management 
of  the  integration  pathway,  which  will  become  an  eligibility  criterion  from  1997.  Underlying  this 
discussion  has  been  the  setting  up of  a  forum  to take  place  in  1996  in  which  trainees  under  measures 
supported  by  the  ESF  will  play  a  key  role.  The  Monitoring  Committees  also  focused  on  defining 
specifications  for assessment as well as appointing independent assessors. 

Local branch offices in Brussels: 
The idea of setting up local branch offices  came from  the municipalities which 
make  up the city of Brussels, the public social  assistance centres (CPAS) and 
their  partner  associations  as  a shared  means  of  assisting  local  inhabitants  in 
difficulty.  There  is no  single  model. These  local  branches  seek  to  render the 
various  measures  and  legal  provisions  taken  by  the  municipal,  regional  and 
federal  authorities more accessible and applicable to the everyday reality  ofthe 
local  population  they serve. They play an  important  coordinating  role at local 
level in facilitating  access by the population to vocational  integration  measures 
and  encouraging  the  development  of  integration  pathways.  The  local  branch 
offices  in Brussels have set up reception and guidance facilities.  Each year 300 
to  600  people  receive  initial  socio-vocational  guidance  in  each  of  the  local 
branches. There are now nine of them in the city's main municipalities. 

82 

7th  Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

Objective  4  - programming 

for  1994-96 

(ECU  million) 

Priorities 

A n t i c i p a t i on  of  l a b o ur  market  t r e n ds  (a) 
I m p r o v e m e n ts  in  t r a i n i ng  and  g u i d a n ce  s c h e m es  (b) 
D e v e l o p m e nt  of  t r a i n i ng  a nd  g u i d a n ce  (c) 
Horizontal  m e a s u r es  (d) 

I 

TTE 

(d)  8% 

( a)  33% 

S\T 
6,4 
8,7 
2,0 
25,4 

Total J 

(C)  34 

(b)  25% 

Objective 4: Like Objective  3, Objective 4 is programmed  through a CSF and  five  OPs adopted  in  1994 
with  an  ESF  contribution  of  ECU 25.4  million  until  1996.  However,  in  contrast  to  initial  plans,  few 
measures were organized  in  1995 because the Monitoring Committees for the OPs, in their concern to do 
justice  to the  specific  goals  of Objective 4, decided  to determine  as exactly  as  possible  the  criteria  and 
procedures  for  selecting  projects.  Their discussions  should  be translated  into  administrative  procedures 
during  1996. 

Table 34:  Objectives 3 and 4 - Belgium - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  and  y e ar  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

S F  a s s i s t a n ce 

Objective  3 
1994 

OP  Flemish  Community 
OP  French  Community 
OP  G e r m a n - s p e a k i ng  c o m m u n i ty 
OP  B r u s s e ls 
OP  M in is try  of  employ  ment 

632,0 
361,7 
12,4 
32,7 
94,3 

total 

1.133,0 

Objective  4 
1994 

OP  Flemish  c o m m u n i ty 
OP  French  Community 
OP  G e r m a n - s p e a k i ng  c o m m u n i ty 
OP  B r u s s e ls 
OP  M in is try  of  e m p l o y m e nt 

Total 

T O T AL 

45,1 
11,1 
0,6 
3,1 
6,9 
66,« 

1.199,8 

(1) 

188,3 
158,7 
5,5 
12,4 
3 6,0 
41111,9 

18,3 
3.7 
0,3 
1,0 
2,6 

25,7 

4 2 6,6 

C o m m i t m e n ts 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

% 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

(2) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

(3)/(2) 

0,0 
25,9 
0,0 
1,9 
5,6 

33,4 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

0,0 

33,4 

30,4 
51,9 
0,8 
3,7 
10,9 

97,8 

16% 
33% 
15% 
30% 
3 0% 
24% 

3,5 
0,2 
0,1 
0,3 
0,6 

19% 
5% 
25% 
30% 
24% 

4,6 

1 fi % 

102,4 

2 4% 

9,4 
25.9 
0,1 
1.5 
5,5 
4  2,3 

0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 

0,0 

4 2.3 

24,6 
38,9 
0,5 
2.4 
8,1 
74,5 

81 % 
75% 
56% 
64% 
7 5% 
76% 

1.7 
0,1 
0,0 
0,1 
0.3 
2,3 

50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 

50% 

7 6,8 

7 5 % 

The  measures  receiving  assistance  under  Objective 3  in  1995  comprise  active  steps  to  combat 
unemployment, with  special priority to integration mechanisms which, with appropriate  supervision, can 
effectively  help  the  unemployed  into  permanent  jobs.  Implementation  of  this  exacting  concept  (the 
integration  pathway)  has been  highly  successful.  The delays  in starting up in  1994 have almost  all  been 
retrieved  and  the  financial  implementation  rate  is expected  to  be  around  100% when  the  balances  are 
calculated.  The  success  rate  of  Objective 4,  being  much  more  recent  in  terms  of  both  approach  and 
direction, has been  more varied  in the different  regions ofthe  country. Only the federal  OP kept up with 
initial programming  in  1995. 

DENMARK 

Objective  3 - programming 

for  1994-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 

Vocational  integration  of  y o u ng  people  (R) 
Integration  o f t he  long-term  unemployed  (b) 
Integration  of  t h o se  t h r e a t e n ed  with  exclusion  (c) 
Technical  a s s i s t a n ce  (d) 

FSE 

(C)  22% 

(d)  2% 

(a)  21% 

55,0 
144.0 
58,5 
5,5 
263,0 

Total 

(b)  55% 

Objective 3:  Objective 3  is  being  implemented  in  Denmark  through  a  single  SPD  adopted  in  1994, 
which saw ECU 41  million  in commitment appropriations  for  1995. The SPD supports and  supplements 
Denmark's dynamic  employment  policy  by concentrating  assistance on a number  of beneficiaries  much 
smaller than  the number  of unemployed  people receiving national  assistance  and on  projects  of a longer 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

83 

duration  than  in  the  previous  programming  period.  Results  in  1995  show  that  application  of  this 
principle  is bearing  fruit. 

Objective  4  - programming 

for  1994-96 

(ECU 

million) 

Priorities 
A n t i c i p a t i on  ot  l a b o ur  market  t r e n ds  a na  v o c a t i o n al  training 
r e q u i r e m e n ts  (a) 
V o c a t i o n al  t r a i n i n g,  g u i d a n c e,  a d v i ce  (b) 
I m p r o v e m e n ts  in  v o c a t i o n al  training  s c h e m es  (c) 
T e c h n i c al  a s s i s t a n ce  (d) 

Total 

T SF 

(C)  3 0% 

(d)4% 

(a  )  1 5% 

1,9 
6,7 
3,9 
0,5 
TTC 

( b)  5 1% 

Objective  4:  1995  was  the  first  full  year  of  implementation  ofthe  SPD  for  1994-96  in  Denmark.  Late 
approval  ofthe  SPD  prevented  any  action  in  1994  and  resulted  in  ECU  1 million  being  carried  forward 
from  1994.  ECU  5  million  was  committed  in  1995.  The  measures  provided  for  in  the  SPD  aim,  in 
particular,  at  improving  the  current  arrangements  for  monitoring  the  labour  market  and  assisting  firms  to 
make  better  use  of  them.  The  ESF  is  also  assisting  measures  with  two  other  strategic  aims:  on  the  one 
hand,  to  develop  vocational  training  in  addition  to  that  offered  by  the  Danish  system,  matching  market 
requirements  and  targeting  those  in  greatest  need  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  set  up  advisory  services  for 
businesses,  especially  SMEs.  With  regard  to  monitoring,  the  standing  assessment  committee  provided 
for  in  the  SPD  has  been  set  up.  It  is  collaborating  in  the  creation,  application  and  development  of  new 
methods  for  anticipating  and  monitoring  labour market  requirements. 

Study  on the impact of electronic data exchange  (EDE): 
The purpose of this project  is to study the extent to which  EDE will change the 
skills  required  of  staff  and  how  surplus  human  resources  can  be  reallocated 
elsewhere. The main target group is staff directly affected  by the introduction  of 
EDE, with management  in second place. The first phase ofthe  project,  launched 
in  1995,  consists  in  gathering  information  and  pinpointing  current  and  future 
uses of EDE by businesses by means of internal interviews and using experience 
gained  in other countries. The project  is being part-financed  by the  ESF (39%), 
the national public sector (33%) and the private sector (28%) 

Table 35:  Objectives 3 and 4 - Denmark  - Financial implementation ofthe  SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  and  year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

S F  a s s i s t a n ce 

(1) 

Com  m i t m e n ts 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 2 ) / ( l) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

(2) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

Objective  3 
1994 

SPD  Denmark 

Objective  4 
1994 

SPD  Denmark 

G E R M A NY 

| 

552,9| 

263,0| 

41,0| 

85,01 

32%  | 

39,0| 

74,21 

S7% 

T O T AL 

28,9 
5 8 1 ,8 

13,0 
2 7 6,0 

5,0 
4 6,0 

6.0 
9  1,0 

46% 

3 3% 

2,5 
4  1.5 

3.0 
7 7.2 

50% 
8 5 "/., 

Objective  3  - programming 

for  1994-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 
Vocational  integration  of  t h o se  threatened  with  long-term 
unemployment  (a) 
Vocational  integration  of  y o u ng  people  seeking  employment  (b) 
Integration  of  t h o se  threatened  with  exclusion  (c) 
Equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women  (d) 
Technical  a s s i s t a n ce  and  pilot  projects  (c) 

FSE 

951,4 
441,7 
78,1 
160,1 
50.7 
1.682,0 

Total 

( d ) i o% 

<e>  3% 

(C)  5% 

( b)  26% 

( a)  56% 

84 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Objective  3:  Objective  3  in  Germany  is  programmed  in  one  CSF  and  12  OPs  (one  per  Land  and  one 
federal)  adopted  in  1994  with  total  ESF  financing  worth  ECU  1 682  million.  1995 was  the  first  full  year 
of  implementation  o f t he  OPs,  which  is  why  only  18%  (ECU  48.2  million)  o f t he  total  allocation  of 
ECU  268.7  million  provided  for  1995  in  the  financing  plan  was  committed  and  why  commitments  for 
1994-95  represented  58% ofthe  amounts  programmed.  Most  ofthe  programmes  only  reached  cruising 
speed  during the  second  half of  1995. 

ESF  assistance  under  Objective  3  at  federal  level  is  being  used  to  supplement  standard  aid  proposed 
under  national  employment  measures,  i.e.  the  "AFG-plus"  programme  run  by  the  federal  employment 
service  (Bundesanstalt  fur  Arbeit),  which  supplements  the  training  and  employment  aid  provided  for  in 
the  "AFG"  (Arbeitsforderungsgesetz) 
employment  promotion  law.  The  most  important  aspect  of  the 
"AFG-plus" 
is  the  grant  of  aid  to  participants  in  vocational  training  measures  who  are  not  entitled  to 
benefit  under  the AFG.  Since the main  beneficiaries  of this  assistance  are women,  implementation  ofthe 
"AFG-plus"  programme  also helps contribute to equality  of opportunities  for  men  and  women. 

At  Lander  level,  the  most  noteworthy  aspect  of  the  new  set  of  programmes 
is  the  creation  or 
development  of  "soziale  Betriebe",  or  social  enterprises.  Their  mission  is  to  integrate  disadvantaged 
unemployed  people  by  setting  up  businesses  which,  in  time,  will  be  viable  without  financial  assistance 
from  public  funds.  These  social  enterprises  have  mainly  been  developed  in  Lower  Saxony  and  are 
currently  being  introduced  in other  parts  ofthe  country,  often  in  slightly  different  forms.  They  will  carry 
considerable  weight  when  the OPs are  assessed. 

Training  women to drive buses in Munster: 
The aim of this project  is to provide appropriate training for women who, after a 
period away  from  work, wish to re-enter the  labour market  as bus drivers. Part-
time  training  should  enable  them  to  get  part-time  work  doing  a job  in  which 
women  are  under-represented.  The  shift  of  emphasis  away  from  physical 
strength  towards  customer  service  makes  this  work  more  attractive  to  women. 
Lasting  21  months,  the  training  involves  both  general  aspects  (driving 
techniques, road safety  and the highway  code, labour  law, passenger  and goods 
transport,  selling  methods,  office  organization  and  using  a  PC)  and  long 
practical  training  courses,  partly  organized  on  a  rotating  basis,  which  bring 
women  into contact with their future  employers. 

With  regard  to  implementation  ofthe  OPs,  the  closer  cooperation  between  the  regional  branches  ofthe 
federal  labour  services  and  the .social  affairs  services  ofthe  Lander  provided  for  in  the  CSF  has  already 
begun  to  bear  fruit.  The  implementing  arrangements  for  several  of  the  specific  programmes  for  the 
Lander  have  been  amended  to  make  them  compatible  with  the  federal  "AFG-plus"  programme.  Most  of 
the  bodies  managing  the  programmes  have  found  that  the  overall  level  of  the  programmes  has  been 
improved  by  applying  the  quality  criteria  ofthe  CSF,  which  stipulate  that  projects  must  meet  local  and 
regional  skilling  requirements  and  be  linked  as  closely  as  possible  with  businesses  providing  jobs. 
However,  although  progress  is  tangible,  it  is  also  slow  and  monitoring  is  needed  to  ensure  that 
implementation  continues.  In  addition,  participation  ofthe  social  partners  and  independent  experts  on 
the  labour  market  in  the  work  ofthe  Monitoring  Committee  has  permitted  more  intensive  debate  on  the 
policy  options.  The  economic  and  social  partners  in  several  Lander  are  collaborating  in  the  selection  of 
projects  or the  adjustment  of  regional  programmes. 

Lastly,  mid-term  reviews  of  Objectives  3  and  4  have  been  prepared,  with  Monitoring  Committee  sub 
groups  on  assessment  drawing  up  specifications  and  publishing  an  invitation  to  tender. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Objective 4 - programming  for  1994-96 (ECU  million) 

Priorities 
Anticipation  oi  labour  market  trends  and  vocational  training 
requirements  (a) 
Training  and  retraining,  guidance  and  advice  (b) 
Improvement  and  development  of appropriate  training 
schemes  (c) 
Technical  assistance  (d) 

85 

I 

FSE 

(C)  13% 

( d ) 5% 

( a)  11% 

11,4 
73,7 

13,7 
5,7 
nn^5~ 

(b) 7 1% 

TôTâT 

Objective 4:  Objective 4  is  being  implemented  in  Germany  by  an  SPD  with  ECU  104.5  million  for 
1994-96.  Implementation  of  assistance  began  late,  so  that  the  German  authorities  were  able  to  spend 
only  ECU 3 million  in  1994 and  1995. The unspent  funds  from  the  1994 and  1995  instalments  will  be 
carried  forward  to  1997-99. One ofthe  main reasons for the delay was the temporary  imposition  ofthe 
"de minimis"  rule  on  state  aids,  since  the  German  authorities  had  to  show  that  the  planned  assistance 
complied  with Community  competition  rules. Consequently,  none of assistance  provided  for  in the  SPD 
was  implemented  until  May-June  1995. Another  reason  for  the  delay  is  the  novelty  of  the  approach 
under Objective 4, which  required  suitable  structures  to be  set up to ensure that  the  right  projects  were 
selected.  On  6  and  7 July  1995  the  Germany  authorities  organized  a  seminar  in  Berlin  to  discuss 
planning for  structural  change and the forecasting  of vocational  training requirements. This was the  first 
thematic seminar at European  level since the Objective 4 programmes were  launched. 

Table 36:  Objectives 3 and 4 - Germany - Financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd  y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

T o t al  c os  t 

S  F  as  s is  t a n ce 

C om  m i t m e n ts 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

( 1) 

1 9 95 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 2) 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

P a y m e n t s 

1 9 95 

P a y m e n ts 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 3) 

% 
( 3 ) / ( 2) 

O  b j e c t i ve  3 

1994 

Regional 

OPs 

OP  B ad  en  -W  ù r t t e n i b e rg 

OP  B a v a r ia 

OP  B e r l in 

OP  B r e m en 

OP  H a m b u rg 

OP  H e s se 

OP  L o w er  S a xo  n y 

OP  R l u n e l a n d - N o r lh 

VV es  tp  h  alia 

OP  Rh 

i n e l a n d - P a l a t i n a te 

OP  S a ar 

OP  S e ll  les  w i g - H o ls  t e in 

M  ultiregional 

OPs 

OP  F e d e r al 

0  bj e c t i ve  4 

1994 

S PD  G e r m an  y 

1  15,8 

1 2 5 ,3 

1  13,0 

9 3 ,5 

8 6 ,1 

1 3 5 ,4 

2 7 6 .S 

6 7 4 .8 

6 5 ,8 

9 0 ,9 

9 0 ,4 

5 2 ,4 

5 6 .5 

5 0 .8 

3 9,5 

3 9 ,1 

4 9 ,6 

121,2 

2 8 0 ,6 

2 9 ,5 

4 0 ,9 

3 4 ,4 

Total 

2 . 5 8 9 ,7 

4.457,4 

8 8 7 ,6 

1.6X2,1 

Total 

T O T AL 

2 5 5 ,3 

255,3 

4 . 7 1 2 ,7 

1 0 4 ,5 

104,5 

1 . 7 8 6 ,6 

8,3 

0,0 

8,1 

6,3 

0.0 

7,9 

0,0 

0,0 

5.0 

6,4 

6.1 

0,0 

4H,2 

0,0 

0,0 

4 8 ,2 

16,4 

8,7 

15.9 

12,3 

6,0 

15,5 

18,6 

4 3 ,0 

10,2 

13,0 

12.2 

3  1  % 

1 5% 

3  1  % 

3  1  % 

1 5% 

3  1  % 

1 5% 

1  5% 

3 4% 

3 2% 

3 5 % 

6.6 

2.6 

S.S 

6.S 

l.S 

6.2 

0,0 

1 2 .9 

4,1 

7.1 

6.7 

10,6 

6 ,9 

12,7 

9.9 

4 .8 

1 0 ,0 

9.3 

3 4,4 

6,6 

10,4 

9,8 

6  5% 

8 0% 

8 0% 

8 0% 

8 0% 

6 5% 

5 0% 

8 0% 

6  5% 

8 0% 

8 0% 

136,1 

3 

(17,H 

1 5% 

/  X  % 

4 0 .8 

1  114 .5 

1 0 8 ,8 

234.3 

8 0% 

7 6% 

2 9 ,6 

2 8% 

29,6 

2 S  % 

3 3  7 ,4 

1 9% 

O.U 

0.0 

1  0  4 .5 

14,8 

14,H 

5 0% 

5 0 % 

2 4 9 ,1 

7  4  "/.. 

The  rather  low  rate  of  budget  implementation  can  be  attributed  mainly  to  the  fact  that  the  federal 
programme  for  Objective 3,  which  accounts  for  more  than  50%  of  ESF  assistance,  is  financing  new 
measures which  cannot  be implemented  in practice  until a decision  approving them  has been  taken.  For 
this  reason,  the  programme  reached  cruising  speed  only  in  the  second  half  of  the  year.  In  addition, 
implementation  of  the  programmes  for  the  previous  programming  period  continued  until  the  end  of 
1995. 

86 

SPAIN 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

Objective  3  - programming 

for  1994-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 

Vocational  integration  o f t he  long-term  unemployed  (a) 
Vocational  integration  of  y o u ng  people  seeking  employment  (b) 
Integration  o f t h o se  threatened  with  exclusion  (c) 
Equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women  (d) 

FSE 

499,3 
725,8 
187,6 
61,7 

(C)  13% 

(d)  4% 

(a) 34% 

Total 

1.474,4 

(b)  49% 

Objective  3:  Objective  3  assistance  in  the  Spanish  regions  outside  Objective  1 is  programmed  in  a  CSF 
with  Community  assistance  worth  ECU  1 474  million.  There  are  11  OPs  in  all,  of  which  four 
(representing  72%  of  total  assistance)  are  managed  by  national  bodies  and  the  remaining  seven  (28%> of 
assistance)  by  the  Autonomous  Communities.  Around  ECU  233.8  million  was  available  for  1995,  about 
90%» of  which  was  committed.  The  average  rate  of  implementation  of  programmes  is  satisfactory.  At  its 
two  meetings  in  1995  the  Monitoring  Committee  emphasized  its  strategic  role  in  implementing  the  CSF 
priorities  and  in  organizing  the  mid-term  review  as  well  as  drawing  up  specifications  for  intermediate 
assessment  by  independent  assessors. 

Stimulating the spirit of enterprise in Spain: 
The  "Escuela de  Organizaciôn Industrial" project  was  set  up to  help  design  a 
project  to create new businesses to capitalize  on  local potential  and to  stimulate 
the spirit of enterprise  and  innovation  through  theoretical  and practical  training. 
To  achieve  this,  the  school  provides  training  in  how  to  manage  a  business  in 
three  integrated  modules  (theory, practical  experience  and  supervision).  During 
the  practical  phase,  students  develop  a  project  to  set  up  a  business  under  the 
individual  guidance  of a project  director  (product/market  definition,  analysis of 
local  potential,  determining  the  strategy,  etc)  and  during  the  final  phase  the 
finished  project,  including  the  data  necessary  to  assess  its viability,  is  formally 
presented. 

Objective  4  - prog  rum min  g for  1994-99  (ECU 

million) 

Priorities 

P r e - e m p t i ve  m e a s u r e s,  g u i d a n ce  and  a d v i ce  (a) 

C o n t i n u i ng  training  of  w o r k e rs  (b) 
T e c h n i c al  as s is t a n ce  (c) 

FSE 

36,9 

308,4 
23,3 
3 6 8 ,6 

TôîâT 

(C)6% 

(a)  10% 

lb)  84% 

Objective  4:  Objective  4  outside  the  Objective  1 areas  of  Spain  is  programmed  in  an  SPD  for  1994-99 
adopted  at  the  end  of  1994  with  ESF  assistance  worth  ECU  368.6  million.  Implementation  of  this  SPD 
has  been  seriously  delayed,  since  only  25%  of  the  1994  instalment  has  been  spent,  leading  the 
Commission  to  approve  an  amendment  to  the  financing  tables  in the  SPD  in November  1995  to  transfer 
unused  amounts  from  1994  to  1995.  The  delay  is  due  both  to  the  late  approval  ofthe  SPD  and  the 
internal  decision-making  process  of  FORCEM,  the  joint  body  responsible  for  managing  and  part-
financing  Objective  4.  With  regard  to  the  measures  implemented  by  FORCEM 
in  1994  and  part-
financed  by  the  ESF  under  Objective  4  (i.e.  outside  Objective  1 regions),  it  has  become  clear  that  the 
emphasis  must  be  placed  on  training  in  SMEs  (less  than  250  employees),  the  least  qualified  workers  and 
equality  of opportunities  for  men  and  women.  The  Monitoring  Committee  met  twice  in  1995. 

7th  Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

87 

Table 3 7:  Objectives 3 and 4 - Spain  - Financial implementation of the programmes  (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd  year  of  adoption 

T o t al  c o st 

S  F  a s s i s t a n ce 

C om  m l t m e n ts 

C om  m i t m e n ts 

( 1) 

1 9 95 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

P a y m e n ts 

P n y in  en  ts 

19 9 5 

19  9 4 - 95 

( 3 ) / ( 2) 

( 2) 

( 3) 

O b j e c t i ve  3 

1994 

Regional 

OPs 

OP  A  r a g on 

OP  B a l e a r ic  Is  l a n ds 

OP  C a t a l o n ia 

OP  R i o ja 

OP  M a d r id 

OP  N a v a r re 

OP  B a s q ue  C o u n t ry 
OPs 

M ultiregional 

OP  I N EM 

( 1) 

OP  M  u  I t i r e g i o n al 

OP  Un  i v e r s i t i es 

OP  V a r i o us  b od  ies 

O b j e c t i ve  4 

1994 

S PD  S p am 

4 5 ,1 

2 8 ,8 

2 1 0 ,3 

9 ,6 

2 5 0 ,2 

9 4 ,6 

2 7 9 ,2 

1.364,4 

7 3 0 ,6 

2 0 1 ,2 

7 5 ,6 

2 0 ,3 

12,9 

9 4 ,6 

4,3 

1  12,6 

4 2 ,6 

125,7 

6 1 4 ,0 

3 2 8 ,8 

9 0 ,5 

3 4 ,0 

0,0 

0,0 

15.6 

0.0 

18,4 

6,8 

20,7 

1  10,0 

3 5 ,5 

0,0 

0,0 

2 0 ,0 

12,9 

3  1.1 

4 .3 

3 6 ,8 

13,4 

4  1,3 

9 9% 

1  0 0% 

3  3% 

1 0 0% 

3  3% 

3 2% 

3  3% 

107,1 

5 8,3 

7,3 

2 7% 

1 8% 

8% 

3  3,9 

1  0 0% 

2,  ! 

0.0 

1  S.r 

0,( 

1 3 .-

o. 7 

1  5. ' 

S3.( 

0.' 

O.i 

2.6 

1.0 

2 3.0 

0.6 

10,1 

2 5  <• 

1  12.1 

4 0.5 

3.7 

2,4 

1 3% 

8% 

7 4% 

1 4% 

0 2% 

7 5 % 

(>3% 

7 0% 
M;% 

Tola! 

3.2X9,6 

1.480,3 

2 0  7,0 

426,6 

2 9  "A, 

lt> 

9,7 

2  4 

4,5 

5  "  "„ 

Total 

T O T AL 

1  0 4 5 ,0 

1.045,0 

4 . 3 3 4 .5 

3 6 8 ,6 

36X.6 

1 . 8 4 8 ,9 

6 2 ,7 

6 2 ,7 

2 6  9 ,7 

1  18,1 

118,1 

3 2% 

j  :  % 

5 4  4 ,7 

2 9  % 

3 S.I 

38,1 

2  (1  " .8 

( - 5 .S 

•}!."„ 

6 

5,8 

5  <•  ':., 

i  1  0 .4 

5  ~  "  ,i 

(  1  )  N a t io  n al  i n s t i t u te  t or  e m p l oy  m e nt 

F R A N CE 

Objective  3  - programming 

for  1994-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 

Integration  of  t h o se  threatened  with  long-term  unemployment  (a) 
Vocational  integration  of  y o u ng  people  seeking  employment  (b) 
Integration  o f t h o se  threatened  with  exclusion  (c) 
Equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women  (d) 
Technical  a s s i s t a n ce  and  pilot  projects  (e) 

(C)  2 8% 

FSE 

705.8 
987.2 
714.2 
17.9 
136,9 

Total 

2.562,0 

b)  38% 

(decentralization  of  appropriations 

Objective  3:  The  programming  of  ESF  assistance  under  Objective  3  in  France,  implemented  by  an  SPD 
with  an  ESF  contribution  amounting  to  ECU  2 562  million,  contains  a  new  feature  in  the  greater 
involvement  of  local  authorities,  both  financially  (with  40%  of  ESF  appropriations)  and  in  terms o\~ 
section). 
programming  and  management 
Implementation  in  1994  was  much  slower  than  expected  because  ofthe  late  adoption  ofthe  SPD.  the 
reform  of  French  financial  channels,  the  programming  of  assistance  in  new  domains  and  the  greater 
involvement  than  hitherto  ofthe  local  authorities.  However,  generally  speaking  the  priority  concerning 
the 
those 
vocational 
integration  of  young  people  and  equal  opportunities  were  slower  to  get  started  and 
encountered  difficulties  in  implementation.  The  priority  concerning  the  integration  ofthose  threatened 
with  exclusion  faced  still  greater  implementation  problems. 

long-term  unemployment  progressed  well.  The  priorities  concerning 

threatened  with 

regional 

the 

in 

The  rate  of  financial  implementation  was  higher  in  1995  than  in  1994 (73%).  Nevertheless,  since  neither 
of  the  meetings  held  by  the  Monitoring  Committee  in  1995  reported  on  the  progress  made  in 
implementing  the  programme  in  1995,  no  information  regarding  qualitative  results  or  forecasts  was 
available  for  inclusion  in  this  report.  In  addition,  in  1995  a  debate  began  on  employment  policy  in 
France  which  will  have  repercussions  on  the  programming  of  Objective  3  (abolition  of  certain 
mechanisms,  mergers,  etc.)  The  Commission  has  repeatedly  stressed  the  need  to  com cue  a  meeting  ol 
the  Monitoring  Committee  as  quickly  as  possible.  With  regard  to  assessment,  the  specification  has  been 
adopted  and  the  assessor  selected.  The  steering  committee  met  twice  and  should  transmit  a  mid-term 
report  at the  end  of July  1996. 

Objective  4 - programming 

for  1994-96  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 
Pre-emptive  measures  relating  to  skills  and  qualifications  (a) 
Increase  in  the  training  effort  (b) 
Improvements  to  training  schemes  (c) 
Technical  assistance  (d) 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

I  TS~E 

( C ) 5% 

( d ) 8% 

( a , 1 1% 

32,1 
227,8 
14,6 
25,1 
2 "W 

(b)  76% 

Total 

Objective  4: The decision  approving  the SPD for Objective  4, which  provides  for an  ESF contribution 
worth  ECU  299.6  million,  was  taken  in  1994.  Since the call  for projects  was  not issued  until  early  1995, 
no  measures  were  approved  in  1994 for the  1994 instalment.  In  view  ofthe  newness  of  Objective 4, 
special  efforts  went  into  preparing  communications  measures  (call  for  projects,  dissemination  of 
technical  tools,  exchange  of experience)  to train  those  involved  and inform  and raise  the awareness  of 
the  bodies  liaising  with  firms,  especially  SMEs  (local  chambers  of  trade,  socio-professional  bodies, 
social  partners).  Much  of  1995 was  dedicated  to  these  measures  and  the  presentation  of  projects 
therefore  began  only  towards the end ofthe  year.  70 projects  were  approved  at national  level  and 335 at 
regional  level.  With  regard  to  assessment,  a  steering  committee  was set  up  at  the  end  of  1995 to 
determine  specifications  with a view to selecting an assessor. 

Measures  to accompany changes in the car industry: 
A  car  parts  company,  Valéo  Sécurité,  in  the  department  of  Nièvre,  has 
developed  new products  and new production  systems  and work  organization 
arrangements  in order  to adapt to industrial  change  and find  new  markets. To 
accompany these changes in its development  strategy, employees have  attended 
framing  programmes  (integrated  automation  of  production  processes,  use of 
new  materials,  integrated  quality  management,  international  sales and trade) to 
increase  their  independence  and  range  of  skills.  These  measures  targeted 
employees with the lowest skill levels in order to increase their skills in line with 
the  development  of  their  jobs.  The ESF contributed  8%, as did the  French 
Government, while the firm contributed 84%. 

Table 38:  Objectives 3 and 4 - France - Financial implementation ofthe  SPDs (ECU  million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd y e ar  of  a d o p t i o n! 

T o t al  c o st 

SF  assistf 

(1) 

Com  miIments 
1995 

Com  mitments 
1 9 9 4 - 95 
(2) 

( 2 ) / ( lJ 

Payments 
1 9 9 4 - 95 
(3) 

( 3 ) / ( 2) 

503,71 

65% 

6.277,9 

2 . 8 6 2 ,0 

873,8 

3  12,9 

55  1,4  1  6 3% 

O bj e c I i ve  3 
1994 

SPD  France 

O  bj c c t i ve  4 

SPD  France 

ITALY 

Objective  3 - programming 

jor  1994-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 

Reintegration  o f t he  long-term  unemployed  (a) 
initial  training  and  integration  of y o u ng  people  (b) 
Integration  o f t h o se  threatened  with  exclusion  (c) 
l:qual  opportunities  for  men and  women  (d) 
Improvements  in  training  schemes  and employment  services  (e) 

FSE 

424,2 
566,0 
131,6 
105.3 
92.1 
1.319,2 

Total 

( e) 

7% 

( b) 

4 3% 

Programming  of Objective  3 in Italy  is being  implemented  by means  of a  CSF,  adopted  in August 1994, 
and  16 regional  and multiregional  OPs adopted  in  December  1994.  Objective  4  programming  is  being 
implemented  by an SPD  also  adopted  in  1994.  However,  in  1995 the Commission  decided  to extend the 
commitments  of  funds  for  certain  regional  and  multiregional  OPs under  Objectives  3  and  4  for the 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

89 

period  1990-93,  so  that  the  new  and  the  old  programming  are  running  side  by  side  and  the 
implementation  of  the  priorities  of  the  Objective 3  CSF  and  the  Objective 4  SPD  for  the  second 
programming period has been slowed down. 

Objective 4 - programming  for  19°4-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 
rre-emptive  measures,  aid  tor  programming  and  managing  a 
continuing  training  scheme  (a) 
Training,  the  adjustment  of  human  resources  to  structural 
changes  in  the  productive  economy  (b) 
Technical  assistance  (c) 

I 

FSE 

58,3 

(C)  4% 

( a)  15% 

323,1 
17,4 
Total J  1WJ 

(b)  8 1% 

The  ESF  has  become  an  indispensable  partner  in  the  development  of  training  in  Italy.  Most  of  the 
regional  training  systems  are  closely  involved  with  Community  assistance,  either  for  part-financing  or 
for training  guidelines. Moreover,  one ofthe  characteristics  ofthe  new programming  is the  net  increase 
in assistance under the responsibility ofthe  central authorities. In addition, the new programming  in Italv 
includes a system  of tendering  procedures for  project  selection  which  certainly  ensure transparency  and 
efficiency  in  the  management  of  training  systems  but  which  also  slow  down  implementation  of  the 
programming.  This  is  why  all  the  regions  and  autonomous  provinces  selected  projects  on  the  basis  of 
invitations  to  tender  published  in  the  regional  official  gazettes  only  towards  the  end  of  1995.  The 
projects  presented  concern  training  and  measures  relating to the  creation  of new jobs  (Objective  3) and 
prospecting  measures  to disseminate  the results of studies on the anticipation  of needs  in  businesses,  as 
well as training measures (Objective 4). 

There  has  been  some  delay  in  implementing  the  measures  part-financed  under  Objectives  3 and  4, and 
there were no commitments  or payments  in  1995 as a consequence. The amount  provided  for  1995 will 
therefore  be  reprogrammed  over  subsequent  years.  It  should  be  pointed  out  that  the  part-financing 
mechanism,  which  had  suffered  from  shortcomings  in  the  past,  has just  been  reformed..  Improvements 
can therefore  be expected  in the years to come. 

Table 39:  Objectives 3 and 4 - Italy - Financial implementation of the programmes (IXC million) 

P r o g r a m m es  a nd  y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

T o t al  c o st 

S  F  ass  is  t a n ce 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

C o m ni i I me n t s 

( 1) 

1 9 95 

19  9 4 - 95 

( 2 ) / ( l) 

( 2) 

l ' : i\  i n c u ts 

19 9 5 

\':\\ 

in e n ts 

1  9  9  4 -9  5 

( 3) 

( 3 1 ( 2) 

O  bjective  3 

1994 

Regional 

OPs 

OP  B o l z a no 

OP  E m i l i a - R o m a g na 

OP  F r i u l i - V e n c z ia  G i u l ia 

OP  L a z io 

OP  L i g u r ia 

OP  L o m b a r dy 

OP  M  a r c he 

OP  Pied  m o nt 

OP  T u s c a ny 

OP  T r c n to 

OP  U m b r ia 

OP  V a l le  d ' A o s ta 

OP  V e n e z ia 

Multiregional 

OPs 

OP  T e c h n i c al  a s s i s t a n ce 

OP  I n n o v a t i ve  m e a s u r es 

OP  T r a in  in g 

54,4 

409,8 

1  18,6 

271,7 

94,0 

3 89,1 

81.7 

271,6 

145.8 

62.7 

67.7 

2 7,6 

240,7 

77,8 

1  18.9 

456,8 

24,5 

184.4 

53,4 

122.3 

4 2.3 

175,1 

3 6,8 

122.2 

65.6 

28.2 

30,5 

12,4 

108,3 

35,0 

53,5 

205,6 

total 

2.889,0 

1.300,1 

0  bjective  4 

1994 

S PD  M  in is try  of  e m p l oy  m e nt 

Total 

T O T AL 

886,1 

886,1 

3 . 7 7 5 ,1 

398,8 

398,8 

1 . 6 9 8 ,8 

0.0 

0.0 

0,0 

0.0 

0,0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0,0 

0,0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0,0 

0.0 

0,0 

0.0 

0,0 

0,0 

3.7 

27.6 

8.0 

18.3 

6.3 

26.2 

18.3 

')  8 

4.2 

4,d 

5,1' 
9.0 

3 4.8 

1  5% 

15% 

15% 

1  5" o 

1  5% 

15% 

1  5% 

15% 

15% 

15% 

1  5% 

1  5% 

1  7% 

17%. 

1  7% 

2 0  0,5 

1  5  % 

t'0.6 

15';,,  | 

6  0,6 

I5"„ 

:  (.  i  , i 

1  5% 

| 

0.!i 
'>.( 
0.'. 

o  o 

0,1 

0.0 

0.0 

O.i 

O.d 

0.0 
o.o 

II.II 

o.i! 

0,0 

0.0 

1  .8 

M i'  , 

50" c. 

13.S 

4.0 

1  ''.I 

2  S 

5 0% 

% 'V 
v>% 

VI 

1.5 

I  7.4 

5 0" o 

50%. 

1  Oil, 2 

5  o ••;• 

.i(i,5 

M i" n 

3  0,3 

.i  II ",. 

1 3 0 .5 

M , -. 

90 

L U X E M B O U RG 

Objective 

3  - programming 

for  1994-99 

(ECU 

million) 

Priorities 

Integration  o f t he  long-term  unemployed  (a) 
Vocational  integration  of  y o u ng  people  (b) 
Integration  o f t h o se  threatened  with  exclusion  (c) 
Equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women  (d) 
Horizontal  meas ures  (e) 

7th  Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

I 

FSE 

( d ) 6% 

( e ) 4% 

( a)  27% 

5,5 
3,1 
9,9 
1,2 
0.9 

T o t al 

2 0 ,7 

(C)  48% 

( b)  15% 

The  Objective  3  SPD  for  Luxembourg,  with  ECU  20.7  million  for  1994-99,  is  based  on  five  priorities 
comprising  a total  of  14 training  measures  which  have  benefitted  a total  of  421  people.  The  Objective  4 
SPD,  with  ECU  900  000, targets  low-qualified  workers,  particularly  in  sectors  where  there  is  little  or  no 
access  to  training. 

However,  Luxembourg  increasingly  has  a  hard  core  of  long-term  unemployment.  With  ESF  assistance, 
therefore,  active  measures  to  assist  the  unemployed  have  been  strengthened  by  taking  on  social  workers 
and  setting  up  a  new  service  for  placement,  prospection  and  support.  Rates  of  financial  implementation 
for  both  Objectives  are  very  satisfactory. 

Objective  4  - programming 

for  1994-96  (ECU 

million) 

Priorities 
M e a s u r es  to  a n t i c i p a te  t r e n ds  in  the  l a b o ur  market  and 

r e q u i r e m e n ts  for  v o c a t i o n al  skills  (a) 
V o c a t i o n al  training  a nd  r e t r a i n i n g,  g u i d a n ce  and  ad vice  (b) 
I m p r o v e m e nt  and  d e v e l o p m e nt  of  training  s c h e m es  (c) 
M e a s u r es  c o v e r i ng  t he  entire  SPD  (d) 

| 

FSE 

( d)  13% 

( a)  1 2% 

(C)  13% 

0.1 
0.5 
0.1 
0,1 
ÏÏJ 

( b)  62% 

TôtâT 

Table 40:  Objectives 3 and 4 - Luxembourg  - Financial implementation of the programmes  (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  and  year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

S F  a s s i s t a n ce 

(1) 

9,7 
1  1,0 

2 0,7 

0.9 
0,9 
2  1,6 

21.6 
24,4 
4  6,0 

2.3 
2,3 
4X.3 

O bj e c t i \ e  3 
1994 

OP  Pro  ate  promoters 
OP  Public  promoters 

O bj e c 11 ve  4 
1994 

SPD  Public  promoters 

Total 

Total 
T O T AL 

N E T H E R L A N DS 

Objective 

3  -  programming 

jor  1994-99 

(ECU 

million) 

Priorities 

Training  (a) 
Job  placement  (h) 
Integration  pathways  (c) 
Technical  a s s i s t a n ce  (d) 

Com  mitments 
1995 

Com  m i t m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

(2) 

% 
( 2 ) / (U 

P a y m e n ts 
19 95 

Paym en ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1.5 
l.S 
3,3 

0.3 
0,3 
3.6 

3,0 
3,5 
6,5 

3  1 % 
3 2% 
3 1  % 

0.5 
0.5 
7,0 

0,59 
5 9 % 
3 2 % 

1.7 

4,0 

0.2 
0.2 
0.2 

S 3% 
9(1% 

8 7 % 

3.1 
5.6 

0.3 
0,3 
5.9 

0.65 
0 5% 
8 5 "/„ 

FSE 

(C)  3 0% 

( d)  5% 

480.0 
120.0 
277,0 
46.0 

_ __ 

9 2 3.0 

( b)  13% 

( a)  52% 

Objective  3:  Implementation  ofthe  Objective  3  SPD,  adopted  in  1994.  commenced  in  1994  and  reached 
its  cruising  speed  at  the  beginning  of  1995,  so  that  all  the  ECU  143.8  million  in  the  financing  plan  for 
1995  was  committed.  The  main  measure  implemented  was  the  training  measure  provided  for  in  the  SPD 
in  firms  or 
which  concerns 

initial,  basic  ami  vocational  training  and 

includes  practical 

training 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

91 

local  authorities,  the  employment  of  people 

educational  establishments,  individual  follow-up  and  personal  guidance.  A  special  effort  was  also  made 
in  1995  to  implement  the  new  "integration  pathways"  measure  in  the  new  programme,  which  was 
specifically  designed,  using  an  integrated  approach,  to  help  the  socially  excluded  return  to  the  labour 
market. The Netherlands  has  also  implemented  a placement  measure.  These  different  measures  focus  on 
activities  such  as  training,  preparation  for  vocational  integration,  integrated  initiatives  to  achieve  closer 
cooperation  between 
the 
reintegration  ofthe  partially  disabled  into  the  labour  market.  Other  measures  concern  employment  pools 
and  the  acquisition  of  work  experience.  Young  unemployed  people  have  benefitted  from 
training 
programmes  specifically  designed  for  those  who  left  school  early,  special  schemes  guaranteeing  jobs 
and  an  extension  of  apprenticeship  schemes. Lastly, the  Monitoring  Committee  for  the  SPD  gave  special 
attention  to  improving  the  selection  criteria  adopted  the  previous  year,  because  the  lack  of  transparency 
had  caused  difficulties  for  programme  managers.  During  the  year,  the  Committee  refined  its  quality 
criteria  in  order  to  ensure  that  better  projects  were  selected,  thereby  allowing  the  regions  to  add  certain 
criteria  of  their  own  and  to  improve  the  complementarity  between  projects  and  regional  policy.  At  the 
same time, the  restructuring  ofthe  regional  employment  offices  was  commenced. 

in  the  health  sector  and 

A project for  the socially excluded in North  Brabant: 
Initially  an  experimental  project  of  the  provincial  employment  aid  agency,  an 
office  has  been  set  up  to  offer  advice  to  individuals  excluded  from  the  labour 
follow-up 
market  because  of  mental  problems.  They  receive  personal 
throughout  the  process  of  training  and  recruitment,  as  well  as  after  their 
reclassification.  In  this  way  they  can  step  out  of  their  isolation  and  some  can 
find  a job. 

Objective 4 - programming  for  1994-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 
Encouraging  interest  in  training  (a) 
Matching  training  to  needs  (b) 
Training  programmes  (c) 
Technical  assistance  (d) 

I 

FSE 

( d ) 5% 

( a)  8% 

( b ) i 9% 

13,0 
29,1 
106,7 
7.4 
ÎTS^T 

TïïtâT 

(c)  68% 

Objective  4:  Since  the  Dutch  SPD  for  Objective  4  could  not  be  launched  until  the  second  half  of  1995, 
the  appropriations  allocated  had  not  yet  been  committed  at  the  end  of  1995.  This  considerable  delay  is 
due  to  uncertainty  as  to  the  programme's  implementing  procedures  and  the  need  to  set  up  a  special 
temporary  office  in  the  Ministry  for  Social  Affairs  and  Employment.  In  June  1995  a  conference  was 
finally  organized  in  order  to  launch  the  Objective  4  programme30,  during  which  an  information  booklet 
for  potential  promoters  was  officially  presented.  The  Monitoring  Committee  for  the  SPD  was  also  set  up 
in  mid-1995,  when  it  adopted  the  project  selection  criteria.  However,  the  Netherlands  has  had  difficulty 
in  finding  suitable  sources  of  part-financing  and  using  existing  resources  to  set  up  new  structures.  These 
different  reasons  explain  why  the  first  wave  of projects  was  not  presented  until  the  end  of  1995. 

Table 41:  Objectives 3 and 4 - Netherlands - Financial implementation ofthe  SPDs  (ECU  million) 

P r o g r a m m es  m i d y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

S  F  as  s is  t a n ce 
C) 

C o m  m 11 m e n t s 

C o m  m i I me  n I s 

P a y m e n ts 

P ay  m en  ts 

1 9 95 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 2 ) / ( I) 

I  9 9 5 

1 9 9 4 -9  5 

( 3 1 / ( 2) 

( 2) 

( 3) 

O  bj e c t i ve  3 

1994 

SP  D  N e t h e r l a n ds 

O  b j e c t i ve  4 

S PD  N e t h e r l a n ds 

363,0 

1.0 7  9 ,0 

3 0 4 .5 

2 S% 

2 5 3 ,3  1 

9 0% 

11.1 

5 0% 

2 fi 4  ,4  j  8  7% 

ï()  H fogether  with the Community  Initiatives Emploi and Adapt (see also Chapter  I.B.I  Community  Initiatives). 

92 

UNITED KINGDOM 

7th  Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

Objective 

3  - programming 

for  1994-96 

(ECU 

million) 

Priorities 
Vocational  integration  o f t h o se  unemployed  for  six  months  cr  more  (a) 
Vocational  integration  o f t he  under  25s  (b) 
Vocational  integration  o f t h o se  threatened  with  exclusion  (c) 
Equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women  (d) 
Technical  a s s i s t a n ce  (e) 

I 

FSE 
566,0 
475,0 
353,0 
91,0 
16,0 

Total 

1.501,0 

<d>6% 

( G )1% 

( a) 

37% 

(C)  24% 

It should  be remembered  that only Objective  3 has been  programmed  in the United  Kingdom  for  1994-
96, as the authorities did not wish to present a programme for Objective 4 for that period. 

Objective 3: The SPD for Objective  3 covers the period  1994-96 and has a total allocation  of ECU  1  501 
million,  of  which  ECU 497  million  was  committed  in  1995.  Four  priority  groups  are  targeted  for 
integration  or  reintegration  measures:  the  long-term  unemployed,  young  workers  with  few  or  no 
qualifications, 
those  threatened  with  exclusion  and  the  main  potential  beneficiaries  of  equal 
opportunities  measures.  Three  types  of  measure  are  planned  for  each  target  group:  guidance  and 
counselling,  training  and job-hunting.  This  approach  makes  it  possible  to  develop  integrated  projects 
giving those taking part a structured  and  signposted pathway to lead them  from  a situation of  inadequate 
schooling or unemployment to suitable qualifications  and a job. The selection of projects  is administered 
by  several  types  of  body  (national  and  local  government,  training  and  enterprise  councils  and  local 
in  Scotland,  higher  education  establishments,  universities  and  charitable 
enterprise  companies 
organizations).  The annual  financial  allocation  for  each type of body, per priority  and  per measure, was 
approved  by the Monitoring Committee  in 1994. 

The  delay  in  implementation  in  1994  resulted  in  retiospective  selection  in  1995.  However,  it  became 
clear  once  the  projects  had  been  selected  that,  for  all  the  different  types  of  body,  tire  distribution  by 
target group and measure did not correspond  to the one in the financing  plan ofthe  SPD, which  therefore 
had  to  be  amended.  The  same  procedure  had  to  be  repeated  in  1995  when  the  situation  recurred,  this 
time  because there were not enough  measures under the equal opportunities target  group or the  measure 
for  direct  assistance  in finding a job  for  all  four  target  groups.  It  was  decided  to  concentrate  the  lion's 
share of financing  (95%) on the training measure for all four groups. 

Lastly, the Objective  3 Monitoring Committee decided to set up a standing assessment  group to prepare, 
study  and  supervise  the assessment  procedure  and report back to it. The assessment  process  is based  on 
the analysis ofthe  participants' dossiers, the monitoring of beneficiaries  and ad hoc studies. 

Table 42:  Objectives 3 and 4 - United Kingdom - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m me  and  year  of  adoption 

I  Total  cost 

S F  a s s i s t a n ce 

(1) 

C o m m i t m e n ts 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e n ts  I  % 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 2 ) / ( l) 

P a y m e n ts 
19 9 5 

(2) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

Objective  3 

SPD  United  K i n g d om 

898,91 

497,01 

975,01 

WÂ 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

93 

5.  Objective  5(a) 

5.1.  Objective  5(a) for  agriculture 

Programming for  1994-99 

Objective  5(a) - a horizontal Objective  which concerns farming throughout the Union - is a  fundamental 
part of Community  rural  development  policy31. Closely  linked to the common  agricultural  policy, with 
the  task  of  modernizing  agricultural  structures  and  funding  of  ECU  5  400  million32,  it  makes  an 
important  contribution  to  helping  the  Structural  Funds  achieve  social  and  economic  cohesion. 
Objective  5(a)  measures  are taken  pursuant  to  specific  Regulations, the  most  important  of  which  are 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2328/91  on  production  structures,  and  Regulations  (EEC)  No  866/90  and  No 
867/90  on  marketing  and  processing  structures.  These  Regulations  were  revised  in  1994  by 
Regulation  (EC) No  2843/9433,  which  simplified  the  rules  and  introduced  greater  flexibility  into  the 
granting of aid. 

Competitiveness  and  employment:  Measures  to  make  the  agricultural  sector  more  competitive  and 
maintain  employment  levels  are supported  at every  level, from  farmers  setting  up to the  modernization 
of holdings and the marketing of agricultural products: 

• 

training aid34  helps to improve technical  knowledge  among farmers  setting  up so that they can  meet 
the challenges of a constantly changing economic environment; 

•  setting-up  aid  for  young  farmers35  contributes  to  generational  renewal  to  counteract  one  of  the 
trends  which  weighs heaviest on the agricultural  sector  and most  undermines  competitiveness:  the 
ageing ofthe  active  population; 

•  aid  for  investments  in agricultural  holdings36  assists with  modernizing  facilities,  rationalizing  the 
production  process  and  making  it  more  profitable,  diversification,  improving  living  and  working 
conditions and maintaining  employment; 

•  aid  for  back-up  measures  to  assist  agricultural  holdings37  (administrative  services,  mutual  aid, 

accounting) makes a qualitative contribution  to improving competitiveness; 

•  aid  to producer  groups38  for  marketing their products  in regions  with  specific  marketing  problems 

also contributes to redressing  inter-regional  imbalances; 

•  aid  for  investment  in  the  processing  and  marketing  of  agricultural  and  forestry  products39  assists 
with  the  modernization  of  industrial  and  commercial  activities  which  receive  inputs  from 
agriculture  by guaranteeing  better  outlets for  farmers  and  ensuring that  they  receive  a share  of the 
profits  arising from  the value added to their products. 

When  approving  specific  measures proposed  by Member  States, the Commission  takes care to  ensure 
that  they  are compatible  with  other  measures  covered  by the  regional  Objectives  (1, 5(b) and  6), and 
with  other  Community  policies,  in  particular  environmental  policy  and  the  common  agricultural 
policy.  To this  end,  a number  of rules  are  applied  (selection  criteria,  sectoral  prohibitions  and  limits, 

31  See also Chapter II.D.2.  The Structural Funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development. 
32  Initial financial allocation for 1994-99. 
33 See 1994 Annual Report. 
34 Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 
35 Articles  10 and 11  of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 
36 Articles  5 to 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 
37 Articles  13 to 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91. 
38 Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78. 
39 Regulations (EEC) No 866/90 and No 867/90. 

94 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

conditions  to  be  fulfilled,  etc.)  to  guarantee  complementarity  with  CAP  measures40.  Preventing 
surplus  production  and encouraging  production  of products which can  be disposed  of through  normal 
market outlets are also  important factors in improving the sector's competitiveness. 

investments 

Consideration  ofthe  environment  in Objective 5(a) measures for  agriculture: 
In  the  context  of  the  adjustment  of  agricultural  structures,  assistance  granted  by  the  EAGGF 
Guidance  Section  under  Objective  5(a) has  beneficial effects on the environment  through  support 
in  agricultural  holdings  which  are  intended  to  protect  and  improve  the 
for 
environment.  Furthermore,  as  part  of  the  measures  for  adjusting  processing  and  marketing 
structures  for  agricultural  products,  in  1994 the  Commission  amended  the  selection  criteria  for 
investment  aid  so  as  to  encourage  investments  in  processing  industries  using  technological 
innovations  that  are  environmentally  friendly,  help  prevent  pollution  and  eliminate  waste  and 
promote  organic farming  products. 
Note  should  also  be  taken  of  the  impact  on  the  environment  of  the  measures  to  accompany  the 
reform  of  the  CAP  adopted  by  the  Council  in  1992.  One of  the  three  measures, financed  by  the 
EAGGF  Guarantee  section,  concerns  agricultural  production  methods  compatible^  with  the 
requirements  of the protection  ofthe  environment and the maintenance  ofthe  countryside41.  This 
Regulation  provides  in  particular  for  limiting  agricultural  production  by  reducing  the  use  of 
fertilizers,  pesticides  and insecticides,  as well as reducing the number of livestock  held on farms  or 
the  number  of  head per  hectare.  In  1995 ECU  484.5 million  was paid  out for  this purpose  in the 
twelve  Member  States.  Forecast  expenditure for  1996  is  over  ECU  1  300  million for  the  fifteen 
Member  States. 

Balanced  land  use  and  employment:  To  achieve  balanced  land-use  development,  specific  measures 
are  applied  in  particular  to  assist  mountainous  and  other  less-favoured  areas42  They  are  designed  to 
maintain  farming  in  such  areas  through  compensation  for  the  permanent  natural  handicaps  which 
exist  there  and  comprise  principally  compensatory  payments  per  production  unit  and  more  generous 
investment  aid than  that  granted  to areas without  such handicaps. Their effect  is to maintain  the  social 
fabric  in areas  under  serious threat  of depopulation  and  so prevent job  losses, the  flight  from  the  land 
and  desertification. 

40 See Chapter II.D.2.  The Structural Funds, the common agricultural policy and rural development. 
41 Council Regulation (EEC) No  2078/92 of 30 June 1992. 0.1 No  L 215. 30.7.1902. 
,:  Articles  1 7 to 20 o{  Regulation (EEC) No 2 32S 9. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

95 

Table 43:  Extent of less-favoured areas (in 1 000 ha)  within the meaning of Directive  75/268/EEC (situation at 

the start of 1996) 

M  EM  B  ER  S TA  TES 

U AA  of  l e s s - f a v ou  r ed  a r e a s01 

T o t al  U AA 

%  of  1 c s s -
fa v ou  r ed 

M o u n t a in 

O t h er 

l e s s-

a r e as 

( A r t. 

fa v ou  r ed 

3 ( 3 )) 

a r e as 

( A r t. 

3 ( 4 )) 

L e s s - f a v ou  r ed 
a r e as  w i th 
s p e c i f ic 
h an  d i ca  ps 
( A r t.  3 ( 5 )) 

L e s s - la  vou  re  d 
a re  as 

Me  m  be  r  S  ta  te 

in 

a r e as 

t he 
M em  b er  S t a te 

B e l g i um 

D e n m a rk 

G e r m a ny 

G r e e ce 

S  p a in 

F r an  ce 

France 

(c.xcl.  OD) 

France 

01) 

I re  I an  d 

I t a ly 

Lu  xe  m  b ou  rg 

N e t h e r l a n ds 

P o r t u g al 

U n i t ed  K in  g do  m 

T o t al  E UR  12 

A u s  t r ia 

F in  I an  d 

S w e d en 

T o t al  E UR  15 

2 73 

7 . 9 87 

9 64 

1  1.343 

7 . 8 09 

~.~<J4 

15 

3 . 4 56 

3 . 4 05 

1  22 

2 , 0 56 

8 . 3 41 

4 5 . 7 56 

2 08 

5 36 

1.01  I 

4 7 . 51  t 

6 1 %, 

199 

4 02 

7 00 

8  04 

'29 

12 

2 18 

1 1  1 

150 

1 

2 . 6 00 

164 

2 20 

3  33 

3 . 3 17 

2 73 

0 

8 , 5 22 

5 . 2 80 

1 9 . 5 46 

1 3 , 8 97 

13.-2(1 

1" 

3.4  6 8 

8.84  1 

124 

1 1  1 

3 , 4 33 

8 , 3 42 

7 1 . 8 37 

2.4  19 

2 . 1 64 

1  , 8 69 

7 8 . 2 90 

10(1% 

1  .3 5  7 

2 . 7 70 

1 7 . 0 12 

6.4  0 8 

2 6 . 3 30 

3 0 . 01  1 

29  S34 
/" 
4 . 8 92 

1 6 . 4 96 

127 

2.0  1  1 

3 . 9 98 

1 8 , 6 58 

13  0 . 0 70 

3 , 5 24 

2 . 5 49 

3.6  3 4 

1 3 9 . 7 77 

™ 

2  0% 

0% 

5  0% 

8 2 % 

7 4% 

4 6  % 

4 6 %, 

1(10% 

7  1% 

5 4 % 

9 8% 

6  % 

8  6% 

4  5 % 

5 5  % 

6 9 % 

8  5% 

5  1  % 

5 6  % 

3 36 

3 . 9 14 

7 . 5 03 

5 , 2 84 

5.1')~ 

H~ 

5 . 2 18 

1.227 

2 3 . 4 82 

2 , 0 47 

1.407 

5 26 

2 7 . 4 62 

35% 

(  I )  U A A:  Li sa hie  a g r i c u l t u r al  a r ea  i n c l u d i ng  " c o m m on 

land"  e s t i m a t ed  at:  2  3 00  0 00  ha  in  G r e e c e;  1  7 70  0 00  lia  in  S p a m; 

1  2 39  0 00  ha  in  F r a n c e;  4 50  0 00  ha  in  I r e l a n d;  1  5 50  0 00  ha  in  I t a l y:  7 00  0 00  ha  in  P o r t u g a l;  !  2 20  0 00  ha  in 

t he 

U n i t ed  k i n g d o m;  2 50  0 00  ha  in  A u s t r i a;  100  0 00  ha  in  Sweden 

Member State selections  of measures for  the 1994-99 programmes:  Taken  as  a whole,  the  Objective 
5(a) measures provide a flexible  legal framework  within which Member  States may both select  measures 
and  decide  what  arrangements  are  most  appropriate  to  the  specific  needs  of  each  area.  Thanks  to  this 
flexibility,  Member  States  have  been  able  to  select  the  sectors,  categories  of  farmers  and  areas  which 
they consider should receive priority. 

Member States' options for 1994-99 

B e l g i um 

D e n m a rk 

(f)  42% 

( a)  25% 

a ) 4 5% 

( b )5% 

( c) 

( d ) 4% 

3% 

( C ) 2 1% 

( b ) 2% 

( e)  50% 

r-j  I n v e s t m e n ts  on  h o l d i n gs  (a) 

r-j  P r o d u c er  group  s  (b ) 

P io ces s in g  and  in at I» cling  (c ) 

r-i T raining  and  s u p p o rt  s e i v i c es  (d) 

cm  M  o u n t a in  and  I c s s - f a v o u r ul  areas  (e) 

Y o u n i:  farine i s  ( f) 

m 

96 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

(f)  44% 

(b)  1% 

(c) 

15% 

(e 
27% 

(e)  19 

(d)  2% 

(C)  39% 

(e)  26% 

(d  2% 

(C) 3 0% 

Luxemburg 

(f)  26% 

(a) 26% 

(d)  o.3% 

Netherlands 

4% 

(e) 

(f)2% 

United  Kingdom 
5% 
^ 

( a) 

(f)  0,3%  ^ 

( b ) 0 ,V 

(e)  32% 

(e)44% 

(b)5% 

(a) 56% 

(C)63% 

Q  Investments  on  holdings  (a) 
r-jTraining  and  support  services  (d) 

(Producer  groups  (b) 
i M ountain  and  less-favoured  areas  (e) 

(Processing  and  marketing  (c) 
i Young  farmers  (f) 

Implementation  forecasts:  After  adoption  ofthe  programming  documents  and  expenditure  forecasts 
for  the  new  Member  States43,  the  indicative  financial  programming  for  Objective  5(a)  measures 
outside Objective  1 and 6 regions44 for the period  1994-99 is as follows : 

Table 44:  Objective 5(a) agriculture - Implementation forecasts for  1994-99 (ECU  million) 

B e l g i um 

Total 

170,4 

D e n m a rk 

127,0 

G e r m a ny 

Spain 

F r a n ce 

Italy 

1.060,9 

326,0 

1.745,5 

ao,o 

L u x e m b o u rg 

39,0 

A u s t r ia  (1) 

N e t h e r l a n ds 

385,8 

118,0 

United  k i n g d om 

361,0 

F i n l a n d ( l) 

331,0 

S w e d e n ( l) 

90,1 

Total 

5.443,7 

Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Marketing  and  processing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 

140,4 
30,0 
100,3 
26,7 
851,7 
218,3 
207,0 
119,0 
1.486,6 
258,9 
494,4 
185,6 
37.3 
1,7 
323,5 
62,3 
78.8 
39,2 
134.5 
226,5 
287,9 
43,1 
67.2 
22,9 
4.209,6 
1.234,1 

% 

82% 
18% 
79% 
2 1% 
80% 
20% 
63% 
37% 
85% 
15% 
73% 
27% 
96% 
4% 
84% 
16% 
67% 
33% 
37% 
63% 
87% 
13% 
75% 
25% 
77% 
23% 

U) 1995.99  .  see  a|so  Chapter  I.A .7. Integration  o f t he  new  Member  States  into  the 
structural  policies, 

43  For more  details  on  the  new  Member  States, see Chapter  I.A.7.  Integration  ofthe  new  Member  States  into  the 

structural policies. 

44  In Objective  1  and 6 regions, Objective  5(a) measures are programmed within the CSFs and SPDs. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

97 

Implementation  of Objective 5(a) for  agriculture in 1995 

Physical and financial  implementation  for  1995 outside Objective  1  and 6 regions is shown below. 

Table 45:  Objective 5(a) agriculture - Financial implementation in 1995 (commitments - ECU million) 

Member  State 

Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Austria 
Netherlands 
Finland 
Sweden 
United  Kingdom (1) 
T O T AL 

(1)  Revised SPD 

Indirect  measures 
" s t r u c t u r es  of 
production" 

P r o c e s s i ng and 
marketing  (R. 
866/90) 

Total 

22,65fj 
16,731 
138,230 
19,920 
216,972 

5,188 
61,498 
4,889 
54,523 
13,721 
22,802 
577,124 

7,583 

26,902 
1,176 
35,111 

0,283 

6.897 

77,952 

30.233 
16.731 
165,132 
21,096 
252.083 

5,471 
61,498 
4,889 
61.420 
13,721 
22,802 
655.076 

A  large  number  of the programmes  concerning  measures  for  processing  and marketing  had been 
approved  and the  first  instalment  committed  by the end of 1994. However, a number of Member  States 
could  not receive the  second  instalment (1995) before  the end of that year because the programmes  had 
not made  sufficient  progress. The first instalment for Austria was not committed  until  the  beginning of 
1996 and Sweden  did not programme an amount for  1995. 

Table 46:  Objective 5(a) agriculture - Physical implementation in 1994 

M e m b er  S t u te 

( A r t.  1 0) 

y o u ng  f a r m e rs  ( A r t. 1 1  ) 

S e t t i n g - up  of y o u ng 

f a r m e rs 

I n v e s t m e nt  a id  f or 

I n v e s t m e nt  a id 

( A r t.  7) 

C o m pe n s a 1 o r y 

a l l o w a n c es  ( A r t. 1 9) 

N u m b er  of  b e n e f i c i a r i es 

N u m b er  of  b e n e f i c i a r i es 

N u m be r  o f  be n e 11 c i a r i e s 

N u m be r  o f  h ol di n g s 

O b j.  1 

N o n - O b j.  1 

T o t al 

O b j.  1 

N o n - O b j.  1 

T o t al 

O b j.  1 

N o n - O b j.  1 

T o t al 

B e l g i um 

D e n m a rk 

G e r m a ny 

G r e e ce 

S p a in 

F r a n ce 

I r e l a nd 

I t a ly 

L u x e m b o u r g* 

N e t h e r l a n ds 

P o r t u g al 

Un  i t ed  K i n g d om 

T O T AL 

772 

438 

4.049 

1.212 

7.086 

1.495 

59 

Q84 

705 

3.501 

1  5Q 

357 

718 

1  059 

844 

438 

5.033 

705 

4  713 

7  245 

357 

2  213 

59 

0 

1  059 

0 

26 

251 

1.890 

21 

290 

55 

4 

1.025 

8 

342 

420 

689 

753 

2.256 

412 

101 

90 

14 

368 

420 

689 

251 

2  643 

2  277 

290 

467 

101 

94 

1  025 

81 

2,466 

9  762 

57 

2.660 

273 

25 

2  353 

237 

1  006 

'1  436 

2.110 

3  277 

7  400 

1  696 

^6 

S58 

409 

1  147 

1  436 

2  110 

2  466 

13  03 0 

7  457 

2  6 60 
1  l>69 

9o 

8S3 

2  3 53 

646 

6  873 

140  612 

231  275 

187  538 

187  059 

140.612 

105.619 

39  056 

2  515 

3.901 

89  510 

60.912 

7 . 5 55 

1 5 . 11  1 

2 2 . 6 66 

3 . 5 70 

5 . 07  7 

8 . 6 47 

1 7 . 9 14 

1 8 . 3 48 

3 6 . 2 62 

1  . 1 9 5 . 4 82 

1 993,  except  for  c o m p e n s a t o ry  a l l o w a n c es  :  I 994 

1995 in the  context  ofthe  1994-99 programming  period 

Table 47:  Objective 5(a) agriculture - State of financial implementation of the programmes (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m ed 

. A d o p t ed 

C o m m i t m e n ts  1994-95 

%  of  a s s i s t a n ce 

P a y m e n ts  1994-95 

%  of  a s s i s t a n ce 

' r o g r a m m ed  by  S PD 

B 

170,4 

170.4 

1 0 0% 

mr 

16.5 

10% 

DK 

127,0 

127,0 

100% 

30% 
T9~r 

D 

F 

1.069,9 

326,0 

1.745,5 

680,0 

1.069,9 

326.0 

1.745,5 

6S0.0 

100% 
T 2 ÏX 
3 or» 
209,8 

2 0% 

100% 
RTTT 
3 1% 

~S(7X~ 
7  5°;, 

100% 

678,6 

39% 

402,8 

100% 
TT7X 
17% 

Tier 

9% 

39,0 

39,0 

100% 
I TT 
31 % 

5,4 

14% 

118,0 

118,0 

100% 
1 xT 

1X2 

1 0% 

AT 

385.8 

385,8 

II 

331.0 

331,0 

Sfc 

90,1 

90,1 

IK 

T o t al 

361,0 

5.443,7 

361,0 

5  44.3,7 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100°',, 

6 TX 

16% 

30.7 

8% 

nrr 

6.9 

8% 

8X2 

2 4% 

41.7 

12% 

T3 

7K6 

29% 

914,9 

17% 

P r o g r a m m ed  by  C SF  for  R e g u l a t i on  (I'.llC)  No  866/90 

///; Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

5.2.  Objective 5(a)  for  fisheries 

Programming for  1994-99 

The objective  ofthe  adjustment  of fisheries strucmres, the financial  instrument  for  which  is the FIFG, is 
pursued through  operations aiming both to ensure a sustainable balance between  fisheries  resources and 
fishing  activities  and  to  support  and  strengthen  the  entire  European  fisheries  sector.  As  regards  the 
adjustment  of  fishing  effort,  the  FIFG  contributed  in  1995  to  part-financing  the  reduction  of  the 
European  fleet  in  line  with  the  Multiannual  Guidance  Programme  for  1993-96  through  the  permanent 
cessation  of fishing  vessel  activity (in the fonn  ofthe  scrapping or export of vessels or the formation  of 
joint  ventures).  At  the  same  time,  work  was  continued  on  strengthening  the  European  fisheries  and 
aquaculture  industry,  in  particular  in  the  fields  of  product  processing  and  marketing,  aquaculture  and 
port  facilities. 

Consideration  ofthe  environment  in Objective 5(a) measures for  fisheries: 
Several  measures  part-financed  by  the  FIFG,  including  the  adjustment  of  fishing^effort,  are 
designed  to  reduce  the  disruptive  effect  of fishing  activity  on  the  environment  and  fisheries 
resources,  which  are  still  being  over-exploited.  This  involves  supporting  material  investment  in 
protecting  fisheries 
in  coastal  sea  areas,  protecting  certain  coastal  areas  and 
modernizing facilities  and  equipment  in fishing  ports,  aquaculture  and  the processing  industry  as 
well as  the  introduction,  under the  common fisheries  policy,  of technical  rules  to protect  fisheries 
resources  and the  maritime  ecosystem  in general,  which have a clear preventive  impact  in terms of 
the conservation  ofthe  environment. 

resources 

Objective 5(a) and protected  maritime areas: 
The improvement  and protection  of certain coastal areas  is the fourth  aspect  of FIFG  intervention. 
The  creation  of protected  marine  areas  can  be  achieved  through  the  introduction  of  mobile  or 
stationary  units,  in  the form  of artificial  reefs,  the creation  of marine  reserves,  the prohibition  of 
fishing  activities,  etc.  This action  will  help  to protect juveniles  and  improve  living  standards  and 
resource  development  in  the  regions  concerned.  More  than  ECU  30  million  of  FIFG  resources 
have been allocated  to these projects,  of which ECU 16 million has gone  to Spain. 

Objective  5(a)  for  fisheries  concerns  only  measures  outside  Objective  1 and  6  regions  (within  those 
regions  "fisheries"  operations  are included  in CSFs and/or  single programming  documents). There are 
a total  of  12 of  these  programmes,  nine  in the  old  Member  States, which  were  adopted  in  1994, and 
three  in  the  new  Member  States,  which  were  adopted  in  19954-.  ECU  176.9  million  has  been 
committed  under  this  heading  and  ECU  81 million  was  paid  out  in  1995  (of  which  ECU  65  million 
and  ECU  19.1 million  respectively were for the new Member States). 

FIFG  measures  in  Objective  1 regions  were  implemented  through  five  operational  programmes  for 
fisheries,  but  also  under the  "fisheries  and aquaculture" chapters  in a total  of nine  SPDs  and three OPs. 
Similarly,  in  Objective  6  regions  both  the  single  programming  documents  for  Finland  and  Sweden 
contain  a  "fisheries  and  aquaculture"  heading.  ECU  270.8  million  has  been  committed  and  ECU 81.3 
million  was  paid  out  in  1995  for  Objective  1 regions, while  for  Objective  6  regions  commitments  and 
payments represented  ECU  1.4 million  and ECU 700 000 respectively. 

45  See Chapter  I.A.7.  Integration  ofthe  new  Member  States  into the  structural  policies. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

99 

Table 48:  Objective  5(a) for fisheries - Operational priorities of single programming  documents for  1994-99 

(ECU million) 

A d j u s t m e nt  of  fishing  e f f o r ts 

O t h er  fishing  fleet  m e a s u r es 

M o d e r n i z a t i on  a nd r e n o v a t i on  of  t he  fishing  fleet 

Aquaculture 

P r o t e c t i on  of  m a r i ne  a r e as 

P o rt 

facilities 

P r o c e s s i ng  and  m ark et in g  of  p r o d u c ts 

P r o m o t i on  of  p r o d u c ts 

S o c i o - e c o n o m ic  m e a s u r es  ( 2) 

O t h er  m e a s u r es 

( I )  Indexed  amounts. 

B 

DK 

D ( l) 

3 7 ,7 

0,0 

3 5 ,0 

9,2 

3,2 

9,8 

6,8 

0,0 

12,3 

7,1 

0,0 

5,6 

E 

4 0 ,6 

0,0 

3 5 ,9 

7,2 

1,8 

6,0 

F 

16,2 

2 7 ,0 

2 0 ,3 

3 3 ,7 

0,0 

8,1 

' 
3 5 ,4 

0,0 

3  3,6 

2 0 ,5 

1,2 

5,6 

3 0 ,1 

3 9 ,4 

2 3 ,9 

5 4 ,8 

2 8 ,1 

7,2 

pm 

7,6 

2,5 

pm 

1,8 

1,8 

pm 

2,4 

5,0 

pm 

2 4 ,8 

3,6 

pm 

6.4 

5,2 

0,0 

7,9 

1,9 

0,7 

1,5 

5,9 

1,2 

pm 

0,2 

L 

N 

UK 

T o t al 

0,0 

0,0 

0.0 

0,7 

0,0 

0,0 

0,3 

0,1 

pm 

0,0 

1.1 

8,0 

0,0 

2,2 

1,5 

0,0 

2 0 ,4 

8,5 

6.0 

pm 

0,0 

13,5 

18,5 

13,3 

3,8 

0,4 

4,3 

2 2 ,7 

12,1 

pm 

0,2 

1 6 3 ,4 

4 5 ,5 

1 6 0 ,5 

8 5 ,6 

7,3 

6 1 ,3 

2 1 3 ,7 

3 9 ,5 

pm 

4 3 ,4 

4 6 ,6 

8 8 ,7 

8 2 0 ,2 

T o t al 

2 4 ,5 

1 3 9 ,9 

7 5 ,5 

1 1 9 ,6 

1 8 9 ,9 

1 3 4 ,4 

(2)  Following  the  am en dm en t  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  3 6 99/93  in  1995,  these  m easures  may  be  introduced  by  the  M ember  States 

The  am ount  of  these  measures  is to  be  determ ined  within  the  overall  financing  allocation. 

Implementation  of Objective 5(a) for fisheries  in 1995 

~~ 

In  1995 the main  steps taken were the adoption of socio-economic measures, a specific  measure to assist 
Spanish  and Portuguese  fishermen  and the rescheduling  of FIFG  appropriations  for certain  Member 
States. 

Socio-economic  measures for fishermen:  Alongside  the measures  to reduce  the fleet  and improve 
fisheries  and aquaculture  structures,  a new,  socio-economic  dimension  was  added  to  FIFG-financed 
measures  in 1995. A Regulation  adopted  by the Council  in November46  allows  the  FIFG to finance, 
at the request  ofthe  Member  States, two new types of measure to alleviate the social  consequences of 
the  far-reaching  restructuring  ofthe  sector,  in particular job  losses  arising  from  the reduction  ofthe 
Community  fleet.  These  measures  consist of aid  for national  early  retirement  schemes  for sea-going 
fishermen  (under  certain  conditions  concerning  age  and the length  of time  spent  in this  occupation) 
and  individual  grants  for  younger  fishermen  obliged  to  leave  this  employment  because  of the 
withdrawal  of fishing  vessels  from  use. These  measures, which  meet  the  requests of several  Member 
States, the European  Parliament  and  those  employed  in the sector,  will  impose  no additional  burden 
on  the  Structural  Fund  budget  since  they  will  be  financed  through  the  rescheduling  cf  FIFG 
appropriations  already  allocated. 

Specific  measures  to  assist  Spanish  and Portuguese  fishermen:  The  expiry  of  the  Fisheries 
Agreement  with  Morocco  and the temporary  absence  of a new one caused  around  700 vessels in 
Spain  and  Portugal,  whose  fishing  activities  were  in  waters  under  Moroccan  sovereignty  or 
jurisdiction,  to be  laid  up between  May and November  1995.  A  specific  measure  for the  crews 
concerned,  designed  to limit  the  consequences  of this  situation,  was  established47  using  a system of 
monthly  individual  compensation  payments.  Expenditure  on this  measure  is  limited  to  ECU 31.8 
million  (ECU  27  million  for Spain  and  ECU 4.8  million  for Portugal), of which  the Union  provided 
ECU 23.85  million.  In addition,  FIFG  appropriations  already  granted  to these  two Member  States 
under  their  operational  programmes  were  partly  re-directed  to  compensate  ship-owners  for the 
temporary  inactivity  of their  vessels, on the basis of Article  14 of Regulation  (EC) No  3699/93.  For 
the  entire  period  during  which  activity  was  interrupted,  ECU 52  million  were  made  available 
(ECU 48  million  for Spain  and ECU 4 million  for Portugal),  of which  ECU 39  million  came  from 
Union  resources. 

Reprogramming  of FIFG  appropriations: The  delayed  adoption  of a  number  of FIFG  programming 
documents  in  1994 and  difficulties  relating  to  the  establishment  of  a  completely  new  financial 
instrument  led in some Member  States to a certain delay  in the use of FIFG  appropriations  programmed 

46 Regulation (EC) No 2791/95 of 20 November  1995, OJ No L 283,  25.11.1995. 
47 Council Decision 95/451/EC of 26 October 1995, OJ No L 264, 7.11.1995. 

100 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

for  1994. To avoid  this delay  having repercussions on the  entire programming  period, the Commission 
and the eight Member  States concerned decided, through the partnership, to reschedule the commitments 
by  transferring  part  ofthe  1994  appropriations  to 1995. Italy,  the Netherlands,  Spain  and the United 
Kingdom  benefited  from  this  arrangement  under  Objective  5(a), and similar  rescheduling  was  carried 
out for Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain under Objective  1. 

Changes  in the rules:  Regulation  (EC) No 3699/93  laying  down  the criteria  and  arrangements 
regarding  Community  structural  assistance  in the fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector  was amended  twice 
in  1995. The  first  amendment48  introduced  gross tonnage as the  unit of vessel  measurement  (used to 
establish  premiums  for permanent  abandonment  of activity). The second  concerned  socio-economic 
measures  for  sea-going  fishermen  (see  above).  A third  proposal  for a  Council  Regulation was 
introduced  before  the end of the  year49  intended,  firstly,  to maintain  at a constant  level  permanent 
withdrawal  premiums for vessels more than thirty years old and, secondly, to put a ceiling on the cost 
of  measures  for the temporary  cessation  of fishing  activity.  Finally,  with  regard  to rules  for  the 
payment  of FIFG  appropriations,  the Commission  adopted  a  new Regulation50  laying  down the 
procedure for presenting  half-yearly  statements of expenditure  and  annual  implementation  reports, on 
the basis of which  advances  and balances are paid out. These measures are  intended to harmonize  and 
rationalize  systems for paying out FIFG assistance, as well as guaranteeing  greater  transparency. 

1995 in the context  ofthe  1994-99 programming  period 

Table 49:  Objective 5(a) for fisheries - 1995 in the context of programming for  1994-99 (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m ed 
A d o p t ed 
% 
C o m m i t m e n ts  1994-95 
%  o  l ' a s s i s t a n ce 
P a y m e n ts  1994-95 
%  of  a ss  is tan  ce 

B 
24,5 
24,5 
100% 
4.1 
17% 

•  13% 

DK: 

D 

E 

F 

1 

L 

N 

139,9 
139.9 
100% 
46,6 
3 3% 
30,3 
2 2% 

74,5 
74,5 
100% 
24,9 
3 3% 
16,1 
2 2% 

119,6 
119,6 
100% 

39,8 
3 3% 
10,0 
8% 

189,9 
189,9 
100% 
63,3 
3 3% 
41,1 
22% 

134.4 
134,4 
100% 
44,8 
3 3% 
11,2 
8% 

1,1 
1,1 
100% 

1,1 
100% 

0.2 
15% 

46,6 
46,6 
100% 
9? 

20% 
6,2 
13% 

AT 

2,0 
2.0 
100% 
2.0 
100% 

0,2 
10% 

FI 

23.0 
23.0 
100% 

23,0 
100% 
6.9 
30% 

SE 
40,0 
40.0 
100% 
40,0 
100% 
12,0 
30% 

Ok 
88,7 
88,7 
100% 
14,8 
17% 
11,8 
13% 

Total 

884,2 
884.2 
100% 
313,4 
3 5% 
149.3 
17% 

Country-by-country  survey 

Table 50:  Objective 5(a) fisheries - Financial implementation of SPDs (ECU million) 

P rojj ranimes 
and 
year  of adoption 

Total  c o st  s 

S F a s s is  l a n ce 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 

Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) 

«À 

( 2 ) / ( l) 

Payments 
1995 

Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1994 

S PD  B e l g i um 

S PD  D en  m a rk 

S PD  G e r m a ny 

S PD  S p a in 

S PD  F r a n ce 

S PD  Italy 

S PD  L u x e m b o u rg 

S PD  N e t h e r l a n ds 

S PD  t 'n  ited  K i n g d om 

91.9 

438.8 

369.2 

334.1 

S-J 3.0 

380.8 

3.7 

123,5 

240.8 

TOT.-xL 

2 . 8 2 5 ,» 

24.5 

139.9 

74.5 

119,6 

189.9 

134.4 

1.1 

46.6 

88,7 
8 1 9 ,2 

0,0 
23.3 
12.5 
19,9 
3 1,6 
22,4 
0.9 
1.4 
0,0 

l i t ,9 

4,1 
46.6 
24.9 
39,8 
63.3 
44.8 
1.1 
9.2 
14.8 
248,4 

1  7%, 

3 3 % 

3 3% 

3 3% 

3 3% 

1 0 0% 

2 0% 

1  7% 

3 0% 

1.2 
18.6 
9.9 
0.0 
25.3 
0.0 
0,1 

4.4 

(il,9 

3,3 
30.3 
16.1 
10,0 
41,1 
11.2 
0.2 
6.2 
11.8 
130,2 

80% 
65% 
65% 
25% 
65% 
25% 
15% 
68%, 
80% 
5 2% 

Belgium:  The contribution  ofthe  FIFG  to the single  programming  document  under  Objective  5(a)  in 
Belgium  is  ECU 24.5  million  for  1994-99,  with  ECU 4.1  million  each  for  1994 and  1995. 
Implementation  ofthe  programme  began  in 1995 in the case  of adjustment  ofthe  fishing  effort and 
renewal and modernization  ofthe  fleet. 

48 Council Regulation (EC) No 1624/95 of 29 June 1995. OJ No L 155, 6.7.1995. 

49  COM(95)  627  final.  5.12.1995. 

50  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1796/95  of  25  July  1995, OJ  No  L  174, 26.7.1995. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

\ Q \ 

Denmark:  ECU 23.3 million was committed  in  1995 under Objective  5(a) for fisheries in Denmark. The 
Monitoring  Committee  met  twice  in  that  year  and  adopted  detailed,  project  selection  criteria. 
Implementation  ofthe  programme  proceeded  satisfactorily.  Substantial  legislative work  was carried  out 
in Denmark  in  1995 in order to adapt national  law to the Structural  Fund  system. The Danish  authorities 
organized a major  conference  in May  1995 on the future  of fisheries  in Denmark. 

Germany:  In  1995  Monitoring  Committees  were  established  and  adopted  their  rules  of  procedure  and 
project  selection  criteria.  This  facilitated  a  rapid  start-up  of  the  programmes  (adopted  in  December 
1994),  so  that  absorption  of  appropriations  was  satisfactory.  Two  thirds  ofthe  annual  instalment  for 
1994 was implemented,  which meant that the  1995 instalment could  be committed  and the second  1994 
advance  paid  out,  as well  as the first advance  for  1995 (total  FIFG  payments:  ECU  16.1  million  out  of 
ECU 24.9 million committed.). 

Spain:  Since  the  Spanish  single  programming  document  was  adopted  on  22  December  1994, 
implementation  could  not  really  start  until  1995. The  level  of  implementation  was  25%  ofthe  1994 
instalment (total  FIFG payments: ECU  10 million out of ECU  19.9 million committed). Reprogramming 
was carried  out  on  19 October  1995  involving the transfer  of ECU  15.1 million  to the  1995  instalment, 
which subsequently enabled the Commission to commit the  1995 instalment. 

France: The  single  programming  document, adopted  on 22 December  1994, was actually  implemented 
in  1995. However,  implementation  was satisfactory  and  used 64% ofthe  annual  instalment  for  1994, so 
that  the  second  instalment  for  the  year  could  be  paid  out,  the  1995  instalment  committed  and  a  first 
advance  paid  out  within  the  time  limits  provided  for  (total  FIFG  payments:  ECU 41.1  million  out  of 
ECU 63.3 million committed, with a national contribution of ECU 42.5 million). 

Italy:  1995 was  marked  by difficulty  in absorbing  appropriations  because  ofthe  delayed  availability  of 
the  national  financial  contribution  for  internal  administrative  reasons  (delayed  approval  ofthe  findings 
ofthe  inter-Ministerial  Committee for economic programming; Sardinian  appeal  against those  findings). 
As a result  of these  delays, the appropriations  needed  for  national  part-financing  only  became  available 
from  October  1995.  On  23 October  1995  the  Monitoring  Committees  for  the  two  FIFG  programmes 
(Objective  5(a) and Objective  1) approved the rescheduling ofthe  1994 instalment to adjust  it to the real 
state  of  progress,  thereby  enabling  the  Commission  to  commit  the  1995  instalment.  Almost  all  the 
projects  financed  are part ofthe  last instalment (1994) under Regulation  (EEC) No 4028/86, paid  out of 
the FIFG budget. 

Luxembourg:  The main  objective  ofthe  programme  is to assist the development  of aquaculture  and  the 
processing  and  marketing  of  aquaculture  products. The  Monitoring  Committee  met  twice  in  1995  and 
the  principal  beneficiary  has  already  made  substantial  investments  in  improving  and  increasing 
production of certain  species offish  in aquaculture. 

Netherlands:  In  1995 the programme's  Monitoring Committee  was set up. After  it had  adopted  its rules 
of procedure and  project  selection  criteria, actual  implementation  ofthe  programme  began  with the first 
measures  for  the  permanent  withdrawal  of fishing vessels.  In  addition,  the  Dutch  authorities  informed 
the  Monitoring  Committee  of  various  measures  launched  under  other  headings  in  the  programme, 
namely  agriculture,  product  processing  and  marketing,  and  the  promotion  of  fisheries  products. 
Financial  rescheduling  was,  however,  adopted  on  29  November  1995,  reducing  the  1994  instalment 
initially  provided  for  (ECU  7.8 million)  by  ECU  1.2  million,  while  the  1995  instalment  was  increased 
from  ECU  7.8 million to ECU  14.3 million. 

United Kingdom:  The  Objective  5(a)  single  programming  document  concentrates  on  adjusting  fishing 
effort,  modernizing  and  improving  the  safety  of  vessels,  adjusting  the  processing  industry  and 
developing  ports. Appropriate  national  legislation  was adopted  in June  1995 and  certain  FIFG  measures 
were  launched  at  the  end  of  1995.  It  was  necessary  to  revise  the  financial  plan  for  the  single 
programming  document,  reducing  the  1994  instalment  by  30% and  increasing  the  1996  instalment  by 
the  same  proportion,  in  order  to  schedule  expenditure  more  efficiently  over  the  whole  period.  The 

] 02 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

meeting  ofthe  Monitoring  Committee  enabled  project  selection  criteria  to  be  adopted.  A  measure  for 
taking  vessels  out  of  service  is underway  for  1993-98: around  7% ofthe  fleet  has  currently  been  taken 
out of service, and it is estimated that at the end of 1998 around  12% will have been withdrawn. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

10; 

6.  Objective  5(b) 

6.1.  Programming  for  1994-99 

Table 51:  Objective 5(b) - area and population  of eligible areas and funding  allocated to each Member  State, 

1994-99 

Member  States 

Area  (km2) 

Population 
('000  inhab.) 

S t r u c t u r al  Fund 
allocation  ( Ed 
million) 

Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
United  Kingdom 
ËLk 9 
Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
EUR  3 

Total 

6.831 
8.374 
96.178 
85.223 
291.558 
80.486 
831 
5.405 
67.987 
642.873 

5Ô.Ô4Ô 
95.219 
52.746 
198.005 
840.878 

448 
361 
7.823 
1.731 
9.759 
4.828 
30 
800 
2.841 
28.621 
2.276 
1.094 
754 
4.124 
32.745 

78.1 
54.0 
1.229,0 
664,0 
2.239,4 
903." 
6.0 
150.0 
S20.5 
6.144.7 
411.0 
194.0 
138.0 
743,0 
6.887." 

A  study  ofthe  78  single  programming  documents  approved  in  1994  and  1995  for  the  Objective  5(b) 
1994-99  programming  period  confirms  that  the  main  priorities  set  by  the  Commission  have  been  taken 
into  account.  Article  4  ofthe  Framework  Regulation,  specifying  that  "Community  operations  shall  be 
such  as  to  complement  or  contribute  to  corresponding  national  operations,"  has  led  the  Commission  to 
adjust  its assistance  to the  specific  contexts  of each  Member  State  and  region.  The  result  has  been  a  great 
diversity  of programmes,  reflecting  the  very  varying  nature  of  European  rural  areas. 

Priorities  adjusted  to  national  and  regional  contexts 

forestry-related 

diversif  cation,  support  for 

activities  and  the  construction 

of  rural 
Agricultural 
infrastructures 
together  receive  more  than  27%  of  Community  funding.  However,  this  percentage  can 
vary  greatly  from  one  Member  State  to  another:  Denmark,  Spain,  France,  Italy  and  Austria  submitted 
programmes  under  which  the  proportion  ofthe  appropriations  set  aside  for  this  development  priority  is 
higher  than  average.  This  means  that  farms  located  in  Objective  5(b)  areas  may  be  assisted  when  they 
engage  in  product  improvement  projects,  in  particular  under  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2081/92  on 
the  protection  of designations  of origin  and  geographical  indications.  In  fragile  rural  areas,  the  major  role 
that  can  be  played  by  farmers  in  tourist  development  (farm  tourism)  and  maintaining  or  protecting  the 
environment 
their  products  arc  also 
encouraged.  These  measures,  which  are  targeted  and  adjusted  to  each  different  regional  or  even  "micro-
regional"  context,  are  a  useful  complement  to  the  common  agricultural  policy,  the  effects  of  which  they 
are designed  to  reinforce.51 

is  very  actively  encouraged.  Farmers'  efforts 

to  diversify 

is  the  second  largest  sphere  of  assistance  (25%  o{  Community 
Setting  up  and  supporting  SMEs 
funding).  For  Belgium,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Finland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  this  is  the  most 
important  priority  and  the  proportion  of  appropriations  devoted  to  it  exceeds  the  Community  average.  It 
enables  trade  and  crafts  to  be  maintained  and  developed  in  villages  and  thus  helps  to  improve  the 
services  available  to  the  rural  population.  Production  too  is  involved,  since  appropriations  are  also 
allocated  to  supporting  direct  investment  by  SMEs  and  enabling  them  to develop  or  establish  themselves 
(areas  of  economic  activity,  industrial  premises,  etc.).  The  main  purpose  of  this  assistance  is  to  allow 
rural  SMEs  to benefit  from  the  effects  ofthe  single  market. 

51  See Chapter  1I.D.2. The Structural Funds, the common agricultural  policy and rural  development. 

104 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds  (1995) 

in  human 

resources  is the third  largest  sphere  of assistance.  Almost  15% of  Community 
Investment 
funding  is being  used  to finance  training  and recruitment  aid measures.  Investment  in "human  capital" 
must be inseparably  linked  with  other  productive  investment.  In the  countryside,  the  priority  is to  adjust 
training  arrangements  to the  specific  conditions  of particular  areas  and  their  inhabitants  (low  population 
density,  development  projects  which  are  often  very  specific  and  do  not  always  conform  to pre-
established  training  models).  The  Commission  has put a  great  deal  of effort  into  ensuring  that  priority 
for  assistance  under  this  heading  is given  to training  modules  designed  and implemented  to meet  real 
needs  and  which  support  local  development  trends. 

Tourism 
(complementary  to  the  farm  tourism  referred  to  above)  involves  more  than  12% of the 
Community  appropriations  allocated.  In Denmark,  the majority  of funding  is allocated  to this  priority. 
The  United  Kingdom  and  Italy  also  decided  to  devote  a  major  part  of  the  funding  to  this  area  of 
assistance,  which  takes  second  and third  place  respectively  in  their  list  of  priorities.  One aim  is to 
improve  and increase  tourist  accommodation  capacity.  Where  necessary,  accompanying  investment  is 
planned  to make  rural  areas  more  attractive  (site  improvements,  tourist  sign-posting,  development  ofthe 
cultural,  architectural  and  natural  heritage).  A  key  objective  is  to  make  original  forms  of  tourism 
available on the  market  (cultural  tourism,  discovery  trails, open-air  sports, etc.). 

in  Objective  5(b)  measures  : 

Consideration  ofthe  environment 
A  high-quality  environment  can contribute  to the development  of  rural  areas.  It is the basis for  many 
tourist  and  farming  activities  which,  in  turn,  can contribute  to  a  better  environment.  Thus,  under 
Objective  5(b),  direct  investment  in environmental  projects  accounts  for  ECU 720.5  million  for  1994-
99,  i.e.  11.7%  of  the  appropriations  for  this  Objective,  which  are  to  a  very  large  extent 
(56%j 
concentrated  on  measures,  most  frequently  of a preventive  nature,  contributing  to the conservation  of 
the  countryside  and  biodiversity.  Another  substantial  fraction  (30%) of  the funding  goes 
towards 
restorative  measures  to reduce  pollution.  More  specific  examples  are the establishment  of  teams  and 
structures  for  introducing  people  to environmental  protection 
tourism 
sector  in particular 
(discovery  trails,  education  and  reception  points)  and measures  to protect  aquatic 
hiotopes  (reintroducing  salmon,  restoring  sites  which  have  deteriorated).  In  very  sensitive  areas  (for 
this 
example,  wetlands),  Community  assistance 
imposes  on economic  activity  and provides  them  with  additional  resources  for  adjustment.  In  addition, 
productive 
high-quality 
environment,  such  as  services  associated  with  research  and development  on food  and  agriculture, 
investments 
"green  tourism",  organic  farming  and nature  conservation.  In rural  areas,  as elsewhere, 
are  also  encouraged 
in SMEs  to support  products  and techniques  compatible  with  the needs  of  the 
environment,  renewable  energy  and techniques  which  economize  on the use of  energy  and  water. 

takes  account  of  the particular  constraints  which 

entailing  diversification  and  based  on  a 

in cooperation  with  the farm 

activities  are  encouraged 

Table 52:  Objective  5(b) and the environment  -  breakdown  of  appropriations  allocated  directly  to the 

environment,  1994-99 (EUR 9 - ECU million - 1994prices) 

M a n a g e m e nt  of  n a t u r e,  t he  c o u n t ry  s i de  a nd  b i o d i v e r s i ty  (a) 

D e p o s i t i on  '  t r e a t m e nt  ( c l e an  t e c h n o l o g i e s,  i n d u s t r i al  w a s t e)  (l>) 

U p y ra d in y  w o o d l a n ds  ( c ) 

400.5 

216,2 

103,8 
TTUJ 

Total 

(C)  14% 

( b)  30% 

( a)  56% 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

A contrasted  impact  of Community  investment  in different Member  States 

Commission  expectations  concerning  the  impact  of  Community  investment  in  relation  to  total 
expected  investment  were  of  two  kinds:  firstly,  to  ensure  that  the  Community  allocation  to  each 
programme  could  directly  generate  by  the  "lever  effect"  a  significant  total  investment;  secondly,  to 
avoid  Community  funding  being  so  diluted  among  the  vast  range  of  public  assistance  measures  that 
the  qualitative  contribution  made  by  Union  assistance  could  not  be  perceived.  A  study  of  the 
financing  plans  of  each  SPD  adopted  shows  that  the  ratio  between  Community  investment  and  total 
planned  investment  is  directly  related  to  the  content  of  the  programmes  (priorities,  content  of 
measures, types of operations). On average, one ecu from  the Community  should  generate  ECU  3.9 of 
investment : 

• 

• 

• 

Italy  and  Austria  proposed  programmes  envisaging  ECU  5.2  to  6.5  of  investment  lor  each  ecu 
allocated  by the  Community; 
in  the  case  of  Finland,  Belgium,  France,  Denmark,  the  Netherlands,  Germany  and  Luxembourg, 
the expected  impact ranges from  ECU 3.2 to 4.3 of total  investment  planned  for each  ecu  from  the 
Community; 
in the case ofthe  United  Kingdom  and  Spain,  investment  of  ECU  2.5  to 2.7  is expected  for every 
ecu contributed  by the  Community. 

106 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

6.2.  Implementation  of  Objective  5(b)  in  1995 

Table 53:  Objective 5(b) - Summary  of SPDs adopted in 1994 and 1995 (ECU million) 

S P Ds  A D O P T ED  IN  1994 

SPDs  A D O P T ED  IN  1995 

M e m b er  S l a t e / r e g i on 

T O T AL 

E A G GF 

E R DF 

E SF 

M e m b er  S t a t e / r e g i on 

T O T AL 

E A G GF 

E R DF 

E SF 

78,1 

10,3 

41,4 

26,4 

145,7 

74,9 

46,8 

24,1 

46,1 

•4d,l 

21,3 

12,7 

8,6 

23,8 

3,5 

12,4 

7,9 

68,7 

42,4 

18,3 

7,9 

20,7 

20,  ' 

7.0 

2.8 

4,2 

41,1 

5,2 

20,4 

15,5 

58,6 

27,4 

23,7 

7,5 

12,2 

12,2 

12,3 

8,3 

3,9 

13,2 

1,6 

8,7 

2,9 

18,4 

5,1 

4,7 

8,7 

13,2 

13,2 

2,0 

1,5 

0,5 

239,5 

105,7 

105,9 

27,9 

44.0 

35,8 

76,2 

83,5 

433,5 

30,4 

25,4 

47,7 

12,2 

39,5 

53.7 

40.6 

20,7 

13,3 

37.6 

34,1 

72,6 

3,7 

6,4 

2,1 

4,8 

9.5 

7.4 

17,8 

18,1 

30,5 

39,5 

5,5 

4,3 

8,1 

9.9 

284,6 

76,3 

20,7 

17.1 

34,4 

8,2 

28,6 

36,2 

24,2 

6,1 

5,1 

6,9 

1.8 

6,1 

8,0 

8,9 

184,0 

35.6 

115,1 

33.3 

T O T AL  1995 

964,2 

298,5 

1110% 

31% 

514,7 

53%, 

151,0 

16%, 

D e n m a rk 

G e r m a ny 

Havana 

Hesse 

Lower 

Saxony 

Rhinekmd-Palattnale 

Schleswig-Hotstein 

Spain 

Aragon 

( 

'alalunia 

Rioja 

Madrid 

Savarre 

liasque 

( 

'ounlry 

F r a n ce 

Alsace 

Aquitaine 

Auvergne 

1 jiwcr 

Sormandy 

Burgundy 

Hnitany 

(  'entre 

( 

hantjxignc-Ardenne 

l'ranchc-i'oiiué 

1 'pper 

Sormand) 

Ixtnguedoc-Roussi 

lion 

Limousin 

1  orraine 

Midi-1'yrcnécs 

1  otre 

I'oitouA 

liarentes 

Provence-Alfies-(. 

'oie  d'Azur 

Klu'me-Alpes 

I t a ly 

Bolzano 

L'jnilia  Homagna 

lazio 

himhardy 

luscany 

li-enlo 

(  'mhrta 

l'allé  d'Aosta 

1  'enelo 

L u x e m b o u rg 

N e t h e r l a n ds 

L ries  land 

< In iningen  ! 1  irenliie 

l.imhourg 

Overiissel 

Zee/and 

United  K i n g d om 

Past  Anglia 

Ijiglislt  Northern 

Uplands 

South  West 

pngland 

54,0 

21,6 

1.083,3 

45422 

5 6 0 ,; 

235,3 

21,6 

416,5 

207,3 

32,3 

98.0 

44,5 

34,4 

10,8 

Belgium 

212,6 

Meetjesland 

117,6 

Walkmia 

6,5 

Westhoek 

49,0 

G e r m a ny 

22,3 

liaden-  Wiirttemherg 

17,2 

North 

Rliine-Westpltalia 

42,0 

98,0 

44,5 

34,4 

393.9 

148,6 

75,5 

Saarland 

197  7 

88,6 

26,3 

24.3 

37,8 

19,1 

72,8 

36,0 

10,1 

13,2 

12,1 

4,5 

2 8 ,! 

Spain 

23,4 

Balearic 

Islands 

2,6 

F r a n ce 

11,7 

6,7 

Massif  Central 

Massif  des  Pyrenees 

3,0 

Italy 

80,8 

245,1 

111,3 

85,9 

6 1 7 ,9 

298.6 

148,0 

38,0 

49,3 

56,b 

26,5 

2.218,1 

1.000,1 

927,2 

290,8 

Friuli-  Venezia  Giulia 

48,8 

225.3 

164.7 

I33..i 

112.7 

186,3 

84.1 

29.5 

78.1 

11.2 

1  19.0 

128.0 

96.8 

2S3.1 

122.0 

130.1 

95.0 

I6f>,4 

19,0 

113,5 

80.3 

47,0 

o l ,2 

73,0 

36.1 

12,1 

34,3 

5.0 

63.5 

68,5 

36,3 

24.2 

81,5 

63,3 

61,3 

39,4 

91,1 

35,9 

14,2 

33.2 

4.8 

41,2 

39,1 

48.3 

122.2 

130,9 

47,0 

59.3 

46.0 

75,7 

57.7 

47,4 

38,7 

75,0 

664,2 

305.2 

264,4 

43.0 

57.1 

145.7 

40.3 

133.0 

10  () 

75.5 

4.2 

145.(i 

6,0 

150.0 

68.7 

3 4 ." 

19.1 

15,5 

11.8 

3 8 7 .0 

60,0 

10S,( 

219,0 

]Q,Q 

28,5 

70,0 

18,1 

5S.5 

Q  ; 

33.1 

65,5 

2,2 

50,6 

20.6 

11.5 

8.1 

4.8 

5.6 

78,6 

10.5 

27,1 

41,1 

17.9 

21.5 

51,5 

18.1 

56,1 

32,6 

2,0 

56.8 

3,1 

81,8 

43.5 

16.8 

8,1 

8,(> 

4,6 

250,4 

40.5 

64.8 

145,1 

5,5 

Liguria 

30,3 

Marthe 

21,1 

Piedmont 

25,0 

United  K i n g d om 

12.1 

Borders 

Region 

Central  Scotland  1  Tayside 

12,0 

Dumfries  and  Galloway 

3,0 

ICnglish  Midland 

Uplands 

10.6 

Grampian 

1,4 

Lincolnshire 

15.2 

The  Marches 

20.5 

Wales 

12.2 

30.0 

17.3 

23,4 

10.3 

18.6 

94,7 

5.2 

7.1 

24.1 

4.0 

18,5 

2,8 

9,7 

0,0 

23,3 

0,8 

17,6 

4,6 

6,6 

1,8 

1,6 

58,(»l 

0,0 

16.2 

32,8 

T O T AL  1994 

5.180.5 

2.306,2 

2.113,5 

760.8 

T O T AL  1994-1995 

6.144,7 

2.604,7 

2.628,2 

100%', 

-15% 

-11% 

15%, 

100% 

•42% 

43% 

911,8 

15%, 

In  1995 the  Commission  approved  30 Objective  5(b)  SPDs,  including  nine  for  the  new  Member  States,^2 
bringing  the  total  number  of  such  documents  adopted  for  1994-99  up  to  78  (48  were  adopted  in  1994). 

52  See Chapter  I. A.7.  Integration  ofthe  new  Member States into the structural  policies. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

107 

Among  the  programmes  adopted  in  1994 and  1995, 77  include  contributions  from  three  Funds  (the 
ERDF, EAGGF and ESF) and only one (Valle d'Aosta) from the ERDF and EAGGF alone. 

More  generally,  1995 was the  year  in  which  implementation  of  most  Objective  5(b)  SPDs  actually 
began, with  financing  for  1994-99 forecast  at ECU 6 900 million.  Substantial  work  was done  regarding 
the new Member States (Austria, Finland, Sweden) in order to decide which areas are eligible, define the 
amounts of Community  funding,  prepare and adopt the single programming documents and organize the 
first meetings ofthe  Monitoring Committees. 

Almost  ECU 6 750 million  was allocated  to Objective  5(b) programmes  approved  in  1994 and 1995. 
Over  these  two years, the Commission  committed  ECU 1 181 million  (or  17.5% ofthe  1994-99  total 
allocation) and paid  out ECU 662 million  (or 9.8% of total  funding).  After  the 78 single  programming 
documents  had  been  adopted,  the  Commission  committed  a  first  instalment  and  paid  half  the 
appropriations  so  committed.  Regions  were  then  entitled  to  apply  for  subsequent  payments  and 
commitments  according  to the actual  state  of  progress  of  projects  on the  ground.  Excluding  Austria, 
Finland  and Sweden,  whose single programming  documents were approved  somewhat  later,  21  regions 
were  in a position  to  apply  for a second  Community  payment  (second  advance  on the  first  instalment 
from  the EAGGF, ERDF and ESF);  15 regions were able to apply for a third  Community  payment (the 
balance ofthe  first  instalment) in the case ofthe  EAGGF, and  13 in the case ofthe  ERDF. Few regions 
were able to apply  for a fourth  payment  (second  advance on the second  instalment):  five  regions  in the 
case ofthe  ERDF and eight in the case ofthe  EAGGF. 

Table 54:  Objective 5(b) -1995 in the context of programming for  1994-99 (ECU million) 

Programmed 
Adopted 

/o 
Commitments  1994-99 
% of assistance 
Payments  1994-99 
% of assistance 

B 
78,1 
78,1 
100% 
9,2 
12% 
4,6 
6% 

DK 
54,0 
54,0 
100% 
9,8 
18% 
5,7 
10% 

D 
1.229,0 
1.229,0 
100% 
261,7 
2 1% 
134.2 
11% 

E 
664,0 
664,0 
100% 
162,1 
24% 
118,4 
18% 

F 
2.239,4 
2.239,4 
100% 
373,2 
17% 
207,9 
9% 

I 
903,7 
903,7 
100% 
107,0 
12% 
53,5 
6% 

L 
6,0 
6.0 
100% 
0.8 
14% 
0,4 
,  7% 

N 
150,0 
150,0 
100% 
25,6 
17% 
12.6 
8% 

AT 
411,0 
411.0 
100% 
78.3 
19% 
39,2 
10% 

Fl 
194,0 
194.0 
100% 
32.8 
17% 
15.9 
8% 

SE 
138,0 
0,0 
0% 
0.0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 

IK 
820.5 
820.5 
100% 
120.7 
15% 
69.4 
8% 

Total 
6.887.7 
6.749.7 
98% 
1.181.2 
18% 
661.9 
10% 

As regards the state of progress ofthe  programmes, it should first be noted that financial  implementation 
will  have  to be accelerated.  To achieve  this, an effort  will  be made  to ensure  better  circulation  of the 
appropriations.  Greater  involvement  of public  part-financers  will  have to be encouraged  at  Monitoring 
Committee  meetings.  If  it  proves  appropriate,  adjustments  to  the  programmes  could  be  adopted. 
Secondly,  greater  attention  should  be  paid  to  the  objective  of  integrating  the  three  Funds,  thereby 
achieving  concrete  results  reflecting  a  link  between  investment  in  human  resources  and  investment  in 
the productive sectors. 

108 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds  (1995) 

6.3.  Country-by-country  survey53 

BELGIUM 

Objective  5(b)  - programming 

for 

1994-99 

Population  ('OOOinhab.) 
Area  (km2) 

4*4T 

6.831 

ECU million 

iSl'Ùs 

ToTÏÏTl 

Average  per  SPD 

Breakdown 

hy  Bund 
: 

EAGGF I 
ERDF 

ESF 

UJ 

26,0 

23^" 
41,1 

13,2 

Implementation in 1995 

(9)  1% 

(a)  35% 

(b)  26% 

•  Agriculture,  forestry, 

horticulture (a) 

p  Economic  stimulation and 

diversification (b) 

B  Maintenance  of sea 

fishing (c) 

p  Tourists  development (d) 

^ V i l l a ge  attractiveness  and j 

living  standards  (e) 

•  Human  resources  and 

training (f) 

i 

i 

B  Technical  assistance  (g)  ' 

Three  SPDs were  approved  by the Commission  at the beginning of 1995: in Flanders, two  programmes 
for  the regions  of Westhoek  and Meetjesland,  and in Wallonia  one  programme  for the south-east of 
Belgium. Flanders and Wallonia are responsible for the  implementation  of these Community  operations, 
which  give high priority to developing small and medium-sized firms and  industry and to  diversification 
in agriculture and forestry.  The three Monitoring Committees met during  1995. Proposals for  assessment 
and  information  programmes  will be submitted  at their  next  meetings.  Precise  project  selection  criteria 
have been established  and communicated  to Committee members. 

1995 in the context ofthe  1994-99 programming period 

Table 55:  Objective 5(b) - Belgium - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es 

T o t al  cost 

S F  a s s i s t a n ce 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

"A, 

P a y m e n ts 

P a y m e n ts 

and 

y e ar  of  adoption 

199 S 

M  eetjeslan d 

W  a lion ia 

W e s t h o ek 

T O T AL 

(1) 

1995 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(2)1(1) 

1 9 95 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 3 ) / ( 2) 

( 2) 

( 3) 

34.2 

135,4 

96.6 

2 6 6 ,2 

10.3 

41.4 

26,4 

78,1 

1.2 

4,9 

3,1 

9,2 

1.2 

4,9 

3,1 
9,2 

12% 

12% 

12% 

12%, 

0.6 

2.4 

1.5 

4,6 

0.6 

2.4 

1.5 

50% 

50% 

5 0% 

4,6 

5 0% 

Progress on  financial  implementation  ofthe  programmes  must  be accelerated  in 1996, since  in 1994-95 
the Commission  committed  12% and paid out 6% ofthe  total appropriations for the whole period. 

DENMARK 

Objective  5(b)  - programming 

for 

1994-99 

Population  (000  inhab.) 
A r c a ( k n r) 

I 

361 
8.374 

/:( '{/'  million 

I  SPD 

Total  I 

Average  per  SPD 

Breakdown 

by  Bund 
'• 

EAGG1-'| 
ERDF 
ESF 

54,0 

54,0 

TTJ 
21,6 
10,8 

(d)  2% 

( a)  2 5% 

(C)  37% 

( b)  3 6% 

[Diversification/ 
environmental  protection 

(Business  development  (b): 

rjTounsm (c) 

« T e c h n i c al  assistance (d) 

53  For a more  detailed  description  of each  Member  State's  programming  priorities,  see the 1994  Annual  Report. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

109 

Implementation  in 1995 

On 21 December  1994 the Commission  approved the single programming document for  Denmark which 
established  three  major  priorities  of  equal  importance:  diversification  of  agriculture  and  forestry, 
diversification  and development  of non-agricultural  sectors  and development  of tourism.  The Danish 
Ministry of Agriculture  is responsible for implementing the programme. The Monitoring Committee for 
the  programme  met at the end of  1995.  Its members  were  informed  ofthe  project  selection  criteria. 
Assessment and information  programmes are to be adopted in 1996. 

1995 in the context  ofthe  1994-99 programming  period 

Table 56:  Objective 5(b) - Denmark - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es 

Total  cost 

S F  a s s i s t a n ce 

Commitments 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

(1) 

1995 

1994-95 

(2) 

"A, 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

Payments 

P a y m e n ts 

1995 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

% 
( 3 ) / ( 2) 

| 

201.5] 

54,01 

3,4 [ 

9,8 j 

1 8 %| 

2.51 

5.71 

58% 

and 

year  of  adoption 

1994 

Denmark 

Between  1994 and  1995, after  committing  18% ofthe  total Community  appropriations, the  Commission 
paid out  10.5% ofthe  overall allocation for the period as a whole. 

GERMANY 

Objective  5(h)  - programming 

for 

1994-99 

P o p u l a t i on  ('000  in h a b .) 

I 

A r e a ( k n r) 

7~82T 

96.178 

S SPDs 

TôtâTI 

1229,0 

HCU 

million 

A v c i ^e  per  SPD 

153.6 

(C)  19% 

(a)  42% 

( d)  0 , 1% 

Breakdown 

/> y  Bund 
: 

EAGGF I 
E R DF 

E SF 

( b)  3 9% 

5723" 

475,1 

231.0 

Implementation  in 1995 

Q  Diversification and 

adjustment  of  agricultural 
structures  (a) 

•  Development  of  non-
farming  sectors  (b) 

^Development  of  human 

resources  (c) 

rj  Environmental  protection 

(Saarland) (d) 

Between  December  1994 and March  1995 eight  single  programming  documents  were approved  for the 
German  regions.  These  programmes  give  high  priority to the development  of small  and medium-sized 
firms and  industry,  followed  by agricultural  and  forestry  diversification.  Responsibility  for each  ofthe 
programmes  is in the hands  ofthe  Lander.  The eight  Monitoring  Committees  met in  1995.  Project 
selection  criteria  were  precisely  defined  under  the  various  arrangements  for regional  aid used  for  the 
implementation  ofthe  programmes. Mid-term assessment was to begin in 1996 and be finalized  in 1997. 

110 

~ih Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

1995 in the context ofthe  1994-99 programming period 

Table 5 7:  Objective 5(b)  - Germany - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es 

T o t al  cos  t 

S  F  a s s is  t a n ce 
O) 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

1 9 95 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 2) 

% 
( 2 V O) 

P a y m e n ts 
1 9 95 

P a y m e n ts 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

( 3 ) / ( 2) 

u nd 

y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

1  V  9 i 

B a d e n -W  ù r t t e n i b e rg 
N o r th  R h i n e-
\V  c s t p li  alia 
S a a r l a nd 

1  VV4 

B a v a r ia 

H e s se 

L o w er  S a x o ny 

R h i n e l a n d - P a l a t in  ate 

Sch  les vvig-Ho  Is te in 

T O T AL 

450,8 
1  17,9 

108,0 

2  933,4 

232,3 

706,5 

426,8 

229,6 
5 . 2 0 5 ,3 

74,9 
46,8 

24,1 

560,2 

80,8 

245,1 

11  1,3 

85.9 
1 . 2 2 9 ,0 

8,8 
5,5 

2,8 

70,4 

14,1 

15,6 

8,0 

10,7 
1 3 5 ,8 

8.8 
5,5 

12% 
12% 

2,8 

12% 

135,5 

23,7 

44,4 

20,2 

24% 

29% 

1  8% 

18% 

20,9 
2 6 1 ,7 

24% 
2 1% 

( 3) 
— 

• 

4.4 
2,7 

5 0% 
5 0% 

1,7 

6 1% 

67,4 

12,8 

25,7 

12,5 

7,0 

5 0% 
5 4% 
5 8% 
6 2% 
3 3% 

1 3 4 ,2 

5 1% 

4,4 
2,7 

1,7 

34.9 

8,0 

1  1,3 

6.4 

1,8 
7  1,2 

The  state  of  financing  of  the  single  programming  documents  is  satisfactory,  as  the  Commission  has 
committed  21%  and paid out  11% ofthe  appropriations provided for the period  as a whole. 

SPAIN 

Objective  5(b)  - programming  for  1994-99 

Population  ('000  inhab.) 
Area(knr) 

| 

1.731 
85.223 

ECU  million 

'  SPDs 

TÏÏTàTj 

WbTJ 

( d)  10% 

A v e r a ge  p er  S PD 

y~4~9" 

(e)  13% 

(a)  3 1% 

Breakdown 

h y  Bund 
: 

EAGGF) 
ERDF 
ESF 

(C)  22 

4~TT~6 
160.8 
88.6 

( b)  24% 

Implementation in 1995 

p  Basic  infrastructure  (a) 

•  Diversification  of  economic 

activity  (b) 

B  Protection  of  natural 

resources  (c) 

• 

Improving  rural  living 
conditions  (d) 

H  Human  resources  (e) 

All  the  Spanish  Objective  5(b)  single  programming  documents  were  approved  in  1994,  with  the 
exception  ofthe  one for the Balearic Islands (approved  on  18 January  1995). In total, seven  programmes 
are  being  implemented.  They  are  organized  around  five  priorities  :  basic  infrastructure  for  economic 
development  (country  roads,  electrification  and  small-scale  industrial  infrastructure,  consolidation  of 
holdings  and  improving  existing  irrigation  networks);  economic  diversification  and  job  creation 
(agricultural  diversification,  quality  policy,  aid  to  craft,  industry  and  service  SMEs);  protecting  and 
developing  the  potential  of  the  environment  (protection  and  extension  of  forested  areas,  combating 
erosion,  developing  the  potential  of  protected  country  areas):  improving  rural  living  conditions 
(improving  small-scale  infrastructure  and  the  renovation  of  villages):  and  human  resources  (training, 
recruitment  aid.  improving  employment  structures,  improving  scientific  and  technological  potential). 
Responsibility  for  implementing the programmes  is in the hands ofthe  Autonomous Communities. 

The Monitoring Committees  for these programmes were set up during the first half of  1995. The Madrid 
and  Balearic  Committees  held  second  meetings  at the  end  of  1995. A national  Monitoring  Committee 
responsible  for  coordination  at  national  level  of  aspects  concerning  more  than  one  single  SPD  met  in 
July and  December. 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds  (1995) 

111 

1995 in the context ofthe  1994-99 programming period 

Table 58:  Objective 5(b) - Spain - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es 

T o t al  c o st 

S F  a s s i s t a n ce 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

a nd 

y e ar  of  a d o p t i on 

1995 

(1) 

1995 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(2) 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

P a y m e n ts 

1 9 95 

P a y m e n ts 

1 9 9 4 - 95 

(3) 

% 
( 3 ) / ( 2) 

Balearic  I s l a n ds 

| 

146,9 j 

46,1 | 

8,2 ( 

8.21 

18%  | 

6.81 

6.81  8 2% 

1994 

A ra g o n 

Catalonia 

Rioja 

M  adrid 

Navarre 

B a s q ue  C o u n t ry 

763,6 

366.7 

166,5 

112,9 

161.0 

81,2 

298,6 

148,0 

38.9 

49,3 

56,6 

26,5 

TOTAL 

1.798,7 

6"64,û 

41,0 

17,1 

1,9 

6,5 

10,1 

3.8 

88,6 

78.8 

34,7 

6,2 

11,3 

16,4 

6,4 

162,1 

26% 

23% 

16% 

23% 

29% 

24% 
24% 

3 7,S 

15.S 

1.8 

5,4 

10.9 

1  ™* 

8 1 ,7 

56.8 

24,6 

4.0 

7,8 

14.1 

4.6 

72% 

7 1 % 

6 4% 

69% 

86% 

7 1 % 

118,4 

73% 

Financial  implementation  generally went ahead very rapidly in 1995 in order to make up for the delay in 
approving  single  programming  documents  in 1994. The Commission  was able to commit  24% and  pay 
out  18% ofthe  total  appropriations  allocated  to the  single  programming  documents  for the  period  as  a 
whole. 

FRANCE 

Objective  5(b)  - programming 

for 

1994-99 

Population  ('000  mhab.) 

1 

A r e a ( k n r) 

20  Sl'D.s 

ECU  million 

Total  I 

2239,4 

(C)  3 3% 

9.759 

291.558 

(d)  2% 

( a)  14o/o 

Average  per  SPD 

112,0 

lircakdt)  wn  h v  Bund 

: 

EAGGF I 
ERDF 

ESF 

TÏÏÏÏ7T 
939.4 

292.9 

Implementation in 1995 

(b)  5 1% 

•  Agricultural  diversification 

(a") 

•  Economic  development (b) 

•  Altractiveness  of  rural 

areas (c) 

«  Technical  assistance  id) 

Eighteen  French  single  programming  documents  were  approved  in  1994  and two further  programmes 
concerning  the Massif  Central  and the French  Pyrenees  were  adopted  in the first quarter  of  1995. A 
specific  programme  concerning technical  assistance  still  remained to be adopted  at the end of 1995.  All 
these programmes confirm  the priority given to strategies for diversification  and developing the potential 
of agricultural  and  forestry  production.  The second  level of priority  is "diversification  and  development 
in non-agricultural  sectors". Responsibility  for the implementation  ofthe  programmes  is in the  hands of 
the regional  representative ofthe  State. 

Thirty  Monitoring  Committee  meetings  were held  in 1995. This allowed  all the  partners to be informed 
about  the  project  selection  criteria,  which  were set out  in the application  documents  drawn  up in each 
region.  Most  of the  Committees  considered  and proposed  assessment  programmes,  and the assessors 
were to be selected  in the first half of  1996 in order to start  interim  assessment  during the second  half of 
the vear. 

112 

"7/? Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

1995 in the context ofthe  1994-99 programming  period 

Table 59:  Objective 5(b) - France - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es 
and 
year  of  adoption 

199$ 

Massit  Central 
Massif  des  Pyrénées 

19 94 

Alsace 
Aquitaine 
Auvergne 
Lower  Normandy 
Burgundy 
Brittany 
Centre 
Ch a m p a g n e-A rd e n n e 
Franche-Comlé 
Upper  Normandy 
Languedoc-Roussillon 
Limousin 
Lorraine 
M idi-Pyrénées 
Loire 
Poitou-Charentes 
P . A . C . A . ( l) 
Rhône-Alpes 

TO TA L 
( 1 ) Provence-A  lpes-Cô 

Total  cost 

SF  a s s i s t a n ce 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 

Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

Payments 
1995 

Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

27,4 
17.8 

169,1 
762,4 
724,7 
433,4 
407,6 
510,6 
259,7 
100,1 
437,6 
32,9 
344,3 
560,8 
304,6 
849,9 
334.2 
450,8 
288,0 
844,5 
7.860,4 

e  d'Azur 

12,7 
8,6 

48,8 
225,3 
164,7 
133,3 
112,7 
186,3 
84,1 
29,3 
78,1 
11,2 
119.9 
128,0 
96,8 
283,1 
122,0 
130,1 
95,0 
169,4 
2 . 2 3 9 ,4 

1,1 
1.1 

0.2 
2.8 
25,7 
12.8 
20,4 
0,0 
1,1 
0.0 
6,9 
0,0 
0,0 
14,0 
1,4 
4.9 
12,5 
3,8 
0.3 
1.6 
I  1 0 ,5 

1,1 
1,1 

8% 
13% 

6,7 
34,4 
44.9 
31,5 
29,7 
26,2 
5.1 
4.1 
13,9 
1,1 
11,7 
32,0 
10,2 
33.9 
27.8 
20,9 
12,1 
24,9 

373,2 

14% 
15% 
27% 
24% 
26% 
14% 
6% 
14% 
18% 
10% 
10% 
25% 
11% 
12% 
23% 
16% 
13% 
15% 
1 7% 

0,5 
0,5 

0.0 
3,4 
19,0 
7.8 
9,4 
3,1 
0.5 
0.0 
4.8 
0.0 
0.0 
12,5 
1.2 
3.7 
4.2 
2.6 
1.9 
1.5 
7 6,6 

0,5 
0,5 

50% 
50% 

3,3 
19,2 
28,6 
17.1 
14,1 
16.2 
2.5 
2.1 
8,3 
0.5 
5,8 
21.5 
5,6 
18.2 
11,8 
11.1 
7.8 
13.2 
207,9 

4 8% 
56% 
64% 
54% 
47% 
62% 
49% 
50% 
60% 
50% 
50% 
67% 
55% 
54% 
42% 
53% 
65% 

5 6% 

The  Commission  committed  17%  and  paid  out  9%  ofthe  Community  allocation  for  France  (entire 
period).  A  sustained  effort  must  be  made  to  make  up  for  the  delay  caused  largely  by  the  fact  that 
programmes were adopted at the end of  1994. 

ITALY 

Objective  5(h)  - programming 

for 

1994-99 

P o p u l a t i on  ('000  i n h a b. 

A r ea  (ktrr) 

4.828 
80.486 

/ : ' ( ' (/  million 

n  SPDS 

Total 

~9~0T7 

(C)  12% 

A v e i a g e  p er  S P D 

- 6 1 T 5-

Break  do  wn  h y E  und 

( d) 

12% 

( e) 

1% 

a)  32% 

EAGGF 
E R DF 
E SF 

370.3 

122.6 

(b)  43% 

Implementation in 1995 

Q  Modernization  and 
diversification  of 
agriculture  (a) 

p  Reinforcement  of  non-
agricultural  sector  (b) 

m  Environment  (c) 

•  Human  resources  (d) 

•  Technical  assistance  (e) 

During  the  first  quarter  of  1995,  the  adoption  procedures  for  the  13  Italian  single  programming 
documents  were  completed.  These  programmes  show  the  priority  given  to  agricultural  and  forestry 
diversification,  the second  priority being the development of small and medium-sized firms and  industry 
and tourism,  while  an  effort  was  made  to ensure that,  in addition  to the training  measures  provided  for 
under  each  of  the  priorities,  a  separate  priority  was  adopted  for  the  development  of  human  resources. 
The  Italian  programmes  call  for  substantial  participation  by  the  private  sector.  Responsibility  for 
implementing the programmes  is in the hands ofthe  regions and autonomous provinces. 

The Commission  participated  in seventeen  Monitoring Committees meetings, which  concentrated  on the 
importance  of  transparent  procedures  and  project  selection  criteria.  All  the  Committees  drew  up  and 
approved  assessment  programmes.  Selection  of  independent  assessors  by  invitation  to  tender  will  be 
completed  in the middle of  1996. The Committees also adopted  information  and publicity programmes. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

113 

1995 in the context ofthe  1994-99 programming period 

Table 60:  Objective 5(b) - Italy - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

Programmes 
and 
year  of  adoption 

TWT 

Friuli-Venezia  Giulia 
Liguria 
Marche 
Piedmont 

TFR 

Bolzano 
Emilia  Romagna 
Lazio 
Lombardy 
Tuscany 
Trento 
Umbria 
Valle  d'Aosta 
Veneto 

TOTAL 

Total  cost 

SF  assistance 

(1) 

C o m m i t m e n ts 
1 9 95 

C o m m i t m e n ts 
1 9 9 4 - 95 
(2) 

Payments 
1995 

( 2 ) / ( l) 

Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 

( 3 ) / ( 2) 

T73T 
189,6 
429,9 
438.2 

B TJ 
311,6 
514,9 
213,8 
744,9 
66,0 
341,9 
13,9 
1.033,2 
4.728,4 

35,8 
76,2 
83,5 

~~737T 
57.1 
145,7 
40,3 
133,0 
19,9 
75,5 
4.2 
145,6 
TLTTJ 

T2~ 
4,2 
8,9 
9.8 

3,4 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0,0 
TTJ 

17% 
12% 
12% 
12% 

17% 
12% 

11 % 

12% 

1 2% 

6% 

14% 

14% 

6,8 
16.7 
4,8 
15,8 

1,1 
10,7 

0,6 

HI) 

17.3 
12% 
HfTfi  u%-

T 5l 

"5U%" 
5 0% 
50% 
5 0% 

3 
8 
2 
7 
0 
5 
0,3 
8.6 

5ÏÏ% 
5 0% 
50% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
50% 
5 0% 
5 0% 
50% 
T1T5  TÏÏ7^ 

For  1994-95, the Commission  committed  12% and  paid  out  6% ofthe  Community  allocation  reserved 
for  the  Italian  single  programming  documents.  Following  the  invitations  to  tender  issued  in  1995  and 
appraisal  of  the  projects  submitted,  it  was  expected  that  the  utilisation  of  available  financing  would 
increase  from  1996. 

LUXEMBOURG 

Objective  5(h)  - programming 

jor 

1994-99 

Population  ('000 inhab.) 
Area  (knr) 

I 

/  S I'D 

ToTâT] 

ECU  million 

A v e ra g e  per  SPD 

Breakdown 

h y  Blind 

: 

E A G G FI 
ERDF 
ESF 

Implementation in 1995 

MT 
831 

oTF 

6~TT 

IT 
3.1 
0.8 

(C)  51% 

(a)  21% 

(t>)  28% 

Q  Revitalization  of  agriculture 

and  forestry  (a) 

•  Employment  in  industry 

and  services  (b) 
H  Tourism  and  living 
standards  (c) 

The  single  programming  document  for  the  Objective  5(b)  area  of  Luxembourg  was  approved  in 
December  1994. The  priorities  of this programme are creating and  maintaining jobs  in  SMEs  and  small 
and  medium-sized 
industry  and  developing  tourism  and  the  quality  of  life.  Responsibility  for 
implementation  ofthe  programme  is in the hands ofthe  Ministry of Agriculture. The first meeting  ofthe 
Monitoring Committee, which was to have been held  in  1995, was postponed  to  1996. 

1995 in the context ofthe  1994-99 programming period 

Table 61:  Objective 5(b) - Luxembourg - Financial implementation ofthe SPD  (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m me 
a n d 
year  of  adoption 

1994 

Luxembourg 

Total  cost 

S F  a s s i s t a n ce 
0) 

Commitments  I Commitments 

1 9 95 

1 9 9 4 - 95 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
I  9 9 5 

P a y m e n ts 
19 9 4 -9  5 
(3) 

( 3 ) / ( 2) 

2 5 31 

6,01 

"ôin 

O.ST 

14%  I 

0.21 

The Commission  committed  14% and paid out 7% ofthe  Community allocation  for the whole  period. 

114 

NETHERLANDS 

Objective  5(h)  - programming 

for 

1994-99 

Population  ('OOOinhab.) 
Area  (km2) 

I 

8W 
5.405 

S SPbs 

ECU  million 

TotaT] 

Average  per  SPD 

Breakdown 

hv  Euntl 
: 

EAGGF) 
ERDF 
ESF 

Implementation in 1995 

TWJT 

JUJ 

ÎÏÏJ 
81,8 
17,6 

7ih Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

(e)  11%  W  1%  <a>  8% 

(d) 

13% 

(C)  42% 

•  Development  of  agriculture 

and  horticulture  (a) 

p  Business  establishment 

( b)  25% 

(b) 

a  Tourist  infrastructure  (c) 

•  Environmental  protection 

(d) 

d  Human  resources  (e) 

•  Technical assistance  (f) 

Five  single  programming  documents  for  the  Netherlands  were  adopted  by  the  Commission  in 
December  1994.  The  operations  are  directed  primarily  towards  supporting  small  and  medium-sized 
firms  and  industry  and  protecting  the  environment.  Responsibility  for  the  implementation  of  the 
programmes  is in the hands ofthe  regional authorities. 

The  Commission  participated  in  eight  Monitoring  Committee  meetings  in  1995.  During  the  meetings 
information  was  provided  on  the  project  selection  criteria.  The  programmes  are  currently  being  drawn 
up,  and should  lead to the first  invitations to tender being issued during  1996. 

1995 in the context  ofthe  1994-99 programming period 

Table 62:  Objective 5(b) - Netherlands - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

P ro«  ranimes 
and 
year  of  adoption 

1994 

Erie s la nd 
Gron in gen  /  Drenthe 
Limburg 
Overijssel 
Zee land 

T O T AL 

Total  cost 

S F assis  tance 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 

Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
I 9 9 5 

Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 

(3)/(2) 

266,9 
157,4 
48.4 
70,2 
49.2 
592,1 

68.7 
34.9 
19,1 
15,5 
11.8 
150,0 

4,5 
0.0 
0.0 
1,4 
1,4 
7,3 

12,7 
4.2 
2.3 
3.3 
3.2 
2 5,6 

1  8%, 
12% 
12% 
21% 
27% 
1 7 % 

4.1 
1.7 
0.4 
1.2 
2.0 
9,5 

5.2 
2.1 
1.1 
1.6 
2.5 
12,6 

4 1 % 
50% 
50% 
50% 
79% 
4 9%, 

Between  1994  and  1995,  the  Commission  committed  17%  and  paid  out  8%  of  the  Community 
appropriations allocated  for the period as a whole. 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

Objective  5(h)  - programming 

for 

1994-99 

Population  t/000  inhab.) 
Area  (knr) 

I 

2.841 
67.987 

TTsTTh, 

PA'U  million 

TÔ1ÏÏT] 

STTTTJ 

(d)  15% 

(0  1% 

(e)  3% 

(a)  6% 

Average  per  S I'D 

Hreakdo  wn  hv  Eund 

'• 

EAGGF I 
ERDF 
ESF 

(C)  20% 

74.6 

T3TT 
535.0 
134.3 

D  Diversification  of 
agriculture  (a) 

p  Business  (non-
agricultural)  (b) 

B  Tourism  (c) 

•  Environmental  protection 

(d) 

a  Human  resources  (e) 

( b)  55% 

•  Technical  assistance  (f) 

7lh Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

Implementation in 1995 

115 

Eleven single programming documents for the United  Kingdom  were approved  between  the end of  1994 
and  the  beginning  of  1995.  Generally  speaking,  they  give  a  high  priority  to  supporting  small  and 
medium-sized  firms  and  industry  and  to developing  tourism.  The programmes  are  implemented  by  the 
Government departments  concerned. 

Eighteen  Monitoring  Committee  meetings  were  organized  in  1995.  At  the  meetings  Committee 
members were informed  ofthe  project  selection  criteria. Assessment  programmes  should  be finalized  in 
1996. 

1995 in the context ofthe  1994-99 programming period 

Table 63:  Objective 5(b) - United Kingdom - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es 
and 
year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

SF  a s s i s t a n ce 

( 1) 

Commitments 
1995 

Commitments 
1994-95 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 

Payments 
1994-95 
(3) 

( 3 ) / ( 2) 

I  99S 

Borders  Region 
Central  Scotland  /  Taysidc 
Dumfries  and  Galloway 
English  Midland  Uplands 
Grampian 
Lincolnshire 
The  Marches 
Wales 

1994 

76,6 
64,0 
125,3 
33.3 
96.2 
133,6 
90.8 
483,4 

East  An g lia 
English  Northern  Uplands 
South  W est  England 

TOTAL 

132,4 
262,3 
514,5 
2.012,3 

30,4 

25,4 

47,7 

12.2 

39,5 

53,7 

40,6 

184,0 

60,0 

108.0 

219.0 
820,5 

3.8 
6,7 
1,4 
5.6 
7,5 
6.2 
27.1 

1.4 
2.2 
5.1 
74,6 

25% 
15% 
14% 
12% 
14% 
14% 
15% 
1 5% 

3.8 
6,7 
1,4 
5.6 
7,5 
6.2 
27,1 

8,6 
15,0 
31.2 
120,7 

14% 
14% 
14% 
15%, 

3.1 
2.0 
3  6 
0.7 
2.9 
4.0 
3.4 
15.3 

1.0 
1.7 
8.8 
4 (.,4 

3.1 
2.0 

3.6 

0.7 

2.9 

4.0 

3.4 

41 % 
5 4% 

5 4% 

5  ~> % 

5 5% 
56%, 

4.6 

8.1 

21.S 
6 9 .4 

5 3 " o 
54";, 
7 0% 
58% 

The  Commission  committed  15% and  paid  out  8%  ofthe  Community  allocation  for  the  period  as  a 
whole. 

16 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

7. 

Integration  ofthe  new  Member  States  into  the  structural  policies 

Integration  of  the  three  new  Member  States  into  the  structural  policies  was  an  important  aspect  of  the 
1994 accession  negotiations;  it is an aspect which  is largely  regulated  by the  Act  of Accession  itself.  The 
Act  provides  for  the  creation  of  a  new  Structural  Funds  Objective,  Objective  6,  for  regions  with  a  very 
low  population  density,  makes  the  Austrian  Land  of  Burgenland  eligible  under  Objective  1  and  also 
fixes  for  each  Member  State  the  financial  resources  for  Objectives  1 (Austria),  6  (Finland  and  Sweden) 
and  Objectives  2  and  5(b)  (all  three  countries).  The  Act  did  not  establish  the  list  of  eligible  areas  under 
Objectives  2  and  5(b),  nor  did  it allocate  the  appropriations  for  Objectives  2 to  5(b). This  was  a task  for 
the Commission,  which  adopted  the decisions  in  199554. 

In  1995,  activities  relating  to  the  new  Member  States  were  more  concerned  with  preparing  all  the 
programming  documents  under  the  various  Objectives  than  with  implementing  the  programmes,  given 
that  Community  rules  did  not  apply to  those  countries  until  1  January  1995.  It was  therefore  felt  that  the 
priorities  for  the  different  programmes  for  those  countries  should  be  presented  in  a  separate  section, 
whereas  for  the  other  Member  States  the  Report  concentrates  on  implementation  and  execution  during 
1995.  However,  almost  all  the  programmes  of  assistance  by  Objective  were  adopted  rapidly  in  1995  so 
that most  of them  could  start  up before  the  end  ofthe  year. 

A  total  of  35  programming  documents  were  adopted  for  the  three  new  Member  States  in  1995:  17  for 
Austria  and  9  each  for  Finland  and  Sweden.  By  the  end  ofthe  year  there  were  only  six  Swedish  SPDs 
left  to  approve,  one  under  Objective  4  and  five  under  Objective  5(b).  Objectives  2  and  5(b)  had  the 
majority  of  the  approved  programmes  (10),  followed  by  Objective  5(b)  (9),  then  Objective  5(a) 
agriculture  (5).  For  the  other  Objectives,  one  SPD  per  Member  State  was  approved  (Objective  1:  1, 
Objective  3: 3, Objective  4: 2, Objective  5(a)  fisheries:  3, Objective  6: 2). 

to  environmental 

The desire  to preserve  sustainable  development: 
Austria,  Finland  and  Sweden  are  environmentally  conscious  countries.  The  state  ofthe 
environment 
in all  three  new  Member  States  is very  good.  The  northern  parts  of Sweden  and  Finland  in  particular 
(the  sparsely-populated  Objective  6 region)  is recognized  as  one  ofthe  last  natural  wildernesses 
left 
in  Europe  in  an  almost  pristine  state.  Austria  possesses  some  of  Europe's  most  beautiful  mountain 
regions. 
The  high  sensitivity  of  public  opinion 
in  well  developed 
environmental 
legislation  in each  of these  Member  States.  In  the Finnish  and  Swedish  Objective  6  and 
threat  posed  by  cross-border 
is probably 
2  regions,  the  main  environmental  problem 
pollution.  Some  damage  is caused  through  acidification  of land  and  water.  Another  important  issue  in 
these  two  countries 
the  main 
is  the  sustainable  exploitation  of  natural  resources. 
in  the  mountainous 
environmental 
regions  against  transport  pollution  and  the promotion  of sustainable  forms  of  tourism. 
The environment  as  a horizontal  concern  in all programmes  : 
A  common  feature  of  all programmes 
horizontal  theme  underpinning  all  measures.  In all  the  Swedish  programmes,  environmental 
are  regarded  as  a  horizontal  criterion  in  most  measures.  It  is  however  not  possible 
commitment  to give  priority  to actions  contributing  to sustainable  development  or  to  an 
of environmental  conditions  into  monetary  terms. 

in  the  new  Member  States  is  regard  for  the  environment  as  a 
concerns 
the 
improvement 

the  protection  of  the  natural  environment 

issues  are  probably 

issues  has  resulted 

the  potential 

to  translate 

In  Austria, 

54  For  more  details  on  the  structural  aspects  of enlargement  in  1994, see  the  1994  Annual  Report. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

117 

7.1.  Objectives  1 and  6 

Objective  1 

AUSTRIA 

Burgenland  is the  only  region  in the three  new Member  States eligible  under  Objective  1. In  1995 the  per 
capita  GDP  in this  region  bordering  three  central  European  countries  was  about  70%> ofthe  Community 
average.  Its  270  000  inhabitants  live  in  4 000  km2  of  mainly  rural  areas.  The  SPD  presented  to  the 
Commission  on  20 April  1995  was  adopted  on  15 November  1995  and  provided  for  ECU  165.6  million 
in  Structural  Funds  assistance  to a programme  costing a total  of ECU  831.4  million. 

Objectif  1:  Autriche 

-  la  programmation 

1995-1999 

S.F. 

Priorities 

Total  cost 

Total 

assistance 
ESF 

EMU F 

National 

Private 

EAGOF 

public 

contribution 

contribution 

1 rade  and  industry  (a) 

Research  &  development  (b) 

Tourism  (c) 

Agriculture  and  environment 
Promotion  of  job  creation  and 
stability  (e) 
Technical  assistance  (f) 

(d) 

360,9 

82,6 

191,5 

125,0 

63,0 

8.4 

56,8 

15,5 

38,7 

24,2 

26,3 

4,1 

53,8 

12,5 

38,7 

3,0 

3,0 

0,7 

2,0 

25,6 

1,5 

Total 

831,4 

165,6 

107,6 

33,1 

24,2 

0,6 

24,8 

I  14,4 

26,9 

63,2 

48,2 

26,7 

4,2 

283,6 

189,7 

40,2 

89,6 

52,6 

10,0 

382,1 

(e)  8% 

(f)  1% 

(a)  43% 

(d)  15% 

(C)  23% 

(b)  10% 

The  general  aims  of  the  regional  development  programme  are  to  create  in  central  Europe  a  region  with 
dynamic  industrial,  commercial,  tourist  and  agricultural  sectors  and  to  reduce  internal  economic 
disparities  by  creating  a  more  uniform  standard  of  living  throughout  the  region.  The  measures  financed 
will  create  an  extra  7 300  jobs  (6 000  in  industry,  1 000  in  technology-based  SMEs  and  300  in 
technology  centres). 

A few  general priorities: 
•  Particular  attention  will  be paid to ways  of  increasing job  opportunities  for 
women,  unskilled  labour  and  young  people  in  essentially  rural  areas,  this 
being  an  essential  way  of  stopping  population  drift  and  reducing  out-
migration. 

•  Measures  to  train  and  reskill  local  labour  are  aimed  at  better  meeting  the 
needs ofthe  region with regard to training SME entrepreneurs  in technology 
and to development ofthe  local economy. 
Internationalization,  cooperation and networking, reflecting  the geographical 
situation  of Burgenland  and  its cooperation  with  Hungary  and  other  central 
and eastern European countries. 

• 

•  Preservation of a unique environment: The  measure  "protection  of  nature 
and  the environment"  (ECU 800 000 of  Structural  Funds  money;  total  cost: 
2.26  million)  provides  part-finance  for  projects  in  protected  zones  and 
landscapes  attractive  to tourism: the Burgenland  ecological  programme,  the 
programme  to  clean  up  the  Neusiedlersee,  the  Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel 
national  park  and  the  programme  to  protect  threatened  biotopes  and 
habitats. 

The  opportunities  offered  by  the  new  situation  in  central  Europe  and  by  the  accession  of  Austria  to  the 
European  Union  need  to  be  fully  exploited  to  the  profit  of  Burgenland  between  1995  and  1999.  In  this 
respect,  the  growth  potential  in  neighbouring  countries  and  the  other  regions  of  Austria  should  have  a 
very  favourable  impact  on  the  future  prospects  for  northern  and  central  Burgenland.  The  southern  part 
does  not  benefit  from  the  same  external  stimuli  and  will  have  to  concentrate  on  the  development  of  its 
locally-generated  potential  (particularly  spa tourism)  while  drawing  maximum  benefit  from  cross-border 
cooperation. 

118 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Table  64:  Objective  1 - Austria  - Financial  implementation  ofthe  SPD (ECU  million) 

Total  cost 

5T: 
assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1TiJ\ 

TOJI 

"2571 

TJ% 

\AJ\ 

~5Wo 

Programme 
and 
year  of adoption 

T9T5 

SPD  Burgenland 

Objective  6 

Objective  6  w as  introduced  by the Act of  Accession  and targets  the development  of  sparsely  populated 
areas;  this  is  understood  to  mean  a  population  density  of  no  more  than  8  inhabitants  per  square 
kilometre.  T he areas  in Finland  and Sweden  eligible  under  Objective  6 were  defined  in Protocol  No  6 to 
the  Act of Accession.  As a  general  rule,  the provisions  o f t he  Structural  Funds  Regulations,  in  particular 
those  applicable  to Objective  1, also  apply to Objective  6. 

Table  65:  Objective  6 in Finland  and  Sweden  - basic  statistics 

Total 
Objective  6 
population 

Vo  of 
national 
total 

Finland 
Sweden 
TOTAL 

840.000 
449.000 
1.289.000 

17% 
5% 
-

total 
Objective  6 
area  (km2) 
206.000 
241.640 
447.640 

%  of 
national 
total 

60% 
50% 
-

FINLAND 

The  Finnish  regions  eligible  under  Objective  6  cover  a  continuous  surface  comprising  the  regions  of 
Lappi (Lappland), Kainuu, Pohjois-Karjala  (North Karelia) and Etelâ-Savo (South  Savo) and parts  ofthe 
regions  of  North  and  Central  Ostrobothnia,  Pohjois-Savo  (North  Savo)  and  Keski-Suomi  (Central 
Finland).  The  average  population  density  is  4  inhabitants  per  km  .  The  increase  in  unemployment 
resulting from  the crisis  in the  1990s has worsened  the traditional  problems  in those  regions  - a gradual 
decrease  in population  and  an  exodus  from  the  land towards the towns. All the  regions  are  also  highly 
dependent  on  the  agriculture  and  forestry  sectors  and  on  public  services,  and  the  industrial  base  is 
unbalanced,  concentrated  on  a number  of major  forestry,  metals  and chemicals  businesses. In  addition, 
there are relatively few  SMEs and job losses in the public sector are affecting  women more than men. 

The Objective  6 SPD was presented  to the Commission  on 8 March  1995 and adopted  on  11 July  1995. 
Its strategy  is to develop the strengths ofthe  regions: timber and forestry  products, specialized  branches 
of  agriculture,  metals,  electronics  and  tourism.  It  is  aimed  at  creating  a  stronger  SME  sector  through 
incentives  to  establish  local  industry  and  private  service  firms  and  through  training  and  R&D.  The 
programme  also  aims  to  exploit  to  their  maximum  the  opportunities  offered  by  new  technologies, 
particularly  in telecommunications,  so as to counteract the effect  of the  long distances. Because  of the 
significance  of  agriculture,  particularly  in  the  southern  parts  of  the  zone,  about  a  quarter  of  the 
programme  is  to  be  earmarked  for  aid  to  farmers  under  the  system  of  aid  to  less-favoured  areas 
(Objective  5(a)).  The  programme  also  contains  ESF  measures  to  aid  the  unemployed  and  to  support 
training. The ESF will also finance  projects relating to the information  society. 

During  negotiations  with  the  Finnish  authorities,  a  number  of  amendments  were  made  to  the 
programmes  initially  presented.  The  Community  part-financing  rate  for  the  less-favoured  areas  was 
reduced  so  as  to  release  appropriations  for  development.  Basic  infrastructure  projects  were  abandoned 
and  measures  relating  to  human  resources  in  the  information  society  were  strengthened.  Lastly,  a 
number of relatively minor measures were regrouped  into a package of flexible rural development which 
will  finance  mainly  local  projects  in  a  large  variety  of  sectors,  including  projects  relating  to  the  Sami 
minority  in northern  Lappland. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Objective  6, Finland  - programming 

for  1995-99  (ECU  million) 

119 

Priorities 

Total cost 

Total 

ERDF 

S.F. assistance 
ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

National 
public 
contribution 

Private 
contribution 

( d)  1% 

(a )  39% 

Industrial development  (a) 
Development  of human resources  (b) 
Agriculture, forestry,  fisheries,  rural 
development  & environment  (c) 
Technical assistance (d) 

513,4 
189,8 

604,5 
18,4 

Total 

1.326,1 

153,7 
87,9 

209,1 
9,2 

459,9 

133,8 
16,7 

18,6 
3,4 

172,5 

19,9 
71,2 

12,6 

2,1 
105,8 

0,0 
0,0 

174,0 
3,6 

177,6 

0,0 
0,0 

3,9 
0,1 

4,0 

153,7 
87,9 

280,5 
9,2 

531,3 

206,0 
14.0 

114,9 

334,9 

(c)  46% 

( b)  14% 

The final programme  consists of three priorities: industrial  development,  the  creation  of businesses  and 
investment  in  existing  businesses,  and  human  resources,  comprising  training  and  advice  to  the 
unemployed, research  and the information  society, and agriculture, forestry,  fisheries,  rural  development 
and  the  environment.  The  Community  contribution  to  the  programme  is  ECU 459.9  million  (a  major 
proportion  of  this,  39%, coming  from  the  EAGGF  as  a  result  ofthe  size  of  compensatory  allowance 
payments) out of total expenditure of ECU  1  326 million. 

Measures for  the environment: 
Under the industrial development and environmental protection priorities,  the Finnish SPD provides 
for  environmental measures requiring a Community contribution of ECU 14.4 million: 
•  Firstly,  to  encourage  the  use  of  biomass  and  other  renewable  energy  sources  and  to  develop 
energy infrastructures and networks (Structural Funds assistance: ECU 8 million; total cost: 35.3 
million).  This relates, inter alia, to environmentally sound production  methods  (renewable energy 
sources, emission reduction, etc) and measures for  the rational use of energy. 

•  The environmental protection  measure provides for  improving water supply  and  waste  disposal 
systems,  developing  recycling, environmental protection  in tourist centres,  investments in nature 
reserves,  environmental  studies,  environmental  management  plans,  etc.  (Structural  Funds 
assistance: ECU 6.4 million, total cost: 16 million). 

The aims ofthe  programme are to reduce the rate of unemployment  by 2% and to put 8 000 people back 
to work each  year, this  in a region  which  had 90 600 jobless  in  1994 (24% ofthe  active  population): to 
increase  to  135 000  the  number  of jobs  in  the  private  services  and  industry  (117 500  in  1994): and  to 
reduce by 5 points (from  20% to  15%) the gap between  local GDP and the national average. 

Management ofthe  SPD is shared  between the regions and central government.  Each  region has adopted 
its  own  programme  which  it  will  implement  in  accordance  with  a  common  framework  of  project 
selection  procedures  and  criteria  via  a  regional  management  committee  comprising  representatives  of 
the  region,  of  the  ministries'  local  offices  and  of  the  social  partners.  This  is  why  the  programme  is 
contained  in  a  single  SPD  with  a  single  Monitoring  Committee.  Two  meetings  of  the  Monitoring 
Committee took  place, in September and November  1995. 

SWEDEN 

There are seven  Swedish  regions eligible under Objective  6, located  in the north ofthe  country. They are 
one  entire  county  (Jamtland),  and  parts  of  six  others  (Vàrmland,  Kopparberg,  Gàvleborg, 
Vâsternorrland, Vàsterbotten  and Norrbotten). Their  population  density  is 2  inhabitants  per  km".  These 
areas taken as a whole are characterized  by small  urban centres separated  by long distances, with  a third 
ofthe  population  living  in very  isolated  habitats outside those centres. The sparseness  ofthe  population 
in the  interior  of the  region  along  with  the  resulting  close  dependence  on  the  coastal  regions  creates  a 
great  demand  for  infrastructure  and  social  solidarity.  The  rate  of  unemployment  is  13%  and  jobs, 
particularly  those for  women, are mainly  in the public sector  followed  by forestry  and  mining,  which  is 
in decline, in second place. 

The  SPD  was  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  6 November  1995  and  provides  for  a  Structural  Funds 
contribution  of ECU 252 million to a total cost ECU 635 million. The aim ofthe  programme  is to help to 
overcome  the  problems  linked  to  the  remoteness  of  the  region,  to job  losses  in  traditional  industries 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

(especially  in  the  mines)  and  to  population  imbalances  caused  by  the  exodus  of  women  and  young 
people.  The  programme  also  seeks  to  develop  the  strengths  of  the  region:  its  unspoilt  environment, 
abundant  natural  resources  and  relatively  well  developed  infrastructures.  The  SPD  therefore  seeks  to 
create jobs  in the  private  sector  so as to reduce  unemployment  and  offset  the  planned job  losses  in  the 
public sector, which will mainly hit women. The viability ofthe  widely scattered  small communities will 
depend on their capacity to create new jobs and keep the region attractive as a place  in which to live and 
work. 

Objective  6, Sweden  - programming 

for  1995-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 

Total cost 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

S.F. assistance 

National 
public 
contribution 

Private 
contribution 

(e)  2% 

(f)  2% 

( a)  43% 

Lmployment, trade and industry  (a) 
Promotion  of know-how  (b) 
Agriculture, fisheries  & natural  res. (c) 
Rural  development  & community  work  (d) 
Sami population  (e) 
Technical  assistance  (f) 

Total 

269,4 
102,7 
151,5 
85,4 
15,7 
10,3 
635,0 

82,6 
48,8 
66,1 
41,7 
7,6 
5,2 
252,0 

58,2 
35,7 
12,5 
13,7 
0,0 
2,5 
122,6 

26.9 
13,1 
6,0 
20,C 
2.6 
1.3 
63,9 

3,5 
0,0 
43,6 
8,0 
5,0 
1,2 
61,4 

0,0 
0,0 
4,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
4,1 

80,2 
40,4 
61,0 
41,7 
7,6 
5,2 
236,1 

106.6 
13,5 
24,4 
2,0 
0,5 

147,0 

(C)  24% 

( b)  16% 

The programme's strategy, which revolves around five priorities, is also based on a number of horizontal 
themes: maximum  use ofthe  information  technologies in all socio-economic activities, guaranteed  equal 
opportunities  for  men  and  women,  preservation  of  the  exceptional  natural  environment  and  cultural 
heritage, exploiting the competitive advantages ofthe  region, and  improving the skills and  qualifications 
of  individuals. There  is also a set of measures to help firms and  increase their  competitiveness,  develop 
the  potential  of  RTD  and  information  technologies,  develop  natural  and  agricultural  resources  while 
respecting the environment, expand tourism, encourage local  initiatives and  improve the level of training 
and  qualifications.  The  special  priority  for the  Sami people  will  help to preserve  their environment  and 
their traditional  way of life, the farming  of reindeer. 

Measures for  the environment: 
The Swedish SPD provides for  two measures with Community funding  of ECU 6 million: 
• 

for  natural resources and conservation ofthe  country-side: measures for  recycling, improvement of 
water  supply  and  drainage  systems,  research  and  pilot  projects  in  environmentally  sound 
agriculture,  and  development  of  better  environmental  management  systems  (Structural  Funds 
contribution: ECU 4 million; total cost: 8 million); 
to  support  training  in  environmental 
to  develop  environmental  expertise,  it  is  planned 
technologies, the training of farmers  and forest  owners in environmental management, training in 
recycling for  industry and commerce, new water technologies, and publicity  in the tourism sector 
on  public  right  of  access  to  the  countryside  ("allemansrdtt") (Structural  Funds  contribution: 
ECU2  million; total cost: 4 million). 

• 

The  general  targets  of  the  programme  are  to  create  or  preserve  about  9 500  jobs,  to  reduce  the  gap 
between  the  per  capita  GDP  in  the  region  (excluding  energy  production)  and  the  national  average,  to 
create 900 new firms and to increase expertise in information  technologies. 

The  majority  of  the  programme  budget  (80%)  will  be  executed  by  regional  management  committees 
made up from  existing  local  and regional  structures. Some measures, for  example those  under  Objective 
5(a), will be managed  by central  bodies, while the Sami will receive a global  grant. The first meeting  of 
the  SPD  Monitoring  Committee  took  place  in  December  1995  and  the  approval  and  execution  ofthe 
projects commenced  in that year. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

121 

Table 66:  Objective 6 - Financial  implementation  ofthe  SPDs (ECU million) 

Programmed 
Adopted 
% 
Commitments  1995 
%  of  assistance 
Payments  1995 
%  of  assistance 

Fl 
459,9 
459,9 
100% 
81,0 
18% 
40,5 
9% 

sv 
252,0 
252,0 
100% 
44,9 
18% 
22,5 
9% 

Total 

711,9 
711,9 
100% 
125,9 
18% 
63,0 
9% 

7.2.  Objective  2 

The  Commission,  acting  in  accordance  with  the  Regulations  governing  the  Structural  Funds  and  the 
provisions  ofthe  Act  of  Accession  of Austria,  Finland  and  Sweden  and  with  the  unanimous  approval  of 
the Committee  for  the  Development  and  Conversion  of Regions, adopted  the  lists  of  zones  eligible  under 
Objective  2 for  Austria  and  Finland  on  22 February  199555 and  for  Sweden  on  10 May  199556. 

Table 6 7:  Objective 2 in the new Member States - basic statistics 

N u m b er  of 
e l i g i b le  r e g i o ns 
4 
6 
5 

Total  Objective  2 
population 

Vo 
of  total 

Total  a r ea 

/o 
of  total 

640.000 
790.000 
970.000 

8% 
15% 
11% 

8.692 
17.000 
35.325 

10% 
5% 
8% 

A u s t r ia 
Finland 
Sweden 

AUSTRIA 

The  Austrian  authorities  presented  proposals  for  the  four  Austrian  Objective  2  regions  (Styria,  Lower 
Austria,  Upper  Austria  and  Vorarlberg)  on  26 April  1995,  and  the  Commission  adopted  the  SPDs  on 
15 November  1995. The  programmes  cover the  period  1995-99. Their  total  cost  is  ECU  816  million,  and 
the  Structural  Funds  contribution  is ECU  101  million. 

Table 68:  Objective 2 - Austria  - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund  (ECU million) 

SPD 

Total 

cost 

lotal 

ERDF 

ESF 

S.t. 

assistance 

Styria 
Lower  Austria 
Upper  Austria 
Vorarlberg 

T O T AL 

463,4 
199.2 
67.0 
86,6 
816,1 

58,0 
22,4 
10,8 
9,9 
101,0 

38,8 
17,9 
7,1 
6,4 
70,2 

National 
public 
contribution 

Private 
contribution 

19.2 
4.5 
3.6 
3.5 
30,8 

123.7 
33.7 
18.7 
12.0 
188,2 

281.7 
143.0 
37.5 
64.7 
5 26,9 

The  strategy  behind  the  SPDs  is to  modernize  and  diversify  the  economy  in these  areas, which  have  been 
hit  by  the  rapid  decline  in  the  metallurgical,  mining  and  textile  sectors.  The  accent  is  on  creating  new 
enterprises  and  strengthening  existing  ones  (particularly  SMEs)  by  developing  new  technical  skills. 
About  60%  of  the  available  resources  are  earmarked  for  strengthening  industry  and  the  handicrafts 
sector  and  the  corresponding  technical  skills;  30%  will  help  to  finance  measures  to  provide  human 
resources  with  skills  and  7%  will  help  to  develop  and  promote  tourism.  It  is  estimated  that  measures 
financed  under  the  four  SPDs  will  help to create or maintain  11 000 jobs. 

55 OJNoL  51, 8.3.1995. 
5 6O J N oL  123,3.6.1995. 

122 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds  (1995) 

Objective  2 Austria  - programming 

for  1995-99 
Total 

S.F. 

assistance 

National 

Private 

Priorities 

cost 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

public 

contribution 

contribution 

(d)  9% 

(e)i% 

Investments  in  enterprises  (including 
tourism)  (a) 

R&D,  innovation,  technology  transfer  (b) 

Infrastructures  supporting  activities  (c) 

Training  and  reskilling  (d) 

Technical  assistance  (e) 

573,4 

84,4 

76,6 

75,6 

6,1 

40,8 

10,2 

16,7 

30,5 

2,8 

40,8 

10,2 

16,7 

0,0 

2,5 

TOTAL 

816,1 

101,0 

70,2 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

30,5 

0,3 
30,8 

84,9 

23,2 

35,1 

41,7 

3,3 
188,2 

447,7 

51,0 

24,8 

3,4 

0,0 
526,9 

(a)  71« 

Integration ofthe  environment: 
Environmental  protection  is  an  integral  part  of  the  SPDs  and  is  included  in  support  for  the 
introduction of  "clean" technologies and the use of alternative energy sources: 
• 

In  Styria,  two  measures  under  two  different  priorities  (investment  in  industry  and  tourism, 
technology  transfer  and  advice) provide for  support  to  investment  in  environmental  protection 
enterprises and advice on energy-saving and environmental technologies. 
In  Vorarlberg,  the  know-how  improvement  measure  provides  for  aid  to  pilot  and  full-scale 
projects  promoting  the  rational  use  of  energy  and  more  environmentally-sound  production 
methods. 
in Lower  Austria,  action  to  help  the  environment  is planned  within three  measures:  economic 
restructuring:  support  to  investment by  enterprises  (rational  use of  energy,  reducing  industrial 
waste and air pollution,  etc); advisory services to enterprises: advice to SMEs  (waste treatment, 
pollution  reduction,  audits,  etc), and  economic  infrastructure: investments in renewable  energy 
sources (solar, biomass, wind,  hydro-electricity,  etc). 

• 

• 

In  addition,  there  are  special  measures  aimed  at  the  reintegration  of  women  into  the  labour  market, 
mainly  in  Lower  and  Upper  Austria.  Technical  assistance  will  be  supplied  to  strengthen  and  create 
regional  management  structures  aiding the  development  and  launching  of  innovative  project  ideas  and 
the coordination  of regional development  efforts. 

Table 69:  Objective 2 - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

P r og r a m m e s 
and 
year  of adoption 

Total  cost 

S.F. 
assistance 

(I) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1995 

SPD  Lower  Austria 
SPD  Upper  Austria 
SPD  Styria 
SPD  Vorarlberg 

T O T AL 

FINLAND 

199,2 
67,0 
463,4 
86,6 
816,1 

22,4 
10,8 
58,0 
9,9 
101,0 

22,4 
10,8 
11,1 
9,9 
54,1 

100% 
100% 
19% 
100% 
5 4% 

7.6 
3,9 
5,6 
4.3 
21,4 

34% 
37% 
50% 
44% 
4 0% 

Six  industrial  areas  of  Finland  are  eligible  under  Objective  2.  Programming  is  integrated  into  a  single 
SPD for  1995-96, the  Finnish  authorities having opted to present  a new programme  for  1997-99. Three 
ofthe  areas are coastal  regions (parts ofthe  regions Satakunta and South-West  Finland on the west coast 
and  Ita-Uusimaa  and  Kymenlaakso  on  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Finland  and  Kokkola  on  the 
northwestern  coast);  the  other  three  are  in  the  interior,  in  the  regions  of  Paijat-Hame  (Lahti)  and  in 
Central  Finland  (Jyvàskylà)  and  South  Karelia  (Lappeenranta).  The  main  problem  is  the  high  rate  of 
unemployment  (an  average  23% in  1994 against  a national  average  of  20%), due  to  structural  changes 
and  the  constant  erosion  of  jobs  in  the  main  industries,  dominated  by  the  major  companies  in  the 
forestry,  metals and chemicals sectors. The structural  decline in employment  in those  industries has been 
speeded  up by the collapse  in trade with Russia after  1990. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

123 

Dependence  on  a few  large employers  is one ofthe  weak  points  in these  regions.  Because  of  this, the 
SPD  stresses  the  development  and  diversification  of  SMEs.  In  addition  to  aid  for  setting  up  new 
enterprises,  the  programme  encourages  the  development  of  existing  SMEs  through  investments, 
research, the development of new products and improving skills in technology and  marketing, hence the 
importance  of  training  and  networking  with  other  SMEs  or  larger  enterprises  (grouped  development). 
Lastly, the programme  is aimed  at developing Finland's role as an access route to Russia and the  Baltic 
States, especially by means of targeted investments in the ports used for transit trade. 

Objective  2  Finland 

- programming 

for  1995-96 

Priorities 

D e v e l o p m e nt  of  e n t e r p r i s es  ( a) 

Skills  a nd  t e c h n o l o g i es  ( b) 

E n v i r o n m e n t,  i n f r a s t r u c t u r es  a nd  t o u r i sm 

(c) 

T e c h n i c al  a s s i s t a n ce  ( d) 

Total 

cost 

1 7 2 .8 

4 5 ,6 

6 1 ,8 

2,8 

T O T AL 

2 8 3 ,0 

S.F. 

assistance 

National 

Private 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

public 

contribut 

on 

(C)  22% 

(d)  1 

contribution 

3 6 ,6 

16,3 

1 4 ,9 

1,4 

5 9 ,2 

3 0,5 

8,7 

14,9 

I.I 

5 5 ,2 

6.1 

7.6 

0,0 

0,3 

1 4 ,0 

4 9 .4 

20.1 

3 7 ,0 

1,4 

1 0 7 ,9 

8 6 ,8 

9.2 

9.9 

1 0 5 ,9 

(b)  16 

(a)  61% 

The  programme  was  presented  to  the  Commission  on  8 March  1995  and  adopted  on  11 July  1995.  It 
contains three priorities: the development of enterprises; the development of skills and technologies; and 
the environment,  infrastructures  and tourism. The Community contribution  is ECU 69.2 million, and the 
total cost  is ECU 283  million. The aims ofthe  programme are a net increase of about  10 000 jobs  in the 
industry  and  service  sectors,  a  reduction  in  the  rate  of jobless  towards  the  national  average,  a  3% 
increase in the number of SMEs and a 3% increase in the number of exporting SMEs. 

Two environmental protection  measures: 
One is included in the priority for  the development of skills and technologies and the other in that for 
the environment proper: 
•  The measure  "development and  application of environmental technologies"  (ECU  300 000 from 
the  gathering  and 
the  Structural  Funds,  total  cost:  ECU  1.1  million)  provides  aid  for 
dissemination  of  information  on  "green" technologies, for  the  development  of  environmentally-
sound products  and production  methods,  and for  studies  into  environmental  research  and  into 
cooperation between enterprises in the environmental field. 

•  The measure  "environmental protection  and urban renewal" (Structural Funds: ECU 6.9  million, 
•  total cost: ECU 30 million) provides  aid for  the renovation and use of vacant industrial structures, 
for  improving the environment in town centres, for public awareness campaigns on environmental 
issues, and for  research and development in waste treatment. 

Programme  management  is divided  between the regions and central  government.  Each  area has adopted 
its  own  programme  which  it  is  implementing  in  accordance  with  a  common  framework  of  selection 
procedures and criteria via a regional management committee composed  of representatives ofthe  region, 
of  the  regional  offices  of  the  ministries  and  of  the  social  partners.  This  is  why  the  programme  is 
integrated  into  a  single  programming  document  with  a  single  national  monitoring  committee.  The 
Monitoring Committee met twice: in September and November  1995. 

Table 70:  Objective 2 - Finland - Financial implementation ofthe SPD (ECU million) 

Programme 
and 
year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

assistance 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

~~%~ 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% 
(3)H2) 

TWT 

SPD  Finland 

18TÏÏ1 

TOI 

"3TT]~ 

-FVÔ] 

T376I 

IrWo 

124 

SWEDEN 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

The  proposals  covering  the  five  Swedish  Objective  2 regions  (Angermanlandskust,  Blekinge,  Fyrstad, 
Norra  Norrlandskust  and  Bergslagen,  with  a  total  population  of  970 000)  were  presented  to  the 
Commission  on  16 June  1995  and  the  five  SPDs,  which  cover  the  period  1995-99,  were  adopted  on 
22 November  1995. The  five  regions  are  characterized  by  a  high  degree  of  dependence  on  traditional 
industries  (forestry,  mining, mechanical  engineering), the dominance  of one or two  large employers  on 
the  local  labour markets, a weak  enterprise  spirit and  a tendency  for people to  leave  resulting  in ageing 
of  the  remaining  population.  The  programmes  provide  for  a  total  Structural  Funds  contribution  of 
ECU  160 million to a total cost of just over ECU 800 million. 

The  main  challenge  facing  these  regions  is  to  create  new jobs  to  compensate  for  the  losses  suffered 
recently  in traditional  industries  and  those  anticipated  in the public  sector.  The  main  aim  ofthe  SPD is 
therefore  to modernize and diversify  the economies in the regions so as to provide a solid foundation  for 
the creation of jobs  in the private sector. The five programmes seek to improve the business  environment 
in  the  regions  concerned  and  strengthen  SMEs  in  the  productive  sector  and  services  to  businesses. 
Another  aim  is to develop tourist activities  based  on the rich cultural  heritage  and  natural  beauty  of the 
regions. It is estimated that implementing the programmes will create 21 000 new jobs. 

Table  71:  Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial breakdown by region and by Fund (ECU million) 

SPD 

Total  cost 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

S.F. 

assistance 

Angermanlandskust 
Bergslagen 
Blekinge 
Fyrstad 
Norra  Norrlandskust 

T O T AL 

89,5 
321,4 
85,8 
145,5 
161,0 
803,2 

18,0 
67,0 
15,0 
24,0 
36,0 
160,0 

14,2 
47,5 
12,3 
19,0 
28,7 
121,7 

National 
public 
contribution 

Private 
contribution 

3,8 
19,5 
2,7 
5,0 
7,3 
38,3 

29,5 
150,9 
33.1 
56,0 
83,0 
352,5 

42.0 
103,5 
37,7 
65.5 
42,0 
290,7 

In order to achieve these strategic aims, the priorities are centered  on the development  of businesses and 
industry,  tourism  and  human  resources.  Aid  will  go to  advisory  services,  networking  and  research  and 
training activities  so as to encourage  diversification  and  increase the competitiveness  of businesses  and 
the export potential. To stimulate innovation  in SMEs, the SPDs provide for  aid to business  networking, 
collaboration  between  businesses  and  centres  of  expertise  and  SME  staff  training.  Efforts  will  also  be 
made to attract  investments  (restructuring  and  cleaning-up of  industrial  sites  and  promotion  activities). 
Lastly,  the  programmes  will  assist  measures  to  encourage  the  development  of  tourist  activities  (for 
example,  small-scale  tourist  infrastructures,  the  organization  of  cultural  events  emphasising  the  rich 
heritage  of  the  regions,  the  development  of  new  attractions).  These  priorities  are  based  on  horizontal 
themes  such  as  the  development  of  information  technologies,  the  promotion  of  equal  opportunities, 
conservation  ofthe  environment and increasing skills and know-how. 

Measures for  the  environment: 
Each ofthe  Swedish SPDs include such measures, which concern: 
•  The renovation and cleaning-up of abandoned industrial sites and structures  (Bergslagen: ERDF: 

ECU 3 million; total cost: 16 million). 

•  Aid  for  the development  of  environmentally-sound products  and for  the  introduction  of  "clean" 

technologies into SMEs (Fyrstad: ERDF: ECU 600 000; total cost: 3.6 million). 

•  Aid for  the conservation and maintenance ofthe  heritage (Fyrstad: ERDF: ECU 1.6 million; total 

cost: 9.1  million; Norra Norrlandskust: ERDF: ECU 1.8 million; total cost: 8.7 million). 

The  main  beneficiaries  ofthe  programmes  will  be the  SMEs, those  wishing  to  start  up businesses,  the 
municipalities, various  local organizations and training and R&D institutions. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

Objective  2 Sweden 

- programming 

Priorities 

for  1995-99 
Total 
cost 

S.F. 

assistance 

National 

Private 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

public 
contribution 

contribution 

Development  of  enterprises  (a) 
Innovation,  research  &  technology  (b) 
Enterprise  environment,  tourism,  local 
development  (c) 
Training,  skills  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 

453,1 

86,7 

157,1 

97,2 

9,1 

79,5 

17,8 

33,8 

24,3 

4,6 

63,5 

17,8 

30,8 

6,2 

3,4 

TOTAL 

803,2 

160,0 

121,7 

16 

0,0 

3 

18,1 

1,2 
38,3 

171,7 

39,8 

89,6 

46,9 

4,5 
352,5 

201,9 

29,1 

33,7 

26,0 

0,0 

290,7 

(d)  12% 

( e) 

1% 

(C)  20% 

( b)  1 1% 

( a)  56% 

Programming will be carried out through partnership  involving the Commission, central government and 
regional  and  local  authorities  representing  all  local  interests,  including the  social  partners,  via  a  system 
of management  committees  under one general  Monitoring  Committee  for the  SPD. The first  meeting of 
the five SPD Monitoring Committees was held in December 1995. 

Table  72:  Objective 2 - Sweden - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es 
and 

year  of  adoption 

Total  cost 

S.F. 
assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1995 

SPD  Angermanlandskust 
SPD  Bergslagen 
SPD  Blekinge 
SPD  Fyrstad 
SPD  Norra  NorrlaniJskust 

TOTAL 

7.3.  Objectives 3 and 4 

^ 9 ,5 
321,4 
85,8 
145,5 
161,0 
803,2 

18.0 
67.0 
15,0 
24,0 
36,0 
160,0 

18.0 
12,8 
15,0 
24,0 
36,0 
105,8 

100% 
19% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
6 6% 

6,2 
6.4 
5,0 
8,2 
12,3 
38,1 

34% 
50% 
34% 
34% 
34% 
3 6% 

As for the other Objectives,  1995 was the year in which the Objective  3 and 4 SPDs for the new  Member 
States were established  in an active partnership process. 

Table  73:  Objectives  3  and 4 -  Indicative  breakdown  of  appropriations for  the new Member States  (ECU 

million) 

A u s t r ia 
F i n l a nd 
S w e d en 

T o t al 

O b j e c t i v es  3  a nd  4 
395,0 
343,0 
520,0 

1 . 2 5 8 ,0 

O b j e c t i ve  3 

O b j e c t i ve  4 

334,0 
258,4 
347.0 

9 3 9 ,4 

61.0 
84.6 
173.0 

3 1 8 ,6 

AUSTRIA 

The  Austrian  Objective  3 and  4  SPDs were adopted  in July  1995. They  represent  total  ESF  funding  of 
ECU 395  million  and  are  implemented  under the  general  responsibility  ofthe  Minister  for  Labour  and 
Social  Affairs,  mainly  via  the  public  employment  service  and  the  Lander  social  affairs  departments. 
They cover  1995-99. 

126 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Objective  3: Programming for  1995-99  (ECU  million) 
Priorities 

Support  for categories  hit by  structural  changes  (a) 
Integration  ofthe  long-term  unemployed, old people and 
those  threatened  with  exclusion  (b) 
Integration  ofthe  handicapped  (c) 
Aid  for integration  of y o u ng  people  into  employment (d) 
Promotion  of equal  opportunities  (e) 
Technical  assistance  (f) 

ESF 

25,8 

113,8 
95,2 
22,9 
61,1 
15,2 

Total  334,0 

(f)  5% 

(a) 8% 

(e) 18% 

(d)  7% 

(C)  29% 

(b)  33% 

Objective 3: Under this  Objective  special  priority will be given to aid for those  parts of the  population 
particularly  affected  by economic trends  resulting  from  accession. The ESF funding  - continuance and 
deepening of Austrian  labour market policies - will be targeted mainly at the long-term  unemployed, old 
people  and  those  threatened  with  exclusion  from  the  labour  market.  There  will  be  sizeable  aid to 
encourage  unemployed  handicapped  people to reintegrate  into the labour  market.  Additional  measures 
will promote equal opportunities and the integration of young people into the labour market. "~~ 

Objective  4: Programming  for  1995-99  (ECU  million) 
Priorities 
Anticipation  of labour  market  trends  and  updating  of skills  (a) 
Professional  training  (b) 
Improvement  and development  of training  system  (c) 
Technical  assistance  (d) 

Total 

I  ESF 
4~JT 
46,0 
8,4 
2,1 
61,0 

(C)  14% 

<d>  3% 

<a) 

7% 

(b)  76% 

Objective 4: The main aim ofthe  SPD is to help salaried  staff to adjust  to industrial  change and to  new 
production  methods.  To this  end, in accordance  with the principle  of concentration,  measures  will be 
centered  around  SMEs. They will target old workers, unskilled workers or workers with  obsolete  skills, 
workers in key positions, customs agents, short-time and seasonal workers. Since this is a new approach 
to  labour  policy  in Austria, the measures  will  be evaluated  after  two years and adjusted  or replaced  if 
necessary. 

Implementation  ofthe  programmes  in 1995 was facilitated  by the decision  ofthe  Austrian  authorities to 
pay advances to project  promoters. However, the socio-economic  effects  will  only become clear  during 
the course of 1996. 

Table 74:  Objectives 3 and 4 - Austria - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

Programmes 
and 
year  of adoption 

total  cost 

S.K. 
assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

/o 
(3)/(2) 

Objective 3 
1995 

SPD  Austria 

Objective 4 
7 ^5 

SPD  Austria 

TOTAL 

FINLAND 

779,3 

334,0 

64,1 

19% 

32.0 

50% 

171,4 
950,6 

61,0 
395,0 

11,7 
75,8 

19% 
19% 

5^ 
3 7,9 

50% 
5 0% 

Finland  was the first of the  new Member  States  to have  its ESF programmes  approved.  The Finnish 
Objective  3 and 4 SPDs  were  adopted  on 25 July  1995 and provide  for total  ESF funding  of ECU 343 
million. This is equivalent to 7% ofthe  national  funds  earmarked  for employment  measures.  Finland is 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

127 

one ofthe  most advanced  countries  in Europe  in terms of education, training and employment  policy  so 
the ESF measures and programmes give a significant  place to innovative measures. 

With  regard  to  implementation,  Monitoring  Committees  have been  set  up for  each  Objective  and  all  of 
them  have  already  met.  Several  seminars,  preparatory  meetings  and  working  parties  have  also  been 
organized. The monitoring and evaluation rules have been developed with the Finnish authorities and the 
Monitoring  Committees  will  take  decisions  on  them  during  the  first  half  of  1996.  The  employment 
ministry  will  be responsible  for  coordinating  Objective  3 and 4 measures  and  will  coordinate,  with  the 
competent  authorities,  the  human  resources  measures  under  all  Objectives.  It  will  be  responsible  for 
executing  most ofthe  ESF horizontal  programmes.  Establishment  ofthe  budget  and  national  rules  will 
guarantee wide distribution ofthe  decision-making procedures applied to ESF projects. 

Objective 3: The SPD is designed to combat unemployment and trigger economic growth by the creation 
of SMEs. Some 97 400 people should benefit from the measures programmed  under Objective 3. 

Objective  3:  Programming  for  1995-99  (ECU  million) 

Priorities 

Reintegration  pathways  (a) 
Job  creation  and  human  resources  development  in  SMEs  (b) 
Young  people's  employment  needs  (c) 
Measures  in  favour  o f t he  Aland  islands  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 

I  ESF 

110,0 
61,5 
82,2 
0,8 
3,9 

(d)  0,3%  (e)  2% 

( a)  42% 

(c)  32% 

Total 

258,4 

( b)  24% 

In  early  1995  the  Finnish  authorities  speeded  up  the  launch  of  the  programme  by  introducing  an 
"absolute  priority  procedure".  Drawing  up  new  working  methods  and  practical  models,  the 
administrative  procedure and the creation  ofthe  necessary tools had taken  longer than  anticipated.  Most 
ofthe  projects  started  up in late autumn. A total of 204 projects  started  up  in  1995. Given  the  problems 
bound to be encountered  in the first year, this overall picture for  1995 is  satisfactory. 

Objective 4:  Objective  4  will  receive  total  funding  of  ECU 84.6  million  in  1995-99.  It  contains  three 
priorities and should benefit  34 500 people. 

Objective  4:  Programming  for  1995-99  (ECU  million) 
Priorities 

Forecasts  of  trends  throughout  working  life  (a) 
Professional  training  and  retraining;  guidance  and  advice  (b) 
Development  of  innovative  know-how  and  networks  (c) 
Measures  in  favour  ofthe  Aland  islands  (d) 
Technical  assistance  (e) 

Total 

ESF 

7.6 
47.5 
25.5 
0,2 
3,8 
84,6 

(d)  0,2%  <e)  4% 

(a)  9% 

(c)  30 

(b)  57% 

The Objective  4 programme  started  up more rapidly than anticipated  in most ofthe  Member  States. The 
only problem  is the concentration  of funding  and projects on a small number of measures, especially the 
measure to develop practical  skills in the workforce, the largest one in the SPD and the only one really to 
have  started  properly.  The  other  measures  still  contain  only  a  few  projects.  A  total  of  81  projects  got 
underway  in  1995. 

128 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Table 75:  Objectives 3 and 4 - Finland - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU mil/Ion) 

Total  cost 

WT. 
a s s i s t a n ce 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

T>— 
(3)/(2) 

"5Î61T 

1ÏÏ? 

W 

IWo 

1ÏÏT 

WTJ 
1.227,5 

84,6 
3 4 3 ,0 

T O" 
75T 

18% 

2 2% 

7.4 
37,6 

~w% 

50% 
~5~F^ 

Programmes 
and 
year  of adoption 

Objective  3 
TW5 

SPD  Finland 

Objective  4 
TW5 

SPD  Finland 

TOTAL 

SWEDEN 

Objective  3: Programming  for  1995-99  (ECU  million) 
Priorities 

Integration  of  young  people  into  the  labour  market  (a) 
Combatting  long-term  unemployment  (b) 
Integration  into  the  labour  market  of  people  threatened  with 
exclusion  (c) 
Technical  assistance  (d) 

Total 

ESF 

96,6 
173,1 

63,3 
14,0 
347,0 

(C)  18% 

( a)  28% 

Objective 3: Sweden  presented  its draft  SPD for  Objective  3 to the Commission  in April  1995, and the 
Commission  approved  it on  6 December  1995. It did  not  start  up until  1996 but  it was  agreed  to  grant 
ESF  funding  retroactively  to  eligible  projects  started  after  1  July  1995.  The  ESF  funding  will  be 
concentrated  on the most effective  and  innovative integration measures targeted  at those  most at risk of 
exclusion  from  the  labour  market.  All  the  measures  will  respect  the  principle  of  equal  opportunities. 
Some  160 000 people should  benefit  from  the programme between  1995 and  1999. 

Objective  4; Programming  for  1995-99  (ECU  million) 
Priorities 

Forecasting,  planning  and  development  (a) 
Improving  skills,  guidance  and  advice  (b) 
Cooperation  and  transfer  structures, networks  (e) 
Technical  assistance  (d) 

ESF 

26,0 
1  12,4 
26,0 
8,6 
173,0 

Total 

(c)  15% 

(d) 5% 

( a)  15% 

(b)  65% 

Objective 4: The draft  Objective  4 SPD was presented to the Commission  by the Swedish  authorities in 
April  1995, but  it was  not approved  until  February  1996. As a result,  ESF financing could  be allocated 
only  to  projects  started  in  the  period  1996-99. The  programme  will  concentrate  mainly  on  innovative 
adjustment  measures  for the staff  of SMEs employing fewer  than  50 people. The  SPD forms  a coherent 
whole, each measure  leading to or opening a door to another: the macro-economic  forecast  is duplicated 
by a forecast  and definition  ofthe  enterprises' professional  needs. This approach  comprises  the  drawing 
up of  individual  business  plans, permanent  training of senior  staff  and - the main  measure  -  developing 
the  skills of staff,  in  particular  those threatened  with  unemployment.  The final measure  encourages  the 
establishment  of networks  between  workers,  businesses  and transfer  structures. A maximum  of  15% of 
the budget earmarked  for the main measures will be reserved  for projects  which, at the municipality  and 
county  level,  are  aimed  at  staff  of  SMEs  in  the  public  caring  sector.  Concern  for  equal  opportunities 
underlies all the measures. The total number of beneficiaries  will be ofthe  order of 240 000 in the period 
1996-99. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

129 

Table  76:  Objective  3  - Sweden  -  Financial  implementation  ofthe  SPD  (ECU  million) 

Programme 
and 
year  of  adoption 

Objective  3 
TW5 

SPD  Sweden 

Total  cost 

STF. 

assistance 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

^ 55 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

~Vo 
(3)/(2) 

771,0 

14TÔ" 

73,0 

TT% 

36.5 

50% 

7.4.  Objective  5(a) 

Objective 5(a) agriculture 

The  forecasts  of  expenditure  in  the new Member  States  on  Objective  5(a) agriculture  outside  the 
Objective  1, 5(b) and 6 areas  were  adopted  during  1995, along  with  the priorities  by activity  sector, 
category of farmer  and type of area. 

=— 

Table 77:  Objective  5(a) agriculture  -  Forecast  implementation  in the  new Member  States 1995-99  (ECU 

million) 

A u s t r ia 

Total 

385,8 

Finland 

331,0 

Sweden 

90,1 

Total 

806,9 

Production 
Processing  and marketing 
Production 
Processing  and marketing 
Production 
Processing  and  marketing 
Production 
Processing  and marketing 

323,5 
62,3 
287,9 
43,1 
67,2 
22.9 
678,6 
128,3 

% 
8 4% 
16% 
8 7% 
1 3% 
7 5 % 
2 5 % 
8 4% 
1  6 % 

Objective 5(a) - The Member States' options for  1995-99 

A u s t r ia 

( f ) l 2% 

(a)  11% 

(b)  3% 

(C)  2 7% 

Finland 
(a)  1.2% 

(h 

(f)7% 

\ 
•* 

* ''  (C,  1. 

(e)  57% 

(e)  66% 

n 

In  v e s t m e nt  s  in  t he  h o l d i ng  ( a) 

r-j  P i o d u c er  g r o up  s  ( b) 

i P r o c e s s i ng  a nd  m a r k e t i ng 

( c) 

r—i T  i f i n i ng  a nd  s u p p o rt 

s e r v i c es  (< 

•  M  o u nt  a l l i o ns  a nd  l e a st  -1 ;i\  o u r cd  a i e as  ( e) 

I—I  Y o u nu  f a r m e rs 

i f) 

Objective 5(a) for  fisheries 

After  preparatory  work  which  started  in 1994, the three Objective  5(a) fisheries programmes  for Austria. 
Finland  and  Sweden  for  the period  1995-99  were  adopted  during  1995.  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
Objective  6 SPDs adopted  for Sweden and  Finland also contain a section on  fisheries. 

130 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Table 78:  Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Priorities for assistance in the new Member States (ECU million) 

Adjustment  and  reorientation  of  fishing  elfort 
Other  fleet  measures 
Fleet  renewal  and  modernisation 
Aquaculture 
Protected  marine  areas 
Port  facilities 
Processing  and  marketing  of  products 
Product  promotion 
Socio-economic  measures  (1) 
Other  measures 

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

4,1 

4,0 

S.F.  total 
8,1 
0,0 
14,4 
12,2 
2,4 
3,2 
16,4 
4,4 
pm 
3,9 
65,0 

12,0 
5,1 
1,9 
2,2 
9,0 
2,2 
pm 
3,6 
40,0 

1,05 

0,87 
0,04 
pm 

2,4 
6,0 
0,5 
1,0 
6,5 
2,2 
pm 
0,3 
23,0 

Total 
( 1 )  Since  the  amendment  in  1 VV5  ot  Regulation  (EC)  No  J 6 y v / y j,  such  measures  may  be  introduced  by  the 
Member  States.  The  amount  allocated  to  such  measures  must  be  determined  within  the  overall  budget. 

2,0 

Table 79:  Objective 5(a) for fisheries - Financial implementation ofthe SPDs (ECU million) 

Programmes 
and 
year  of adoption 

Total  cost 

S.F. 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

1995 

SPD  Austria 
SPD  Finland 
SPD  Sweden 

AUSTRIA 

22,5 
81,9 
115,9 
220,3 

2,0 
23,0 
40,0 
65,0 

2,0 
23,0 
40,0 
65,0 

100% 
100% 
100% 
1 0 0% 

0,2 
6,9 
12,0 
19,1 

10% 
30% 
30% 
2 9% 

T O T AL 

The  Objective  5(a)  fisheries  SPD  (non-Objective  1) was  adopted  on  26 July  1995  and  provides  for  an 
FIFG  contribution  of  ECU 2 million  for  the period  1995-99. It relates  mainly  to  the  aquaculture  sector 
and  the  processing  and  marketing  of  products.  The  Monitoring  Committee  met  for  the  first  time  in 
October  1995, approving its rules of procedure and the project  selection criteria. The Austrian  authorities 
have already taken the first steps to implement the programme. 

FINLAND 

The Objective  5(a)  fisheries  SPD  for  Finland  covers  all the  fisheries  measures  outside  the  Objective  6 
zone.  The  indicative  financing  plan  provides  for  a  total  investment  of  ECU 82  million  for  1995-99, 
ECU 23 million of which will come from  the FIFG. The programme was approved  on 28 July  1995 and 
comprises  eight  priorities,  including  the  adjustment  of  fishing  effort,  fieet  modernization,  aquaculture 
and  product  processing.  The  first  meeting  ofthe  Monitoring  Committee,  whose  members  include  five 
representatives  ofthe  various  fishery  organizations,  was  held  in  December  1995.  Although  a  small 
number of projects  have already been approved, the method  of assistance by programming  is new and  it 
will be a little while before  the Finnish  authorities and the Monitoring Committee  can  adopt  procedures 
and monitor the implementation  ofthe  programme. 

SWEDEN 

The Swedish Objective  5(a) fisheries  programme (non-Objective  6) was approved  on 8 November  1995. 
The FIFG contribution  is ECU 40 million, and its main aim is to assist the adjustment  and  modernization 
of  the  fishing  fleet  and  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  development  of  the  processing  industry.  The 
Monitoring Committee, which will cover Objective  5(a) measures throughout the country,  including the 
Objective  6  zones  with  the  exception  of  financial  matters,  held  its  constitutive  meeting  in  December 
1995,  where  it  adopted  the  selection  criteria  for  projects;  this  enabled  programme  implementation  to 
begin  in early  1996. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

131 

7.5.  Objective  5(b) 

Before  the  SPDs  were  adopted  prior  appraisals  of  the  Objective  5(b)  programmes  for  the  three  new 
Member  States were carried  out. The appraisals  covered  one programme  for  mainland  Finland  and  one 
for the Aland  islands, seven programmes  for Austria and five programmes  for  Sweden. The aim  was to 
give the Commission  a better  idea ofthe  needs ofthe  regions, their potential  and  the priorities  for  their 
agricultural  and  rural  development.  The  appraisals  concentrated  on  these  points:  a clearer  definition  of 
the programme  strategies  and  quantification  of their  aims, particularly  for  income  and jobs; respect  for 
the principle of regionalization,  particularly  for mainland  Finland, where one programme  was  presented 
for  all  the  Objective  5(b)  areas;  determination  of  the  physical  and  performance  indicators  and 
measurement  ofthe  impact of applying the common  agricultural  policy on  rural  areas. The  studies  also 
proved a useful  tool for the Commission during negotiations on the programmes. 

Table 80:  Objective 5(b) - SPDs adopted in 1995 in the new Member States (ECU million) 

Member  State/region 

A u s t r ia 
Carinthia 
Lower  Austria 
Upper  Austria 
Salzburg 
Styria 
Tyrol 
Vorarlberg 
Finland 
Mainland 
Aland 

islands 

Finland 

TOTAL 
% 

Total 
cost 
2.679,9 
404,8 
762,7 
539,3 
104,3 
629,1 
181,3 
58,3 
624,1 
613,8 
10,3 
3.304,0 

S.F. 
total 
411,0 
58,0 
111,6 
98,5 
16,0 
85,3 
34,4 
7,2 
194,0 
191,4 
2,6 
605,0 
100% 

EAGGF 

ERDF 

ESF 

164,2 
20,9 
44,6 
41,3 
6,4 
34,1 
13,8 
3,1 
66J 
65.5 
1.2 
230,9 
38% 

175,0 
28,9 
46,7 
41,3 
7.0 
34,1 
13,8 
3,1 
94,5 
93,4 
1,2 
269,5 
45% 

11,8 
8.2 
20.3 
15,9 
2.6 
17.1 
6.9 
1.0 
32,8 
32.5 
0.3 
104,6 
17% 

AUSTRIA 

P o p u l a t i on  ('000  i n h a b .) 

I 

A r ea  ( k n r) 

'  SIJDs 

A v e r a ge  p er  S PD 

BreukJow  n  by  J'und 

2.276 

50.040 

HCU 

million 

(f)  17% 

O)  1% 

( a)  2 8% 

T o t al  I 

4 1 1 ,0 

(e)  4% 

58,7 

Ï 6 4J 
175.0 

71,8 

( d)  14% 

(C)  8% 

( b)  2 8% 

E A G GF  I 
E R DF 

ESF 

Q  Diversification  and  dev e lop ment 
of  agriculture  and  forestry  (a) 
•  Diversification  and  deve lop ment 
o f t he  non-agricultural  sectors  (b) 

^ P r o t e c t i on  o f t he  environment 

(c) 

•  Tourism  (cl) 

g  L o c al  d e v e l o p m e nt  and 

renovation  of  villages  (e) 

Q  Human  resources  (f) 

« T e c h n i c al  assistance  (g) 

At the beginning ofthe  year the Commission  adopted the list of Austrian  areas eligible  under  Objective 
5(b) and the amount of Community  appropriations: ECU 411 million  for the  period  1995-99. The  seven 
SPDs  were  approved  on  4  December  1995.  The  priority  under  the  programmes  is  agricultural 
diversification  and  aid to small firms and  industries. They  require a very considerable  investment  effort 
from  the  private  sector.  The  Lander  will  be  responsible  for  their  implementation.  With  regard  to 
financial  execution  in  1995, the Commission  committed  19% and paid  9% ofthe  Community  allocation 
for the entire period. 

132 

7lh Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

Table 81:  Objective 5(b) - Austria  - Financial implementation ofthe  SPDs (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es 
and 
year  of  adoption 

total  cost 

ST 
a s s i s t a n ce 

(1) 

Commitments 
1 9 95 

(2) 

% 
( 2 ) / ( l) 

Payments 
1 9 95 
(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

S P D C a r i n t h ia 
SPD  L o w er  A u s t r ia 
SPD  U p p er  A u s t r ia 
SPD  Salzburg 
SPD  Styria 
SPD  T y r ol 
SPD  Vorarlbere 

T O T AL 

•4TJ4--C, 
762,7 
539,3 
104,3 
629,1 
181,3 
58,3 
2 . 6 7 9 ,9 

111,6 
98,5 
16,0 
85,3 
34,4 
7,2 
4 1 1 ,0 

TT7J 
21,2 
18,9 

3,1 
16,2 
6,6 
1,4 
78,3 

~TWo 
19% 
19% 
19% 
19% 
19% 
19% 
1  9 % 

5,5 
10,6 
9.4 
1,5 
8,1 
3,3 
0,7 

39,2 

1U% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 

5 0% 

F I N L A ND 

P o p u l a t i on  ('000  i n h a b .) 
A r ea  (km2) 

2  S I'D  s 

I 

TÏÏ9T 

95.219 

ECU 

million 

T o t al  I 

1 9 4 ,0 

A v e r a ge  p er  S PD 

Breakdown  by  Fund 

E A G GF  I 

E R DF 

ESF 

97,0 

66~7 

94,5 

32,8 

(C)  8% 

(f)  17% 

( 9)  1% 

Q  D i\  e r s i f i c a l i on  a o i L j i c v e l o p ni  ent 

. 

of  a g r i c u l t u re  a nd  f o r e s t ry 

( a) 

(a)  22% 

Q  D i v e r s i f i c a t i on  a nd  d e v e l o p m e nt 

of  t he  n o n - a g r i c u l t u r al  s e c t o rs  ( b) 

^ P r o t e c t i on  o f t he  e n v i r o n m e nt 

( c) 

p T o u r i sm 

(d) 

ff  L o c al  d e v e l o p m e nt  a nd 

r e n o v a t i on  of  v i l l a g es  ( e) 

( b)  4 1% 

Q  H u m an  r e s o u r c es  (f) 

« T e c h n i c al  a s s i s t a n ce  (g) 

Definitions  ofthe  Finnish  Objective  5(b) areas and  the amount  ofthe  Community  contribution,  ECU  194 
million  for  1995-99,  were  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  January  and  February  1995.  The  draft  SPDs 
were  presented  by  the  Finnish  authorities  on  8 March  1995  and  the  Commission  adopted  the  two 
programmes  on  13 November  1995.  Each  programme  was  designed  to  take  account  ofthe  geographical 
and  socio-economic  characteristics  ofthe  area  concerned,  one  programme  being  for  the  Aland  islands, 
the  other,  containing  fourteen  regional  subsections,  for  the  mainland.  The  main  priority  is  aid  to  small 
firms  and  industries.  The  second  is  agricultural  and  forestry  diversification.  For  the  Aland  isl  ds 
tourism  is a major  development  priority. 

Responsibility  for  implementation  has  been  entrusted  at  regional  level  to  "regional  councils"  and  at 
13 
national  level  to  the  Ministry  ofthe  Interior.  The  Monitoring  Committees  were  constituted  on  1  ! 
December  1995  while  in  1995  the  Commission  committed  17%  and  paid  8%  of  the  Con 
lity 
contribution  for  the  two  programmes  for  the  entire  period. 

Table 82:  Objective 5(b) - Finland - Financial implementation ofthe  SPDs (ECU million) 

P r og  r am  me s 

Total  cost 

S.F. 
a s s i s t a n ce 

(1) 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

1 9 95 

(2) 

% 

( 2 ) / (D 

P a y m e n ts 

1 9 95 

(3) 

% 

(3)/(2) 

6 13.8 
10.3 
6 2 4.0 

1 9 1  ,4 
2.6 
I'M.1) 

30.5 

3  2.8 

16% 
89% 

1  7 "/,, 

1x2 
0.7 

1  5.9 

."H)% 
30% 

4 9  % 

A 11 (I 

\ c ar  of  adoption 

1995 

SP13  M amland  Fin  land 
SPD  A l a nd  islands 

T O T AL 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

133 

SWEDEN 

( fl  2 1% 

(fl)  2% 

( a)  17% 

P o p u l a t i on  ('000 i n h a b .) 
A r ea  ( k m2) 

TTPlJs 

754 

52.746 

ECU 

million 

îolïT] 

TSipr 

A v e r a ge  p er S PD 

27,6 

(d) 1 1% 

(C)  5% 

(b)  36% 

^Diversification  and development 
of  agriculture  and forestry  (a) 
g  Diversification  and  development 
of  the non-agricultural  sectors (b) 
^ P r o t e c t i on  o f t he  environment  (c) 

pTourism  (d) 

g  Local  development  and 

renovation  of  villages (e) 

£]Human  resources  (0 

^Technical  assistance (g) 

Selection  ofthe  Swedish  areas  eligible  under  Objective  5(b) was adopted  by the Commission  on 18 
April  1995. They have a very low population density (14 inhabitants per km2). There are three mainland 
zones  (South-East  Sweden  and  Vâsterbotten/Gàvle/Dalarna,  a  forest  area  with  a  very  scattered 
population;  West  Sweden, with an ageing population  and a continuous  out-migration  of yojmg  people) 
and  two island  zones  (Skàrgârden,  an archipelago  of some 300 islands  suffering  from  remoteness, an 
ageing  population  and out-migration  of young  people,  and the island  of Gotland,  the largest  Swedish 
island, with local production remote from  the main markets but with an exceptional and underdeveloped 
cultural  and environmental  heritage). The allocation  of appropriations  was decided  by the Commission 
on  22 March  1995 and covers  ECU 138 million  for the period  1995-99.  The  five  draft  SPDs  were 
presented to the Commission  in 1995 and were to be finalized in  1996. 

134 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

B.  OTHER  ASSISTANCE 

1.  Community  Initiatives 

1.1.  Introduction 

Many programmes  approved 

The  main  events  in  1995 were the adoption  of most  of the  Community  Initiative  programmes  and  the 
proposal  for  allocating  the  reserve  available  for  the  Initiatives.  The  Commission  approved  263 
programmes  in  1995, about two thirds ofthe  total of 401 programmes  submitted  by the Member  States. 
This represents ECU 9 540 million, or  81%  ofthe  total  of ECU  11 729 million  initially  allocated  to the 
Twelve  for  1994-99, plus  ECU  157.7 million, or 42% of the total  of  ECU 376 million  allocated  to  the 
three new Member  States for  1995-99. Ofthe  programmes approved, 45 are  in the new Member  States 
(14 INTERREG programmes and 31 programmes under other Initiatives). As the allocation  of resources 
between  Initiatives  in the new Member States was not decided until April  1995, only eight  rjrogrammes 
were adopted  in  1995.1 

Table 83:  Number of Community Initiative programmes presented and adopted in 1995 

ADAPT 
<A> 
(B) 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L 

N 

P 

UK 

EUR  12 

14 

14 

1 

1 

1 

17 

n 

AT 

FI 

SE 

EUR  15 

Interreg/ 
Regen 

Peace 

TOTAL 

RECHAR 
(A) 

<Br 

KONVER 
(A) 
(B) 

RESIDER 
(B) 
(A) 

RETEX* 
(B, 
(A) 

2 

LEADER 
(A) 

w 0 

4 

1 

14 

1 

17 

20 

1 

21 

1 

4 

1 

5 

Employment 
(B) 
(A) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

3 

0 

13 

1 

17 

11 

1 

12 

1 

A 

1 

5 

PESCA 
(A) 

<B) 

S ME 

(A) 

(B) 

REGIS 
(B) 

(A) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 
-
1 

0 

1 

4 
-
1 

1 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

4 

• 

0 

0 

4 

-

1 

4 
-

-
1 
-
6 

2 

1 

16 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

1 

0 

9 

1 

0 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

4 

34 

21 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

38 

21 

6 

• 

• 

• 

1 

'  1 
-
-
-

1 
-
3 

-
3 

90 

66 

8 

2 

2 

1 

0 

0 

102 

67 

2 

• 

7 

1 

1 

7 
• 
2 

• 

1 

8 

29 

1 

2 

6 

1 

0 

6 

2 
-

1 

8 

26 

0 

3 

1 

3 

1 

16 

13 

1 

1 

17 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

44 
-

1 

1 

0 

17 
-
0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

37 
-

0 

37 

2 

• 

9 

1 

1 

7 
-
1 

1 

1 

0 

3 

2 
-
8 

1 

0 

5 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

26 

1 

19 

0 

20 

1 

12 

0 

1 
-
4 

1 

0 

1 

0 

2 
-
1 

0 

2 

URBAN 
(A) 
(B) 

TOTAL 
(A) 
(B) 

3 

1 

10 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

10 

40 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

8 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

1 

20 

5 

8) 

8 

25 

69 

5 

31 

6 

12 

8 

37 

13 

3 

62 

8 

20 

46 

3 

18 

3 

11 

7 

26 

18 

307 

220 

1 

0 

0 

15 

8 

8 

4 

2 

2 

30 

26 

45 

27 

19 

21 

12 

43 

19 

3 38 

228 

62 

1 

34 

1 

17 

17 

3 

3 

102 

67 

6 

4 

38 

21 

6 

3 

30 

26 

45 

37 

27 

19 

21 

12 

43 

19 

401 

263 

(A)  Programmes  presented  in  1995 

(B)  Programmes  adopted  in  1995 

*  Including  CIPs  adopted  in  1993  and  amended  in  1995 

The adoption ofthe  programmes was a slow process, hampered at first by the sheer number of Initiatives 
(13) and hence of programmes (about 400) for the Structural Funds as a whole, which was partly due to 
certain  Member  States  having  submitted  regionalized  programmes  under the  Community  Initiatives. A 
further  factor  in  slowing  down  progress  was  the  Commission's  concern  to  adopt  good  programmes 
matching the specific  features  ofthe  Initiatives, to keep them distinct from  CSFs and  SPDs. The purpose 
of these concerns is to: 

• 

• 

implement  measures  of  an  experimental  nature,  transferable  between  regions  of  the  same  Member 
State and from  one Member State to another (exchange of experience, good practice); 
raise  the  local  profile  of  the  measures  and  clearly  demonstrate  the  Union's  interest  in  vulnerable 
target  groups  (e.g.  in  dealing  with  urban  matters  or  equal  opportunities)  or  sensitive  subjects  (e.g. 
conversion and restructuring of declining industrial regions). 

1 See below: 1.3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

\ 3 5 

Community Initiatives  and the environment: 

The  environmental  aspects  of  Community Initiatives are  a  recurring  theme,  whether  environment-
friendliness  is seen  as  a priority  in  its own right or as  an  asset for  development  and  innovation  at 
local or regional  level.  This concern is not new: in 1990, the Envireg Initiative was introduced, with 
an endowment  of ECU  580 million,  to help the less developed  coastal areas  through depollution  of 
water and processing  of waste, improvement ofthe  coastline and protection  of biotopes.2 Since 1994, 
measures financed  under Envireg are integrated into CSFs and SPDs, a sign ofthe  new approach of 
systematically taking environmental considerations into account for  structural operations. 
The  "second generation"  Initiatives also take account of this aspect. It is difficult to estimate  exactly 
how much  is specifically  allocated to environmental expenditure  under the Initiatives from 1994-99, 
but most of them include relevant innovative and integrated measures. 
The  main  purpose  of  the  industrial  conversion  Initiatives  (RECHAR,  RESIDER,  RETEX  and 
KONVER) is to restore and find  a new use for  buildings (previously used for  mining,  steel production, 
textile  production  or  military  purposes)  in  seriously  run-down  industrial  areas}  The  urban 
environment  is one ofthe  basic dimensions of the programmes  adopted under the  URBAN Initiative. 
Similarly, in terms ofthe  rural environment, LEADER is geared in particular  to improving the quality 
of  life  in  the  countryside,  where  it promotes  integrated  measures for  the  restoration  of  sites  and 
villages.  More  specifically,  REGIS  includes  measures  in  the  most  remote  regions,  such  as  the 
improvement  of  coastal  areas,  treatment  of  waste  water  and  urban  or  industrial  waste,  or  the 
prevention  of natural hazards. One of the priorities ofthe  SMEs Initiative is to support firms  that take 
account of environmental aspects and rational use of energy, in particular  through the development of 
non-polluting production  procedures  and technologies.  Lastly, through INTERREGII,  a whole series 
of cross-border  cooperation  measures are financed  in the field  of rational use of natural  resources, 
from  joint  management  of  nature parks  and  the  development  of  renewable  energy  sources  to  the 
combined  development  of  infrastructure for  waste  water  treatment,  the prevention  and  control  of 
pollution,  waste  disposal  and  the  monitoring of  compliance  with  environmental standards  by  new 
industries  in border  regions.  Under REGEN, for  the completion of energy networks, it is possible  to 
give  explicit priority  to  measures to  introduce natural gas,  which can reduce the pollution  resulting 
from  energy consumption. 

Proposal for  the allocation  ofthe  reserve in 1995 

On  4  October,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  the  allocation  of  the  reserve  available  for 
Community  Initiatives  (ECU  1  665 million)  for  the  period  up  to  the  end  of  1999.  The  reserve 
corresponds  to  the  amount  still  available  after  approval  in  1994  ofthe  guidelines  for  13  Community 
Initiatives  in the Twelve, as well as some financial  adjustments  in the meantime. On 2 November  1995, 
the Commission  also  proposed  amendments  to the guidelines  for  URBAN,  EMPLOYMENT  ("Integra" 
strand) and ADAPT ("Bis" strand) and a new Initiative: INTERREG  II C. 

2 See Chapter IV.C. Ex post evaluation ofthe  Community Initiatives. 
3 For more detail, see below the presentation of programmes adopted in 1995. 

136 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 84:  Summary of Commission decisions on Community Initiatives in 1994-95 (ECU million) 

Decisions 

(l^°pUr?c|s) 

Amounts 
(1995  prices) 

Dates 

July  1994 

- Total  for  CIs (9 %) 
- Overall  amount for  13 CIs 

(allocation  by Member State for  9 CIs) 
(allocation  by subject for  4  "industrial" CIs) 
(adjustment  RETEX) 

October  1994 

December  1994 

April  1995 

May  1995 

January  1995 

October  1995 

therefore:  reserve available for  CIs 
- adjustment  E, IRL, N, UK 
therefore:  reserve available for  CIs 
- Allocation  by Member State for  Rechar, Résider, Retex 
- Supplementary  allocation  for  Luxembourg Résider 
therefore:  reserve available for  CIs 
- Allocation  by Member State for  Konver 
- Allocation  for  Spain 
therefore:  reserve available for  CIs 
- Council  Regulation  on Textile Portugal (1) 
therefore:  reserve available for  CIs 
- Allocation  for  Peace 
therefore:  reserve available for  CIs 
- Reserve for new Member States 
therefore:  reserve available for  CIs 
- Proposed  distribution  by CI and by Member State ofthe  reserve (12 MS) 
- Proposed  distribution  by CI and by Member State ofthe  reserve (3 MS) 
therefore:  reserve available for  CIs 

13.467,0 
-11.872,5 
(9.950,5) 
(1.916,8) 
(5,2) 
1.594,5 
-250,0 
1.344,5 
(1.416,8) 
-5,1 
1.339,4 
(500,0) 
-50,0 
1.289,4 
+400,0 
1.689,4 
-98,4 
1.591,0 

—-

1.613,7 
51,3 
1.665,0 
-1.613,7 
-51,3 
0,0 

(1)NB: the textiles and clothing programme in Portugal, adopted in 1993 by the Commission as a CI to support modernization 
of this sector in Portugal, was transferred  in 1994 to heading 3 ofthe Financial perspective and is covered by a specific Council 
Regulation. As a result of this transfer, the corresponding appropriations were paid back into the reserve for the CIs. For 
information, in 1995 the budget appropriations under the heading for this programme comprised a commitment of ECU 80 
million and a payment of ECU 40 million. 

The  proposed  allocation  of total  financing  was  infonned  by  a concern  to  concentrate  on  the  following 
priorities:  industrial  restructuring,  human  resources,  urban  and  rural  development  and  spatial  planning, 
in line with the wishes ofthe  European Parliament. Other factors  taken  into account were the  guidelines 
set by the Edinburgh  European  Council and the overall amount  set aside for  Objective  1. The  allocation 
ofthe  reserve among the three priorities can be summarized as follows. 

•  The  purpose  of  "industrial  restructuring"  is  to  achieve  greater  diversification  in  regions  highly 
dependent  on the  sectors  of textiles  and  clothing,  coal,  steel  or  armaments.  Under  this  heading,  the 
Commission  proposed  the  reinforcement  of  each  of  the  four  Initiatives  (RETEX,  RECHAR, 
RESIDER and KONVER) and their extension to 1999. 

•  The purpose of "human resources" is: 

-  the  expansion  of  employment,  involving  the  reinforcement  of  the  EMPLOYMENT, 
ADAPT,  KONVER,  RECHAR,  RESIDER,  RETEX,  URBAN,  LEADER  and  PESCA 
Initiatives; 

-  the  reinforcement  of  measures  to  promote  equal  opportunities,  first  of  all  through  the 
"NOW"  strand  of  the  EMPLOYMENT  Initiative  and  changes  in  the  guidelines  for 
URBAN, and secondly through reinforcement  ofthe  measures to encourage employment of 
young people through the "Youthstart" strand ofthe  EMPLOYMENT Initiative; 

-  combating  social  exclusion,  which  also  involves  working  to  eliminate  racism  and 

xenophobia, through the new "Integra" strand of EMPLOYMENT; 

-  helping  workers  adapt  to  the  information  society,  through  the  inclusion  of  a  series  of 

complementary measures (ADAPT "Bis"). 

•  The purpose of "urban and rural development"  is twofold: 

-  reinforcement  of  measures  for  towns  and  cities,  in  particular  medium-sized  towns  (it  is 
planned  to amend the guidelines for the URBAN  Initiative accordingly, allocating a budget 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

i3 7 

of  ECU  140  million),  while  continuing  to  stress  rural  development  (a  further  ECU  230 
million  for  LEADER  II); 

-  a  new  departure  in trans-national  cooperation,  for  which  the  Commission  has  proposed  the 

adoption  of a new  Initiative: INTERREG  II "C". 

Reinforcement  of  URBAN  : The  Commission  has  suggested  concentrating  on  medium-sized  towns  and 
on  priority  matters  in  the  urban  context  such  as  long-term  unemployment,  equal  opportunities  for  men 
and women,  and the  urban  environment. 

IIC 

New  strand  INTERREG 
(ECU  415  million):  This  new  Initiative  relates  solely  to  European  spatial 
planning,  and  it  is  quite  distinct  from  the  cross-border  cooperation  promoted  by  the  first  strand  of 
INTERREG.  This  is  clear  from  the  extent  ofthe  area  covered:  the  cooperation  is  trans-national  (rather 
than  cross-border)  over  a  wide  area,  well  beyond  border  regions,  involving  only  matters  of  spatial 
planning.  There  are  three  aspects  to take  into account:  general  measures  of trans-national  cooperation  in 
the  field  of  spatial  planning;  flood  prevention  through  trans-national  cooperation;  combating  drought. 
The  first  implies  a  global  approach,  while  the  others  relate  to  more  specific  needs.  The  mai» point  is  to 
give the Member  States  and  the regions  a new  incentive to work  together  on  defining  a strategy  to  ensure 
smooth  development,  i.e.  balanced  distribution  of  economic  activities  and  human  resources,  within  the 
major  common  trans-national, areas,  and  the  practical  application  of  joint  measures.  Examples  o f t he 
areas  concerned  are  the  Baltic,  the  Alps,  the  Mediterranean  basin,  and  the  Atlantic  seaboard.  This  will 
make  it possible to demonstrate  in concrete terms how a trans-national  approach  can  add  value. 

is  of  major 

INTERREG  IIC  and  the  environment  : spatial  planning  and  the  management  of  water 
The  "Europe  2000+  " report  stressed  the  link  between  the protection  of  natural  resources  and  spatial 
planning,  i.e.  the  distribution  of  activities  over  the  territory.  Spatial  planning 
importance 
to preservation,  protection  and  improvement  ofthe  environment,  and  to  the prudent  and  rational  use 
of  natural  resources.  Article  130s  of  the  Treaty  refers  to  this  aspect.  For  example, 
the  extremely 
for 
uneven  distribution  of  water  resources  throughout  the  Community  has  inevitable  consequences 
activities  in the  regions  where  water  is  in short  supply.  Similarly,  the  location  and/or  concei.iration  of 
economic  activity  has  affected  groundwater  and  river  basins,  sometimes  seriously,  and 
trans-national 
to  ensure  concerted  exploitation.  For  sea  water,  a  global  and 
cooperation  has  become  necessary 
integrated  territorial  approach  is needed  to preserve  both  the  development  and  the  natural 
resources 
of coastal  areas. 
In  1995,  the  Commission  prepared  a proposal  for  a new  strand  of  the  INTERREG  II Initiative,  to  help 
promote  concerted  trans-national  action.  The aims  of INTERREG  IIC  explicitly  relate  to  drawing  up 
strategies  for  sustainable  development  and  seeking  to  restore  a  balanced  allocation  of  activities  over 
Community  territory.  There  are  three  aspects  to  this: 
• 

in  spatial  planning  measures, 

consistent  with 

trans-national  regions  concerned,  involving  in particular 

sensitive  areas  and  the  improvement  of  the  territorial 

cooperation 

trans-national 
development  ofthe 
environmentally 
policies  (especially  transport  policy); 
flood  prevention 
improvement  of  river  basins  and  flood  prevention  measures; 

the 

sustainable 
the  identification  of 
impact  of  Community 

• 

through  trans-national  cooperation,  in particular  in the form  of joint  plans  for  the 

•  combating  drought  through  sustainable  development  measures  to  limit  excess  water  consumption 

and  encourage  rational  allocation  of water  resources. 

For  coastal  areas,  the  Commission  presented  a communication  on  the subject  in  1995} 

Each  of  the  subjects  mentioned  above  -  industrial  restructuring,  human  resources,  urban  and  rural 
development  and  spatial  planning  -  has  been  broken  down  by  Initiative  and  by  Member  State,  in 
accordance  with  Article  12 ofthe  Structural  Funds  Framework  Regulation  and  the  criteria  for  the  initial 
allocation  ofthe  total  available  for  Community  Initiatives  in  1994. 

See Chapter  I.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 

138 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Table 85:  Allocation ofthe reserve between Initiatives proposed by Commission in 1995 (ECU million) 

Industrial Initiatives: 
Rctex 
Rechar 
Résider 
Konver 
Employment 
Adapt-Bis 
InterregHC 
Transnational cooperation 
Drought 
Flooding 
Urban 
Leader 
Pesca 
TOTAL 

380,0 
45,0 
45,0 
45,0 
245,0 
100,0 
170,0 
415,0 
100,0 
150,0 
165,0 
140,0 
230,0 
30,0 
1.665,0 

This proposal  for allocating the reserve was presented to the European  Parliament  on  17 October 1995, 
and to the Management Committee for Community Initiatives at an introductory  information  meeting on 
12 December  1995.5 It was due to be formally  approved by the Commission early in 1996.6 

1995 in the context of  programming for 1994-97/99 

Table 86:  Community Initiatives - 1995 in the context of programming for 1994-97/99 (ECU million)' 

|  ADAPT  | Employment!  LEADER  1  PESCA 

| 

SME 

|  REGIS  | RECHAR| KONVER| RES1DERJ RETEX" |  URBAN  |lNTERREG***|  Total 

1.402,0 

1.452,0 
1.451,3 
100% 
236,0 
16% 
117,8 
8% 

1.402,3 
100% 
265,1 
19% 
132,6 
9% 

BJR12 
Programmed (1994 pices) 
adopted 
% adopted 
Commitments 1994-1995 
%ofaid 
Payments 1994-1995 
%ofaid 
EUR3 
Programmed (1994 prices) 
adopted 
% adopted 
Commitments 1994-1995 
%ofaid 
Payments  1994-1995 
% of aid 
* Including networks 
** Including only appropriations for the period  1994-97 
*** Including Peace 

42,5 
42,5 
100% 
42,5 
100% 
20,0 
47% 

72,9 
72,9 
100% 
72,9 
100% 
36,4 
50% 

1.447.0' 
1.243,6* 
86% 
466,8* 
38% 

13Z4* 
11% 

257,0* 
253,0* 
98% 
53,1  -
21% 
17,2* 
7% 

1.027,0 * 
491,3  * 
48% 

203,5* 
41% 
67,7* 
14% 

600,0 
456,5 
76% 
58,8 
13% 
22,0 
5% 

62,1 
2,6 
4% 
2,0 
78% 
0,3 

13% 

6,5 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 

36,3 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 

-

. 
" 

406,0 
328,0 
81% 
172,5 
53% 
75,6 
23% 

1,8 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 

506,0 
352,1 
70% 
238,2 
68% 
87,3 
25°/i 

3,3 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
C% 

520,0 
284,2 
55% 
177,1 
62% 
78,3 
28% 

5,1 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 

522,0 
512,1 
98% 
165,1 
32% 
75,5 

15% 

2,6 
0,0 
0% 
0.0 
0% 
0,0 
0% 

651,0 
375,0 
58% 
150,5 
40% 
54,7 
15°/ 

17,0 
9,8 
57% 
6,8 
70% 
3,4 
35% 

2.939,0 
2.390,8 
81% 
561,8 
24% 
234,4 
10% 

11.729,0 
9.540,2 
81% 
2.748,7 
29% 
1.095.5 
11°/ 

125,9 
30,0 
24% 
23,5 
78% 
7,0 
23% 

376,0 
157,7 
42% 
147,7 
94% 
67,3 
43% 

Although the adoption of programmes fell behind schedule in  1994, the lost time was largely made up in 
1995.  By the end of  that  year,  programmes  accounting  for  81% of  financing  planned  up to  1999 had 
been  adopted,  the  proportion  rising  to  100%  or  thereabouts  for  certain  Initiatives  (ADAPT, 
EMPLOYMENT,  PESCA, RETEX). The least advanced  Initiatives are SMEs, RESIDER and URBAN. 
This  good  progress  is matched  by rates  of commitment,  which  are closely  linked  to the proportion  of 
programmes  adopted  by the  beginning  ofthe  programming  period.  However,  payments  are  less  well 
advanced, as could be expected  since the programmes had hardly filtered  down to final recipients by the 
end of 1995, owing to the start-up stage. 

In  negotiations  for  the  approval  of the  programmes  and  during  implementation,  the  Commission  has 
made  sure  that  Community  Initiatives  add  value  to  the  action  of  the  Structural  Funds  in  relation  to 

5  See Chapter  III.A.4.  Committee  opinions. 
6  The  allocation  o f t he  reserve  and  the  amendments  to  the  guidelines  for  the  Urban,  Interreg  II,  ADAPT  and 

EMPLOYMENT  Initiatives  were  adopted  by the Commission  on  8 May 1996. 

7  The  amounts  shown  in  the  table  and  in  the  rest  of  this  Chapter  correspond  to  those  programmed  after 
adjustment  but  before  allocation  ofthe  reserve  for  Community  Initiatives,  which  was decided  only  in  1996. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

139 

activities under CSFs and SPDs. To this end, the Commission encourages trans-national  and innovative 
measures. Moreover, the Commission will have to ensure coordination and dissemination throughout the 
Community  of  local  measures  that  deserve  to  be shared  with  other  regions.  With  this  in  mind, the 
Commission  is  exploring  the  possibility  of  launching  European  networks  in  1996  to  enhance  the 
usefulness of Community Initiatives. 

Table 87:  Summary of Community Initiative programmes adopted in 1994 and 1995 - EUR 15 (ECU million) 

Total  cost 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

Structural  Fund  assistance 

to  areas 

covered 

%  to  areas 

covered 

by  O b j.  1-6 

by  O b j.  1-6 

3.010,9 

1.444,9 

52,5 

1.392,4 

Community 

Initiatives 

(No of 

p r o g r a m m e s) 

ADAPT  (17) 
Belgium  (2) 

Denmark  (1) 

Germany  (1) 

Greece  (1) 

Spain  (1) 

France  (1) 

Ireland  (1) 

Italy  (1) 

Luxembourg  (1) 

Netherlands  (1) 

Austria (1) 

Portugal  (1) 

Finland  (1) 

Sweden  (1) 

91,9 

65,7 

480,4 

44,6 

403,2 

622,5 

28,3 

360,5 

0,8 

142,8 

25,8 

29,2 

42,9 

21,7 

31,2 

29,5 

228,8 

30,1 

256,4 

249,7 

21,2 

190,0 

0,3 

57,6 

11,6 

21,0 

19,7 

11,3 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

3,5 

25,6 

23,3 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

31.2 

29,5 

228,8 

26,6 

230,8 

226,4 

21,2 

190,0 

0,3 

57,6 

11,6 

21,0 

19,7 

11,3 

286,6 

United  Kingdom  (2) 

650,6 

286,6 

E M P L O Y M E NT  (17) 

2.738,7 

1.524,2 

55,2 

1.469,0 

Belgium  (2) 

Denmark  (1) 

Germany  (1) 

Greece(1) 

Spain  (1) 

France  (1) 

Ireland  (1) 

Italy  (1) 

Luxembourg  (1) 

Netherlands  (1) 

Austria (1) 

Portugal  ( 1 )" 

Finland  (1) 

Sweden  (1) 

United  Kingdom  (2) 

LEADER  (68) 
Germany  (13) 

Greece  (1) 

Spain  (17) 

France  (11) 

Ireland  (1) 

Italy  (12) 

Luxembourg  (1) 

Netherlands  (4) 

Austria  (1) 

Portugal  ( 1 ) 

United  Kingdom  (5) 

P E S C A ( l l) 

Belgium  (1) 

Denmark  (1) 

Germany  (1) 

Greece  (1) 

Spain  (1) 

France(1 ) 

Ireland  (1) 

Italy  (1) 

Netherlands  (1) 

Portugal  (1) 

United  Kingdom  (1) 

70,2 

20,7 

297,5 

83,1 

576,8 

384,4 

99,5 

589,1 

0,6 

90,9 

49,4 

55,6 

66,3 

39,9 

314,9 

3.092,1 

382,4 

263,6 

1.161,9 

319,0 

165,6 

436,0 

4,8 

35,2 

6,5 

156,8 

160,4 

605,9 

4,3 

48,6 

62,0 

54,6 

95,7 

81,3 

12,2 

81,2 

34,2 

47,2 

84,7 

32,1 

10,6 

156,8 

64,4 

386,6 

146,5 

76,1 

348,7 

0,3 

42,4 

23,0 

40,3 

29,2 

20,7 

146,5 

1.242,4 

169,8 

148,0 

354,8 

122,9 

67,9 

183,2 

1,0 

8,5 

2,6 

117,6 

66,2 

253,0 

2.0 

16,4 

23,0 

27,1 

41,5 

28,3 

6,7 

34,2 

10,8 

25.6 

37,4 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

5,8 

38,7 

0,6 

4,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

5,1 

0,0 

0,0 

1,0 

554,8 

59,9 

68,2 

162,8 

59,5 

41,0 

68,7 

0,5 

4,4 

0,9 

47,4 

41,5 

116,9 

0,0 

5,0 

18,0 

18,2 

11,9 

2,4 

2,4 

26,5 

4,8 

5,8 

22,0 

32,1 

10,6 

156,8 

58,6 

347,9 

145,9 

72,1 

348,7 

0,3 

42,4 

23,0 

35,2 

29,2 

20,7 

145,5 

120,4 

16,9 

7,0 

29,3 

15,3 

8,7 

24,6 

0,0 

0,3 

0,6 

5,7 

11,9 

33,8 

0,0 

4,1 

2,4 

0,3 

8,4 

7,1 

0,7 

1,4 

0,1 

2,1 

7,1 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

567,3 

93,0 

72,7 

162,7 

48,1 

18,2 

89,9 

0,5 

3,8 

1,1 

64,5 

12,8 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0.0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 
o.o 
0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

102,3 

2,0 

7,3 

2,6 

8,5 

21,3 

18,8 

3,7 

6,3 

5.8 

17,7 

8.4 

413,5 

3,8 

0,0 

63,1 

30,1 

151,7 

" 77 

21,2 

76,7 

0,0 

0,0 

0,4 

21,0 

3,0 

0,5 

34,9 

925,2 

9,5 

0,0 

68,9 

64,4 

386,6 

5,9 

76,1 

246,8 

0,0 

1,2 

0,8 

40,3 

0,0 

1,0 

23,7 

886,1 

82,1 

148,0 

296,0 

3.0 

67,9 

143,5 

0,0 

2,1 

2,6 

117,6 

23,3 

129,0 

0,0 

0,0 

13,1 

27,1 

29,1 

0,3 

6,7 

19,0 

2,0 

25,6 

6,1 

29V. 

12% 

0% 

28% 

100% 

59% 

3% 

100% 

40% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

100% 

15% 

4% 

12% 

6 1% 

30% 

0% 

44% 

100% 

1 00% 

4% 

100% 

7 1% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

1 00% 

0% 

5% 

16% 

7 1% 

48% 

100% 

83% 

2% 

100% 

78% 

0% 

25% 

100% 

100% 

35% 

5 1% 

0% 

0% 

57% 

100% 

70% 

1% 

100% 

56% 

19% 

100% 

16% 

140 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Community 

Initiatives 

(No  of 

programmes) 

SMEs  (21) 

Belgium  (1) 

Germany  (9) 

Greece  (1) 

France  (3) 

Ireland  (1) 

Netherlands  (1) 

Portugal  (1) 

United  Kingdom  (4) 

REGIS  (3) 
Spain  (1) 

France  (1) 

Portugal  (1) 

R E C H AR  (26) 
Belgium  (2) 

Germany  (6) 

Greece  (1) 

France  (6) 

Italy  (2) 

Portugal  (1) 

United  Kingdom  (8) 

KONVER  (37) 
Belgium  (3) 

Denmark  (!) 

Germany  (13) 

Greece  (1) 

France  (17) 

Portugal  (1) 

United  Kingdom  (1) 

RESIDER  (20) 
Belgium  (2) 

Germany  (8) 

Greece  (1) 

France  (5) 

Netherlands  (1) 

Portugal  (1) 

United  Kingdom  (2) 

RETEX  (18)  * 
Belgium  (1) 

Germany  (7) 

Greece  (1 ) 

Spain  (1) 

France  (1) 

Ireland  (1) 

Italy  (2) 

Netherlands  (1) 

Portugal  (1) 

United  Kingdom  (2) 

URBAN  (19) 
Belgium  (2) 

Denmark  (1 ) 

Germany  (8) 

Greece  (1 ) 

Spain  (1) 

Luxembourg  (1) 

Netherlands  (2) 

Austria  (1) 

Portugal  (!) 

United  Kingdom  (1) 

PEACE  (1) 

I N T E R R E G / R E G EN  (34) 

Total  cost 

Total 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

Structural  Fund  assistance 

to  areas 

covered 

%  to  areas 

covered 

by  O b j.  1-6 

by  O b j.  1-6 

1.025,5 

14,2 

356,3 

156,9 

139,2 

53,2 

26,9 

235,9 

43,0 

751,5 

385,5 

209,2 

156,8 

900,2 

58,1 

400,8 

2,0 

39,4 

34,1 

1.1 

364,6 

883,7 

30,4 

5,3 

342,3 

20,3 

244,1 

10,7 

230,6 

840,6 

52,9 

558,3 

8,9 

105,8 

51,5 

10,8 

52,5 

491,3 

9,4 

156,8 

83,3 

58,5 

28,8 

10,3 

124,0 

20,1 

456,5 

216,9 

115,6 

124,0 

328,0 

15,7 

128,4 

1,5 

16,7 

1,7 

0,9 

163,2 

352,1 

11,5 

2,4 

144,5 

12,9 

71,0 

7,9 

101,9 

284,2 

24,4 

164,3 

4,7 

42,6 

18,1 

6,9 

23,2 

445,4 

7,5 

139,0 

74,4 

56,0 

26,5 

9,5 

113,7 

18,8 

384,4 

205,0 

63,4 

116,0 

266,0 

11,6 

101,7 

1,4 

15,5 

1,7 

0,9 

133,2 

299,8 

9,9 

1,6 

122,9 

11,5 

64,4 

7,9 

81,6 

234,4 

24,4 

127,0 

4,1 

38,1 

14,7 

6,9 

19,1 

1.756,2 

592,7 

559,5 

6,0 

284,3 

145,3 

361,1 

79,3 

22,5 

249,2 

3,5 

526,8 

78,2 

822,9 

26,6 

3,0 

270,1 

67,2 

248,7 

1,( 

87,9 

31,9 

62,f 

24,5 

3,0 

65,9 

87,5 

90,4 

28,9 

11,4 

79,0 

1,0 

189,0 

36,6 

384,8 

8,2 

1,5 

86,4 

45,2 

162,6 

0,5 

9,3 

9,8 

44,3 

17,0 

415,5 

3.888,3 

300,0 

2.120,8 

2,0 

59,8 

78,0 

87,3 

24,3 

9,2 

79,0 

1,0 

189,0 

30,0 

320,0 

6,3 

1,3 

74,8 

34,1 

144,9 

0,4 

7,9 

6,8 

35,3 

8,1 

148,3 

1.904,3 

45,9 

1,9 

17,8 

9,0 

2,5 

2,3 

0,8 

10,3 

1,3 

28,7 

0,0 

28,7 

0,0 

62,1 

4,1 

26,6 

0,2 

1,2 

0,0 

0,0 

30,1 

52,4 

1,6 

0,8 

21,6 

1,4 

6,6 

0,0 

20,4 

49,8 

0,0 

37,3 

0,6 

4,5 

3,4 

0,0 

4,1 

33,2 

1,0 

6,1 

9,5 

3,1 

4,6 

2,3 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

6,6 

64,8 

2,0 

0,2 

11,6 

11,1 

17,7 

0,1 

1,4 

2,9 

9,C 

8,8 

127,8 

105,C 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

42,9 

12,0 

22,9 

8,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

o,r 

o,c 

o,c 
22,4 

108,; 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,6 

0,0 

0,6 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0.0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

o.o 

0,0 

0,0 

0.0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0.0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

1,5 

2,6 

402,1 

8,5 

136,7 

83,3 

9,3 

28,8 

2,2 

124,0 

9,2 

456,5 

216,9 

115,6 

124,0 

61,0 

0,9 

5ÏTJ 

1,5 

0,0 

0,8 

0,9 

2,9 

87,5 

0,0 

0,0 

59:0 

12,9 

0,0 

7,9 

7,7 

46,6 

9,0 

26,0 

4,7 

0,0 

0,0 

6,9 

0.0 

437,4 

3,0 

51,4 

87.5 

50,7 

0,0 

1  1,4 

39,4 

0,0 

189.0 

5,0 

315,0 

5,7 

0,0 

70.3 

45,2 

132,6 

0,0 

0,0 

0.0 

44,3 

I7.C 

3oo,e 
1.825,7 

82% 

90% 

87% 

100% 

16% 

100% 

22% 

100% 

46% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

19% 

6% 

42% 

100% 

0% 

46% 

100% 

2% 

2 5% 

0% 

0% 

4 1% 

100% 

0% 

100% 

8% 

16% 

37% 

16% 

100% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

0% 

74% 

100% 

78% 

100% 

56% 

0% 

100% 

50% 

0% 

100% 

14% 

82% 

60% 

0% 

8 1% 

100% 

82% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

86% 

TOTAL  (291) 

| 

20.732,4| 

9.774,8 

5.341,3| 

3.585,l| 

741.SJ 

107,0 

6.285,6| 

6 4% 

*  Including  1  1 CIPs  adopted  in  1993, 5 of  which  were  amended  in  1995 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

141 

1.2.  The individual  Initiatives in the Twelve Member  States 

ADAPT(1994-99) 

ADAPT  (ECU  1  402  million):  Under  the  new  Objective  4,  the  purpose  of  ADAPT  is  to  encourage  the 
adaptation  of the workforce  to industrial change, to help firms increase their productivity,  and to encourage 
the emergence of new activities. The measures cover the following fields: training, counselling and guidance, 
anticipation  and promotion  of new employment opportunities, adaptation  of support  structures and systems; 
information,  dissemination  and  increasing  awareness.  The  average  amount  of  financing  available  for  each 
measure and each country means that 43% ofthe total allocated to all the Member States will be absorbed by 
counselling  and  guidance  measures. The main  beneficiaries  are workers  affected  by  industrial  change  and 
those whose jobs are in danger or have disappeared following reorganization ofthe firm that employs them. 

In  May  1995 the  Commission  adopted  the  first  14 ADAPT  programmes;  the  programmes  ofthe  three 
new  Member  States were adopted  in December  1995.8 Among the measures  financed,  those  relating  to 
anticipation,  promotion  of networking and job creation  will account for  25%. The other measures  relate 
to the adaptation  of support structures and systems (20%) and information,  dissemination  and  awareness 
(12%). In the first  phase of project  selection, a total of 3 600 applications were received.  It  is estimated 
that  1  400 ADAPT projects would be approved, and started by February  1996. 

Table 88:  ADAPT Programmes adopted in 1995 -EUR  12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No  of  CIPs) 

Total  cost 

S.F.  assistance 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% of 
(3)/(2) 

Belgium  (2) 
Denmark  (1) 
Germany  (1) 
Greece  (1) 
Spain  (1) 
France  ( 1) 
Ireland  (1) 
Italy  (1) 

Luxembourg  (1) 
Netherlands  (1) 
Portugal  (1) 
United  Kingdom  (2) 

Total  (14) 

91,9 
65,7 
480,4 
44,6 
403,2 
622,5 
28,3 
360,5 
0,8 
142,8 
29,2 
650,6 
2.920,5 

31,2 
29,5 
228,8 
30,1 
256,4 
249,7 
21,2 
190,0 
0,3 
57,6 
21,0 
286,6 
1.402,3 

5,7 
5,3 
42,9 

7,1 
48,1 
46,9 
3,9 
36,1 

0,1 
11,5 
4,0 
53,5 
265,1 

18% 
18% 
19% 
24% 
19% 
19% 
18% 
19% 
18% 
20% 
19% 
19% 

19% 

2.8 
2,7 
21,5 
3,6 
24,0 
23,5 
1,9 
18,1 
0,0 
5,8 
2,0 
26,7 
132,6 

50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
5 0% 

Belgium:  The Flemish authorities emphasize the improvement of employees' skills rather than the more 
technical  aspects  of  adjustment  to  change.  The  priorities  defined  by  the  French-speaking  authorities 
comprise the  improvement ofthe  general  level of skills and competitiveness  of firms,  and devising  new 
measures for job creation. 

Denmark:  The programme concentrates on the introduction  of new technologies, new materials and new 
ways  of  organizing  work,  and  on  new  systems  of  quality  management  and  flexible  working 
arrangements. 

Germany:  The  programme  tackles  two  main  subjects:  improvement  of  basic  skills  and  the  way  these 
skills can  contribute  to reinforcing  the competitiveness  of  SMEs. In the  new Lander, priority  will  go to 
the building industry, distribution, environment protection  and training, and to new business start-ups. 

Greece:  The  aim  of  the  programme  is  to  train  management  personnel  in  setting  up  and  using  shared 
services,  training  instructors,  encouraging  high-quality  information  for  groups  of  companies,  assisting 
with  the  development  projects  of  small  businesses  and  with  business-type  initiatives  able  to  share 
product development, raw material supplies and training. 

8 See below: 1.3  Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 

142 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Spain:  The programme targets workers who need to up-date their skills or prepare themselves for new or 
newly-created  jobs,  newly-recruited  workers  needing  training,  workers  in  jobs  for  which  a  quality 
management  scheme  has  been  introduced,  workers  in  danger  of  losing  their  jobs  or  temporarily 
unemployed,  managers  and  owners  of  small  businesses,  and  self-employed  workers  and  members  of 
cooperatives. 

France:  The  programme  provides  for  an  intensification  of the  effort  to  anticipate  industrial  change  at 
local level, to assist the training of workers in small businesses and to create new forms of work. 

Italy:  A  feature  of  the  Italian  programme  approach  is  the  responsibility  of  the  regions,  not  only  for 
selecting  projects,  but  also for  implementing  ADAPT. The main  point  is to  support  a national  plan  to 
introduce  a  modern  and  efficient  further  training  scheme.  The  first  stage  (1994-96)  is  intended  to 
encourage  training  within  firms,  to  re-focus  public  capacity  for  vocational  training,  to  set  up  regional 
monitoring units to assist training groups and the retraining of unskilled workers. 

Ireland:  The  purpose  ofthe  programme  is to remedy  the  inadequate  level  of  investment jrj_ training  in 
Irish  firms,  their  unsuitable  training  schemes, the need  for  multi-purpose  and  innovative  approaches  to 
training,  the  lack  of  training  in very  small  firms  and  the  lack  of  links  between  firms  and  teaching  and 
training institutions. 

Luxembourg:  The programme  is expected  to improve human resource development  schemes for  SMEs 
and provide new data bases and networks giving them better access to and use of  information. 

Netherlands:  The  accent  is  on  small  firms,  which  are  potential  job-creators,  with  priority  to  new 
business start-ups. 

Portugal:  The  programme  targets  an  improvement  in the  still  weak  level  of  basic  training  and  labour 
skills,  modernization  of  production  capacity,  the  reinforcement  of  education  and  vocational  training 
systems, aid for the modernization  and adjustment  of firms, and consequently job creation. 

United  Kingdom:  The  two  UK  programmes  (for  Great  Britain  and  Northern  Ireland  respectively) 
concentrate on small businesses. They highlight the steady decline  in the manpower  of large companies, 
and the  increase  in the  number  of jobs  in small firms (especially those with  fewer  than  50 employees), 
particularly  in expanding sectors like services, tourism and culture. 

EMPLOYMENT  AND HUMAN  RESOURCES  (1994-99) 

EMPLOYMENT and  HUMAN RESOURCES  (ECU  1  452  million):  Through  the  development  of  human 
resources,  and an  integrated  approach, this  Initiative  is intended  to back  up the recovery  of employment and 
promote  solidarity  and  equal opportunity  on the  labour market.  It comprises three  strands, each  with  its own 
budget: 
•  Now  (ECU  361  million)  supports  the  development  of  innovative  and  more  effective  instruments  for  the 

training of women and their entry into working life; 

•  HORIZON (ECU  731.1 million) encourages the disabled  and other disadvantaged  groups to enter working 

life, as part ofthe effort to combat exclusion; 

•  YODTHSTART (ECU 319.3 million) helps young people without qualifications to enter working life. 
Each strand is organized around four main types of measure: 
(i) measures to improve the quality of schemes for training, guidance, counselling and employment; 
(ii) training measures, aiming not only at the target groups but also at those who influence the quality of access 
by those groups to the labour market; 
(iii) measures to aid job creation and new activities; 
(iv) measures to  raise the profile  of the problems dealt with  and the action  taken  under the  EMPLOYMENT 
Initiative. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

143 

For EMPLOYMENT, as indeed for ADAPT, there were almost two years of negotiation and  preparation 
between the Commission's  original  guidelines  in February  1994 and the presentation  of projects  by the 
Member  States  at the  end  of  1995, followed  by the  launching  of  measures. The  major  events  of  1995 
were the negotiation  ofthe  programmes  for the new Member  States, approved  by the Commission  on 8 
December,9  and  the  first  stage  in  selecting  projects  for  the  whole  of  the  Union  (programmes  for  the 
Twelve, including two  in Belgium, two  in the UK and one  in each of the  other  Member  States  having 
been  approved  by the end  of  1994). Over 2 364 projects  were selected  altogether:  763 for NOW,  1 133 
for  Horizon  (some  930  projects  for  the  disabled  and  about  200  for  the  disadvantaged),  and  464  for 
Youthstart. These are tentative  figures,  as the  information  had not been  fully  confirmed  by the  national 
authorities  responsible  for  selection  when  this report  was  drafted.  Projects  are  selected  on  the  basis  of 
priorities  defined  in  the  programmes  of  each  Member  State, which  combine  the  general  priorities  and 
objectives  of  EMPLOYMENT  with  each  country's  specific  circumstances.  They  indicate  the  priority 
objectives  and  show  how  the  results  of  the  projects  will  be  fitted  into  general  policy  and  its 
implementation. 

A major  trans-national  technical  assistance programme was launched  in  1995 to assist the-Commission 
and the national and regional authorities in implementing the Initiatives, and especially  in developing the 
trans-national  aspects. National  support structures for both EMPLOYMENT and ADAPT were set up in 
all the Member  States early  in  1995. A technical assistance body at Community  level, known  as Europs, 
was  appointed  from  1  May  1995  following  a  public  call  for  tenders.10  These  technical  assistance 
structures at national and Community  level are now up and running with a full  staff. 

Programme  Monitoring  Committees  were  set  up  in  1995  in each  Member  State;  most  ofthe  Member 
States  have  separate  committees  for  EMPLOYMENT  and  for  ADAPT,  but  some  have  combined 
monitoring  of  the  two  Initiatives,  and  others  have  Monitoring  Committees  dealing  with  the  main 
Objective  3  and  4  programmes  as  well  as  these  Initiatives.  Over  50  Monitoring  Committee  meetings 
have already been held. 

Table 89:  Implementation of EMPLOYMENT programmes - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 

Total cost 

S.F. assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

%of 
(3)/(2) 

Programmes adopted in  1994 
Belgium (2) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany (1) 
Greece ( 1 ) 
Spain (1) 
France ( 1 ) 
Ireland (1) 
Italy (1) 
Luxembourg (1) 
Netherlands (1) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (2) 
Total (14) 

70,2 
20,7 
297,5 
83,1 
576,8 
384,4 
99,5 
589,1 
0,6 
90,9 
55,6 
314,9 
2.583,2 

32,1 
10,6 
156,8 
64,4 
386,6 
146,5 
76,1 
348,7 
0,3 
42,4 
40,3 
146,5 
1.451,3 

21,7 
1,6 
23,1 
8,0 
58,6 
22,3 
7,6 
51,5 
0,3 
4,2 
5,7 
31,4 
236,0 

68% 
15% 
15% 
12% 
15% 
15% 
10% 
15% 
100% 
10% 
14% 
21% 
16% 

10,8 
0,8 
11,6 
4,0 
29.3 
11,1 
3,6 
25.7 
0,2 
2,1 
2,8 
15,7 
117,8 

50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
47% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 

NOW:  NOW  mainly  concerns  authorities  and  bodies  involved  in  training,  employment  and  the 
occupational  integration  of  women,  i.e.  regional  or  local  authorities,  organizations  promoting  equal 
opportunities,  training  and  information  centres,  trade  unions,  private  associations  and  women's 
organizations. Measures financed  under the NOW strand ofthe  EMPLOYMENT  Initiative are designed 
to achieve four  objectives: 

9 See below:  1.3 Community Initiatives in the three new Member States. 
10 See Chapter l.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

144 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

to reduce  horizontal  and vertical  segregation  on the  labour  market  by  improving  women's  access  to 
the sectors with good job prospects and strong growth potential. In the Danish  programme, priority is 
given  to  combating  the  growing  trend  towards  marginalization  of  women  on  the  labour  market.  In 
Greece,  one  of  the  priority  objectives  is  to  encourage  participation  by  women  in  non-traditional 
sectors  of the  economy.  The  programme  of the  Flemish  authorities  in  Belgium  provides  incentives 
for young women to choose training programmes that are likely to lead to jobs  with good  prospects. 
The programme in the United Kingdom gives priority to training methods, concentrating on women's 
careers within the labour market rather than on their access to it; 

to reconcile working  life and family  life. The German  programme  gives priority to reconciling  a job 
with  family  responsibilities  through  innovative  work  organization,  child-care  and  measures  to  help 
women come back on to the labour market after  a period spent bringing up children; 

to  promote  enterprise  and  job  creation  by  women,  in  particular  through  financial  instruments  to 
support new business start-ups. This is the main thrust ofthe  French programme; 

to  raise  awareness  among  firms,  trade  unions  and  others  with  influence.  This  approach  leads  the 
Netherlands  programme  to  promote  the  presence  of  women  in  trade  union  and  professional 
organizations, while the Portuguese  programme  aims at raising awareness  among public  and  private 
bodies ofthe  equal opportunities aspects of a changing society. 

Horizon:  The  purpose  of Horizon  is to  improve the quality  of training  and  create jobs  for  the  disabled 
and  those threatened  with  social  exclusion.  In  many  cases, this  twofold  aim  has  led  Member  States  to 
introduce strategies adapted to the specific  needs of these categories of persons. 

Horizon  measures  for  the  disabled:  The  programmes  ofthe  Member  States  reflect  the  disparity  of 
national strategies and priorities. The areas for action can be divided into two: 

•  development of schemes for training, guidance, counselling and employment, and the organization  of 
further  vocational  training.  In  Denmark,  priority  is  given  to  projects  to  help  disabled  persons 
undertake  vocational  training  (particularly  higher  education  and  further  training), with  the  emphasis 
on  the  use  of  new  technologies,  the  adaptation  of  jobs  and  improving  conditions  for  general 
education and vocational training; 

• 

job  creation  and  support  for  new  business  start-ups,  cooperatives  and  partnerships  between  the 
public and private  sectors. The French  and Italian  programmes, for example, stress the  integration  of 
disabled persons  into the labour market, through personalized  access to employment, with the help of 
local  authorities.  Belgium's  Flemish  programme  concentrates  on  suitable jobs  and  the  use  of  new 
technology, and the development of distance working, with special attention to individual  approaches 
to preparatory training, vocational  skills and assistance  in the early stages of a new job.  In Germany, 
where  women  were  under-represented  in  the  earlier  Horizon  programme,  the  programme  gives 
priority  to  projects  meeting  the  needs  of  disabled  women  wishing  to  enter  the  labour  market.  In 
Greece,  a  special  effort  will  be  made  towards  trans-national  cooperation  to  establish  standards  and 
procedures for distance working for specific tasks. 

Horizon  measures for  the  disadvantaged:  The EMPLOYMENT  programmes  include  a separate  list of 
priority  measures  for  disadvantaged  groups  in  all  the  Member  States  except  Finland,  Sweden  and 
Luxembourg.  As the  guidelines  of Horizon  for  the  disadvantaged  cover  a wide  range  of  target  groups, 
the  Member  States  have  usually  decided  not to  limit the choice  of target  categories.  Measures  planned 
therefore  involve target populations and innovation  in methods. 

•  A number of Member States give clear priority, among target groups, to immigrants, especially  in the 
Netherlands,  Denmark  and  Portugal,  while  drug  addiction  is a  growing  priority  in  Italy,  Spain,  the 
Netherlands  and  Portugal.  Many  Member  States  also  give  priority  to  training  for  instructors, 
including  the  training  of  those  responsible  for  human  resources,  the  organization  of  courses  for 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

j 45 

specialists  (social  workers, career counsellors, etc.) and the drawing  up of new career  profiles  (local 
development workers, social and educational officers, etc.). 

•  Some  approaches  provide  a  context  conducive  to  innovation  and  the  trans-national  exchange  of 
know-how. The idea of structured access to employment is now generally accepted. Emphasis is on a 
tailor-made  approach  or, as in Belgium,  on setting up structures to give the target  groups  increasing 
access  to  employment.  In  France  and  Portugal,  acquiring  basic  skills  (literacy  and  language)  is  of 
major  importance,  while  in  Germany,  Greece  and  the  Netherlands  various  types  of  preparatory 
training  are  offered,  providing  guidance  and  work  experience,  to  improve job-seeking  ability  (the 
UK)  or the ability  to cope  in a real  work  situation  (France). It should  also  be  possible  to  undertake 
major  experimental  work  in the  sphere of job  creation.  Some Member  States  have  given  priority  to 
developing  partnership  between  projects  and  local  employment  or  to  setting  up  local  partnerships 
between  private  and  public  sectors.  For  example,  local  firms  have  been  involved  in  helping  ex-
prisoners  return  to  working  life  after  training  provided  through  a  project.  Companies  may  also  be 
associated  in  setting  up  firms  in  the  cooperative,  mutual  and  non-profit  sector,  or  local  bodies 
providing  start-up  aid. Another  popular  approach  is to prepare  disadvantaged  groups  to_work  in the 
sectors  providing  new  employment  opportunities.  Training  programmes  are  geared  in  particular  to 
the environment,  leisure and  tourism,  health, and  social  services. There  is also  a concern  to  prepare 
people  for  adjustment  to  new  types  of jobs,  while  raising  levels  of  skills.  Certain  Member  States, 
such as Denmark, offer  preparation for flexible working, distance working, job-sharing, etc. 

Although  trend  analyses for target categories  show concern  linked to the concentration  of  disadvantage 
in certain  geographical  areas, especially  in towns and cities, the Member  States do not use location  as a 
criterion  for  priority.  However,  the  method  of  local  partnership  is  implicitly  necessary  to  organize 
structured  lines  of  assistance  for  firms  in  the  cooperative,  mutual  and  non-profit  sector,  or  for  micro-
business start-ups. It is clear from  the first set of projects  approved that very many of them  are managed 
by local partnerships. 

Youthstart:  The  Youthstart  strand  of  the  EMPLOYMENT  Initiative  is  intended  to  stimulate  the 
implementation  of  measures  for  young  people  in  all  the  Member  States.  To  attain  this  objective, 
Youthstart  must  provide  efficient  services  to  ensure  that  all  young  people  have  access  to  appropriate 
training and to the labour market. To this end, the Member States have adopted two approaches: 

• 

innovation  with  a view to improving vocational  training  in general, so as to make  it more  accessible 
to  young  people,  especially  the  least  skilled,  and  better  adapted  to  the  labour  market,  with  special 
emphasis  on  work  experience.  For example, the  French  programme tries to  strengthen  and  improve 
the  quality  of  sandwich  courses,  by  establishing  closer  links  between  theoretical  training  and 
practical on-the-job training, and to develop the skills ofthose  responsible for training within firms. It 
is also  intended  to  widen  the  scope  of  sandwich  courses  to the  whole  of  Europe,  by  offering  work 
experience  in other Member States; 

•  personalized  training:  Ireland  emphasizes  pre-training  projects,  while  the  Danish  programme  is 
intended  to  develop  and  test  remedial  training  outside  the  formal  school  framework  in  order  to 
stimulate  individual  motivation  and personal  initiative  in relation to training.  In Greece, the accent is 
on  new  teaching  methods,  training  instructors  in  guidance  and  support,  self-assessment,  team-
working  and  methods  of  communication.  The  programme  of  the  Flemish  authorities  in  Belgium 
involves training  instructors to identify  youngsters with problems at an early stage. 

Several  programmes  hope  to  deal  with  the  cultural  and  linguistic  barriers  facing  ethnic  minorities  and 
young immigrants in their access to vocational training and their progress in it. The German  programme, 
for  example,  gives  priority  to  projects  such  as  informing  and  counselling  young  immigrants  in  their 
mother  tongue. Most  programmes  also highlight  improving the quality  of guidance  and  counselling, so 
as to  provide a more  coherent  and  better  coordinated  service centring on  individual  needs and  abilities. 
In  Denmark,  counselling  and  guidance  for  young  people  in  the  final  years  of  compulsory  school 
attendance  is to be  improved  and extended, concentrating on the  interaction  between  education,  training 

146 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

and  the  labour market,  and  on  the  integration  of  local  support  facilities  such  as joint  counselling  and 
guidance centres. 

The  Youthstart  guidelines  fonnally  call  on  the  Member  States  to  examine  means  of  helping  young 
people  to  become  self-employed.  In  Belgium,  for  example, management  training  and  legal  advice  are 
available for young people who wish to start up in business. Greece will concentrate assistance  on  local 
employment  initiatives  developed  and  managed  by  young  people  themselves.  The  programme  for 
Northern  Ireland  is  intended  to  tap  into  young  people's  ability  to  create jobs  in  rural  areas  with  the 
support of local resources. 

The  various  programmes  show  a  wide  range  of  initiatives  intended  to  reduce  the  institutional  and 
administrative  barriers  to  an  innovative  use  of  Youthstart.  Setting  up  networks  between  public  and 
private sectors at local and regional  level  is a priority in Italy, while the Netherlands concentrates  efforts 
on  cooperation  between  education,  training  and  the  authorities  (police  and  organizations  representing 
ethnic minorities). 

LEADER II  (1994-99) 

LEADER (ECU 1  447 million) is intended to support rural development projects designed and managed by local 
partners in country areas, with emphasis on measures that are innovative, have a demonstration  value and are 
transferable.  The LEADER Initiative  should stimulate close involvement by the  local population,  associations 
and communities, which should together define and implement a coherent strategy suitable for the characteristics 
of the area concerned.  This  is reflected  in the fact that  financing  under  LEADER  II  is available to only two 
categories: local action groups (public and private partners jointly devising a development strategy) or other rural 
collective  bodies  (local  authorities,  chambers  of  agriculture,  commerce  and  industry,  cooperatives,  etc.)  on 
condition their action fits in with a development strategy at a local level. LEADER II also supports trans-national 
cooperation projects and encourages exchanges of experience and the transfer of know-how through a European 
rural development network (an indicative amount of 2.5% is intended to finance the activities ofthe  Community 
network and the national networks). LEADER II applies in the rural areas covered by Objectives  1, 5(b) and 6 
(with ECU 900 million set aside for Objective  1  regions). 

The  Commission  received  102  proposals  for  programmes  for  LEADER  II  from  the  fifteen  Member 
States (90 from  the Twelve). It made sure that the proposals resulted from  wide agreement between  local 
operators,  as  required  under  the  guidelines  for  LEADER II.  Of  these  proposals,  67  programmes  and 
global grants have been approved (66 for the Twelve), and another 35 are awaiting adoption  (comprising 
24 from  the Twelve, and  11 from  the new Member States). 

Table 90:  LEADER IIprogrammes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No of  CIPs) 

Germany  (13) 
Greece  ( 1 ) 
Spain  (17) 
France  (11) 
Ireland  (1) 
Italy  (12) 
Luxembourg  ( 1 ) 
Netherlands  (4) 
Portugal  (1) 
United  Kingdom  (5) 
Networking 

Total  cost 

S.F.  assistance 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(I) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% of 
(3)/(2) 

382,4 
263,6 
1.161,9 
319,0 
165,6 
436,0 
4,8 
35,2 
156,8 
160,4 

169,8 
148,0 
354,8 
122,9 
67,9 
183,2 
1,0 
8,5 
117,6 
66,2 

124,6 
22,6 
112,1 
95,6 
7,5 
28,6 
1,0 
8,2 
6,7 
56,2 
3,7 
466,8 

73% 
15% 
32% 
78% 
11% 
16% 
100% 
97% 
6% 
85% 

3 8% 

38,8 
11,3 
34,9 
15,5 
3,8 
14,0 
0,4 
2,5 
3,6 
4,8 
2,9 
132,4 

3 1% 
50% 
3 1% 
16% 
50% 
49% 
40% 
30% 
5 3% 
9% 
77% 
2 8% 

Total  (66) 

3.085,6 

1.239,9 

Most  of  these  programmes  include  the  three  measures  provided  for  in  the  notice  setting  out  the 
Commission's guidelines for LEADER II: 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

\ 47 

• 

•  acquiring skills: where the practice of local development  is new, this measure  provides financing  for 
informing  and motivating  local people, analysing the area's strong and weak points and drawing up a 
development  strategy; 
rural innovation programmes: this measure provides financing for the development strategy drawn up 
by local operators for the area concerned; 
trans-national  cooperation:  this measure helps with joint  projects  undertaken  by  local  action  groups 
or other potential beneficiaries  from  more than one Member State. 

• 

The operations planned can be divided  into three main types: 

• 

reinforcing  territorial  identity:  this  includes  such  operations  as  the  renovation  of  the  architectural 
heritage  (Asturias)  and  small  urban  centres (Ireland), promotion  of traditional  know-how  (Portugal, 
Aragon), the development  of  local products or the natural  heritage (East Anglia,  Italy,  Luxembourg, 
Greece, Portugal), or, more broadly, supporting local communities (United Kingdom); 

•  networking:  this  relates  to  the  supply  of  tourist  facilities  (Burgundy)  or  associations  (Limousin), 
farmers  and distribution  companies (Hesse), public services, associating  small  urban  centres and  the 
surrounding countryside (Languedoc-Roussillon), setting up business service centres (Luxembourg); 
•  support  for  new  forms  of  activity,  which  may  be  based  on  the  use  of  new  communications 
technologies,  such  as  distance  working  (Northern  Uplands)  or  reservation  systems  for  rural  tourist 
facilities (Greece, Portugal). 

LEADER and the rural environment: 
LEADER  had  to  integrate  environmental  considerations  into  a  sustainable  development  policy. 
Economic development  must take account ofthe  natural heritage, which is an essential asset  of such 
areas,  especially  the  least-favoured.  A  number of  measures  with  an  impact  on  the  environment  at 
local level are being undertaken in the countryside. One essential factor  in keeping the inhabitants in 
the countryside, or attracting  new residents, is to preserve  an agreeable living environment.  Several 
ofthe  major categories of funding  under LEADER programmes  have an environmental impact: 
•  ecological  management  of  the  countryside:  this  involves  protecting  or  restoring  the  natural 
heritage. In Denmark,  the Danish Islands group has supported a  "villages in bloom " operation; in 
Belgium,  the  Hageland  group  has  organized  the  ecological  improvement  and  management  of 
natural landscape features  (hedge planting, creation of marshes, upkeep of trees, etc.); 

•  waste  management  through  the  reduction  of pollution,  exploitation  of  waste,  or production  of 
energy from biomass. In France, the Buech-Durance group took part  in the installation of a mobile 
treatment plant for  household  waste. In  Ireland, the  Cavan  and  Monaghan  group  recovers  the 
waste from mushroom production  to make compost. In Spain,  the Sierra de Béjar-Francia  group 
has perfected  a new system for  complete purification  of oil mill  waste, the residue  being  used as 
fuel  or fertilizer.  In  Greece,  the  Thebes group supports  operations for  the production  of  biomass 
energy for  heating; 

•  protection  of  ecosystems:  improved management of natural  resources, protection for  fauna  and 
flora  and sensitive natural spaces. Many groups have given priority  to planting  woodland: Orense 
and Sierra de Gâta in Spain,  Tuscany in Italy, etc. In Greece, the Thessaloniki group  is helping to 
improve a  bio tope for  the  reproduction  of  herons;  the  Mytilene  group  has  begun  work  on  the 
protection of a fossilized  forest; 

•  ecotourism: the natural heritage is a basic factor  in the development of tourism in the countryside; 
but facilities  and  activities  are  also  needed. In  Germany,  the  group  from  the  Daun  region  has 
established a geological  discovery  route  around the  volcanos  of  the Eifel  In  Ireland, the  Bally 
Houra group is developing recreational activities in the region's mountains. 

Also  important  is  the  development  of  organic farming,  and  of  measures for  training,  outreach  and 
counselling. In France,  the Haut-Allier group is supporting an  information and study centre  dealing 
with the  ecology  and  environment  of  rivers, and the  Est-Magnus  group  is  organising  a  permanent 
centre for  initiation to environmental  studies. In Scotland, the Loch Aber  group  is taking part  in the 
establishment of a natural heritage observation centre near a bird sanctuary. 

148 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Following  an  invitation  to tender,  the  Commission  also  selected  the  body  responsible  for  organization 
and  running  of  the  European  Observatory  of  Rural  Innovation  and  Development,  whose  role  is  to 
identify,  classify,  validate and facilitate the transfer of innovations introduced  in the countryside. 

PESCA  (1994-99) 

PESCA  (ECU 257 million) provides financing to complement the structural aid available under CSFs, helping 
fishermen  to retrain  and firms in the sector to diversify.  The operations planned relate to diversification  in the 
fisheries  sector  (into  tourism  and  crafts),  improvement  of  occupational  skills  of  fishermen,  or  upgrading  of 
fisheries  products  and  improvement  of  distribution  channels.  PESCA  mainly  applies  in  areas  dependent  on 
fisheries situated in Objective  1,2 and 5(b) areas, with half the financing being earmarked for Objective 1. 

Four PESCA  programmes (Italy, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) were adopted  during 
1995,  seven  programmes  having  already  been  adopted  by  the  end  of  1994.  The  late  adoption  ofthe 
programmes,  and  the  somewhat  complicated  system  of  management,  explain  the  level  oTtake-up  of 
financing.  On  the  commitments  side,  64%  of  the  appropriations  entered  in  the  1995  budget  were 
committed  (ECU  28.3  million  out  of  ECU 45  million,  divided  among  France,  Italy  and  the  United 
Kingdom),  while  only  17% of  appropriations  provided  were  paid  (ECU  5.3  million  out  of  ECU 31.9 
million, divided among the Netherlands, Italy and the United Kingdom). 

Table 91 :  PESCA programmes adopted in 1995 and 1994 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No of  CIPs) 

Total  cost 

S.F.  assistance 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% of 
(3)/(2) 

Programmes  adopted  in  1995 

France  (1) 
Italy  (1) 
Netherlands  ( 1 ) 
United  Kingdom  (1) 

Programmes  adopted  in  1994 

Belgium  (1) 
Denmark  ( 1 ) 
Germany  ( 1 ) 
Greece  (1) 
Spain  (1) 
Ireland  (1) 
Portugal  (1) 

Total  (11) 

81,3 
81,2 
34,2 
84,7 

4,3 
48,6 
62,0 
54,6 
95,7 
12,2 
'  47,2 
605,9 

28,3 
34,2 
10,8 
37,4 

2,0 
16,4 
23,0 
27,1 
41,5 
6,7 
25,6 
253,0 

18,8 
4,4 
1,2 
5,1 

0,3 
2,7 
3,8 
4.5 
6,9 
1,1 
4,3 
53,1 

• 

66% 
13% 
11% 
14% 

17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
17% 
2 1% 

0.0 
2,2 
0,6 
2.5 

0.2 
1,4 
1.9 
2,3 
3,5 
0,6 
2,1 
17,2 

0% 
50% 
50% 
50% 

50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 

3 2% 

In most ofthe  Member  States, the selection of projects  had just started or was about to start at the end of 
1995,  except  in  Ireland,  where  22  projects  had  already  been  approved  by  the  national  authorities.  In 
Greece,  the  authorities  decided  to  appoint  an  intermediary  to  manage  the  programme,  because  of  the 
great  complexity  of  planned  operations  due to the  involvement  of  a number  of  different  Funds.  In  the 
French  overseas  departments,  where  PESCA  operations  are  covered  by  the  REGIS  programmes,  only 
the  programme  for  Réunion  had  been  adopted  by  December  1995.  The  Swedish  and  Finnish 
programmes were presented to the Commission towards the end of  1995.' ' 

11  See  below:  1.3  Community  Initiatives  in  the  three  new  Member  States. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

149 

SME 

(1994-99) 

SME  (ECU  1  027 million) responds to the need for  SMEs to adapt to the constraints  ofthe  internal  market  and 
the  globalization  of  economies. This  Initiative  also continues, with adjustments,  the  earlier  Initiatives,  STRIDE 
(strengthening  technological  potential  in less-favoured  regions), Prisma (improvement  of  business  services)  and 
TELEMATIQUE  (use of advanced telecommunications  services). The  SMEs  Initiative  is intended  in  particular 
for  Objective  1  regions, where 80% ofthe  appropriations will be spent. The measures  promoted  are intended  to 
improve  the  system  of  production  and  organization  of  firms,  to  take  better  account  of  environmental 
considerations,  to  develop  cooperation  and  networking  between  SMEs,  or  to  reinforce  cooperation  between 
research centres, technology transfer centres, universities and SMEs. 

As  the  SME  Initiative  is  a  new  Initiative  for  1994-99,  the  proposals  for  programmes  from  the  Member 
States  were  considerably  adjusted  to  ensure  that  the  guidelines  were  followed.  The  adjustments  related 
in  particular  to  innovative  aspects  and  internationalization  of  SMEs,  and  they  increased  the time  needed 
for  negotiations.  Ofthe  38  programmes  presented  by  the  Fifteen,  21  were  approved  in  1995; the  others 
comprised  one  in  Belgium,  six  in  Germany,  one  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  non=regionalized 
programmes  in  Denmark,  Spain,  Italy  and  Luxembourg,  and  four  programmes  in the  three  new  Member 
States. 

Table 92 :  SME programmes  adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 

Belgium (1) 
Gennany(9) 
Greece ( 1 ) 
France (3) 
Ireland (1) 
Netherlands (1) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (4) 
Total (21) 

Total cost 

S.F. assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

%of 
(3)/(2) 

14,2 
356,3 
156,9 
139,2 
53,2 
26,9 
235,9 
43,0 
1.025,5 

9,4 
156,8 
83,3 
58,5 
28,8 
10,3 
124,0 
20,1 
491,3 

7,5 
101,2 
10,5 
15,4 
26,5 
9,5 
13,2 
19,7 
203,5 

80% 
65% 
13% 
26% 
92% 
92% 
11% 
98% 
41% 

2,2 
30,9 
5,2 
4,6 
7,9 
2,9 
6,6 
7,3 
67,7 

30% 
30% 
50% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
50% 
37% 
33% 

Belgium:  The  programme  adopted  concerns  Wallonia  (a  programme  for  Flanders  will  also  be 
approved).  It  is designed  around  two  central  ideas:  strengthening  coordination  and  support  networks  for 
SMEs, and  strengthening joint  services to  SMEs. 

Accent  on networking  and services to SMEs: 
Wallonia's programme is organized around two main themes: 

. the coordination  of support and networking through: 

measures  to  integrate  bodies  providing  services  to  SMEs  so  as  to  promote 
exchanges of experience and synergies; 
establishment of coordination centres; 

. joint services to SMEs through: 

setting  up  a  financial  forum  to  study  conditions  of  access  to  sources  of 
financing; 
technological  measures,  with  a  view  in  particular  to  coordinating  and 
assessing certain measures for SMEs; 
stimulating  SMEs,  taking  account  of  the  need  to  seek  partners,  of 
environmental  constraints,  of  information 
technology,  and  of  quality 
requirements. 

Germany:  Nine  programmes  have  been  adopted  to support  SMEs  in the  sectors  of  industry  and  services. 
Five  programmes  relate  to  the  western  Lander  (a  further  five  have  not  yet  been  approved),  and  four  to 
the  new  Lander.  It  has  proved  difficult  to  draw  up  these  programmes  for  German  SMEs,  because  of 
difficulties  of  harmonization  and  coordination  at  national  level;  this  has  seriously  delayed  matters.  An 
example  of planned  projects  is management  ofthe  environment  and  of energy  sources (Berlin,  Structural 
Funds  contribution  of  ECU  615  000).  This  involves,  first,  developing  strategies  to  inform  firms  of  ways 

150 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

of conserving  energy  and  reducing  C02  emissions,  and  secondly,  making  the  "Eco-Audit"  instrument 
available to firms. 

Greece: The  main  objective  of  the  programme  is to  promote  the  internationalization  of  Greek  SMEs 
through  a policy of  "clusters", and to facilitate  their access to the capital  market  by promoting financial 
engineering  instruments  (venture  capital,  mutual  guarantees)  and  by  introducing  quality  policy 
(certification,  standards and standardization). 

France:  Three  programmes  were  adopted.  Under  the  two  Objective  1  programmes  (Corsica  and 
Nord/Pas-de-Calais),  investment  of  ECU 40.9  million  will  be  supported  by  Community  assistance  of 
ECU 9.3  million,  to  contribute,  in Nord/Pas-de-Calais,  to  intangible  investment  by  SMEs,  support  for 
collective  measures,  and  the  improvement  of  the  technological  environment.  The  operations  to  be 
carried  out  in  Corsica  involve  setting  up  innovative  new  businesses,  developing  new  forms  of 
cooperation  and  communication  between  firms  to  facilitate  access  to  new  markets,  and  developing 
expertise  in  economic  conversion.  The  programme  for  the  Objective  2  and  5(b)  areas  (Community 
assistance: ECU 49.2 million; total cost: ECU 98.3 million) will enable a guarantee fund  to be set up for 
SMEs with projects  for  partnership or innovation, contribute to collective modernization  and  innovation 
projects following  up the STRIDE programme and constitute partnerships  between  European  businesses 
in various fields. 

Ireland: The programme  is specifically  directed towards SMEs with fewer than  50 employees, or with a 
turnover  under  ECU 3.7  million.  It  concentrates  on  access  to  financing  and  credit,  access  to  public 
contracts, the adjustment  of service companies to the internal market, the dissemination of good practice, 
and the improvement of know-how and ofthe  business environment. 

Netherlands:  The  programme  covers  all  the  Netherlands  regions  under  Objectives  1  and  2,  and  is 
intended  to  improve  the  competitiveness  of  SMEs  in order  to reinforce  regional  production  structures. 
To this  end,  it  comprises  five  priorities:  the  development  of  systems  of  production  and  technological 
innovation;  cooperation  between  SMEs  and  research  centres; setting  up networks  of  SMEs; job  skills; 
technical assistance and trans-national  exchanges. 

Portugal: In terms  of financing, the Portuguese  programme  is the biggest  SME  programme  adopted  in 
1995. It covers the whole of Portugal  and  includes measures  intended, first, to  improve  competitiveness 
and  to  modernize  Portuguese  SMEs,  the  basis  of  the  country's  productive  economy,  and  secondly,  to 
improve the business environment,  in particular through training and financial  engineering. 

United Kingdom:  Four  programmes  have  been  approved:  Highlands  and  Islands,  Lowland  Scotland, 
Wales,  Northern  Ireland;  the  programme  for  England  is  yet  to  be  adopted.  As  an  example,  the 
programme  for the  Highlands and Islands accounts for  Structural  Fund aid of almost  ECU 3 million  for 
SMEs;  the  geographical  features  of  the  region  are  particularly  difficult  for  small  businesses,  and  the 
problems  arising  are  very  different  from  those  encountered  in  most  European  regions.  The  aim  of  the 
programme  is thus  to  counter  the  risk  of  isolation  from  the  main  economic  current  of  Europe,  through 
assistance with services to SMEs, a high standard of training, and cooperation  between firms. 

REGIS  (1994-99) 

REGIS (ECU 600  million)  is  intended  to  improve  integration  into  the  Community  of  the  most distant 
regions. It includes some ofthe measures under the former Poseidom, Poseima and Poseican programmes, 
and measure from other CIs in the most remote regions, to enable them to take a full  part in trans-national 
cooperation  networks.  The  measures  are  intended  to  achieve  diversification  of  economic  activity, 
consolidation  of  links  with  the  rest  of  the  Union,  cooperation  between  remote  regions,  natural  risk 
prevention and vocational training. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

151 

Three  Member  States  take  part  in  the  REGIS  Initiative:  Portugal,  Spain  and  France.  In  1995,  Portugal 
presented  a  programme  for  Madeira  and  the  Azores,  Spain  presented  one  for  the  Canary  Islands,  and 
France  presented  four  programmes  for  the  overseas  departments.  The  Spanish  and  Portuguese 
programmes  were  approved  in  1995,  as  was  France's  programme  for  Réunion;  at  the  end  of  1995, 
therefore,  the  programmes  for  Guadeloupe, Martinique  and French  Guiana  were  still  awaiting  approval. 

Table 93:  REGIS  programmes  adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 

Total cost 

S.F. assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

%of 
(3)/(2) 

Spain (1) 
France (1) 
Portugal ( 1 ) 
Total (3) 

385,5 
209,2 
156,8 
751,5 

216,9 
115,6 
124,0 
456,5 

28,0 
8,8 
22,0 
58,8 

13% 
8% 
18% 
13% 

0,0 
4,4 
17,6 
22,0 

0% 
50% 
80% 
37% 

Spain:  The programme  provides  for  Community  financing  of ECU  216.9  million. 

through 

A programme for  the Canary Islands: 
The  main  objectives  of  the  REGIS  programme  are  to  diversify  economic 
activity,  promote  technological  development  and  remedy  spatial  and  economic 
the  development  of  tourism  without  threatening  the 
imbalance 
environment  and the cultural heritage, consolidation  of links with the rest of the 
Community  and  the  other  remote  regions,  and  vocational  training  and 
employment. 
Ten  measures are planned: local development (14%); encouragement  of tourism 
(21%);  infrastructure  to  support  economic  activity  (22%); development  ofthe 
economic  fabric  (11%);  URBAN  Las  Palmas  (4%);  URBAN  Santa  Cruz  de 
Tenerife  (4%); regional  cooperation  (0.3%); SMEs  industrial  development  plan 
(19%);  assessment,  monitoring  and  technical  assistance  (0.7%). The  Structural 
Funds finance  56% ofthe  programme. 

France:  The  programme  for  Réunion  concentrates  on  the  promotion  of  economic  activity, 
the 
development  of  communications  and  regional  and  interregional  cooperation,  local  development,  control 
of  the  environment  and  prevention  of  natural  hazards,and  training  for  improved  skills  and  equal 
opportunities. 

Portugal:  The  purpose  ofthe  programme  is promotion  of  a  series  of  priority  measures  concerning  basic 
infrastructure  (Madeira  airport,  etc.),  the  development  of  local  potential  (e.g.  energy  production  in  the 
Azores),  inter-regional  cooperation  and  agricultural  promotion. 

RECHAR 

II 

(1994-97) 

RECHAR  II  (ECU  406  million)  still  supports  conversion  in the  areas  worst  affected  by  the  decline  ofthe  coal 
industry,  but  it gives  higher  priority  to  environmental  protection,  new  economic  activity  and  human  resources. 
The  planned  measures  are thus  intended  to  rehabilitate  the  environment  and  former  mining  buildings,  promote 
new  activities  (especially  in  SMEs),  support  economic  conversion  agencies  and  regional  development  bodies, 
and contribute to training and employment (especially in SMEs). 

The  Member  States  have  submitted  30 programmes  under the  RECHAR  Initiative. The experience  ofthe 
the  negotiation  and  approval  of 
preceding  programming  period  (1990-93)  was  useful  during 
programmes.  Consequently,  26  programmes,  almost  all  those  submitted,  were  approved,  with  only  four 
still  to  be  adopted  in  1996  (one  in  Germany,  one  in  France,  one  in  Austria  and  the  non-regionalized 
programme  in  Spain). 

152 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 94:  RECHAR IIprogrammes adopted In 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 

Belgium (2) 
Germany (6) 
Greece (1) 
France (6) 
Italy (2) 
Portugal (1) 
United Kingdom (8) 
Total (26) 

Total cost 

S.F. assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

%of 
(3)/(2) 

58,1 
400,8 
2,0 
39,4 
34,1 
1,1 
364,6 
900,2 

15,7 
128,4 
1,5 
16,7 
1,7 
0,9 
163,2 
328,0 

15,7 
55,9 
1,4 
15,5 
1,7 
0,9 
81,6 
172,5 

100% 
44% 
90% 
93% 
100% 
100% 
50% 
53% 

7,8 
26,8 
0,7 
1,8 
0,4 
0,3 
37,8 
75,6 

50% 
48% 
50% 
12% 
23% 
30% 
46% 
44% 

Belgium:  The  two  programmes,  for  Wallonia  and  Flanders,  concern  respectively  the  Charleroi  area 
(Châtelet)  and  Limburg.  The  Châtelet  programme  comprises  measures  to  restructure  water  supply 
networks, which  have been  damaged  by  intensive  coal  mining. These  measures  continue  those  already 
carried  out  under  RECHAR  I.  The  priorities  in  Limburg  are  conversion  of  economic  infrastructure, 
modernization  of social structures, and economic and social integration of labour. 

— 

Germany:  Six programmes were adopted, with only one, that for Brandenburg, still awaiting adoption at 
the  end  of the year.  Three programmes  concern  the new Lander, and three the  western  Lander, that  for 
North  Rhine-Westphalia being the largest RECHAR programme  in financial  terms. The measures  in the 
programmes  mainly  concern  improving  the  environment,  fostering  new  economic  activity  and 
maintaining existing human capital. The programme for North Rhine-Westphalia is intended to  diversify 
sectors  of  activity  and  reinforce  intermediary  economic  activity.  To  strengthen  the  competitiveness  of 
SMEs,  the  programme  will  support  the  creation  of  new  markets  through  the  development  of  new 
procedures  and  the  sale of new  products, and the  improvement  of opportunities  for  access to the  latest 
technologies.  It  is  hoped  that  the  implementation  of  this  programme  in  North  Rhine-Westphalia  will 
safeguard  some 5 400 jobs. 

Greece: The main purpose ofthe  RECHAR programme, which covers the industrial  area around  Kozani 
and  Ptolemaida  in northern  Greece,  is to improve the environment  in areas damaged  by  lignite  mining. 
A further  measure  will  help the occupational  conversion  of workers who are unemployed  or  threatened 
with  unemployment. 

France:  The  six  programmes  approved  for  France  involve  Community  assistance  of  about  ECU 17 
million,  including  ECU  11  million  in  Lorraine  (districts  of  Boulay,  Forbach  and  Sarreguemines), 
intended  especially  for  the promotion  ofthe  mining areas concerned.  Among the planned  operations, it 
is worth noting the development of industrial tourism through the enhancement ofthe  industrial  heritage, 
in  particular  further  improvement  ofthe  Blanzy  mining  museum  (Montceau-les-Mines  mining  area,  in 
Burgundy).  Other  mining  areas  to  be  promoted  are  those  of  Gardane  (Bouches-du-Rhône),  Albi-
Carmeaux  (Tarn)  and  Lorraine  (recovery  of  derelict  land,  urban  restructuring,  tourism,  etc.),  while 
measures  in the  areas  of Aies (Gard)  and  La Mure (Isère)  should  create  an  environment  and  reception 
facilities conducive to conversion. 

Italy:  Two  programmes  were  adopted  in  1995:  Sardinia  and  Tuscany.  The  programme  for  Sardinia, 
which  provides  for  investment  of ECU  1.6  million,  concerns the  coal-mining  area  of  Sulcis-Iglesiente, 
and  comprises  a single  environmental  improvement  measure  for  the  installation  of  SMEs.  In  Tuscany, 
the  mining  area  concerned  is  Santa  Barbara,  and  the  main  feature  ofthe  programme  is the  very  close 
involvement  of  the  private  sector,  which  is  contributing  almost  95%  of  the  financing  (ECU 35.6 
million).  This  programme  too  comprises  a  single  measure,  relating  to  the  diversification  ofthe  local 
small  business  fabric,  through  interest-rate  subsidies  to  firms  presenting  investment  projects  for 
technological  innovation, energy or environment  protection. 

Portugal:  The  programme  is  intended  to finance operations  in the  Castelo  de  Paiva  area  (in  the  Nord 
region),  which  has  been  adversely  affected  by  the  closure  of  coal  mines.  Besides  aid  to  provide  the 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

153 

infrastructure  needed  for the development  of replacement activities, the objectives  of this  programme are 
to improve the environmental  situation and to provide technical  assistance  for economic  activity. 

United  Kingdom:  Eight  RECHAR  programmes  were  adopted  in  1995. The programmes  for  Yorkshire 
and  the East  Midlands  are the largest,  accounting  for  about  half  the  financing,  but other  coal-mining 
areas in England and Scotland  are also eligible. The other major  programmes  are those  for Wales  and for 
North-East  England. 

KONVER 

(1994-97) 

KONVER (ECU 506 million) follows on from the Perifra  I and II action programmes (support for demonstration 
projects for conversion from military activity) and from an initial year of implementation  in 1993. It is now being 
implemented  on a  multi-annual  basis,  with  the aim of  supporting  economic  diversification  in  areas  highly 
dependent on the defence  sector, through  conversion  of industries  related to that  sector,  and the encouragement 
of viable commercial activities in all industrial sectors, excluding activities with possible military applications. At 
least 50% ofthe  financing  is earmarked for regions covered by Objectives  1, 2 or 5(b). 

Because  ofthe  delay  in allocating  finance  among  the Member  States  and drawing  up the list  of  areas 
eligible  under  this  Initiative,12  the presentation  of programmes  by the Member  States  was also  delayed. 
In  1995,  37  programmes  were  approved,  mostly  at the end of  December,  and  eight  were  still  to be 
adopted  by the end ofthe  year  (three  in Germany,  and the non-regionalized  programmes  in Spain,  Italy, 
Luxembourg,  the Netherlands  and Sweden). They  account  for 70% of total  funding  for this  Initiative. 

Table 95:  KONVER  programmes  adopted in 1995 - EUR  12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 

Belgium (3) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany  (13) 
Greece (1) 
France  (17) 
Portugal  ( 1 ) 
United  Kingdom (1) 
Total  (37) 

Total  cost 

S.F.  assistance 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

%  of 
(3)/(2) 

30,4 
5,3 
342,3 
20,3 
244,1 
10,7 
230,6 
883,7 

11,5 
2,4 
144,5 
12,9 
71,0 
7,9 
101,9 
352,1 

11,5 
2,4 
130,6 
11,5 
64,4 
7,9 
10,0 
238,2 

100% 
100% 
90% 
89% 
9 1% 
100% 
10% 
6 8% 

5,7 
1,2 
38,7 
5,7 
32.0 
3.9 
0,0 
87,3 

50% 
50% 
30% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
0% 
3 7% 

Belgium:  The three  Belgian  regions  each  have  a  programme.  In Flanders  (Bruges,  Louvain,  Turnhout, 
Tongeren  and Hasselt), the planned  measures  concern  economic  promotion  and environmental  support. 
In  the Brussels-Capital  region,  a  barracks  is to  be  restored  and converted  for  the  installation  of new 
economic  activities  (crafts,  small  shops,  arts  centre).  In  Wallonia,  the  programme  covers  part  of the 
areas  eligible  under  Objectives  1, 2  and  5(b),  and is  intended  to  encourage  small  businesses,  develop 
tourist  activity  after  restoring  derelict  sites and re-skill  workers  employed  in the sector. 

Denmark:  The programme  covers  two areas:  Karup  in the centre  of Jutland,  and Copenhagen,  both of 
which  are outside  the areas  covered  by Objectives.  The measures  concern  services  and support  for the 
technological  development  of SMEs, the promotion  of tourism  and the environment,  and training  to  re-
skill  workers. 

Germany:  With  ECU  144.5  million  in  Structural  Fund  appropriations  adopted  in  1995  and  13 
programmes,  Germany  is the largest  recipient  under  the  KONVER  Initiative.  To give  an example,  under 
the  priority  for converting  sites, the programme  for North  Rhine-Westphalia, the main  programme  in the 
western  Lander,  includes  the construction  of the  Cartec  technological  centre  on the site  of the  former 
Churchill  barracks  at Lippstadt.  At Rôdinghausen, the Birdwood  military  barracks,  which  is now empty, 

12 Completed  in 1994; see 1994 Annual  Report. 

154 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

will  be  converted  into  a  shopping  area,  and  in  the  town  of  Minden  a  former  army  college  will  be 
converted  into training premises for commercial studies. 

Greece:  The  main  purpose  of  the  programme  is  the  conversion  of  economic  activities  linked  to  the 
armaments industry and the adaptation of commercially viable businesses in all industrial sectors. 

France:  The  17 French  programmes  concern  57 travel-to-work  areas, 23 of which  are outside the areas 
eligible under Objectives  2 and 5(b). In general, individual programmes receive less than ECU 5 million, 
although the largest, that for Aquitaine, has available financing of ECU  13.2 million. Vocational  training 
measures  account  for  9%  of  Structural  Fund financing, while  31% of total  investment  is  for  restoring 
military sites and areas adversely affected  by the reduction  in military activity,  in order to encourage the 
installation  of  SMEs.  The  next  aspect  is  renovation  and  modernization  of  social  and  economic 
infrastructure  (14%>).  The  bulk  of  the  aid  (46%)  concerns  measures  for  SMEs,  with  priority  for 
operations  to  improve  the  business  environment.  On  the  whole,  these  programmes  reinforce  the 
Objective  2  programmes  in  the  same  area  or  a  neighbouring  area  (except  those  for  Île-de-France, 
Limousin and Aquitaine). 

.  . 

Portugal:  The main  objectives  ofthe  programme  are to help the economy  ofthe  regions  dependent  on 
the  defence  sector  (e.g.  the  Azores,  Alentejo  or Lisbon), to  contribute  to  the  rehabilitation  of  military 
zones with a view to developing new activities and to improve the environment  around  military training 
grounds. 

United Kingdom:  A  single  programme  was adopted,  for  Great  Britain, Northern  Ireland  and  Gibraltar. 
Almost  50%o of  the  financing  is  for  investment  outside  areas  covered  by  the  Objectives,  so  as  to  take 
account  of  specific  problems  due  to  the  decline  in  the  defence  industry.  Operations  will  be  aimed  at 
diversification  ofthe  economic  base  in the areas covered, concentrating  on  improving the  environment. 
Another  aspect  is technology  transfer,  which  should  enable the vast  system  of expertise  in the  defence 
sector  to  be  used  for  diversification  and  innovation  in  industrial  SMEs.  The  programme,  for  which  a 
Monitoring Committee will be established, will be divided  into  14 area sub-programmes, each one to be 
managed by a working party of representatives of ministries, local bodies and the Commission. 

RESIDER  II  (1994-97) 

RESIDER //(ECU  520 million) is a continuation of RESIDER I; it supports conversion in steel-producing areas. 
Like RECHAR II, this Initiative gives priority to environmental protection, new economic activities and human 
resources, in order to speed up adjusfrnent  to radical change in the economic conditions in the areas concerned. 
The measures planned are ofthe same type as those under RECHAR II. 

In  1995, 27 programmes  were submitted  by the Member States for the RESIDER  II Initiative  (including 
one  programme  by  Austria).  Thanks  to  experience  gained  between  1990  and  1993,  it  was  possible  to 
approve virtually  all the programmes by the end of  1995: 19 programmes were adopted  in the course of 
the  year  (the  programme  for  Portugal  having  already  been  adopted  in  1994),  which  left  only  eight 
programmes  still  to  be approved  at the end  of  1995 (one  in Germany,  two  in France, one  in the  United 
Kingdom, and the non-regionalized  programmes for Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and Austria). 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

155 

Table 96:  RESIDER IIprogrammes adopted in 1994 and 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 

Total cost 

S.F. assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

%of 
(3)/(2) 

Programmes adopted in  1995 
Belgium (2) 
Germany (8) 
Greece (1) 
France (5) 
Netherlands (1) 
United Kingdom (2) 
Programme adopted in  1994 
Portugal (1) 
Total (20) 

52,9 
558,3 
8,9 
105,8 
51,5 
52,5 

10,8 
840,6 

24,4 
164,3 
4,7 
42,6 
18,1 
23,2 

6,9 
284,2 

23,7 
62,5 
4,1 
38,6 
18,1 
23,2 

6,9 
177,1 

97% 
38% 
88% 
91% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
62% 

5,6 
31,2 
2,1 
17,5 
7,4 
11,6 

2,9 
78,3 

24% 
50% 
50% 
45% 
41% 
50% 

42% 
44% 

Belgium:  Two  programmes  were  approved,  for  the  areas  of  Charleroi  and  Liège,  both  of  which  have 
been  seriously  affected  by  the  decline  of  the  steel  industry  (unemployment  running  at  over  20%  in 
Charleroi  in  1994,  and  over  10 000 jobs  lost  in  Liège  between  1978  and  1993).  Both  programmes 
include a measure for environmental  improvement  and/or site rehabilitation. Measures are"aIso planned 
for  diversification  of the  economic  fabric,  creation  of  a business  start-up  fund  for  new  or  restructured 
firms, aid for the provision  of reception  infrastructure,  amenities and access roads to business  parks  for 
craft and service firms, better equipped research centres and promotion of technological  innovation. 

Germany: Eight programmes were adopted, with only one, that for Brandenburg, still awaiting  adoption 
in  1996. One ofthe  main priorities  is the reclamation  of derelict  industrial  sites and  their conversion  to 
new  economic  purposes.  The  aid  planned  will  make  available  new  land  for  industrial  and  commercial 
firms, and also integrate areas of industrial  and commercial  activity  into town  planning while  improving 
the  environment.  For  example,  the  Land  of  North  Rhine-Westphalia  is  carrying  out  general  urban 
renovation, through  the Internazionale Bauausstellung-IBA-"Emscher Park", of a particularly  run-down 
area  of  the  Ruhr,  in  line  with  very  strict  environmental  and  urban  development  standards  (Structural 
Fund financing of ECU 25.9 million). The programme should prevent the loss of a total of 6 500 jobs. 

Greece: The programme covers three areas, in the vicinities of Thessaloniki, Volos and Athens; its main 
purpose is to repair damage to the environment  and to redeploy economic activity  in the  steel-producing 
areas. It also provides for a measure for the retraining of workers who are unemployed  or threatened  by 
unemployment. 

France:  Five  programmes  were  approved,  and  two, those  for  Nord-Pas  de  Calais  and  for  Normandy, 
were still  awaiting  approval  at the  end  of  1995. The  programmes  adopted  concentrate  over  70%>  ofthe 
available financing  in the departments of Meurthe-et-Moselle  and Moselle, and  three districts  in  Meuse 
(Etain, Spincourt and Verdun-Est), in the region of Lorraine. The main objective  is industrial  conversion 
of these areas to a dynamic process of job-creation  and  improved  living environment.  The  programmes 
provide  for  measures  to  develop  public  amenities,  such  as  setting  up a meeting  and  training  centre  for 
industry  in  premises  formerly  used  for  steel  production  (Le  Creusot),  or  transforming  a  former  steel 
works  into  an  exhibition  park  (Ugine).  Another  priority  is  to  enhance  environmental  and  urban 
attractiveness,  through  such  measures  as  treatment  of  pit  water  (Lorraine)  or  setting  up  a  "centre  of 
excellence" for technical  expertise and know-how (Lorraine). Support  for the creation  and  development 
of  new  businesses  by  improving  amenities  and joint  services  is  also  available  through  a  number  of 
measures  such  as the  provision  of  logistic  amenities  for  harbour  and  on-shore  activities  (Fos-sur-Mer), 
or the  reclamation  of  derelict  industrial  land  for  new  activities  to  develop  technological  networks  and 
technology transfer  (Picardy). 

Netherlands:  There  is  a  programme  for  IJmond,  an  area  affected  by  the  decline  in  steel  and  other 
industries,  especially  fisheries.  Its  main  purpose  is to  broaden  the  economic  base  ofthe  region  and  it 
should  lead  to the creation  of 2 000 permanent jobs. The measures  relate to cleaning  up industrial  sites 
and  developing  new  sites  and  installations,  developing  logistic  infrastructure  (port  facilities),  business 
innovation  (aid  plans  for  SMEs,  risk  capital,  start-up  aids,  small  business  networks),  training  and  the 

156 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

labour  market  (guidance,  monitoring  centres,  transfer  of  expertise),  and  an  action  plan  to  encourage 
tourism. 

Portugal:  The  RESIDER  programme  for  Portugal  was  adopted  in  1994, the  first  programme  adopted 
under  this  Initiative.  Its  objectives  are  to  speed  up  economic  conversion  in  the  region  of  Setubal, 
particularly  hard  hit  by  restructuring  in  the  steel  industry,  to  help  unemployed  workers  and  those 
threatened  with  unemployment  back  on  to  the  labour  market  and  to  promote  the  creation  and 
development of new economic activities with good job-creating  potential, alongside the development  of 
human and material  resources. By the end of  1995, 69%> of public expenditure programmed  for  1994-95 
had actually been  incurred. 

United Kingdom:  The  programmes  for  Wales  and  for  Western  Scotland  were  adopted  in  1995;  the 
programme  for  England  was  still  awaiting  adoption.  The  two  programmes  supplement  the  other 
Community programmes in these regions, and the Objective 2 SPD for Western  Scotland. 

RETEX  (1994-97) 

RETEX (ECU 522 million) was launched in 1992 to support economic diversification  in areas heavily dependent 
on textiles and clothing; in  1994, it was extended to  1997, taking in new areas that had become eligible under 
Objectives  1,  2  and  5(b).  The  measures  supported  involve  such  things  as  counselling  and  non-productive 
equipment to improve firms' expertise, support for  local groups of firms and cooperation  measures,  and  staff 
training and business services. 

The  increase  in financing  for RETEX  from  1994 for  Objective  1, 2 and  5(b) areas was accompanied  by 
major  adjustments  to  most  of  the  programmes  adopted  in  1993.  New  programmes  have  also  been 
submitted. In  1995, 21 RETEX programmes were presented to the Commission,  seven  new programmes 
were  approved,  and  five  existing  programmes  were  amended.  Altogether,  therefore,  12  programmes 
were  adopted  or  amended  in  1995. The  total  of  18 programmes  adopted  for  RETEX  represent  98% of 
the total amount allocated to the Initiative for the period  1994-97. 

Table 9 7:  Situation of RETEX programmes in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

P r o g r a m m es  adopted 
in  1995 

Assistance 
for  1994-97 
0) 

Commitments 
1995 

(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 

1995 

(3) 

"A, 

(3)/(2) 

Gennany 
Saxony 
Thuringia 
Lower  Saxony 

Belgium  -  Wallonia 
Netherlands  -  Twente 
United  Kingdom 

Northern 

Ireland 

Great  Britain 

53,2 

41,') 
9.6 
l.fi 
3,0 
1,0 

36,6 
4,2 

32,4 

13.1 
3, - 
H.2 
1,2 
3,0 
1,0 

30,0 

3,H 

26.2 

2 5% 
9% 
S6% 
6'% 
100% 
100% 

82% 

H'J%, 

SJ% 

6,6 
/,<S" 
4.1 
0.6 
1,5 
0,5 

14.1 
1,9 

12.2 

50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 

4 7% 
50% 

4'% 

P r o g r a m m es  adopted 
in  1993 
and  amended  in  1995 

Assistance 
1993 
(1993  prices) 

Assistance 
1994-97 

Assistance 
1993-97 
0) 

Commitments 
1993-95 

(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1993-95 

(3) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

Gennany  -  Bavaria 

France 
Italy 

I  areas 
Objective 
Objective  2 and  5(b)  areas 

Greece 

1,3 
4,0 
12,1 
'.9 
4,2 

12,1 

7,6 
24,9 
66,9 
31,5 
35,5 

75,4 

P r o g r a m m es  adopted 
in  1993 

Assistance 
1993 
(1993  prices) 

Assistance 
1994-97 
(1993  prices) 

8,8 
28,9 
79,0 
39,4 
39.6 

87.5 

Assistance 

1993-97 

8,8 
7,0 

12,1 
~,9 
4,2 

11,8 
Commitments 

1993-95 

(1993  prices) 

(2) 

(1) 

100% 
24% 

15% 
20%, 
10%, 

13% 

1,0 
3,4 
6.0 
3,9 

2.1 
9.1 

1 1% 
49% 
5 0% 
50% 

50% 
78% 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 

1993-95 

(3) 

"A, 
(3)/(2) 

Gennany 

North  Rhine-  Westphalia 
Baden-  Wurttemhcrg 

Hesse 

Spain 
Ireland 
Portugal 

0,7 
0,2 
0,2 
0.3 

18,1 
2,3 
30,0 

3,1 
1,4 
0,6 
1,1 

72,3 
9,1 
159,0 

3,7 
1,6 
0,H 
1,4 

90,4 
11,4 
189,0 

0,9 
0,2 
0.2 
0,5 
38,5 
6,9 
111,4 

2 5% 
11%, 
2H%, 
40%, 
4 3% 
6 1% 
59% 

0,6 
0.1 
0.1 
0,4 
34,2 
4,1 
63,1 

59% 
50%, 
50%, 
65% 
89% 
59% 
5 7% 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

\ 57 

Belgium:  The  RETEX  programme  adopted  in  1995  concerns  Wallonia  (Hainaut);  a  second  programme 
is  planned  for  Flanders.  The  two  main  priorities  are  diversification  of  activity  for  SMEs  through  the 
development  of  locally-generated  potential  (assistance  and  information  provided  by  a  new  economic 
development  team,  recruitment  of  management  staff,  recourse  to  external  consultants  to  enhance 
openness  to  markets)  and  the  improvement  of  skills  (training  in  new  technologies,  internal  and  external 
mobility  and  collaboration  between  training centres and  businesses). 

Germany:  Four  RETEX  programmes,  for  Bavaria,  Baden-Wurttemberg,  North  Rhine-Westphalia  and 
Hesse,  were  adopted  in  1993.  The  programme  for  Bavaria  was  granted  extra  financing  in  1995  for  the 
period  1995-97.  A  decision 
in  1996  for 
Baden-Wurttemberg,  but  not  for  Hesse  or  North  Rhine-Westphalia.  In  1995,  three  new  programmes 
were  approved  for  the  period  1994-97:  Lower  Saxony,  Thuringia  and  Saxony.  Altogether,  there  are  thus 
seven  RETEX  programmes  in  progress  in  Germany,  with  Structural  Fund  financing  totalling  ECU  63.8 
million  from  1994 to  1997. 

to  increase  financing  was  also  expected 

to  be  taken 

Spain:  The  RETEX  programme,  which  covers  the  period  1993-97,  was  adopted  in  1993j_.lt  concerns 
parts  of  the  areas  covered  by  Objectives  1,  2  and  5(b)  in  eleven  regions.  Additional  Community 
financing  of  ECU  800  000  is to be granted  for the period  1994-97. 

Diversification  of  regions  dependent  on  the  textile  and  clothing  sector  in 
Spain: 
The  RETEX  programme  in  Spain  covers  areas  in  eleven  regions:  Andalusia, 
Aragon,  Castile-Leon,  Castile-La  Mancha.  Catalonia,  Extremadura,  Galicia, 
Rioja,  Madrid,  Murcia  and  Valencia;  its  distinguishing  feature  is  the  level  of 
partnership  achieved  (measures  within  the  competence  of  regional  and  local 
authorities  represent  59%  of  Community  financing).  It  comprises  five  sub-
programmes: 
• 

"business  competitiveness"  (41%),  on  a  multi-regional  scale,  implemented 
by  the  Industry  Ministry  in  the  framework  of  measures  for  adjustment  to 
international  competition  and  diversification  of  areas  dependent  on  the 
textiles and clothing sector; 
"improvement  of  the  industrial  fabric"  (54%),  on  a regional  or  local  scale, 
aiming at the constitution  of development and consultancy teams and  groups 
of  firms,  consultancy  and  diagnostic  reports,  modernization  plans  and  the 
dissemination  of new production methods; 
"access by businesses  to  risk  capital  and  loans" (4%), also  on  a regional  or 
local scale; 
"vocational training" (1%) on a regional or local scale; 

• 

• 

• 
•  monitorins, and assessment 

to 
France:  The  RETEX  programme  for  1994-97 
considerably  extend  the  area  covered,  from  21  employment  areas  in  1993  to  53  in  1994-97,  and  to 
channel  more  finance  into  diversification  projects,  while  maintaining  a  maximum  of  30%  of  Structural 
Fund  financing  to  assist  firms  in the textile  sector. 

is  a  programme  adopted 

in  1993,  amended 

Ireland:  The  programme,  adopted  in  1993, covers  the  whole  period  from  1993 to  1997.  It  is  specifically 
designed  to  deal  with  a certain  number  of structural  weaknesses  in the  Irish  textile  industry. 

Italy:  Two  programmes,  one  for  the  Objective  1 Italian  regions  and  the  other  for  the  Objectives  2  and 
5(b)  areas,  were  adopted  in  1995. They  amend  the  two  programmes  that  began  in  1993  by  changing  the 
content  of  several  regional  measures  and  the  annual  breakdown  of  Community  assistance.  A  special 
feature  of  both  programmes  is the  participation  ofthe  private  sector,  which  accounts  for  almost  30%  in 
the Objective  1 regions  and  52% in the Objective  2 and  5(b) areas. 

Netherlands:  The  programme,  adopted  in  1995, covers  the  period  1994-97  and  concerns  the  region  of 
Twente.  The  aim  is  to  reinforce  the  competitiveness  of  SMEs  in  the  region  both  within  and  outside  the 

15 8 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

textiles  and  clothing  sector; consequently,  the programme  has a single priority:  to  introduce  innovative 
business  organization,  with  special  attention  to  quality  management,  environmental  management, 
working conditions and strategic management. 

Portugal:  The  programme, which  was  adopted  in  1993, is the  largest  RETEX  programme  in  financial 
terms.  It  is  intended  to  diversify  the  production  structure  in  regions  affected  by  restructuring  in  the 
textile sector, and to modernize the sector in regions where it is highly concentrated. By the end of 1995, 
51% ofthe  programmed public expenditure had actually been  incurred. 

United Kingdom:  Two programmes  were approved  in  1995, for Northern  Ireland  and  for  Great  Britain. 
The programme  for  Great  Britain  covers nine areas eligible  under Objectives  1, 2 and  5(b), in  some  of 
which  the  programme  will  be  supplemented  by specific  regional  strategies.  Measures  are  concentrated 
on diversification  ofthe  economic base ofthe  regions through the introduction  of new technologies  and 
new products. A training and re-skilling programme has been  set up to facilitate  the move towards  self-
employment  and  new  business  start-ups.  Special  measures  for  the  environment  are  also  planned,  for 
example  liquid  waste  treatment  projects  in  Yorkshire  and  Humberside  and  in  the  East  Midlands  are 
expected to improve the image ofthose  areas. 

URBAN (1994-99) 

URBAN (ECU  651  million)  is  intended  to  help  solve  the  crisis  in  a number  of  urban  areas,  by  supporting 
measures for economic and social revitalization through the launching of new economic activities; measures for 
the renewal of social, health and safety  infrastructure  and facilities; ensuring employment for  local people; and 
improvement  of the environment  in connection  with these measures. The projects  must have a demonstration 
effect  for other urban areas, and they should be part of longer-term urban integration strategies. Two thirds ofthe 
financing is eannarked for Objective  1  regions, the remaining third for Objective 2 areas. 

The Member  States put forward  some  130 towns and  cities for  assistance  under the  URBAN  Initiative, 
of which  86 were chosen.  Some programmes  were presented  by national  authorities, and  cover  several 
towns  and  cities  in  the  Member  State.  Consequently,  there  are  only  43  programmes,  18 of  which  had 
been  approved  by the  end  of  1995. By  the  end  ofthe  year,  there  were  thus  24  programmes  still  to  be 
adopted,  comprising  one  in  Belgium, two  in Germany, the  eight  French  programmes,  the  Irish  and  the 
Italian  programmes,  which  are not regionalized,  nine UK programmes and two programmes  in the  new 
Member States. 

Urban and the urban environment: 
The  URBAN  Initiative 
is  intended  to  benefit  neighbourhoods  facing  particularly  difficult 
environmental conditions. This may be reflected, for  example, in derelict or contaminated sites, a lack 
of green  spaces and  basic infrastructure, or lack of mobility on the part  ofthe  local population.  The 
environmental and sustainable development aspects of  URBAN's integrated approach are clear.  The 
Initiative clearly declared the environment to be one ofthe  keys to dealing with problems  in the areas 
covered.  Many  of  the  measures  in  the  URBAN  integrated programmes  are  therefore  geared  to 
improving infrastructure and the environment, for  example, renovation of buildings to adapt them to 
new  economic  and  social  activities,  reclamation of public  open  spaces, particularly  green  spaces, 
energy  conservation,  or  the  supply  of  cultural  or  recreational  services  that  respect  the  living 
environment.  Under the new guidelines  to  improve the  URBAN Initiative,  using part  of  the  reserve 
available for  the  Community Initiatives,^  the problem  ofthe  urban environment  will receive  much 
greater attention. 

13 See above  1.1: Introduction - Proposal for the allocation ofthe  reserve in 1995. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

159 

Table 98:  URBAN programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

Member 
State 
(No of CIPs) 

Belgium (2) 
Denmark (1) 
Germany (8) 
Greece  ( 1 ) 
Spain (1) 
Luxembourg  ( 1 ) 
Netherlands (2) 
Portugal (1) 
United  Kingdom (1) 

Total  (18) 

Total  cost 

S.F.  assistance 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% of 
(3)/(2) 

26,6 
3,0 
270,1 
67,2 
248,7 
1,0 
87,9 
62,0 
24,5 
791,0 

8,2 

1,5 
86,4 
45,2 
162,6 
0,5 
9,3 
44,3 
17,0 
375,0 

8,2 
1,3 
79,0 
4,5 
22,8 
0,5 
7,9 
9,2 
17,0 
150,5 

100% 
88% 
9 1% 
10% 
14% 
100% 
85% 
2 1% 
100% 
4 0% 

4,1 
0,4 
23,2 
1,7 
11,4 
0,0 
2,4 
4,6 
6,9 

54,7 

50% 
30% 
29% 
38% 
50% 
8% 
30% 
50% 
40% 
3 6% 

Belgium:  Two  programmes  were  adopted,  with  that  for Brussels  still  awaiting  approval.  The area of 
Antwerp  covered  by the programme  is the north-eastern  section  ofthe  19th century  neighbourhood 
around  the main  railway  station.  The programme  aims  at new job  creation,  better  security,  training, 
education  and town  planning.  The programme  for Charleroi  covers  the Foucault  quartérT where the 
educational  level  is  low, housing  is  dilapidated,  unemployment  is  high,  and crime  and drugsare  a 
problem. The measures are intended to enhance the attractiveness ofthe  neighbourhood  (by  establishing 
a permanent conference  centre, and an exhibition stand to present the city and  its products), to encourage 
development in a new sector by setting up a comic-strip institute, to benefit the whole neighbourhood, in 
particular  by improving  traffic  conditions  for both  vehicles  and pedestrians,  and to change  the social 
standing ofthe  neighbourhood  through a series of measures part-financed  by the  ESF and carried  out in 
partnership with the Charleroi CPAS (public social welfare centre) and the MIREC (regional  mission for 
employment and integration). 

Denmark:  The programme concerns the town of Aalborg (suburb of Thistedvej)  in northern  Jutland, an 
area eligible  under Objective  2. The town  is facing  a high  level of unemployment,  traffic  problems and 
inadequate  social  and  cultural  services.  The  programme  will  concentrate  on  a  single  project,  a 
sustainable  urban  development  centre,  intended  to  modernize  the Thistedvej  suburb  by  encouraging 
sustainable and financially  stable industrial growth and by encouraging the local  inhabitants. 

Germany:  Eight  programmes  were  adopted:  Berlin,  Brandenburg,  Rostock,  Magdeburg,  Chemnitz, 
Erfurt,  Bremen  and  Duisburg;  six are in the new Lander  and two in the  western  Lander.  A  third 
programme for Saarland  was to be adopted  in 1996. In the framework  ofthe  programme for Duisburg-
Marxloh, for example, a Stadtteilwirtschaft development  project  will  be drawn  up, along  with  aid  and 
outreach  measures  to  safeguard  the potential  of the  area  and encourage  new business  start-ups. The 
prime  objective  is to stop the out-migration  of small  firms  and to identify  opportunities  for setting up 
new innovative businesses. 

Greece: The programme  covers six projects:  Drapetsona-Keratsini  and Peristeri  in Attiki, Nea-Ionia in 
Volos, Patras (south-east), Thessaloniki  (east) and  Syros (Ermoupolis), each of which  constitutes a sub-
programme.  These  are all demonstration  projects  for other  urban  areas,  involving  innovative  measures 
within  a  long-term  urban  integration  strategy.  The objective  in  each  case  is  to  launch  new  local 
economic  activity,  which  should  in return  encourage  the measures,  both  social  (jobs  for local  people, 
sanitation  infrastructure)  and  urban  (infrastructure  and environmental  measures  related  to  economic 
activity) required to improve living conditions for the areas and people concerned. 

Spain:  In  terms  of  financing,  the  Spanish  programme  is the  largest  programme  adopted  under the 
URBAN  Initiative  in  1995.  It  covers  17 neighbourhood  projects  in cities  with  a  population  of  over 
100 000  (see  table  below),  which  relate to economic  and social  revitalization,  renovation  of buildings, 
and the improvement of infrastructure,  including environmental  infrastructure.  The projects  also attempt 
to  include  innovative  measures  to deal  with  social  exclusion  and crime.  Associations  of citizens  will 
participate in implementing the programme, and technical assistance will concentrate on the exchange of 
experience within  Spain  and throughout  Europe. Day-to-day  management  ofthe  programme  will be the 

160 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

responsibility  ofthe  local  and  regional  authorities,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Ministry  of  Finance, 
which has overall responsibility for the programme. 

Table 99:  URBAN - Detailed financing of the programme in Spain (ECU million) 

Objective  1 regions 
Cadiz 
Malaga 
Hueiva 
Seville 
Badajoz 
Cartagena 
Valencia 
Toledo 
Valladoiid 
Salamanca 
Langreo 
La  Corufla 
Vigo 
Objective  2 areas 
Sabadell 
Badalona 
Baracaldo 
not covered  by an Objective 
Madrid 

Total towns and cities 

Assessment,  management 

TOTAL 

Total  cost 

SJruct. 
Funds 

ERDF 

ESF 

14,3 
14,3 
14,4 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 
14,3 

13,4 
6,6 
20,0 

10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 
10,0 

6,7 
3,3 
10,0 

7,0 
10,0 
8,0 
9,1 
7,6 
9,0 
10,0 
8,0 
10,0 
9,9 
8,8 
9,1 
8,1 

6,1 
2,3 
9,4 

20,0 
245,8 
2,9 
248,7 

10,0 
160,0 
2,6 
162,6 

10,0 
142,3 
2,6 
144,9 

3,0 
0,0 
2,0 
0,9 
2,4 
1,0 

2,0 

0,1 
1,2 
0,9 
1,9 

0,6 
1,0 
0,6 

-
17,7 
0,0 
17,7 

Netherlands:  Two  programmes  were  adopted  in  1995.  The  URBAN  programme  for  the  Hague  is 
intended  to  benefit  the  Schilderswijk  quarter,  which  was  built  in  the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century  and  covers  149  hectares.  Its  purpose  is  to  strengthen  the  local  economy,  create  new  job 
opportunities  for  the  local  inhabitants  and  improve  safety.  The  URBAN  programme  for  Amsterdam 
in  Amsterdam  Zuidoost.  The  purpose  of  the 
covers  Amsterdam-Bijlmermeer,  an  area  of  7  km 
programme  is to  give  the  area  a boost  through  measures  for  territorial  innovation  and  socio-economic 
and administrative renewal. 

Portugal:  The  URBAN  programme  for  Portugal  was  established  nationally  rather  than  for  individual 
cities; it provides  for  four  projects  in the Lisbon  area and two  in the Oporto area. Measures  include not 
only small  infrastructure  projects but also a set of measures to stimulate local  initiatives and  involve the 
community.  It  cannot  be  expected  to  have  a  major  impact  on  creating  and  safeguarding  jobs,  but  it 
should  contribute  to considerably  improving  the living environment.  Some ofthe  measures  will  have a 
high profile, such at that in the Casal Ventoso neighbourhood  of Lisbon. 

United Kingdom:  Only  the  programme  for  Northern  Ireland  was  adopted  in  1995, nine  other  projects 
having  also  been  presented  by  the  UK  authorities  with  applications  for  Structural  Fund  assistance  of 
almost  ECU 80  million.  At  the  end  of  1995, the  Commission  was  awaiting  revised  programmes.  The 
Northern  Ireland  programme  relates  to  Belfast  and  Londonderry.  In  both  cases,  the  Catholic  and 
Protestant  areas  concerned  will  combine  their  efforts  to  launch  a  process  of  renewal.  In  Belfast  the 
emphasis  is on job  creation  for  parents,  especially  mothers,  and  on  helping  young  unemployed  people 
get back to work. In Londonderry, urban  reclamation and economic recovery projects  on the initiative of 
the local community will be granted financial  assistance and help with training measures. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

INTERREG 

II 

(1994-99) 

161 

INTERREG II (ECU 2 939 million) has two strands corresponding to the INTERREG  I and REGEN  Initiatives: 
cross-border  cooperation  and aid to areas on the Union's internal  and external borders (ECU 2.4 billion,  75% of 
which  is  for  Objective  1 regions);  and  the  completion  of  energy  networks  to  link  them  up  to  wider  European 
networks  (ECU  500  million).  For the  borders  with  the countries  of  central  and  eastern  Europe,  a  cross-border 
cooperation programme between those countries and the Community  Member States was adopted  in  1994 in the 
framework ofthe  Phare programme. 

Of  62  INTERREG  II  programmes  presented  by  the  fifteen  Member  States,  a total  of  34  were  approved, 
three under the  REGEN  strand  and 31  under cross-border  cooperation.  This  corresponds  to  about  77%  of 
the  total  amount  presented.  The  programmes  approved  in  1995  are  the  largest  in  financial  terms.  The 
forms  of  cross-border  cooperation  have  progressed  since  the  first  programming  period,  in  1990-93,  and 
the  Commission  has  financed  some  measures  developed  by  the  Association  of  European  Border 
Regions. In  September,  a practical  guide to the organization  of cross-border  cooperation  was  published. 

REGEN 

strand: 

Table 100:  INTERREG/REGENprogrammes  adopted in 1995 - EUR  12 (ECU million) 

INTERREG/REG EN 

Total cost 

S.F. assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

%of 
(3)/(2) 

Spain/Portugal 

Greece/Italy  (electricity) 

Greece: Completion  of  energy 

networks 

Total 

548,2 

189,4 

450,0 
1.187,6 

220,0 

75,8 

180,0 
475,8 

61,9 

4,3 

45,0 
111,2 

28% 

6% 

25% 
23% 

43,5 

2.1 

4,5 
50,2 

70% 

50% 

10% 
45% 

REGEN  Spain  and  Portugal:  The objective  ofthe  programme  is to  finance  the  last  stage  of work  on  the 
system  to  receive  and  transport  natural  gas  to  Portugal  and  to  interconnect  systems  for  the  transport  of 
natural  gas  in  Spain  and  Portugal.  These  projects  are  part  ofthe  development  of  trans-European  energy 
networks  with  a  view  to  diversifying  energy  supplies  in  the  two  Member  States,  which  will  have  a 
favourable  impact  on  the environment  and  improve the  competitiveness  ofthe  economies  concerned.  By 
the  end  of  1995, 42%  ofthe  public  expenditure  planned  for  this  programme  for  1994-95  will  have  been 
incurred. 

REGEN  Greece  and  Italy  (electricity):  This programme  completes  the  interconnection  ofthe  Italian  and 
Greek  electricity  supply  networks  and  continues  the  achievements  of  the  REGEN  programme  of  the 
earlier  period.  Financing  is entirely  allocated  to Objective  1 regions. 

A project  within the context ofthe  completion ofthe  internal market: 
The  INTERREG/REGEN programme between  Italy and Greece to  interconnect 
the  electricity  networks  of  the  two  countries  provides  for  total  investment  of 
ECU 204 million and Community  financing  (ERDF) of ECU 75.8 million  (with 
ECU  189.4 million covered by the programme). It involves: 
• 

the construction of two stations for conversion between alternating and direct 
current; 
installing an overhead direct current cable to connect the two stations; 
laying  a  160 km  cable  on the  sea-bed  to  transport  600  MW  between  Porto 
Badisco (Italy) and Aetos (Greece). 

• 
• 

This  programme  thus contributes  not only  to cross-border  cooperation  between 
Greece and Italy, but also to the completion ofthe  internal market, especially  for 
energy  and  reduction  of  dependence  on  oil,  as  well  as  to  the  Community's 
environmental policy (reduction of SQ2 and CQ2). 

REGEN  Greece:  "completion  of  energy  networks":  This  programme  concerns  the  completion  of  work 
on  reception  and  transport  facilities  for  the  introduction  of natural  gas  into Greece;  it follows  on  from  the 

162 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

measures  financed  under  REGEN  between  1989  and  1993. The  project  as  a  whole  was  covered  by 
ERDF financing  as a "natural gas" major project under the first Greek CSF  between  1989 and  1993. The 
programme  relates to the main  high-pressure pipeline bringing  Russian  gas from  the  Bulgarian  frontier 
to  Athens,  the  main  high-pressure  branches,  and  work  on  the  reception,  processing  and  transport  by 
pipeline of Algerian  liquefied  gas (LNG). 

Table 101:  INTERREG II cross-border cooperation programmes adopted in 1995 - EUR 12 (ECU million) 

Total  cost 

S.F.  assistance 
0) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2V0) 

Payments 
1995 
0) 

•/.of 
(3)/(2) 

Between  Member  States 

Belgium/Netherlands:  Euregio  Scheldemond 
Belgium/Netherlands:  Middengebied 
Germany/Netherlands/Belgium:  Euregio  Meuse-Rhin 
Denmark/Germany:  Fyns  Amt/KERN 
Denmark/Germany:  S.Jutland/Planungsraum V 
Denmark/Germany:  Storstrom/Ostholstein/Lubeck 
Germany/France:  Rhineland-Palatinate/Saarland/Lorraine 
France/Germany:  PAMINA 
Germany/Luxembourg:  Euregio 
Germany/Netherlands:  Ems-Dollard 
Germany/Netherlands:  Euregio 
Germany/Netherlands:  Euregio  Rhine-Meuse-North 
Germany/Netherlands:  Euregio  Rhine-Waal 
Ireland/United  Kingdom:  Northern  Ireland 
Ireland/United  Kingdom:  Wales 
Spain/Portugal 
Between  Member  States  and  non-member 

countries 

Denmark/Baltic  Sea 
Germany/Czech  Republic:  Bavaria 
Germany/Poland:  Brandenburg 
Germany/Poland:  Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania 
Germany/Poland/Czech  Republic:  Saxony 
Greece/Albania/Bulgaria 
Germany/France/Switzerland:  Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud 
Germany/Switzerland  : Lake  Constance 
France/Switzerland:  Franche-Comté 
France/Switzerland:  Rhône-Alpes 
United  Kingdom/Morocco:  Gibraltar 

22,8 
66,3 
71,9 
3,6 
22,2 
10,4 
46,5 
22,1 
30,9 
62,7 
53,6 
12,8 
23,1 
261,7 
142,8 
755,3 

4,6 
42,2 
120,0 
84,1 
215,7 
459,4 
49,9 
9,7 
14,2 
11,6 

1,7 

11,1 
32,4 
35,7 

1.8 
11,1 
5,2 
23,3 
11,1 
8,0 
22,5 
22,0 
6,4 

11,5 
157,0 
84,1 
552,0 

2,0 
16,8 
72,0 
63,1 
146,5 
277,0 
24,6 
4,9 

7,1 
5,4 
0,7 

9,8 
29,2 
33,5 
1,4 
8,3 
4,1 
22,3 
10,1 
8,0 
22,5 
22,0 
6,4 
11,5 
26,9 
10,9 
75,0 

1,8 
16,8 
10,1 
8,0 
16,6 
28,1 
23,4 
4,9 
7,1 
0,6 
0,5 

Total 

I 

2.621,9| 

1.615,0| 

419,6] 

Cross-border cooperation  strand 

88% 
90% 
94% 
80% 
74% 
79% 
96% 
9 1% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
17% 
13% 
14% 

90% 
100% 
14% 
13% 
11% 
10% 
95% 
100% 
100% 
11% 
66% 

2 6 %| 

2,9 
8,8 
10,0 
0,4 
2,5 
1,2 
6,7 
3,0 
2,4 
6,7 
6,6 
1,9 
3,5 
13,4 
5,5 
44,6 

0,5 
5,4 
5,0 
4,0 
8,3 
14,0 
7,0 
2,4 
2,2 
0,2 
0,0 

30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
50% 
50% 
59% 

30% 
32% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
30% 
50% 
3 1% 
30% 
0% 

169,41 

40% 

A large proportion  ofthe  programmes adopted  in  1995 were part ofthe  cross-border  cooperation  strand 
of INTERREG II. Altogether, 59 were presented and 31 adopted, leaving 27 still to be adopted at the end 
of  the  year,  including  ten  from  the  new  Member  States.  The  introduction  of  INTERREG  II  and  the 
enlargement  of  the  European  Union  to  three  new  Member  States  has  considerably  enhanced  the 
importance  of  cross-border  cooperation.  In  particular,  on  the  eastern  borders  of  the  Union,  the 
Commission, the Member States and the countries of central and eastern Europe involved  in joint "cross-
border" measures under INTERREG II and the Phare programme have introduced joint  mechanisms and 
instruments to improve their cooperation. 

The programmes  adopted in 1995 between the Member  States 

Between  Belgium  and  the  Netherlands:  Two  programmes  were  adopted  with  a  total  Structural  Fund 
contribution  of ECU  43.5  million  (total  investment:  ECU  89.1  million). The two  programmes  concern 
respectively the Scheldemond  Euregio (Zeeland (NL)/ East Flanders and part of West  Flanders (B)) and 
the Middengebied  area (Antwerp, Limburg and part of Louvain  (B)/ North-Brabant  and  Limburg (NL). 
As well as reinforcing  cross-border cooperation, each  programme  has a development  objective:  the first 
aims  at  stimulating  sustainable,  high-quality  social  and  economic  development  and  the  second  at 
strengthening the economic base ofthe  border area. 

Between  Belgium,  the  Netherlands  and  Germany:  The  regions  concerned  by  a  programme  for  the 
Meuse-Rhine Euregio are partly eligible under Objectives 2 and 5(b). This programme  is coordinated  by 
the  Meuse-Rhine  Euregio,  a  body  established  under  Netherlands  law  with  long  experience  of  cross-

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

i  ^ 

border  cooperation,  by  the  governments  of the  Lander and  the  federal  authorities  on  the  German  side, 
and  by  national  ministries  in  the  Netherlands  and  Belgium.  The  programme  is  organized  around  five 
priorities: economic and technological development and innovation (28%), environment, nature and sites 
(27%>),  regional  planning  (15%),  socio-cultural  integration  (15%)  and  development  of  skills  and  the 
labour market (11%); technical assistance accounts for the remaining 5%. 

several 

financed 

successful 

Between  Denmark  and  Germany: There  are three programmes  in receipt  of  Structural  Fund  financing 
totalling  ECU  18.1  million  (total  cost:  ECU 36.2  million).  The  programmes  cover  three  regions  with 
different  geographical  features:  the  Planungsraum V  (Nordfriesland,  Schleswig-Flensburg,  Flensburg) 
and  Sonderjyllands  Amt,  the  only  land  border  between  Germany  and  Denmark,  for  which  the 
Community  had 
the 
Ostholstein/Liibeck  area  and  Storstroms  Amt,  a  maritime  region  encountering  structural  difficulties, 
which  was  already  eligible  under  INTERREG  I;  and  the  so-called  KERN  (Kiel,  Eckernfbrde, 
Rendsburg, Neumunster) and Fyns Amt, which  is now eligible under INTERREG  for the first time. The 
strategies  for  these  three  programmes  are  slightly  different,  first  because  cross-border  structures  are 
well-established  in some cases but fairly  new in others, and secondly  because the border concerned  is a 
land  border  in  some  cases,  and  a sea  crossing  in others. Among  other  things, the  measures  aim  at  the 
development  of  SMEs,  and  research  and  development  and training; the first two  programmes  are  also 
intended  to  help  reconcile  the  needs  of  the  environment  with  energy  consumption,  and  the  last  two 
provide for the development of tourism. 

cross-border  projects 

recent  years; 

in 

Between  France  and Germany: Two programmes have been adopted, with total assistance of ECU 34.3 
million. The programme  for  Saarland,  Lorraine and the Palatinate,  in cooperation  with the  INTERREG 
programme  between  Germany  and  Luxembourg, provides for  the construction  of a  "Euro-Management 
Centre",  which  will  offer  European  seminars  to  businessmen  interested  in  the  European  Market.  In 
1991-93, a joint  Franco-German  financial  institution, the Saarlàndische Investitionskredietbank (SIKB), 
was  set  up on the  basis  of an  agreement  between the three  regions  and  France,  and  this agreement  has 
been  renewed  for  the  present  period. The other programme concerns the regions of southern  Palatinate, 
Mittlerer Oberrhein  and northern  Alsace (PAMINA); it is intended to intensify  integration  over this area 
through  measures  for  economic  development,  regional  planning,  development  of  natural  resources  and 
the environment,  social  cohesion,  and culture and training. For the first time, the  ESF  is contributing  to 
the financing of measures, under the last two headings. 

Between  Luxembourg  and  Germany:  There  is  a  programme  for  areas  that  are  partly  eligible  under 
Objectives  2  or  5(b).  Joint  management  and financial resources  for  the  projects  was  introduced  under 
INTERREG  I  and  continued  under  this  programme.  Measures  relate  to  protection  of  the  environment 
(32%), economic and technological  development and innovation (19%), and tourism (19%). 

Between  the  Netherlands  and  Germany:  Four  programmes  were  adopted,  for  a  total  of  ECU 62.4 
million.  The  Ems-Dollard  programme  complements  the  Objective  2  or  Objective  5(b)  SPDs  in  the 
regions.  While  the  INTERREG  I programme  concentrated  on  tourism,  the  present  programme  aims  at 
improving  business  competitiveness  and  attracting  new  investment,  especially  in  infrastructure  (35%), 
tourism (29%) and economic development (15%). The other three programmes, Euregio, Euregio Rhine-
Waal and Euregio Rhine-northern  Meuse, concern areas partly eligible  under Objectives  2 or 5(b). They 
provide  for  a  limited  series  of  measures:  economic  and  technological  development  and  innovation 
(35%),  the  development  of  skills  and  the  labour  market  (17%),  regional  planning  (14%)  and  socio-
cultural  integration  (13%). Each  ofthe  programmes  is managed  independently.  They were drawn  up by 
the  Euregios,  with  ten  years'  experience  of  cross-border  collaboration,  the  governments  of  the  Lander 
and the federal  authorities on the German side, and the national ministries on the Netherlands side. 

Between  Ireland  and  the  United Kingdom:  Two  programmes  were  approved  in  1995,  involving  total 
Structural  Fund  financing  of  ECU 241  million.  The  first  concerns  cooperation  between  Ireland  and 
Northern  Ireland,  and  follows  on  from  an  INTERREG I programme;  it  will  concentrate  more  than  its 
predecessor  on  locally-generated  cross-border  projects  and  small  infrastructure  of  direct  benefit  to  the 
area. The  other  programme  concerns  areas not previously  eligible  under  INTERREG,  the  east  coast  of 

164 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Ireland  and  the  areas  of  Gwynedd  and  Dyfed  in Wales. It  is aimed  at the  maritime  development  of  these 
areas,  with  special  attention  to  ports  and  access  to  ports  (especially  in  Ireland),  and  also  their  genera! 
economic  development,  supporting  only joint  projects  relating  to  the  economic  and  commercial  field, 
tourism  and  culture  and  human  resources. 

Ad hoc cooperation structures between Ireland and the United Kingdom: 
Each  INTERREG  programme  provides  for  the  establishment  of  ad  hoc 
cooperation  structures.  A  responsible  authority  has  been  designated  for  the 
Ireland-Northern  Ireland programme, to raise the programme's profile  and act as 
a  link  between  local  groups,  central  authorities  in the two  Member  States,  and 
authorities  responsible  for  other  Structural  Fund  programmes  in  the  area. 
Similarly,  for  the  Ireland-Wales  programme,  a  local  coordination 
team 
(comprising two coordinators for Wales and representatives ofthe three regional 
authorities  concerned  in  Ireland)  was  set  up  to  encourage  partnerships  and 
economic development projects. 

Between  Portugal  and  Spain:  The  INTERREG  II programme  includes  measures  to  remedy-the  specific 
difficulties  ofthe  border  region,  due  to  its  relative  isolation  from  the  national  economies  and  the  rest  of 
the  European  Union.  The  strategy  concentrates  on  locally-generated  cross-border  development,  and  the 
reinforcement  of  economic  and  environmental  infrastructure.  The  projects  considered  are  also  intended 
to  promote  balanced  economic  and  social  development  on  both  sides  ofthe  border,  to  keep  people  from 
leaving,  to  achieve  cross-border  regional  planning  and  to  support  the  setting  up  of  cross-border 
cooperation  arrangements.  At  the  end  of  1995, 38% ofthe  public  expenditure  programmed  had  actually 
been  incurred  in  1994-95. 

Programmes  adopted  in  1995  with  non-member 

countries 

With  the  Baltic  countries:  A  programme  was  adopted  between  Denmark  and  the  regions  of  the  Baltic 
sea,  with  the  aim  of  continuing  to  develop  cooperation  between  the  county  of  Bornholm  (Denmark)  and 
other  Baltic  regions. 

INTERREG  cooperation on the Baltic sea: 
The  programme  adopted  in November  1995  supports  cross-border  cooperation 
between  the  county  of  Bornholm  (eligible under  Objective  5(b)) and the  Baltic 
regions, mainly in Poland and the Baltic States. The measures are aimed at: 
•  developing  SMEs  through  the  activities  of  a  commercial  and  industrial 

consultancy body; 

•  establishing  cross-border  structures, 

involving  working  parties  and 

• 

conferences  to encourage both bilateral and multilateral cooperation; 
ensuring  cooperation  in the field of communications  and  media,  in  order  to 
develop new activities at the Baltic Media Centre in Bornholm; 

•  providing 

the  vocational 

training  needed 

to  establish  and  develop 

cooperation. 

With  the  countries  of  central  and  eastern  Europe  :  Four  programmes  involving  German  regions  were 
adopted  in  1995,  with  Structural  Fund  financing  totalling  ECU  298.3  million.  These  programmes  are 
coordinated  with  Phare  operations.  There  are  two  programmes  for 
the  German-Polish  border 
(Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania/Poland  and  Brandenburg/Poland),  O\\Q that  involves  three  countries 
(the  German  Land  of  Saxony,  Poland  and  the  Czech  Republic),  and  one  for  the  border  between  Bavaria 
and  the  Czech  Republic.  The  first  three  are  intended  to  reduce  the  structural  weaknesses  specific  to  the 
border  regions  of  Poland  and  the  Czech  Republic.  Appropriations  are  concentrated  on  infrastructure  and 
the  environment,  on  economic  development  (including  the  development  of  tourism)  and  agricultural 
development,  on  human  resources  and  on  technical  assistance.  Many  projects  got  under  way  in  1995. 
socio-economic 
The  programme 
development,  especially 
infrastructure  and 
protection  o f t he  environment  (34%),  human  resources  (12%),  and  regional  planning  and  technical 

tourism  and  economic  cooperation  (44%),  transport, 

the  Czech  Republic  concentrates  on 

involving  Bavaria  and 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

\ 65 

assistance  (10%).  The  Monitoring  Committee  includes  representatives  of  the  Czech  Republic,  which 
means  that  for  the  first  time,  representatives  of  a  central  European  country  are  closely  involved  in 
implementing a programme in a shared area. It is interesting to note that the programme was designed  as 
a  function  both  of  the  cross-border  cooperation  strand  of  Phare  for  the  Czech  Republic,  and  of  the 
INTERREG II programme  in Saxony, Poland and the Czech  Republic. This made  it possible to define  a 
standard line from  Pomerania to Passau for the composition of monitoring and steering committees. 

A  programme  linking  Greece  and  Albania  with  Bulgaria  was  adopted  under  the  protocols  on  cross-
border  collaboration  agreed  with  the  Albanian  and  Bulgarian  authorities,  also  financed  under  Phare.14 
The  measures  in  this  programme  concern  not  only  transport,  telecommunications  and  energy 
infrastructure,  which  are essential  to  link these non-member  countries to trans-European  networks  (e.g. 
the Via Egnatia), but also industry, tourism, the environment, agriculture,  local  development and  human 
includes  cooperation  (exchange  of  experience  on  education, 
resources.  The  programme  also 
management of water resources, etc.) with Cyprus and some countries ofthe  Middle East (Egypt, Israel, 
etc.). 

With  Switzerland:  Four  programmes  were  adopted,  involving  France,  Germany  and  Austria,  with  a 
Community  contribution  totalling  ECU  41.9  million.  The  programme  for  the  Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud, 
between  France, Germany  and  Switzerland,  concentrates,  as  it did  in the  first  stage  of INTERREG,  on 
cooperation  on  questions  relating to the  economy,  the  environment,  training  and  tourism.  Moreover,  it 
will  include  measures  to  encourage  collaboration  in  the  fields  of  vocational  training  and  health.  The 
Monitoring  Committee  decided,  at  one  of  its  early  meetings,  to  establish  a  new  information  and 
consultancy bureau  at the border, at Breisach/Neuf  Brisach (to supplement the two existing  information 
bureaux,  one  in  the  north  and  the  other  in  the  south).  The  purpose  of  these  bureaux  is  to  inform  and 
advise private and public bodies and individuals about the neighbouring country. Between  Germany and 
Switzerland, the Hochrhein-Bodensee programme launched under INTERREG  I has now been  extended, 
following  enlargement,  to  an  Austrian  border  region,  the  Voralberg,  thus  forming  a  new  Alpenrhein-
Bodensee-Hochrhein  programme with an internal and an external component.  In  1995, only the German 
side ofthe  programme was adopted, for an amount of ECU 4.9 million. Two programmes were  adopted 
between  France  and  Switzerland,  one  involving  the  French  region  of  Franche-Comté  and  the  other  the 
region of Rhône-Alpes. 

With  Morocco:  The  programme  with  Gibraltar  is  additional  and  complementary  to  Objective  2 
operations  in  Gibraltar.  The  measures  under  this  programme  -  infrastructure,  cooperation  studies  and 
pilot projects, cooperation  in the fields of vocational education  and training - are intended to add value to 
cooperation  between  businesses  in  Gibraltar  and  those  in  Morocco,  which  is  expected  to  have  a 
multiplier  effect  on  cross-border  trade  in  the  medium  term.  The  Monitoring  Committee  for  the 
programme,  on  which  the  Moroccan  Government  will  have  observer  status,  will  be  responsible  for 
supervising provisions for the selection of individual projects. 

PEACE  (1994-97) 

On  28  July,  the  Commission  approved  the  PEACE  Initiative  for  peace  and  reconciliation,  involving 
Northern  Ireland  and the border counties of Ireland. In the spring of  1995, three major  conferences  were 
held  for  local  consultations with  interested  parties and  people with  experience  of restoring dialogue  and 
mutual  understanding,  which facilitated  rapid adoption  ofthe  programme. Structural  Fund  participation 
in the  programme  amounts  to  ECU 300  million  out  of  a total  cost  of  about  ECU 416  million  between 
1995 and  1997, with  supplementary  aid to be decided  later for  1998-99. The whole  of Northern  Ireland 
and the six border counties of Ireland are eligible for assistance under this programme. 

14 The  aid  approved  in  1995  (ECU 277  million)  should  be  supplemented  in  1996  by  EAGGF  assistance 

(ECU 32.8 million). 

166 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 101 bis:  PEA CE programme (ECU million) 

PEACE 

Total cost 

S.F. assistance 
(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

%of 
(3)/(2) 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
Total 
Northern Ireland 
Ireland 

-

415,9 

. 

148,3 
127,8 
22,4 
1,5 
300,0 
240,0 
60,0 

18,7 
11,0 
1,3 
0,1 
31,1 

-

13% 
9% 
6% 
9% 
10% 

. 

8,6 
5,5 
0,6 
0,07 
14,8 

. 

46% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
48% 

. 

The  aim  of the programme  is to help  consolidate  the cease-fire  in Northern  Ireland  by providing  those 
involved  in  local  economic  and  social  life  with  the  resources  needed  to  transform  these  developments 
into  a  lasting  peace.  The  objective  is  to  promote  the  social  integration  of  people  on  the  margins  of 
economic  and  social  life,  and to restore economic  growth  in the areas that  have  suffered  most  from  the 
conflict.  This  involves  seven  sub-programmes:  the  regeneration  of  urban  and  rural  sites;  employment; 
cross-border  cooperation;  combating  social  exclusion;  the  promotion  of  productive  investment  and 
industrial  development;  establishing  partnerships, and technical  assistance. In  order to  involve  as  many 
people  as  possible  in  the  decision  and  implementation  process,  the  distribution  of  resources  is  very 
decentralized,  with  43%  being  distributed  by  non-governmental  agencies  (trusts  and  cooperatives), 
including  one  cross-border  organization,  which  will  have  a  major  role  in  selecting  projects  and 
allocating  funds.  Moreover,  15% of  resources  are under  the  responsibility  of  26  newly  created  district 
partnerships,  which  must  include  elected  representatives  of district  councils, representatives  of  local  or 
voluntary bodies, and representatives ofthe  private and other sectors, including local statutory agencies. 

The  main  achievement  of  1995  was  to  set  up  these  new  structures.  The  contracts  between  the 
Commission  and  the  eight  intermediaries  were  signed  in  December,  and  a political  stumbling  block  to 
the establishment  of district partnerships was eliminated. Moreover, the necessary  coordination  between 
the various  financing  bodies and the authorities was set up. All this made for  rapid  progress towards the 
first grants, the green  light for district partnerships, and a major  information  and promotion  campaign. 

1.3.  Community Initiatives in the three new Member States 

In  April  1995, the  Commission  adopted  a  communication  on  the  implementation  ofthe  Community 
Initiatives in the three new Member States, setting out an indicative allocation of appropriations  between 
Initiatives and Member States. 

Table 102:  Community Initiatives in the new Member States 

Indicative allocation  of appropriations  1995-99 

(ECU million) 

ADAPT 
EMPLOYMENT 
LEADER 
PESCA 
Industrial  change 
- of  which:  RECHAR 
- of  which:  RESIDER 
- of  which:  RETEX 
- of  which:  KONVER 
- of  which:  SMEs 
URBAN 
INTERREG 
Reserve 
TOTAL 

Austria 

Finland 

Sweden 

Total 

11,6 
23,0 
23,3 

18,2 
1,8 
5,1 
2,6 

8,7 
9,8 
42,7 
17,5 
146,1 

19,7 
29,2 
24,7 
3,0 
10,8 

10,8 
3,9 
43,7 
18,4 
153,4 

11,3 
20,7 
14,2 
3,5 
20,0 

3,3 
16,8 
3,4 
39,5 
15,3 
127,8 

42,5 
72,9 
62,1 
6,5 
49,1 
1,8 
5,1 
2,6 
3.3 
36,3 
17,0 
125,9 
51,3 
427,2 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

167 

Each ofthe  new Member  States will participate  in a different  way in the Community  Initiatives. Austria 
will  not take part  in KONVER, PESCA  or REGIS; Finland  will  not take part  in  RECHAR,  RESIDER, 
RETEX, KONVER  or REGIS; Sweden  will  not take part  in RECHAR, RESIDER,  RETEX  or REGIS. 
The three  new  Member  States  also  differ  as to progress  with  approval  of  their  programmes.  Of  its  15 
programmes  presented  (half  of them  under  LEADER), Austria  has  had  four  adopted;  Finland  has  had 
two out of eight adopted, and Sweden two out of seven. 

Table 103:  Community Initiatives in the new Member States - Programmes adopted in 1995 (ECU million) 

Community 
Initiatives 
(No of  CIPs) 

Total  cost 

S.F.  assitance 

(1) 

Commitments 
1995 
(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

% of 
(3)/(2) 

ADAPT 

Austria (1) 
Finland  (1) 
Sweden  (1) 
Total 

EMPLOYMENT 
Austria (1) 
Finland  (1) 
Sweden  (1) 
Total 

LEADER 

Austria (1) 

URBAN 

Austria (1) 

INTERREG 

Austria/Hungary 
Austria/Czech  Rep. 
Austria/Slovakia 
Austria/Slovenia 
Total 

ADAPT 

| 

| 

25,8 
42,9 
21,7 
90,4 

49,4 
66,3 
39,9 
755,5 

6,5| 

31,9| 

28,2 
12,1 
16,0 
22,6 
78,9 

11,6 
19,7 
11,3 
42,5 

23,0 
29,2 
20,7 
72,9 

2,6| 

9,8| 

11,0 
4,5 
5,5 
9,0 
30,0 

11,6 
19,7 
11,3 
42,5 

23,0 
29,2 
20,7 
72,9 

2,0| 

6,8| 

8,8 
3,9 
4,9 
5,9 
23,5 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

78%| 

70%| 

80% 
88% 
88% 
65% 
78% 

.5,8 
8,6 
5,6 
20,0 

11,5 
14,6 
10,3 
36,4 

0,3 j 

3,4| 

2,6 
1,2 
1,5 
1,8 
7,0 

50% 
44% 
50% 
47% 

50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 

16% 

50% 

30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 
30% 

The  three  programmes,  one  for  each  of  the  three  new  Member  States,  were  prepared  with  the 
Commission  in the  second  half  of the  year  and  adopted  in  December,  which  enabled  the  promoters  in 
these  Member  States to play a full  part  in the ADAPT Initiative  from  the  outset.  For  example,  Finland 
has  concentrated  on  aid  to  increase  productivity  and  employment.  The  accent  will  be  on  the 
internationalization  of  firms  (especially  SMEs),  the  promotion  of  distance  and  flexible  working, 
improved  programming  of training,  distance  learning,  promoting  the  introduction  of  new  technologies 
into  firms,  and  the  creation  of  data  bases  for  employment  services.  The  priority  under  the  Austrian 
programme will be to establish  local networks associating SMEs and public and private training bodies. 
Sweden's  programme  aims at finding  new means and  structures to enable employees  and  their  firms  to 
anticipate  the  changes  facing  them.  As  in  Austria,  the  emphasis  is  on joint  work  by  complementary 
bodies (firms, research centres, local agencies, etc.), on taking account ofthe  specific  needs of women in 
the working world, and on the potential of information  technologies. 

EMPLOYMENT 

The programmes ofthe  three new Member  States under the EMPLOYMENT  Initiative were adopted  in 
1995. Each  national  programme  describes  specific  priorities  for  each  strand  ofthe  Initiative. Under  the 
Horizon  strand  for  the  disabled,  the  Austrian  programme  will  support  the  introduction  of  flexible 
training schemes (training  instructors  in the use of multimedia aids, distance learning,  computer-assisted 
learning);  while  one  of  the  priorities  under  the  Swedish  programme  will  be  to  devise  models  for  the 
integration  of measures for counselling, training, employment and working  in the firm, so as to organise 
a  continuous  chain  of  ability  and  experience  which  can  be  transformed  into jobs.  Under  the  Horizon 
strand  for  the  disadvantaged,  neither  Sweden  nor  Finland  has  opted  for  a  specific  target  population, 

168 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

although  Sweden  gives clear priority to immigrants while Finland proposes various forms of preparatory 
training  on  guidance  or  working  experience.  Finland  gives  priority  to  developing  partnership  between 
projects  and  local  employment, while Austria stresses employment programmes combined  with  support 
services to improve self-confidence  in the target groups. 

Under  the  NOW  strand,  Sweden  has  provided  for  a  wide  range  of  measures  including  new  business 
start-up  incentives  for  women  and  incentives  to  choose  careers  in  areas  perceived  as  "masculine". 
Finland  shares  this  priority,  where  the  accent  is  also  placed,  as  in  Austria,  on  reconciling  work  and 
family  life, e.g. through  flexible working hours and high-quality child-care services. 

Under the Youthstart  strand, all three Member  States emphasize a varied  series of measures to  respond 
to the  range  of  difficulties  encountered  by  young  people.  The  priorities  relate  both  to  training  and  to 
experience  within  firms.  The Austrian  and  Swedish  programmes  aim to open  ways  into work  that  take 
account  of  young  people's  problems  on  the  training  and  on  the  social  fronts,  encouraging  cooperation 
between  all  those  involved  at  local  level.  The  Finnish  programme  highlights,  among  other  things, 
opportunities  for  practical  experience  within  the  "young  people's  workshops"  that  already  exist  in 
Finland.  It  pays  special  attention  to  young  people  with  "multiple  disadvantages",  while  the  Swedish 
programme refers  in particular to young immigrants as one ofthe  priority target groups. 

LEADER 

Only one LEADER programme (the Austrian programme for Burgenland) was approved  in  1995 for the 
new  Member  States,  out  of the  total  of twelve that were  presented  (eight  for  Austria,  two  for  Finland, 
two  for  Sweden). The  programme  for  Burgenland  was  approved  by the Commission  on  21  December, 
and  was to have  been  followed  by the  seven  other programmes  for  Austria.  Projects  selected  should  be 
innovative,  have  demonstration  value  and  be  transferable.  Stress  is  placed  on  motivating  the  local 
population. 

PESCA 

The PESCA  programmes  for the new Member  States (i.e. for  Sweden  and  Finland,  since  Austria  is not 
taking part in PESCA) could not be adopted in  1995, but progress was made with preparations and it was 
planned to adopt them  early in 1996. 

URBAN 

Austria, with  only  one  programme  under the URBAN  Initiative,  is the only  new  Member  State to  have 
had  an  URBAN  programme  adopted.  On  17 July  the  Austrian  authorities  presented  a  proposal  for  a 
programme  for  the  city  of  Vienna,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  21  December.  The 
programme  concerns  an  inner-city  area  with  a  population  of  130 000.  It  will  finance  an  integrated 
package  of  economic,  social  and  infrastructure  measures.  The  programme  is  based  on  quantified 
objectives,  comprising  the creation  of 400 new jobs, renovation  and  refurbishing  of 7 000 to  10 000 m 
of business premises and the training or retraining of 3 000 people. 

INTERREG  II 

Austria  is the only one ofthe  three new Member  States to have had  programmes  adopted  in  1995  under 
INTERREG  II. About  one third  of total  resources  available  for  Community  Initiatives  in  Austria  is  for 
INTERREG.  Austria  has  a  long  border  with  Germany  and  Italy,  but  also  with  four  central  European 
countries,  and,  like  the  Community,  it  attaches  great  importance  to  these  new  external  borders.  It  has 
therefore  decided  to  concentrate  the  major  share  of  INTERREG II  resources  (ECU 30  million)  on  the 
four  programmes  concerning  external  borders. Proposals  for  these  four  programmes  were  presented  on 
17 July and adopted  by the Commission  on 21 December. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

\ 69 

The main aim is to work in conjunction with Phare to help the common borders ofthe  new framework of 
Europe to  adapt,  encouraging  bilateral  cooperation  at local  and regional  level  through  the  creation  of 
cooperation  networks.  Almost  60% of  total  financing  under these  four  programmes  is  to  be  spent  on 
improving cooperation  and economic  development.  Other priorities are technical  infrastructure,  human 
resources,  protection  of  the  environment  and cross-border  studies.  INTERREG  II  programmes  are  of 
major strategic importance with a view to the preparation ofthe  future  enlargement ofthe  Union. Even if 
available  resources  are  fairly  modest,  the  measures  in  receipt  of  financing  are  an  expression  of  the 
commitment of all partners concerned to improve cooperation and cross-border contacts. 

Community Initiatives and the environment in Austria: 
All  the  Community  Initiative  Programmes  adopted for  Austria  in  1995  include  direct  or  indirect 
environmental measures. 
LEADER:  The preservation  and  enhancement  of  the  environment  is  one  of  the  priorities  in  the 
programme for  Burgenland; in the south of Burgenland,  it is planned  to set  up a centre for  marketing 
organic products. 
URBAN:  There are no explicitly environmental measures in the programme,  but many of+hem have a 
strong  "environmental orientation": in the priority  "requalification and job  creation", one ofthe  main 
projects  to be funded  is the redevelopment of a derelict building block to house a business centre for 
companies  involved  in  solar  energy  (training  will  be  provided  in  solar  technology  and  other 
environmental  techniques);  the  "urbion"  priority  is  directly  aimed  at  improving  the  physical 
environment  in  the  area  (renovation of  Stadtbahnbôgen, improving public  spaces,  including  green 
areas).  The environmental component of the programme could probably  be estimated at at least one 
quarter ofthe  total EU budget available (or at around ECU 2.5 million of Structural Fund resources). 
INTERREG: All  the programmes  contain explicit measures for  environmental protection.  The reason 
is twofold: the special geographical situation caused by the former  "Iron Curtain" left nature almost 
untouched in large parts  ofthe  border regions; environmental pollution  in the neighbouring countries 
is a serious  threat for  the development  of new economic activities,  in particular  of soft  tourism, for 
which expectations are high in the border regions. The measures are the following: 
• 

INTERREG Austria-Slovenia: cooperation in cross-border nature preservation  and environmental 
programmes  (studies,  surveys  and  pilot  measures  e.g.  to  modernize  Alpine  huts  écologie .'ly, 
protect  water  reserves  and prevent  flooding);  water  saving  and  hydraulic  engineering;  cross-
border nature protection  and nature parks. 
how 
INTERREG Austria-Czech Republic: environment and energy, including environmental / 
transfer and  counselling,  use of renewable energy; tourism will be developed  in the foi m 
soft 
tourism,  including provision  to  increase understanding of nature and  the environmental context: 
agricultural measures include the restoration of damaged forests. 
INTERREG Austria-Slovak  Republic:  the priority  "environment" includes measures for  technical 
environmental protection, environmental and energy counselling,  and nature protection. 
INTERREG  Austria-Hungary:  the priority  "environment and  nature"  supports  the  enlargement 
and creation of cross-border national parks. 

• 

• 

• 

170 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds  (1995) 

1.4.  Summary  by Member State - EUR 1215 

Table 104:  Community  Initiatives  -  Summary  of financial allocations  by Member State  1994-99  (before 

allocation ofthe reserve, after adjustment- 1994 prices) 

Member  State 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
N 

P 
UK 

Networking 
TOTAL 
•including Peace 

INTERREG* 
82 
18 
402 
595 
565 
246 
160 
347 
4 
72 
340 

109 
0 
2.939 

ADAPT 

31 
30 
229 
30 
256 
250 
21 
190 
0 
58 

21 
287 
0 

1.402 

Employment 
32 
11 
157 
64 
387 
147 
76 
349 
0 
42 
40 

LEADER 
8 
8 
174 
146 
350 
187 
67 
282 
1 
8 
116 

147 
0 
1.452 

65 
34 
1.447 

PESCA 

SME 

REGIS 

2 
16 
23 
27 
42 
28 
7 
34 
0 
11 
26 
37 
5 
257 

12 
3 
183 
82 
248 
58 
28 
188 
0 
10 
122 
67 

25 
1.027 

0 
0 
0 
0 
214 

262 
0 
0 
0 
0 

124 
0 
0 
600 

RECHAR 
16 
0 

159 
2 
34 
33 
0 
2 
0 
0 

1 
161 
0 
406 

KONVER 
11 
2 
219 
13 
23 
70 
0 
45 
0 
12 
8 
101 
0 
506 

RESIDER 
24 
0 
191 
5 
72 
62 
0 
84 
12 
18 
7 

45 
0 

520 

RETEX 

(ECU million) 
TOTAL 

URBAN 

4 
0 
68 
75 
75 
25 
9 
67 
0 
1 

162 
36 
0 
522 

11 
2 
97 
45 
160 
55 
16 
115 
1 
9 
44 
97 
0 
651 

234 
89 
1.902 
1.083 
2.425 
1.421 
384 
1.703 
19 
242 
1.010 
1.152 
64 
11.729 

BELGIUM 

Belgium  is  participating  in  all the  Community  Initiatives  except  REGIS,  with  a  total  of  16 national 
programmes  approved  in 1994 and  1995, and three INTERREG Programmes. At the end of 1995, there 
was  still  one  programme  awaiting  approval  for  each  of the  following  Initiatives:  URBAN,  RETEX, 
SMEs, INTERREG  (with France) and LEADER. 

DENMARK 

Between  1994 and  1995, five programmes  were  adopted  at national  level  in Denmark,  as well  as  four 
INTERREG  programmes. Three programmes  were awaiting approval: those  under the SMEs Initiative, 
LEADER and an INTERREG  programme with Sweden. This means that Denmark will  be taking part in 
seven  Community  Initiatives:  URBAN,  KONVER,  EMPLOYMENT,  ADAPT,  SMEs,  PESCA, 
LEADER and INTERREG. 

GERMANY 

Most  ofthe  programmes  were  approved  by the Commission  in the course  of  1995.  It was sometimes 
difficult  to  approve  these  programmes,  since  the measures  were  not described  in  sufficient  detail  (in 
particular,  there  was not enough  information  about  how they  complemented  Objective  2  programmes) 
and  the  indicators  for  assessing  them  were  somewhat  vague.  Altogether,  67  programmes  for 
implementation  at national  level were adopted, for all the Community  Initiatives except REGIS, plus 17 
INTERREG  programmes. By the end of 1995, there were still  19 programmes awaiting approval, for the 
LEADER, URBAN, RECHAR,  RESIDER, RETEX, SME and KONVER  Initiatives. In the new Lander, 
entirely  eligible  under  Objective  1, eight  Community  Initiatives  -  KONVER,  RESIDER,  RECHAR, 
RETEX, SME, URBAN,  LEADER and INTERREG  - are being implemented  according to regionalized 
arrangements,  mainly  using  ERDF  appropriations.  They  involve  38 programmes  and  Structural  Fund 
financing  of ECU 817 million  (80% from  the ERDF). In  1995, 31 ofthe  38 programmes  were  adopted 
(28  national  programmes  and 3 INTERREG  programmes). The remaining  seven  concern  Brandenburg 
(5), Saxony-Anhalt (1) and Saxony (1). 

As a rule, payments could be made under programmes for 1991-94 until the end of 1995, and it is worth 
recalling  that  a substantial  number  of programmes  from  the first programming  period  were  still  being 
financed  in  1995. In the western  Lander, the situation  varies quite widely from  one Initiative to another, 
some  programmes  having  been  completed  in  1995, while  payment  deadlines  have  been  extended  for 

15 For a more detailed presentation ofthe Community Initiatives in each Member State, see Annex 3, Table 2. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

\ 7 ] 

others. On the whole, the volume of payments for these programmes is fairly  limited. For INTERREG I, 
the payment  period  expired  at the end of  1995, but an extension  was granted  for three  programmes (to 
31  December  1996  for  Pamina  and  Oberrhein-Mitte-Sud,  and 
to  30  June  1996  for 
Germany/Switzerland/Austria/ex-Czechoslovakia).  Payments  under  the  STRIDE  Initiative  were  fairly 
modest,  at  ECU 117 000,  but  results  were  considerable  in  terms  of  improved  potential  for  research, 
technology  and  innovation  in  the  regions  concerned,  and  thus  in  terms  of  wider  use  of  modern 
technology.  One  of  the  two  programmes  under  RECHAR I,  that  for  North  Rhine-Westphalia,  was 
completed  in  1995  (an  application  for  payment  of  the  balance  of  ECU 23.1  million  was  made  in 
February). Altogether North Rhine-Westphalia will have received ECU 54.1 million  from  the ERDF for 
this programme. The RECHAR I programme for Saarland was still under way, with a balance still to be 
paid  of ECU  1.4 million  (out of total  assistance  of ECU 7.5 million). The RESIDER I programme  for 
North  Rhine-Westphalia was also completed  in  1995. The balance paid  in  1995 amounted  to ECU 15.7 
million and the total ERDF contribution was ECU 31.1 million. 

There was more of a delay for KONVER I programmes, due to their having  been  approved  only  at the 
end  of  1993 so that  commitments  were  postponed  until  30 June  1994. Consequently,  after  long and 
difficult  programming procedures, the deadline for payments was extended to 31 December  1995 for ten 
programmes16  and to  1996 for a further  six.17  Some  interesting  projects  were  carried  out in  Germany 
involving  the  conversion  of  military  buildings  and  sites  to  mainly  economic  use,  which  is  one  of 
KONVER's  main  priorities.  In  Rhineland-Palatinate,  for  example,  part  of the  former  Zweibrucken  air 
base  has  been  converted  into  a  civil  airport,  with  the remainder  being  transformed  into  a  centre  for 
industry  and crafts.  A municipal  grouping  was set up to deal  with  conversion  work  on the aerodrome; 
the  runway  has  been  kept  in  service,  and  several  training  services  for  air  traffic  careers  have  been 
introduced alongside the industry and crafts centre. 

G R E E CE 

Greece participates  in all the Initiatives with the exception of REGIS; all the programmes (one for each 
Initiative)  were  adopted  in  1995, with  the exception  ofthose  for EMPLOYMENT  and PESCA,  which 
were adopted  in  1994.  Ten programmes are therefore  in the course of implementation  at national  level, 
alongside three INTERREG programmes (two for REGEN and one for cross-border cooperation). 

SPAIN. 

Spain  is  taking  part  in  all  the  Community  Initiatives  for  the  period  1994-99.  Each  operation  is 
implemented through a single programme at national level, except LEADER (17 programmes,  including 
ten  in Objective  1 regions). Three programmes were approved  in  1993-94, for the RETEX, PESCA and 
EMPLOYMENT  Initiatives,  and 22 in  1995, comprising two INTERREG  programmes  (one for cross-
border cooperation  and one for REGEN), one each for URBAN, ADAPT and REGIS, and  17 LEADER 
programmes.  Altogether,  this  makes  23  programmes  implemented  nationally,  and  two  INTERREG 
programmes.  Six programmes  were  still  awaiting  a decision  (INTERREG  Spain-France,  INTERREG 
Spain-Morocco, RECHAR, RESIDER,  SME and KONVER) and were under consideration  at the end of 
1995. 

FRANCE 

The  French  authorities  presented  85  proposals  for  programmes  under  all  the  Initiatives  in  1994 and 
1995,  all  but  five  regionalized  (the  exceptions  being  programmes  under  EMPLOYMENT,  ADAPT, 
RETEX, SME Objectives  2 and 5(b) and PESCA). Of these  85 proposals, the Commission  had already 
approved  the  programme  under  the  EMPLOYMENT  Initiative  in  1994, and  51  programmes  were 

16 Hamburg,  Saarland,  Baden-Wurttemberg,  Berlin,  Bremen,  North  Rhine-Westphalia,  Brandenburg,  Saxony, 

Saxony-Anthalt,  Thuringia. 

17  Rhineland-Palatinate,  Bavaria,  Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein,  Hesse,  Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania. 

172 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

adopted  in  1995 (46 at national  level), with 33 still awaiting a decision, for  most of which the  procedure 
was in the final stages by the end ofthe  year. The 51 programmes comprise five under INTERREG,  six 
under  RECHAR II,  five  under  RESIDER,  the  amendment  of the  RETEX  programme,  three  under  the 
SME Initiative, one under REGIS, all the KONVER programmes, the PESCA  programme, the  ADAPT 
programme and  11 programmes under LEADER. 

IRELAND 

All  but  one  of  Ireland's  programmes  were  approved  in  1995,  the  exception  being  URBAN  (with  a 
planned  Structural  Fund  contribution  of ECU  15.8 million). The programmes  approved  in  1995  involve 
the  SME, ADAPT and  LEADER  Initiatives, the RETEX programme  having  been  adopted  in  1993 and 
the EMPLOYMENT  and PESCA programmes  in  1994, along with the PEACE programme  and the two 
INTERREG  programmes  involving  Ireland.  Ireland  does  not  take  part  in  RECHAR,  RESIDER, 
KONVER or REGIS. 

ITALY 

— 

Eighteen  programmes  were  adopted  in  1995  for  Italy,  the  programme  under  the  EMPLOYMENT 
Initiative  having  been  adopted  in  1994.  The  programmes  adopted  involve  RECHAR,  RETEX 
(amendments  to the  programme  adopted  in  1993), ADAPT, LEADER  and  PESCA;  programmes  under 
URBAN,  RESIDER,  SME  and  KONVER  are  scheduled  for  adoption  in  1996.  Alongside  the  national 
programmes,  there  are  two  INTERREG  programmes  under  the  REGEN  strand,  also  adopted  in  1995. 
Italy takes part in all the Community Initiatives except REGIS. 

LUXEMBOURG 

Only three programmes were adopted  for Luxembourg  in  1995 (under URBAN, ADAPT and  LEADER) 
but  a  programme  under  the  EMPLOYMENT  Initiative  was  approved  in  1994.  There  were  three 
is  also 
programmes  still  awaiting  approval,  those  under  RESIDER,  SME and  KONVER.  Luxembou 
involved  in  an  INTERREG  programme,  but  does  not  take  part  in  the  RECHAR,  RETEX,  RJDGJ 
r 
PESCA Initiatives. 

NETHERLANDS 

Eleven  programmes  in  the  Netherlands  were  adopted  in  1995,  under  all  the  Initiatives  except 
EMPLOYMENT  (programme  adopted  in  1994), RECHAR  and  REGIS (in  which  the Netherlands  does 
not take part). There are seven INTERREG programmes  involving the Netherlands. By the end  of  1995, 
only the KONVER programme was still awaiting approval. 

PORTUGAL 

Portugal  takes  part  in  all  the  Initiatives,  and  all  the  programmes  have  now  been  adopted:  RETEX  in 
1993,  RESIDER,  EMPLOYMENT  and  PESCA  in  1994,  and  the  rest  in  1995.  Altogether,  11 
programmes  are  being  implemented  at  national  level,  one  for  each  Initiative,  plus  two  INTERREG 
programmes, one under REGEN and the other under cross-border  cooperation. 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

The United  Kingdom  takes  part  in all  the Community  Initiatives  except  REGIS, and  also  participate  in 
the  PEACE  programme  for  Northern  Ireland.  Altogether,  28  national  programmes  were  approved  in 
1995, two  programmes  under  the  EMPLOYMENT  Initiative  having  been  adopted  in  1994.  Moreover, 
three INTERREG  programmes were adopted  in  1995. A further  11 programmes  were presented,  one  for 
RESIDER,  one for  the  SME Initiative, and  nine for  the URBAN  Initiative, with  projects  that were  later 
amended  after  negotiations  between  the  UK  authorities  and  the  Commission.  By  the  end  of  1995, 
progress  had  been  made  towards  their  adoption.All  the  regionalized  programmes  for  Northern  Ireland 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

\ 73 

(which  is eligible under Objective  1) were adopted  in  1995; they  comprise programmes  under  PEACE, 
RETEX, SME, EMPLOYMENT, ADAPT and LEADER. Northern Ireland also benefits  from  KONVER 
and PESCA programmes for the United Kingdom as a whole. 

Arrangements  have  already  been  introduced  for  the  implementation  of  some  of  the  Initiatives  in  the 
United  Kingdom.  In  certain  cases, the  management  committees  have  adopted  new  procedures  such  as 
the approval of projects  in groups. There is a distinction to be made here between programmes for which 
an  ad  hoc  Monitoring  Committee  has  been  set  up  (national  Monitoring  Committees  for  KONVER, 
RETEX,  EMPLOYMENT,  ADAPT,  PESCA),  and  the  programmes  for  which  a  specific  Monitoring 
Committee  was  not  needed,  since  the  SPD  Monitoring  Committees  (Objectives  1  or  2)  were  also 
responsible  for  monitoring  Community  Initiatives.  The  RECHAR  programmes  are  in  the  second 
category;  since  each  programme  follows  on  from  a  priority  under  the  SPD  for  these  regions,  the 
corresponding  Monitoring  Committees  have the  general  task  of  supervising  the  implementation  of  the 
various Community  programmes  in the region concerned,  including Community  Initiative  programmes. 
Actual  implementation  on  the  ground  is the  responsibility  of  the  RECHAR  management  committees, 
which  reflect  local partnership  in the mining areas. Similarly, for RESIDER,  a partnership structure  like 
that for the RECHAR  programmes has been  introduced, with  stress on involving  local communities and 
bodies.  In  Western  Scotland,  for  example  (Lanarkshire),  the  strategy  was  designed  in  partnership 
between  groups  managing  the  programme,  which  include  the  Lanarkshire  Development  Agency,  local 
authorities,  the  Strathclyde  regional  council,  the  East  Kilbride  Development  Corporation,  Scottish 
Enterprise National  and the Scottish  Office. 

174 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

2. 

Innovative  measures and technical  assistance 

Each  of  the  Structural  Funds  and  the  FIFG  may  finance  measures  on  its  own  initiative  concerning 
studies,  pilot  schemes  or  technical  assistance.  A  ceiling  is  imposed  on  the  maximum  amounts  for 
financing  such  measures  for  each Fund:  1.5%  ofthe  ERDFs  annual  budget,  1% for  the EAGGF, 0.5% 
for the ESF and 2% for the FIFG18. 

2.1.  Innovative  measures and technical assistance under Articles 7 and  10 ofthe  ERDF 

Regulation 

Innovative  measures  under Article  10 ofthe  ERDF Regulation 

Article  10 ofthe  ERDF  Regulation  provides  for  the  financing,  in  particular,  of  innovative  studies  and 
pilot  schemes  to  promote  economic  and  social  development.  Priorities  for  this  type  of  measure  were 
defined  and rationalized  in  199419, and a total of ECU 395 million was allocated  for  1995-99. Measures 
were launched  in  1995. 

Table 105:  Innovative measures (Article 10 ofthe  ERDF Regulation)  - priorities for  assistance,  1995-99  (ECU 

million) 

Priorities 
Inter-regional  cooperation 
- within  the  Union 
- with  non-member countries 
Innovative  regional  development 
measures 
- promotion  of technological  innovation 
- information  sociey 
- culture  and  economic  development 
- new employment  areas  (particularly 
local jobs) 
Physical  planning 
Urban  pilot projects 

I 

180,0 
110,0 
70,0 
90,0 

45,0 
80,0 
395,0 

Total J 

The  Commission  has  opted  for  three  main  priorities  in  its  approach  to  innovative  measures  under 
Article  10 ofthe  ERDF Regulation for the new period: 

improving the transparency of project  selection through systematic use of calls for proposals; 

• 
•  closer  collaboration  between  those  responsible  at  the  political  level,  the  different  levels  of  local 

authorities and the economic and social partners; 

•  greater  involvement ofthe  Member  States in the monitoring and assessment  of pilot projects  so that 

their innovative character can influence the operational programming ofthe  regional policies. 

During  the  autumn  of  1995  the  Commission  published  a  series  of  calls  for  proposals  with  a  view  to 
implementing  measures  financed  under  Article  10. These  calls  for  proposals,  concerning  the  priorities 
listed  above, cover  five  domains: the  information  society, technology  transfer,  new  employment  areas, 
economic development networks in the cultural area and urban pilot projects. 

Innovative  measures  in  regional development:  The calls for  proposals  under Article  10 in the fields of 
the  information  society  and technology  transfers  were  prepared  by two  sets of  pilot  projects.  The  first, 

18 For the  principles  and  the  changes  made  by the  1993 amendments  to the  Regulations,  see the  1994 Annual 

Report. 

19  See the  1994 Annual  Report. 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

\ 75 

jointly  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  ESF20,  is  a  programme  of  pilot  schemes,  with  financing  of 
ECU 20  million,  to  prepare  regional  strategies  for  the  development  of  the  information  society  in  six 
regions  (Nord-Pas  de  Calais,  Saxony, North-West  England,  Central  Greece-Macedonia,  Piedmont  and 
Valencia). The chief objective  is to make the concept ofthe  information  society a reality  in the everyday 
life ofthe  regions through demonstration  services and innovative applications, strongly encouraging the 
participation  of users and  disseminating  good  practice, particularly  in  less-favoured  regions.  Following 
this series of calls for proposals, it is planned to select some  150 pilot projects in  1996. The second  series 
consists  of  eight  pilot  projects  launched  as  regional  technology  plans,  concerning  regional  innovation 
strategies  in Lorraine,  Saxony,  Wales, Limburg, Norte  (Portugal), Abruzzi,  Central  Greece-Macedonia 
and  Castile-Leôn  and  with  a budget  of ECU  15 million.  These  regional  innovation  strategies  will  seek 
the  best  methods  for  promoting  cooperation  between  SMEs,  research  institutes  and  public  authorities 
with  a  view  to  assessing  the  local  technological  requirements  of  firms  and  the  skills  and  potential 
existing locally for improving a region's capacity for innovation. 

Regional planning and the sustainable integrated development of coastal areas 
The  "Europe 2000+ " report  and  the  Report  on  implementation of  the  Fifth  European  Community 
Programme  of policy  and  action  in relation to the environment -  "Towards Sustainability"21  reveal 
the threats to the environment and the sustainable development ofthe  Community's coastal areas. On 
31  October  1995,  in  order  to propose  ways  of  acting  in  the spirit  of  integrated  development  and 
preservation  of  national  resources,  the  Commission adopted  a  communication  on  the  integrated 
management  of  coastal  zones12  reviewing  the situation  in  these  areas,  reiterating  the  reasons  for 
Community action and laying the foundations for  a demonstration programme.  This programme  fits 
into the context ofthe  Fifth programme  of action in relation to the environment and the  preparation 
of a European approach to spatial planning and has two objectives: 
• 

to  demonstrate  the  conditions for  the  sustainable  development  of  coastal  zones  in  all  their 
diversity, giving special attention to innovative models and mechanisms for  collaboration  between 
the  different  levels  of  responsibility  and  to  structures facilitating  coordination  between  the 
different sectoral policies; 
to stimulate debate  between those mainly involved in the development  of these  areas  in order  to 
facilitate  the emergence of a consensus at the different levels of decision-making. 

• 

The selection of demonstration projects  is planned for  1996 and great  importance will be attached  to 
disseminating  the  lessons  learned  from  the programme, particularly for  the  least favoured  regions. 
ERDF financing  could  be arranged in two ways: through Article 10 ofthe  ERDF Regulation,  under 
the  regional  development  section;  or  through  the  new  strand  of  the  Community  Initiative 
InterregllC23,  since  the  integrated management of coastal areas  could  be  an  important  aspect  of 
programmes for  trans-national cooperation between the coastal Member States. 

Urban pilot projects:  As in the case of innovative local development measures, in  1995 the  Commission 
launched  the new  programme  for  urban  pilot  projects  for  1995-99, under  which  25-30  projects  will  be 
financed  in  the  Member  States.  The  call  for  proposals  was  published  in  November  1995  and  was 
presented  in December at Directoria (see below). The closing date for submission  of proposals was April 
1996.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  possible  themes  proposed  in  the  call  for  proposals  included 
environmental  improvement,  giving  as  examples  the  creation  of  green  spaces,  the  treatment  of  waste, 
recycling  and  use  of  renewable  sources  of  energy.  Also,  32  projects  from  the  1989-93  programming 
period  were  still  running  in  1995, with  the  Commission  continuing  to  provide  technical  assistance  and 
monitoring. Some of these projects  should be wound up at the end ofthe  year, while others will need to 
be  extended  because  of  unexpected  difficulties  (flooding,  archaeological  finds,  changes  in  legislation, 
etc.).  However,  all  the  projects  are  now  in  the  last  phase  of  implementation  and  most  should  be 
completed  in 1996. 

20 See below, 2.2 Innovative measures and technical assistance under Article 6 ofthe  ESF Regulation. 
21 COM(95) 624 final of 10 January 1996. 
2 2C O M ( 9 5 ) 5 1 1. 
23  See  Chapter  I.B.I  Community  Initiatives. 

176 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Economic cooperation measures: In December  1995 the Commission  organized  the Directoria event in 
Brussels, in which  more than 500 delegations from  local and regional authorities  in the European  Union 
participated.  The  objective  was  to  enable  those  involved  in  economic  development  and  inter-regional 
cooperation  to  identify  partners  with  whom  to  set  up pilot  projects.  This  event  was  a  follow-up  to  an 
initial  Directoria  encounter  held  in  March  1995,  at  which  the  Community  programmes  specifically 
concerning local authorities were presented. 

In addition, as in previous years, two Europartenariat events were organized  in  1995 and financed  under 
Article  1024.  This  measure  for  SMEs  was  supplemented  by  the  launch  in  1995  of  14  new  European 
Business  Innovation  Centres  (BICs)  in  the  eligible  areas,  including  the  new  Member  States,  giving 
SMEs  easier  access  to  all  the  advisory  services  needed  for  their  establishment  and  development.  The 
Commission  also  launched  a pilot  experiment  concerning  four  monitoring  and  management  centres  at 
large  construction  sites  (Belgium,  France,  Greece  and  Portugal)  to  promote  local  development  and 
capitalize on economic spin-offs  at local level. 

Technical assistance  under Article  7 ofthe  ERDF Regulation 

-— 

Under  Article  7  of  this  Regulation  the  ERDF  may  finance  preparatory,  appraisal,  monitoring  and 
evaluation  measures,  as  well  as  studies  and  information  measures  concerning  Community  regional 
action. In  1995 expenditure on accompanying measures carried out on the Commission's  initiative under 
Article 7 ofthe  ERDF Regulation  was greater than in  1994, at ECU  14 million  in commitments  (0.11% 
ofthe  ERDF budget) as against ECU  12 million in 1994 (also 0.11% ofthe  ERDF budget). 

Table 106: Measures financed under Article 7 ofthe ERDF Regulation in 1995 - commitments (ECU million) 

Preparation  and  monitoring 
Assessment 
Regional  studies 
Conferences,  symposia,  seminars 
Information  and  publicity 
Technical  assistance  and  equipment 

TôtâT 

ERDF 

I% 

1,0 
3,0 
1,3 
0,4 
4,9 
3,4 
lT^T 

7% 
21% 
9% 
3% 
35% 
24% 
100% 

The assessment  exercises (21%) launched  during  1995 concern  Structural  Fund  assistance  imp^  Tented 
during  the  1989-93  programming  period  and  certain  Community  Initiatives.  The  regional  studies  (9%) 
added  some useful  knowledge to understanding ofthe  regional question and will be used  in particular as 
the  basis  for  preparing  the  first  three-yearly  report  on  economic  and  social  cohesion.  The  various 
conferences  and  symposia  part-financed  (3%)  included  the  conference  organized  with  the  Council  of 
Europe in Prague on European  integration and regional planning in greater  Europe. The various publicity 
measures  and  the  creation  of  an  information  and  communication  strategy  (35%)  enabled  the 
Commission  to  continue  its  efforts  to  improve  the  visibility  of  Community  regional  policy2^.  As  in 
previous years, most ofthe  measures benefited  several or all Member States. 

2.2.  Innovative  measures and technical assistance under Article 6 ofthe  ESF  Regulation 

Article  6 of this Regulation  permits the ESF to finance  different  types of  innovative  measure, technical 
assistance and pilot and demonstration  projects  in the field of vocational training and the development of 
employment as well as the monitoring and evaluation of measures  it has  part-financed. 

There  were two  parallel  innovative  operations  in  1995: the  launch  ofthe  projects  selected  in  1994 and 
the  selection  ofthe  projects  to be  financed  in  1995. In  March  1995  32  projects  from  the  1994  call  for 

24 See Chapter II.D.4. Structural Funds and SMEs. 
25 See Chapter III.D. Information and communication, dissemination of good practice. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

177 

proposals were approved for the twelve Member States. The projects cover three main themes: seeking a 
model  of growth  which  generates more employment;  improving the operation  ofthe  labour market  and 
strengthening training systems. The vast majority  of projects concern  strengthening training systems and 
range  from  the  establishment  of  mobile  local  training  centres  (Greece)  to  partnerships  to  improve 
employment for the disabled. The total cost of these projects for the Twelve amounts to ECU 32 million, 
with  the  ESF  contributing  ECU  18 million  (56%). The  first  payments  (50%  ofthe  ESF  commitment) 
were made in August  1995. 

Calls  for  proposals  for  1995  were  issued  in  May  and  June  1995.  By  October,  the  closing  date  for 
submission  of proposals, the Commission  had received  169 proposals. These were assessed  by  external 
experts  selected  from  candidates  put  forward  by  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission's  internal 
assessors.  After  assessment,  a provisional  list  of  61  projects  was  drawn  up. The  total  budget  estimate 
totals ECU 62 million, with an ESF contribution of ECU 27 million. 

Among  the  innovative  regional  development  measures  financed  under  Article  10  of  the  ERDF 
Regulation,  the  measure  to  integrate  the  concept  of  the  information  society  into  the  regional 
development  policies  of  the  least-favoured  areas  is  jointly  financed  under  Article 6  of  the  ESF 
Regulation  and  Article  10  ofthe  ERDF  Regulation.26  Total  available  funding  for  this  measure  will 
therefore  amount to ECU 20 million (ECU  15 million from  the ERDF and ECU 5 million from  the ESF), 
with two sections: the preparation  of regional  strategies  for the information  society  (comprising  aspects 
linked  to  employment  and  human  resources)  and  the  launch  of  multiregional  applications  with  an 
innovative effect  and demonstration  value in the less-favoured  regions. The ESF will  focus  on  networks 
running  projects  related  to  employment,  training  and  management  of  the  labour  market.  Applications 
could thus concern  distance education  using information  and communications  technology  or using these 
technologies more effectively  to link  institutions and other parties involved  in the local  labour market on 
the one hand and job  seekers on the other hand. The projects  will be launched  during the second  half of 
1996. 

Most of the technical  assistance  measures  are  included  in the programmes  financed  under  the  different 
Objectives  or Community  Initiatives. Appropriations  for  the Commission's  initiative  are  used  to  help  it 
to  carry  out  its  activities,  and  particularly  to  implement  the  Community  Initiatives  Employment  and 
Adapt, for which an external support structure called Europs, managed  by a firm under contract, was set 
up  in  May  1995. This  structure  was  selected  on  the  basis  of an  invitation  to  tender  and  has  an  annual 
budget  of  ECU 5 573 000.  Its  main  role  in  1995  was  to  help  the  Commission  select  programme 
proposals. The  chief  mission  of  Europs  is to  analyse  the  contents  ofthe  Employment  and  Adapt  CIPs 
and  to  help  prepare  and  circulate  information  on  these  Initiatives.  In  addition,  an  intermediary  support 
structure  specialized  in  public  relations  and  communication  was  selected  following  a  tendering 
procedure to run information  and communication  measures concerning the ESF. 

Table 107: Measures financed under Article 6 ofthe ESF Regulation in 1995 (ECU million) 

Innovative  measures,  studies 
Technical  assistance 

T O T AL 

Commitments 
18,0 
8,0 
26,0 

% 

P a y m e n ts 

69% 
3 1% 
1 0 0% 

9.0 
9.9 
18,9 

26 See above, 2.1 Innovative measures under Article 10 ofthe  ERDF Regulation - Innovative measures in regional 

development. 

178 

7lh Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

2.3.  Innovative  measures and technical assistance under Article 8 ofthe  EAGGF Regulation. 

Under Article 8 of its Regulation, the EAGGF may finance: 

•  preparatory  and  monitoring  measures, technical  assistance  and  general  studies. Technical  assistance 
may  be  implemented  on  the  initiative  of  the  Commission  or  a  competent  national  or  regional 
authority.  Studies  may  be  proposed  only  by  the  Commission,  in  accordance  with  the  priority 
requirements of its departments; 

•  pilot  projects  for  adjusting  agricultural  structures  and  promoting  rural  development.  Pilot  projects 

concern the small-scale application in real conditions of promising research results; 

•  demonstration  projects  to  show  the  real  possibilities  of  systems,  methods  and  techniques  of 
production  and management which are in accordance with the objectives  ofthe  common  agricultural 
policy. Demonstration  projects  are applied  at almost  full  scale and  must  be  based  on  results  which 
have already been validated at research level; 

•  measures needed  for the circulation  of experience  and results of the work  on  rural  development  and 

improving agricultural structures. 

Summary  of measures financed  between 1989 and 1995 

Since previous Annual  Reports have made no mention  of measures  implemented  under Article 8  ofthe 
EAGGF  Regulation  since  1989, it was decided  to  include them  at this point  because  some  ofthe  first-
generation projects were continued  in  1995 and second-generation  projects were  launched. 

Table 108:  Measures financed under Article 8 ofthe EA GGF Regulation, 1989-95 (ECU million) 

Number  of 
projects 

EAGGF 

% 

Technical  assistance,  assessment,  studies 
Pilot  and  demonstration  projects 
Dissemination 

Total 

51 
78 
8 
137 

19,2 
51,6 
1,8 
72,6 

26% 
71% 
2% 
1 0 0% 

Assessment,  monitoring,  technical  assistance  and  studies:  Between  1989  and  1995,  six  projects 
concerned  prior  appraisal  and  seven  expost  evaluation  of  specific  Regulations.  Most  of  the  technical 
assistance  measures  (19  projects)  concerned  assistance  in  the  implementation  and  monitoring  of 
Community Regulations. Lastly,  19 general studies were launched on the Commission's  initiative. 

Pilot and  demonstration  projects  were implemented  in the context of various  sectors of agriculture and 
rural  society.  Most  of  the  projects  concerning  diversification  in  farming  and  product  development 
focused  on  non-food  products  (development  of  forestry,  rural  tourism  and  regional  planning),  but  also 
included the promotion  of high-quality regional products. 

Agri-en vironmental pilot projects: 
EAGGF  pilot  and  demonstration projects  are  an  excellent  vehicle for  testing  different  methods  of 
reconciling  agricultural  production  with  sustainable  rural  development  and  environmental 
protection.  Measures  financed  in  1989-95  included  the  demonstration  of  more  environmentally 
friendly  techniques and  the setting  up of pilot farms  to demonstrate  the viability  of farming  systems 
taking account of environmental concerns and management ofthe  countryside. 

Dissemination  measures  mainly concerned the financing of booklets and the organization  of seminars to 
circulate  information  on the Community's  rural development  policy and on the knowledge and results of 
experience in improving agricultural  structures. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

179 

1995: a year  of transition for  EAGGF pilot  and demonstration projects 

In order to ensure more widespread circulation of information  about the pilot and demonstration  projects 
financed  under Article 8 ofthe  EAGGF Regulation, a call for proposals was published  in October  1994 
(closing  date  for  presentation  of  projects:  31 March  1995)  relating  to  four  priorityareas:  non-food 
products, agri-environmental  aspects, forestry  and rural  development.  583 proposals were received  and 
assessed  by  independent  experts and the Commission's  departments  during  1995. The  selected  projects 
will  be  financed  under  the  1996 budget.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  call  for  proposals  concerned  only 
pilot  and  demonstration  projects.  Assessment,  technical  assistance,  monitoring  and  dissemination 
measures  and  studies  (projects  presented  on  the  initiative  of  the  Commission  or  national,  regional  or 
local  authorities)  are  financed  outside this  procedure  (six projects  and  technical  assistance  measures  in 
1995). 

2.4.  Innovative  measures and technical assistance under Article 4 of the FIFG  Regulation 

Like the other Structural Funds, the FIFG may finance  studies, pilot projects and demonstration  projects, 
the provision  of services  and technical  assistance,  information  campaigns, etc. on the  basis  of Article 4 
of its Regulation. In  1995 a total of ECU 2 050 000 was spent on measures of this type. 

Table 109:  Measures financed under Article 4 ofthe FIFG Regulation in 1995 (ECU million) 

| 

FIFG 

Studies 
Publications 
Technical  assistance 

TôtàT 

TJ 
0,0 
0,6 
IT 

%" 

TP%" 
2% 
27% 
100% 

Thirteen  studies  were  launched  following  a  call  for  proposals,  mainly  collecting  data  for  biological 
purposes  or  dealing  with  the  links  between  fisheries  and  the  environment,  socio-economic  aspects, 
fisheries  technology, the quality of water for the production of bivalve molluscs and quality  certification 
for  fisheries  products. Appropriations  for technical  assistance went towards updating and  demonstrating 
the Community  register of fishing  vessels, preparing the MGP IV (multiannual guidance programme  for 
the  adjustment  of  fishing  effort,  1997-2000)  and  launching  the  Infosys  system  for  computerizing  the 
monitoring  and  assessment  of  structural  measures  financed  by the  FIFG.  Lastly,  publications  financed 
under  Article 4  include  the  report  on  Aquaculture  and  the  Environment,  and  information  booklets  on 
structural  measures for fisheries  and aquaculture, which were distributed  in each Member State. 

lriA% 

CHAPTER II 

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION, 

CHECKS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 

COORDINATION OF THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, 

COMPLEMENTARITY WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY POLICIES 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

183 

A.  BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION  OF THE STRUCTURAL  FUNDS 

The financial  year was marked  by adoption of a supplementary  and amending budget to make  available 
the  appropriations  in  the  reserve  for  the  three  new  Member  States  and  introduce  specific  budget 
headings  for  CSFs/SPDs  under  Objective  6.  This  supplementary  and  amending  budget  provided  the 
ERDF  with  ECU  261 million  in  commitment  appropriations  and  ECU  130  million  in  payment 
appropriations, an increase of 2%  on the original total. 

1.  Budget implementation  in  1995 

1.1.  General implementation  in  1995 

The  aim  of  this  section  is  to  look  at  implementation  of  the  1995  budget  as  a  whole,  that  is,  of 
appropriations  for  1994-99  and  those  for  previous  periods.  However,  it  distinguishes  between 
implementation  of  appropriations  newly  entered  in the  1995  budget  and  that  of  appropriations  carried 
over to the  1995 budget from  the previous year. 

Table 110:  Origin and implementation of commitment appropriations in  1995  (ECU million) 

I 

C S F C SF 
ERDF 

ESF 

CSF 
EAGGF 

CSF 

FIFG 

Community 
Initiatives 

Transitional 
measures 

T O T AL 

Initial  budget 
Transfer  of appropriations 
Supplementary  and  amending  budget 
Total  appropriations  1995 
Appropriations  reconstituted 
Appropriations  carried  over 
Appropriations  availabe 
Implementation 
Rate  of  implementation 

" 

10.592,70 
-129,70 
221,41 
10.684,41 
0,00 
OfiO 
10.684,41 
10.566,05 
99% 

6.443,80 
-54,80 
317,11 
6.706,11 
0,00 
<M>3 
6.710,74 
5.125,25 
'6% 

" 

Appropriations  not  implemented 
Appropriations  carried  over  early  1996 
Decommitments  without  reconstitutions 
Appropriations  reentered  in the budget  for 
subsequent years 
Decommitments 
(1)  including  ECU  7.5  million  blocked  at 31  March  1995. 
(2)  ECU  24 400.6  million  after  deduction  ofthe  ECU  7.5  million  blocked. 

118,06 
283,75 

118,36 
0,00 

1.585,49 
4,32 

1.584,79 
99,28 

3.315,80 
-192,80 
251,10 
3.374,10 
0,00 
0^00 
3.374,10 
3.348,33 
99% 

25,77 
0,00 

438,95 
0,05 
12,28 
451,28 
0,00 
(^00 
451,28 
451,23 
100% 

ôfil 
0,00 

2.144,00 
378,00 
80,20 
2.602,20 
0,00 
313,58 
2.915,78 
2.666,65 
91% 

249,13 
20,41 

242,00 
0,00 
8,90 
250,90 
0,00 
20,90 
271,80 
111,92 
41% 

159,88 
45,88 

25,58 
28,66 

0,22 
48,49 

228,71 
31,34 

115,42 
42,03 

23.177,25 
0,75 
891,00 
24.069,00 
0,00 
339,11  (1) 
24.408,11  (2) 
22.269,43 
91% 

2.138,68 
70,63 
5,44 

2.072,78 
533,56 

Table 111:  Implementation  of  appropriations  in  1995  (excluding carry-overs  from  1994  to  1995 and 

appropriations made available again - ECU million) 

liiaget  lietuBngs 

Approprierions  available (A) 
Comnitments 

Payments] 

Utilizatiin tfappmpriatUms  (It) 
Commitments 

Payments! 

Appmpriatùm  carried met  to  1996  (Q 

Commit mats 

Payments! 

Ajipnipriaûiins nu 
Commitments 

inpleniattal 

Payments] 

Objective 1 
Objective 2 
Objective 3 
Objective 4 
Objective 5(a) agriculture (excluding  Objectives  I 
&5(b)) 
Objective 5(a)  agriculture (in Objective  5(b)) 
Objective  5(a)  fisheries 
Objective  5(b) 
Objective 6 
Transitional  and innovative  measures 
Community  Initiatives 
Anti-fraud 
Former  GDR 

15190,83 
1.978,20 
2013,51 
365,39 

296,76 
384,72 
178,97 
680,80 
125.92 
250,90 
2 602,20 
0,75 

12550,17 
2252,60 
1756,76 
188,20 

462,03 
295,50 

134,60 
948,90 
76,24 
376,65 
2.107,15 
0,77 
52,00 

14.517,77 

1  734,74 
1606,59 
94,50 

282,60 
373,31 
178,97 
571,86 
125,92 
93,90 
2.357,71 
0,06 

0,00 

11877,54 
1091,05 
1.474,72 
54,11 

316,64 
288.26 

91,63 
437,85 
62,96 
183,87 
1.320.06 
0,13 
16,01 

T O T AL 

24.069,00 

21.201,55 

21.937,92 

0,00 

0,00 

4,32 

0,00 

0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 
38,74 
20,41 
0,00 
0,00 

63,47 

116,00 
20,50 
73,00 
0,00 

44,50 
IZ39 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
10,00 

184,36 

0,00 

113,06 

673,11 

243,46 

402,59 

270,89 

14,16 
11,41 
0,00 
108,94 
0,00 
118,26 
224,08 
0,69 
0,00 

556,62 
1.141,05 
209,03 
134,08 

100,89 
-5,15 
42,97 
511,05 
13,28 
182,78 

602,73 

0,64 

-77,07 

57331 

2.067,61 

3.412,90 

Taking  all  the  assistance  and  all  the  Funds  together,  during  1995  the  Commission  committed  ECU 
21 938  million  and  paid  ECU  17  215  million  from  the  1995  appropriations.  In  addition,  ECU 
331.6 million  was  committed  from  appropriations  carried  over  from  the  previous  year.  These  figures 
should  be  compared  with  the  ECU  24 069  million  available  for  commitment  appropriations  (ECU 
24 408 million  including carryovers) and the ECU 21 202 million  available for  payment  appropriations. 

184 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

In all, ECU 2  131 million  in commitment  appropriations (ECU 2  139 million  including carryovers) and 
ECU  3  987  million  in  payment  appropriations  remained  unused.  Of  these  appropriations,  ECU 
63.5 million  in  commitment  appropriations  and  ECU  573.8  million  in  payment  appropriations  were 
carried over to the  1996 budget and ECU 2 072 million in commitment appropriations will be entered in 
budgets for  later years. 

Table 112:  Implementation  of  appropriations  in  1995  by  budget  heading  (excluding  carry-overs  and 

appropriations made available again) 

Number 

Heading 

Commitments 

Payments 

tu 
O 
o 
< 

o 

Q 

C/5 

B2-100 

B2-1000 

B2-1001 

B2-1002 

B2-1003 

B2-1004 

B2-1010 

B2-110 

B2-1100 

B2-1101 

B2-I102 

B2-1110 

B2-120 

B2-1200 

B2-1201 

B2-1202 

B2-1203 

B2-1210 

B2-130 

B2-1300 

B2-1301 

B2-I302 

B2-1303 

B2-1304 

B2-1305 

B2-131 

B21400 

B21400 

B21400 

B21400 

B2141 

B21410 

B21410 

B21410 

B21410 

CSF 

CSF 

Objective 1 

Objective  5(a) (excluding  1 and  5(b) areas) 

Objective  5(a) (in  5(b) areas) 

Objective  5(b) 

Objective  6 

Anti-fraud 

CSF 

Objective 1 

Objective  5(a) 

Objective  6 

Anti-fraud 

CSF 

Objective 1 

Objective 2 

Objective  5(b) 

Objective  6 

Anti-fraud 

CSF 

Objective 1 

Objective 2 

Objective  3 

Objective 4 

Objective  5(b) 

Objective  6 

Anti-fraud 

2.395.179.999 

1.694.819.384 

282.599.220 

373.305.787 

249.500.000 

47.740.000 

10.000 

316.643.872 

288.255.362 

207.015.401 

23.870.000 

7.500 

Total  EAGGF 

3.348.335.006 

2.530.611.520 

270.833.000 

178.967.000 

1.430.000 

155.710.334 

91.628.181 

715.000 

Total  FIFG 

451.230.000 

248.053.514 

8.960.795.036 

1.332.611.700 

228.388.044 

44.260.000 

30.000 

Total  ERDF 

10.566.084.780 

2.890.964.235 

402.127.449 

1.606.593.025 

94.500.000 

93.970.958 

32.490.000 

19.000 

7.379.713.350 

815.617.460 

156.122.460 

22.130.000 

37.106 

8.373.620.376 

2.647.301.618 

275.434.338 

1.474.721.111 

54.111.428 

74.715.824 

16.245.000 

81.000 

Total  ESF 

5.120.664.667 

4.542.610.319 

COMMUNITY  INITIATIVES 

Pesca  (restructuring  the fisheries  sector) 

ESF 

FIFG 

ERDF 

Inter-rcgional  cooperation 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ERDF 

Total  Pesca 

Total  INTERREG 

964.000 

20.760.036 

6.552.899 

28.276.935 

4.745.000 

7.010.000 

334.460.500 

346.215.500 

482.000 

1.564.518 

3.276.449 

5.322.967 

2.372.500 

4.030.200 

218.259.850 

224.662.550 

7th Annual Report on  the  Structural  "unds (1995) 

185 

Number 

Heading 

Commitments 

Payments 

B21412 

B21412 

B21412 

B21412 

B2142 

B21420 

B21420 

B21421 

B21421 

B21422 

B21422 

B21423 

B21423 

B2143 

B21430 

B21430 

B21431 

B21431 

B21432 

B21432 

B21433 

B21433 

B2144 

B21440 

B21440 

B21440 

B2145 

B21450 

B21450 

B2146 

B21460 

B21460 

B21460 

B2147 

B21470 

B21470 

53 

E  « 
E  :•= 
r  i  « 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ERDF 

Employment and the development of human  resources 

Total PEACE 

ESF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ERDF 

Total  N OW 

Total HORIZON 

Total  YOUTHSTART 

Total  ADAPT 

Total  RECHAR 

Total  RESIDER 

Total  KONVER 

Total  RETEX 

Total  REGIS 

Total  URBAN 

Total  LEADER 

Total  PME 

Industrial  restructuring 

ESF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ERDF 

REGIS II  (most  remote  regions) 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ERDF 

URBAN (rural  aeras) 

ESF 

ERDF 

LEADER  II (rural  development) 

ESF 

EAGGF 

ERDF 

SME  Initiative 

ESF 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ERDF 

Total Community  Initiatives 

10.963.000 

1.271.000 

137.000 

15.014.000 

27.385.000 

26.728.815 

1.626.298 

28.355.113 

51.908.658 

3.110.964 

55.019.622 

22.813.724 

1.463.454 

24.277.178 

297.622.306 

10.041.768 

307.664.074 

23.002.000 

148.660.161 

171.662.161 

11.258.000 

143.470.500 

154.728.500 

10.654.000 

227.568.000 

238.222.000 

2.047.000 

162.776.410 

164.823.410 

36.777.000 

36.777.000 

14.285.177 

121.611.382 

135.896.559 

2.965.637 

221.085.705 

217.026.189 

441.077.531 

13.937.000 

183.390.000 

197.327.000 

493.894.317 

229.366.705 

20.897.036 

1.613.549.525 

2.357.707.583 

5.481.500 

635.500 

68.500 

7.507.000 

13.692.500 

13.364.407 

713.149 

14.077.556 

25.954.329 

1.455.482 

27.409.811 

11.406.861 

731.727 

12.138.588 

147.600.000 

5.020.884 

152.620.884 

11.501.000 

63.672.168 

75.173.168 

5.629.000 

71.390.850 

77.019.850 

5.327.000 

82.004.885 

87.331.885 

1.023.500 

74.335.571 

75.359.071 

22.020.400 

22.020.400 

7.142.588 

46.574.610 

53.717.198 

2.882.818 

67.106.871 

62.719.602 

132.709.291 

6.968.500 

60.739.701 

67.708.20l] 

247.136.003 

71.772.571 

1.633.018 

720.422.327 

1.040.963.920 

186 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

Number 

Heading 

Commitments 

Payments 

OTHER ASSISTANCE 

11 

B2148 

B2148 

B2148 

B2148 

B2-180 

B2-181 

B2-182 

B2-183 

B21900 

B21900 

B21900 

B21900 

B21900 

ESF 

EAGGF 

ERDF 

Reserve 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ERDF 

ESF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ERDF 

Reserve 

Total  Earlier measures  (*) 

Total  Transitional  and innovative  measures 

10.867.167 

13.371.419 

30.980.969 

38.677.505 

93.897.060 

(*) Payments  for  1989-93 

Total  Former GDR 

51.654.647 

19.827.041 

207.616.049 

0 

279.097.737 

42.062.926 

12.772.210 

82.322.392 

46.709.165 

183.866.694 

0 

14.938.560 

1.073.579 

0 

0 

16.012.139 

Table 113:  Commitments in 1995 (excluding  carry-overs  and appropriations  made available  again 

ECU 

million) 

T O T AL 

C SF 

Obj.  1 

Obj.  2 

O b j.  3 

O b j.  4 

O b j.  5(a) 

O b j.  5(b) 

O b j.  6 

T o t al 

C SF 

T r a n s i t i o n al 

C o m m u n i ty 

m e a s u r es 

Initiatives 

% 

T o t al  available 

24.068,25  (1) 

15.190,88 

1.978,20 

2 0 1 3 , 51 

365,39 

860,45 

680,80 

125,92 

21.215,15  (1) 

250,90 

2 6 0 2 , 20 

Total  i m p l e m e n t ed 
% 

21.937,86  (2) 

14.517,77 

1.734,74 

1.606,59 

94,50 

91,15% 

96% 

SS% 

S0% 

834,87 
<)-% 

571,86 

S4% 

125,92 

19.486,26  (2) 

100% 

92% 

E R DF 

E SF 

E A G GF 

F I FG 

12.210,59  (2) 

8  960,80 

1.332,61 

5.653,22  (2) 

2.890,96 

402,13 

1.606,59 

3.588,56  (2) 

2.395,18 

485,50 

100% 

270,83 

66% 

K% 

'% 

26% 

94,50 

228,39 

44,26 

10  566,05  (2) 

93,97 

32,49 

5.120,65 (2) 

655,91 

249,50 

47,74 

3.348,33 (2) 

178,97 

4% 

3% 

1,43 

1% 

451,23 

H9% 

( 1 ) Not including ECU  750 000 available for anti-fraud  measures 
(2)  Not  including ECU  59 000 committed for anti-fraud  measures (ERDF: ECU 30 000, ESF: ECU  19 000; EAGGF: ECU  10 000) 

0% 

93,90 

S'% 

30,98 

38,68 

10,87 

13.37 

0% 

2.357,71 

100%, 

91% 

1.613,55 

493,89 

229,37 

20,90 

Tl% 

56% 

26% 

16% 

2% 

In terms of programming,  1995 saw the adoption ofthe  Community Initiative programmes,  programmes 
for  the new Member  States  and a few programmes  still  to be adopted  for the various  Objectives. 
However, these new commitments did not account for the bulk of budget implementation  in  1995, which 
was  rather  the  reflection  of the  implementation  of the  national  initiative  assistance  programmes 
(CSFs/SPDs)  decided  on in 1994. The fact  that  implementation  was  spread  over two years  explains the 
failure  to  use all the commitment  appropriations, with  91% (ECU 21 938 million) ofthe  appropriations 
available  used  in the  current  programming  period.  The  preparation  and  adoption  of the  programming 
documents  towards  the end of 1994  had an  impact  on budget  implementation  in  1995,  since the 
requirement  that  40%  of the  annual  instalment  for the  previous  year  has  to be used  before  the next 
annual  instalment  can  be committed  generates a degree of inertia, with  lack of implementation  in 1994 
acting  as a drag on  1995. This  inertia is amplified  by the  system of SPDs under  which, while it is true 
that the first  annual  instalment can be committed  more quickly, the amounts  in question  are greater than 
those  in CSF operational  programmes  so that a higher level of implementation  has to be achieved  before 
the next instalment can be committed. 

Implementation  varies  considerably  from  one Objective  to another.  Only  Objective  6 was  fully 
implemented,  through  the  adoption  of a  very  small  number  of programmes.  Over  95%  of  the 
appropriations  for Objectives  1 and 5(a)  were  committed  and  Objectives  2 and 5(b)  were  around the 
85%  mark.  Only  Objectives  3  and 4  encountered  substantial  difficulties  in  implementing the 
commitment  appropriations  (80% and  26% respectively).  However, in general  terms these were  largely 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

187 

offset  by the fact that Objective  1, for which the rate of commitment  in  1995 was fairly  satisfactory  with 
ECU  673  million  out  of ECU  15  190 million  remaining  unused,  by itself  accounts  for two  thirds of 
commitments for  1995, with the share taken by the other Objectives ranging from  0.4% (Objective  4) to 
8% (Objective 2). 

Turning to other  assistance, total  commitment  appropriations  for  the  Community  Initiatives  (excluding 
appropriations  carried  over  and made  available  again)  totalled  ECU  2  358 million,  leaving ECU 
244.5 million  (9%  ofthe  appropriations  available  in  1995)  unused.  This  made  up to a  considerable 
extent for the delay in  1994, as can be seen from the proportion of commitments for  1995 represented by 
the Community Initiatives (almost  11%). 

Table 114:  Payments in 1995 (excluding carry-overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) 

T O T AL 

C SF 

O b j.  1 

O b j.  2 

O b j.  3 

O b j.  4 

O b j.  5(a) 

O b j.  5(b) 

O b j.  6 

Total 

C SF 

T r a n s i t i o n al 

C o m m u n i ty 

m e a s u r es 

Initiatives 

% 

T o t al  available 

20.678,79  (1) 

12  550,17 

2  252,60 

1.756,76 

188,20 

892,13 

948,90 

76,24 

18.664,99(1) 

376,65 

1.585,15 

T o t al  i m p l e m e n t ed 
% 

16.919,60  (2) 

11.877,54 

1.091,05 

1.474,72 

81,82% 

95% 

48% 

84% 

54,11 

29% 

696,53 

'8% 

437,85 

46% 

62,96 

15.694,77 (2) 

83% 

84% 

183,87 

49% 

1.040,96 

100% 

66%, 

E R DF 

E SF 

E A G GF 

F I FG 

9.176,33  ( 2) 

7.379,71 

815,62 

4.836,37  ( 2) 

2.647,30 

275,43 

1.474,72 

54,11 

2.644,44  (2) 

1.694,82 

262,46 
100% 

155,71 

70% 

6% 

9% 

0% 

156,12 

74,72 

22,13 

8  373,58 (2) 

16,25 

4.542,53  (2) 

604,90 

207,02 

23,87 

2.530,60  (2) 

91,63 

4% 

}% 

0,72 
0% 

248,05 

93%, 

82,32 

4 6 , 7! 

42,06 

12,77 

1%, 

720,42 

54%, 

247,14 

71,77 

1,63 
6% 

29% 

16% 

2% 

(1) Excluding  ECU 765 000 for  anti-fraud  measures and ECU  522 million  in the reserve for earlier measures 
(2) Excluding ECU  126 000 for  anti-fraud  measures (ERDF: ECU 37 000; ESF: ECU 81 000; EAGGF: ECU 8 000), ECU 279 098 000 in the reserve for  earlier  measures 

and ECU  16 012 000 for the former  GDR. 

Payment  appropriations  implemented  in  1995 totalled  ECU 16 920  million,  82% of  the  ECU 
20 679 million  available. Appropriations  unused  therefore  totalled  ECU 3 759  million.  This  means that 
implementation  of programmes  is still  fairly  poor in view  ofthe  fact  that they  had  only  been  adopted 
over  the  period  end-1994  to  1995.  It  should  be  stressed  that  Community  payments  reflect  the 
implementation  of programmes  at national  level  since,  when  the programme  has been  adopted, the 
corresponding  annual  instalment  committed  and the first  advance  paid, the Commission  cannot  make a 
second  payment  until  the  Member  State can certify  that  expenditure  amounting to at least  half  the  first 
advance has actually been  incurred by the final  beneficiaries. In the case of programmes adopted  in mid-
1995 or at the end  ofthe  year it was therefore  difficult  to  make the payments  originally  entered  in the 
budget. 

Rates of payment vary much more between the various Objectives than do rates of commitment. Only in 
the case of Objective  1 did the rate of implementation  of available appropriations  approach  95%. Those 
for  the other  Objectives  either  hovered  around  80%  (Objectives  3, 5(a)  and 6) or fell  below  50% 
(Objectives  2 and  5(b)) or even  30% (Objective  4). Once  again,  the  fact  that  Objective  1 accounts for 
70% of all payment appropriations  explains the overall  rate of implementation  of 82%.  Implementation 
of payment  appropriations  for  the Community  Initiatives  (66%) reflects  the  fact  that  1995 was the year 
when the programmes were approved and actual implementation  had not yet begun  fully. 

The above paragraphs  refer  to the implementation  of appropriations  for the second  programming  period 
entered  in the  1995  budget  for the  first  time,  that  is,  excluding  appropriations  carried  over  and  made 
available  again.  However,  appropriations  carried  over  and  made  available  again  from  1994  to  1995 ' 
represent only a limited  proportion  of total budget  implementation  (ECU 339.1  million). They  comprise 

1 Usually, commitment or payment appropriations not implemented at the end ofthe  financial  year for which they 
have been entered are cancelled. However, a decision to carry them over, to the next financial  year only, may be 
taken in the following cases: for commitment appropriations, when they relate to commitments which are going 
to  be made  before  31 March  of the  following  year;  for payment  appropriations,  when  the appropriations 
authorized  are exhausted. Furthermore, commitments not used in a particular  year  are  normally decommitted, 
which means they are cancelled. However, commitment appropriations may be made available again  in order to 
carry out the programme originally planned. 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

ECU  4.6 million  for the ESF under  Objective  2  (fully  implemented)  and, more  importantly, ECU 
313.6 million  for the Community  Initiatives  (ERDF:  ECU 268.9  million;  ESF:  ECU 18.3 million; 
EAGGF: ECU 20.6 million; FIFG: ECU  1.2 million) with ECU 20.9 million  (ESF: ECU  18 million) for 
innovative  and  transitional  measures. In total,  during  1995  ECU  331.6  million  out of a total  of ECU 
339.1 million (98%) was committed from  appropriations carried over or made available again. 

A  considerable  volume  of  payments  was also  made  for  assistance  decided  on  before  1994,  i.e. 
corresponding  to  the  first  programming  period  (1989-93)  or  even  earlier.  These  totalled  ECU 
1 835 million,  of  which  ECU 1 551 million  corresponds  to  commitments  for  1989-93.  These are 
payments  still being made normally  for the completion of assistance under the first  period. It should be 
noted  that,  while  commitments  for that  assistance  had to be made  before  the end of  1993  (unless the 
programmes  were extended), the  Member  States normally  had two years  (up to 31 December  1995) to 
make  payments  to the final  beneficiaries  and a  further  six months  (up to  30 June  1996)  to  send 
certificates  of expenditure to the Commission.  The Commission's  payments  in 1995 reflect  the  closure 
of programmes from  the first programming period. 

Table 115:  Payments in 1995 in respect of assistance prior to the second programming period (including carry 

overs and appropriations made available again - ECU million) 

ERDF 
'  736,81 
549,09 

ES F 

2 7 9 , 99 

2 7 8 , 00 

O B J E C T I V E! 
EAGGF 
(D 

75,50 

F i s h e r i es 

133,40 

15,88 

r%  . 

c T o l i l sï 
1.68é,3ô  (ij 

976,37 

0,00 
34,84 
80,05 
50,83 
0,03 
242,74 

5,20  (3) 
0,00 
90,88 
13,14 
0,27 
91,49 

30,00  (3 
25,90 
41,80 
13,40 
9,50 
8,60 

1,10  (3) 
0,92 
6,83 
0,00 
4,71 
0,75 

36,30 
61,65 
219,55 
77,37 
14,50 
343,58 

,Ï 
3 E R & . E 2; 

O B J E C T I VE  1 
tiï.-ESF.;;. 
21,06 

524,25 

Total. 
245,25 

224,25 
15,41 
0,44 
80,65 

17,85 
23,25 

14,73 
5,19 
9,19 

20,53 
3,39 
0,29 
5,21 

0,15 
11,01 

0,49 
0,00 
0,00 

244,78 
18,80 
0,73 
85,86 

18,01 
34,26 

15,21 
5,19 
9,19 

O B J.  3 
ESF 
198,11 

198,11 
16,89 
17,36 
27,22 

14,1  1 
0,00 

83,84 
0,00 
0,00 

O B J E C T I VE  5(a) 

F i i h e r ie 

: 

EAGGF 
0) 

8,56 

8,05 
0,07 
0,10 
1,27 

1,80 
0,00 

0,00 
0,00 
1,28 

T o t al 
8,50  (2) 

57,55 
4,27 
0,10 
7,17 

2,90 
2 0 , 70 

1  1,60 
0,10 
4,08 

49,5 
4,2 
0,0 
5,9 

1,1 
20,7 

1  1,6 
0,1 
2,8 

139,73 
0,86 

77,03 
0,00 

2,30 
1,90 

1,25 
0,34 

220,31 
3,10 

57,53 

0,00 

57,53 

38,70 

3,1 

3,53 

6,63 

<  1994 

1 9 8 9 - 1 9 93 
B 
DK. 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
1 
L 
N 
P 
UK 

OBJECTIVE  5(b) 
"EST-
EAGGF 
TTJT 
( i) 
17,3i 
0,96 
0,00 
10,70 

ERDF 

20,86 

T o t al 
38,17  (2) 

ERDF 

975,92 

"EST" 
516,42 

T99"T 

1,26 
3,78 

0,28 
2,93 

2,20 
17,80 

20,86 
1,05 
0,21 
0,45 

36,16 
2,80 
0,00 
3,60 

T4TTT 
4,81 
0,21 
14,76 

1989-
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
N 
P 
UK 
(I  ) It  is  not  p ossible  to  break  d o wn  by  O bjective  E A G GF  p ay ment s  in  resp  ect  of  com m it ment s  before  1989. 
(2)  Excluding  E A G GF  p a y m e n ts  (see above). 
(3)  F o r m er  G DR  (heading  B 2-1  900). 
(4)  No  p a y m e nt  w as  made  under  O bjective  4. 

794,19 
16,47 
0,65 
81,1  1 
34,84 
98,18 
77,01 
0,03 
269,93 
5,19 
10,10 
139,73 
60,96 

12,46 
0,00 
0,90 

21,18 
0,00 
2,50 

0,62 
0,00 
0,00 

8,10 
0,00 
1,60 

3,73 
24,51 

0,00 

0,00 

2,57 

2,57 

513,96 
21,23 
17,65 
48,33 
0,00 
106,39 
27,93 
0,27 
176,43 
0,00 
0,00 
77,03 
38,70 

TOTAL  <4> 
E A G GF 

221,76 

219,66 
7,00 
0,00 
39,50 
25,90 
45,10 
51,90 
9,50 
28,30 
0,10 
4,40 
2,30 
5,00 

I F i s h e r ie 
82,92 
1TJT 
0,07 
0,10 
2,37 
0,92 
8,63 
0,00 
4,71 
0,75 
0,00 
1,2 8 
1,25 
3,87 

T o t al 

1.835,13 

1.551,09 
44,77 
18,40 
171,31 
6 1 , 65 
2 5 8 , 31 
156,84 
14,50 
475,41 
5,29 
15,78 
220,31 
108,52 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

189 

Table 116: Appropriations outstanding at 31 December 1995 (ECU million) 

Total  aéstanàng 
comtitncnts 
end 1995 

1995  commtncnts 
outstanding 

1994contritments 
outstanding 

Comnitmcntsfrom 
hrforel994 
outstanding 

Obj.l 

ObjJ 

ObjJ 

Obj.4 

Obj.5(a) 

0bj.5(b) 

Obj.6 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

13.776^6 
8.723,20 
2.631,38 
1.828,05 
593,72 

2.694,83 

1.484,88 

174,95 

974,19 

2.202,91 
491,92 

1.484,88 

174,95 

784,73 
189,46 

7.539,44 
4.682,46 

1.092,77 
838,39 

635,63 

6802 

617,29 

254,38 

635,63 

68,22 

828,% 
718,46 
110,51 

773,10 
646,06 
127,03 

313,84 

106,74 

313,84 

106,74 

535,41 

0,00 

535,41 

0,00 

1.345,99 
1.262,87 
248,12 
1021,43 
1.415,48 
367,73 
174,78 
63,45 

4.215,49 
2625,26 
917,67 
390,40 
282,16 

491,83 
125,46 
192,49 

151,81 
40,68 

164,41 

141,09 
23,32 

923,10 
377,22 
143,44 
402,44 

332,00 
136,31 
50,85 
144,84 

118,89 
90,00 

28,89 

472,22 
150,91 
63,70 
257,61 
0,00 

62,96 

22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 

62,96 
22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 
-

-

-

Total 
Objectives 
20.091,27 
11.325,46 
4.942,83 
3.039,09 
783,90 

10.34831 
5679,29 

2.371,31 
1923,41 
374,29 
3.582,34 
2.223,93 
927,70 
326,58 
104,13 
6.160,63 

3.422,24 
1.643,82 
789,10 
305,48 

Community 
Initiatives 

2.704,155 

Transit 
measures 
377,58 

Former 
COR 

Anti-
fraud 

254,32 

0,05 

TOTAL 
end 1995 
23.427,87 

% 

100°/. 

1.608,77| 

51,46 

0,00 

0,02 

11008,56 

51% 

120,22 

86,69 

0,00 

0,03 

3.789,28 

16% 

975,66 

239,42 

254,32 

0,00 

7.630,03 

33% 

The increase  in commitment  appropriations available arising both from  the Edinburgh  undertakings and 
carryovers  from  1994, and the failure to use all the payment appropriations  has an  immediate  impact on 
the payment appropriations  outstanding  at the end ofthe  year. The rate of settlement  in  1995 was 46%, 
as  compared  with  54%  in  1994,  which  means  that  total  appropriations  outstanding  rose  from  ECU 
15 000 million  in  1993 to ECU 23 428 million in  1995. However, the increase was due to a lower rate of 
settlement  during  the  current  year  (1995, but this  is  also true  for  1994) rather  than  a  slowdown  in  the 
settlement  of  appropriations  committed  in  previous  years.  At  the  end  of  1995, when  the  programmes 
were being closed, outstanding  appropriations  relating to the first  programming  period  amounted to one 
third. As a result ofthe  closure  in  1995 of a very large number of programmes  from  the first  period, the 
rate  of  settlement  of  appropriations  committed  in  previous  years  has  increased.  Taking  all  Objectives 
and  Funds  together,  payments  have  been  made  in  respect  of  85% of  the  appropriations  committed  in 
1992 and 1993. 

The shares of each Fund  in the total appropriations outstanding at the end of  1995 are as follows: ERDF: 
56%;  ESF:  25%; EAGGF:  15%; FIFG  4%. These  figures  are  fairly  similar  to  those  for  1994  (ERDF: 
56%; ESF: 27%; EAGGF:  13%; FIFG 4%). They differ,  however, from  those for the first  programming 
period  in that the share ofthe  ERDF has fallen  considerably (from  68% in  1989 and 56% in  1993) while 
that  ofthe  EAGGF  has  increased  (from  11% in  1989  and  13% in  1993).  The  share  ofthe  ESF  rose 
between  1989 and  1995 but fell  between  1993 and  1995 (20% in  1989, 27% in  1993); this was also true 
of appropriations for fisheries  (0.5% in  1989, 5% in 1993). 

1.2.  Implementation  of each Fund in 1995 in the context of 1994-99 

The  aim  of  this  section  is  to  look  at  the  implementation  of  appropriations  for  1994-99  excluding 
implementation  for  previous  years.  It  therefore  includes  appropriations  not  implemented  in  1994  and 
carried over to the  1995 budget. 

The share of each  Fund  in the total  implementation  ofthe  Structural  Funds varies slightly depending on 
the type of appropriations  even though  the proportions  remain  the same (see Tables  113 and  114). The 
share ofthe  ERDF is about 55%) but is slightly higher in the case of commitment appropriations  (55.7%) 
and  slightly  lower  for  payment  appropriations  (54.2%).  The  position  with  regard  to  the  EAGGF  is 
similar:  its  share  in  the  work  of  the  Structural  Funds  is  about  16%,  16.4%  for  commitment 
appropriations  and  15.6%  for  payment  appropriations.  The  same  is  true  of  the  FIFG  (2.2%  for 
commitment  appropriations,  1.5%  for  payment  appropriations).  By contrast,  the  ESF  has  proved  more 
dynamic  in  implementing  payments  (28.6% ofthe  Funds as a whole) than  commitments  (25.8%  ofthe 
Funds as a whole). 

190 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 117:  Implementation  in 1995 for  the period 1994-99  (including  carry-overs  and appropriations  made 

available again - ECU million) 

Available 
1 9 9 5 ( 1) (a) 

Obj.l 

Obj.2 

Obj.3 

Obj.4 

Obj.5(a)A 

Obj.5(a)F 

Obj.5(b) 

Obj.6 

Total  (2) (b) 

C o m m i t m e n ts 1995 

21.219,78 

14.513,10 

1.739,37 

1.567,90 

94,50 

655,07 

177,02 

571,86 

125,92 

T o t al 
•/.  (2)/(l) 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
IT 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
FI 
SE 

UK 

8,97 

2.022,55 
2.653,04 

4.778,90 
222,47 
954,21 
2.228,63 

17,20 
28,80 
1.379,72 

218,60 

4,63 
6,00 
38,01 

659,21 
313,09 

.

9,15 
54,15 
- 

31,10 
105,78 
518,25 

33,39 
41,00 
48,22 
.

206,97 
396,80 

.
.
3,29 
143,83 
64,06 
- 

60,33 
73,00 
497,00 

- 
5,00 
- 

.

62,70 
- 

.
.. 
0,27 
- 
11,70 
- 

14,83 
- 
- 

30,23 
16,73 
165,14 
.

21,09 
252,08 
.

22,37 
5,47 
4,88 
61,50 
-

61,42 
13,73 
22,80 

- 
23,28 
12,46 

19,90 
31,62 

.

.

9,16 
3,36 
135,77 

88,58' 
110,46 

.. 

.. 

.

.

31,50 
0,89 
1,40 
2,00 

23,00 
40,00 
0,11 

7,31 
78,33 

32,81 
- 
74,59 

P a y m e n ts 1995 

81,00 
44,92 

19.444,74 
9 2% 
86,38 
95,37 
2.422,15 
2.653,04 
5.837,35 
1.326,52 
954,21 
2.282,50 
9,92 
183,77 
300,54 
1.379,72 
304,49 
277,43 

1.331,35 

A v a i l a b le 
1995  ( l ) ( c) 

Obj.l 

Obj.2 

Obj.3 

Obj.4 

0bj.5(a)A 

Obj.5(a)F 

Obj.5(b) 

Obj.6 

T o t al  (2)  (d) 

.

.

62,96 

81,02 

54,11 

885,91 

363,41 

554,63 

1.349,82 

10.794,61 

29,57 

18.932,14 

447,96 
145,06 

- 
2,50 
- 

1.251,97 
1.705,79 

1,29 
18,63 
9,93 

11,75 
8,35 
32,52 

4,58 
2,45 
71,21 

42,33 
39,04 
104,48 

12,74 
16,49 
160,90 
.

3.779,30 
140,37 
856,47 
1.176,13 

T o t al 
%(2)/(l) 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
IT 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
FI 
SE 
UK 
(a) Not  including  ECU  750  000  in  appropriations  available  for  anti-fraud  measures. 
(b) Not  including  ECU  59 000  in commitment  appropriations  for  anti-fraud  measures. 
(c) Not  including  ECU  765  000  in  appropriations  available  for  anti-fraud  measures  and  a reserve  of  ECU  522 million  for  prior  measures. 
(d) Not  including  ECU  126 000  in payment  appropriations  for  anti-fraud  measures, a reserve  of ECU  279 098  000  for  prior  measures 

.
4,00 
142,57 
32,03 
.
30,17 
36,50 
436,17 

.
0,21 
- 
5,85 
.
7,42 
- 
- 

.. 
2,01 
1,96 
30,75 
.

15,75 
- 
2,33 
0,20 

9,56 
14,40 
1.667,23 

27,64 
242,14 
.

15,55 
38,06 
152,96 

30,71 
6,86 
22,43 

6,90 
12,00 
4,43 

0.21 
9,45 
39,16 

15.94 
- 
46.39 

169,65 
312,88 

81,69 
76,57 

12,30 
21,42 

38,13 
- 

- 
25,31 

163,81 

.. 

.. 

.. 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

40,50 
22,46 

and  ECU  16 012  000 for  the  former  GDR. 

14.146,47 
7 5% 
102,26 
87,46 
1.631,01 
1.705,79 
4.544,37 
942,33 
856,47 
1.191,88 
6,43 
178,17 
143,81 
1.667,23 
147,19 
115,88 
826,18 

7th  Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

191 

ERDF 

Table 118:  ERDF implementation  in 1995 for  the period 1994-99  (including  carry-overs  and  appropriations 

made available again - ECU million) 

Available (1) 

Obj.l 

Obj.2  Obj.5(b)  Obj.6 

Total (2) 

Commitments  1995 

Obj.l 
Obj.2 
0bj.5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total  (*) 

9.021,26 
1.332,64 
285,95 
44,26 
10.684,11 

8.960,80 

-  1.332,61 
- 

228,39 
- 

44,26 

1,97 

921,90 
1.812,99 
3.202,10 
96,22 
498,13 
1.558,98 

10,00 
19,96 
709,83 

128,71 

0,00 
6,00 
20,33 

545,10 
261,90 

0,00 
0,00 
0,09 
38,91 

24,80 
83.22 
352,26 

4,82 
3,36 
49,48 

25,22 
45,02 

12,41 
0,00 
1,94 
33,34 

16,03 
0,00 
36,78 

22,40 
21,86 

8.960,80 
1.332,61 
228,39 
44,26 
10.566,06 

6,79 
9,36 
991,71 
1.812,99 
3.772,42 
403,14 
498,13 
1.571,39 
0,00 
12,03 
92,21 
709,83 
63,23 
105,08 
517,75 

/o 
(2)/(l) 

99% 
100% 
80% 
100% 
99% 

Payments  1995 

Obj.l 

Obj.2  Obj.5(b) 

Obj.6 

Total 

6.651,15 
- 

20,77 

452,44 
1.131,50 
2.517,66 
37,65 
391,45 
878,35 

4,29 
9,98 
1.123.93 

83,14 

611,01 
- 

9,43 
8,35 
15,63 

395,86 
98,97 

0,00 
0,00 
7,77 
13.80 

12,40 
26,78 
22,03 

135,13 
- 

22,13 

2,41 
2,45 
15,54 

26,00 
27,77 

6,20 
0,21 
7,40 
16,67 

7,78 
0,00 
22,68 

11,20 
10,93 

6.651,15 
611,01 
135,13 
22,13 
7.419,42 

32,61 
10,80, 
483,61 
1.131,50 
2.939,51 
164,38 
391,45 
884,55 
0,21 
19,46 
40,45 
1.123,93 
31,38 
37,71 
127.85 

(*) Not including ECU  300 000 in  available appropriations ECU  30 000 in commitments and ECU  37 000 in payments for  anti-fraud  measures 

Total  implementation  of  ERDF  appropriations  in  1995  amounted  to  ECU  12  211  million  in 
commitments and ECU 9  176 million  in payments (see Tables  113 and  114). For the CSFs/SPDs (budget 
heading  B2-120),  it  amounted  to  ECU  10  566  million  in  commitment  appropriations  and  ECU 
8 374 million  in  payment  appropriations,  rates  of  implementation  of  99%  and  87%  of  the  total 
allocations  (after  adoption  ofthe  supplementary  and  amending  budget  and  transfers  of  appropriations). 
Some  of  these  payment  appropriations  relate  to  periods  prior  to  1994.  Payments  for  1994-99  alone 
amounted  to ECU  7 419  million.  The  operations  concerning  the  CSFs/SPDs  accounted  for  87%  ofthe 
commitment appropriations and 91%» ofthe  payment appropriations  in the ERDF. 

A significant  proportion  ofthe  commitments  in  1995 arose directly  from  the  adoption  of new  forms  of 
assistance, mainly  in Italy and the three new Member  States. However, by the  end  of  1995 virtually  all 
the  assistance  planned  for  Objectives  1, 2 and  6 had been  adopted.  Implementation  of Objective  1 had 
made good progress, as reflected  by a high capacity to absorb commitment appropriations  (over 99% of 
the  available  appropriations).  The  initial  allocation  of  commitment  appropriations  (including  the 
supplementary  budget)  to  the  heading  for  the  ERDF  (B2-1200)  was  boosted  by  a  further  ECU 
627 million  from  ERDF  allocations  available  in  the  headings  for  other  Objectives  (2,  5(b)  and  6).  In 
contrast,  the  original  allocations  for  the  ERDF  under  the  other  Objectives  proved  excessive.  Hence, 
besides  the  transfer  for  Objective  1 mentioned  above,  a transfer  of  ECU  130  million  was  made  from 
Objective  2 to the Leader Initiative as part ofthe  annual general transfer process. 

In the case  of payment  appropriations,  Objective  1 accounted  for  ECU  6 651  million  during the  period 
1994-99;  there  too,  the  implementation  rate  was  99%  ofthe  appropriations  available.  However,  the 
lower  capacity  for  absorption  of  payment  appropriations  of  Objectives  2  and  5(b)  and  the  lack  of 
alternative outlets meant that ECU  1  253 remained  unused at the end ofthe  year. 

In the case ofthe  Community  Initiatives,  implementation  of ERDF appropriations  (budget  heading B2-
14), including appropriations  carried  over and made available again, amounted  to ECU  1 882 million  in 
commitments and ECU 928 million  in payments, 96% and 70% respectively ofthe  total allocations  after 
the supplementary  and  amending  budget and transfers. Taking appropriations  for  1995 alone  (excluding 
appropriations  carried  over  and  made  available  again),  the  Community  Initiatives  represented  ECU 
1 614  million  in commitments  (13% ofthe  activity  ofthe  ERDF) and  ECU  720.4  million  in  payments 
(8%). 

192 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

All  the  commitment  appropriations  in  the  ERDF  allocations  for  regional  Initiatives  (Interreg,  Peace, 
Regis, the industrial conversion Initiatives, Urban, SMEs) were implemented and, with a few exceptions, 
all the commitments  reflected  the adoption  of new programmes. A large volume of these  commitments 
arose  from  assistance  for  which  a  single  commitment  was  made  (programmes  for  which  assistance 
amounted  to  less than the prescribed  limit of ECU 40 million). This significantly  increased  the capacity 
to  absorb  commitment  appropriations  and  resulted  in  an  increase  in  the  ERDF  allocation  of  ECU 
552 million, partly through the annual general transfer  which released  appropriations  from  the  headings 
for  the  CSFs/SPDs  but  mainly  through  transfers  within  the  Community  Initiatives  chapter  from 
allocations  to  the  ESF.  In  the  case  of  the  Employment  and  Adapt  Initiatives,  it  should  be  noted  that 
ERDF  participation  in  these  programmes  was  lower than  expected  when  the  budget  was  drawn  up  so 
that ERDF allocations in both commitment and payment appropriations proved excessive. 

The  initial  allocation  of  payment  appropriations  for  the  Community  Initiatives  in  1995  was  too  high 
because very few programmes were adopted in  1994 so that commitment appropriations were underused 
in that year. This meant that only part ofthe  commitment appropriations for  1994 could be used and this 
had an effect  on the payment appropriations for 1995. 

Implementation  of transitional  measures  and  ERDF  innovative  measures  in  1995  (budget  heading  B2-
1820)  amounted  to  ECU  31  million  in  commitment  appropriations  and  ECU  82.3  million  in  payment 
appropriations,  23%  and  40%  respectively  of  the  original  allocation  (after  the  amending  budget  and 
transfers).  This  budget  heading finances  measures adopted  by the Commission  under  Articles  7 and  10 
ofthe  ERDF Regulation  and Article  16 ofthe  Coordination  Regulation. To ensure the greatest  possible 
transparency  in  the  adoption  of  these  measures,  the  Commission  decided  in  1995  to  apply  a  specific 
procedure.2 However, late adoption ofthe  procedure meant that the calls for projects  had to be held over 
to  1996 and so the appropriations for those measures could not be used in  1995. 

ESF 

Table 119:  ESF implementation in 1995 for  the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made 

available again - ECU million) 

Available (1) 

Obj.l  Obj.2 

Obj 3  Obj.4  Obj 5(b)  Obj.6 

Total (2) 

Commitments  1995 

Obj.l 
Obj. 2 
Obj. 3 
Obj  4 
Obj  5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total (*) 

3503,61 
650,19 
2013,51 
365,39 
145,35 
32,49 
6710,54 

2.886,29 

-.  . 

-

-  406,76 

-  1  567,90 
- 

-
94,50 

93,97 
- 

32,49 

4,63 
0,00 
17,68 

33,39 
41,00 
48.22 

0,00 
5,00 
0,00 

114,11 
51,19 

206,97 
396,80 

62,70 
0,00 

0,00 
0,00 
9,06 
15,24 

6,30 
22,56 
165,99 

0,00 
3,29 
143,83 
64,06 

60,33 
73,00 
497,00 

0,00 
0,27 
0,00 
11,70 

14,83 
0,00 
- 

1,55 
0,00 
5,10 

5,30 
29,73 

3,27 
0,00 
0,92 
13,68 

5,18 
0,00 
29,24 

5.00 
5,04 
370,86 

21,10 
11,39 

2.886,29 
406,76 
1.567,90 
94,50 
93,97 
32,49 
5.081,91 

39,57 
46,00 
677,05 
368,56 
226,83 
593,36 
295,13 
226,66 
3,56 
158,81 
109,72 
370,86 
107,74 
106,95 
751,10 

% 
(2)/(1) 

82% 
63% 
78% 
26% 
65% 
100% 
76% 

Obj.l  Obj 2 

Obj 3  Obj.4  Obj 5(b)  Obj 6 

Total 

Payments  1995 

2.470,76 

- 
-  274,90 

.
.

.
.

.. 
.. 

-  1.349,82 
- 

54,11 

57.40 
- 

16,25 

7.41 

476,56 
253,46 
765,90 
95,74 
293,97 
80,79 

3,46 
2,52 
437,67 

2,32 
0,00 
16,89 

42,33 
39.04 
104,48 

52,10 
46.09 

169,65 
312.88 

0,00 
0,00 
4,53 
7,62 

3,15 
11,28 
130.93 

0.00 
4.00 
142,57 
32,03 

30.17 
36.50 
436.17 

00 
50 
00 

13 
,00 

00 
.21 
,00 
,85 

0,77 
0,00 
4.26 

3.21 
18,21 

1,64 
0,00 
0,46 
6,84 

2,59 
0,00 
19,42 

10,55 
5,70 

2.470,76 
274,90 
1.349,82 
54,11 
57,40 
16,25 
4.223,24 

52,83 
41,54 
602,19 
253,46 
1 028,99 
472,92 
293,97 
82,43 
4,21 
151,02 
54,86 
437,67 
53,88 
53,48 
639,79 

(*) Not including ECU 200 000 in available appropriations, ECU  19 000 in commitments and ECU 81 000 in payments for anti-fraud  measures 

During  1995  the  ESF  implemented  ECU  5  653  million  in  commitment  appropriations  and  ECU 
4 836 million  in  payment  appropriations  (see  Tables  113  and  114).  In  the  case  of  commitment 
appropriations, this represents a rate of 76% ofthe total available of ECU 6 710 million. The CSFs/SPDs 
for  1994-99 (budget heading B2-130) contain ECU 5 082 million  in commitment appropriations (90% of 
the ESF's commitments  in  1995). Ofthe  total committed,  ECU 4.6 million  corresponds to commitments 
carried over from  1994 to  1995, all of which were implemented. This substantial  under-implementation, 

2  See  Chapter  I.B.2  Innovative  measures  and  technical  assistance. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

\ 93 

which  varies  depending  on  the  Objective  and  the  Member  State,  may  be  explained  by  the  following 
factors: 

•  under-implementation  ofthe  instalment  of commitments  for  1995 (ECU  1 448  million)  was  caused 
primarily  by  delays  in  taking  a  large  number  of  decisions  and  hence  in  implementation  with 
consequent  reprogramming to  later years. In some cases, the situation  was  also  aggravated  by  local 
problems of coordinating assistance from  different  Funds to multi-fund  programmes; 
taking  all  the  Objectives  together,  the total  1995  instalments  ofthe  original  financing  plans,  which 
constitute  what  the  ESF  should  have  implemented  without  any  reprogramming,  amounted  to  ECU 
6 529  million.  This  meant  that  the  ECU  6  710  million  entered  in  the  1995  budget  represented  a 
surplus of some ECU  181 million. 

• 

Under-implementation  was  particularly  marked  in Italy  (28% of commitments  for  the  1995  instalment 
were  implemented),  Belgium  (35%)  and  Germany  (66%).  These  rates  vary  considerably  from  one 
Objective to another: only 24% ofthe  1995 instalment of appropriations for Objective  4 was  committed 
in that year while the  rate for  Objective  1 was  86%, for  Objective  3 76%, for  Objective  2 74% and  for 
Objective  5(b)  57% despite the fact  that a single  instalment  for  certain  SPDs and  OPs  adopted  in  1995 
under  Objectives  2  and  5(b)  was  committed.  Only  in  the  case  of  Objective  6 were  the  appropriations 
fully  committed. 

ECU  4 223 million  in payment  appropriations  was committed  in respect  of  1994-99 (94% of total  ESF 
payments). The  overall  implementation  rate  for  the CSFs/SPDs,  including  payments  for  periods  before 
1994,was 81% ofthe  appropriations available. ECU  1117 million was not implemented. 

The  Community  Initiatives  (B2-140)  contained  ECU  493.9  million  in  ESF  commitments  (9%  ofthe 
total) and ECU  247.1  million  in payment appropriations (5%). The rate of implementation  was  82% for 
commitment  appropriations  and  46%  for  payment  appropriations.  Here  too,  the  situation  varied 
depending  on  the  Initiative.  Among  the  "human  resources"  Initiatives,  commitment  appropriations  for 
Adapt  were  fully  implemented  and  payment  appropriations  implemented  at  86%  because  all  the 
programmes  were  adopted  in  1995.  In  the  case  of  Employment,  only  80%)  of  the  commitment 
appropriations  available  and  32%  of  the  payment  appropriations  were  used,  leaving  ECU  26  million 
unused  at  the  end  of  1995.  The  main  reason  was that  five  programme  decisions  were  carried  over  to 
1996. For the other Initiatives  in which the ESF was involved, the rate of implementation  was only 56% 
for commitment appropriations and 33% for payment appropriations. The reasons are as follows: 

• 

• 

there  are  some  300  Community  Initiative  programmes;  the  ESF  participates  in  230  of  them.  With 
such a large number of programmes, some holdups in management and monitoring are inevitable; 
these  problems  are  aggravated  by  the  fact  that,  despite  the  Commission's  efforts,  the  programmes 
were adopted at the end of  1995 (it proved very difficult  to plan activities); 

•  unlike  the  other  two  Funds, the  ESF  Regulation  requires  the  Member  States  to  submit  applications 
for  assistance  electronically.  The  departments  responsible  for  the  ESF  in  the  Member  States  were 
informed  of this late or proved reluctant to accept this requirement. 

In  the  case  ofthe  innovative  measures  under  Article  6  ofthe  ESF  Regulation  (ECU  38.7  million,  or 
0.6%)  of  total  commitments),  all  the  ECU  18 million  in  commitment  appropriations  carried  over  from 
1994  was  implemented.  However,  it  was  impossible  to  take  the  decisions  required  on  61  projects 
representing  a total  of  ECU  26.8  million  by  the  end  of  1995  so this  amount  had  to  be  carried  over  to 
1996. 

194 

EAGGF 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Table 120:  EAGGF implementation  in 1995 for the period 1994-99  (including carry-overs and appropriations 

made available again - ECU million) 

Available  (1) 

Obj.l 

Obj.5(a)  Obj.5(b)  Obj.6 

Total  (2) 

Commitments  1995 

Obj.l 
Obj. 5(a) 
0bj.5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total  (*) 

2395,18 
681,48 
249,50 
47,74 
3373,90 

2.395,18 

655,07 
- 

249,50 
- 

47,74 

2.395,18 
655,07 
249,50 
47,74 
3.347,49 

Obj.l 

1.591,42 

% 
(2)/(l) 

100% 
96% 
100% 
100% 
99% 

Payments  1995 
Obj.5(a)  Obj.5(b)  Obj.6 

554,63 
- 

170,89 
- 

23,87 

1,39 

7,00 

21,10 
252,08 

2,79 
0,00 
81,19 

30,23 
16,73 
165,13 

482,60 
452,19 
571,12 
9,50 
154,76 
411,69 

B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
5,56 
FI 
0,00 
SE 
4,29 
UK 
(*)  Not  including  ECU  200  000  in available  appropriations,  ECU  10 000 in commitments  and ECU  8 000  in payments  for  anti-fraud 

40,02 
16,73 
728,92 
452,19 
650,28 
297,28 
154,76 
427,52 
5,47 
9,34 
96,60 
275,10 
109,82 
24,66 
58,79 

314,87 
315,50 
454,79 
6,12 
167,06 
216,99 

15,83 
0,00 
4,45 
31,30 

0,00 
5,47 
4,89 
61,50 

0,00 
2.01 
1,96 
30,75 

0,00 
3,80 
275,10 

12,74 
16,49 
160,90 

7,91 
0,00 
1,59 
15,65 

1,40 
0,00 
51,41 

61,42 
13,72 
22,80 

30,71 
6,86 
22,43 

0,53 
1,90 
86,53 

11,60 
0,00 
8,57 

27,64 
242,14 

36,80 
10,94 

52,48 
30,59 

58,06 
35,70 

27,42 

25,75 

18,40 
5,47 

Total 

1.591,42 
554,63 
170,89 
23,87 
2.340,81 

15,53 
16,49 
527,18 
315,50 
534,91 
278,85 
167,06 
224,90 
2,01 
4,08 
48,30 
86,53 
54,67 
12,33 
52,47 

measures. 

Commitment  appropriations  under  the  EAGGF  Guidance  Section  implemented  in  1995  amounted  to 
ECU  3  589  million  and  payment  appropriations  to  ECU  2 644 million  (see  Tables  113 and  114) -  the 
implementation  rates were 97% and  83%> ofthe  appropriations available. During  1995 ECU  183 million 
in  commitment  appropriations  was  transferred  from  the  EAGGF  to  the  other  Funds.  This  concerned 
primarily  the  Community  Initiatives,  which  had  needs  arising  from  programmes  approved  during  the 
year  but  not  known  when  appropriations  were  entered  in  the  budget.  Only  a  small  amount  (ECU 
32.5 million)  of  payment  appropriations  was  transferred  from  the  EAGGF  to  the  other  Funds.  Of  the 
appropriations  implemented  in  1995, those for the CSFs/SPDs (B2-100) amounted  to ECU 3 347 million 
for commitments (93%o ofthe  total for the EAGGF) and to ECU 2 530 million  for  payments (96%). 99% 
of these appropriations was committed. 

Implementation  left  ECU 94.9 million unused. This amount concerns: 

•  Objective  5(a), with  ECU 25.6 million  (4% ofthe  appropriations  available)  not used  because  of  late 

• 

• 

approval of two marketing programmes for Austria and Italy; 
the  Community  Initiatives,  with  ECU  49  million  unused  including  ECU  29.8  million  (16%  ofthe 
available  appropriations)  for  Leader,  where the rate of  implementation  is the consequence  of certain 
Member  States  preferring  to  use  the  system  of  commitments  in  annual  instalments  rather  than  a 
single commitment ofthe  whole amount although the appropriations available had been calculated on 
the  basis  of  single  instalments  for  all  the  Member  States.  In  the  case  of  the  other  Initiatives  with 
which  the  EAGGF  is  concerned,  appropriations  allocated  outstripped  needs  in  the  financing  plans 
and, in any case, there was a delay in adopting the programmes; 
transitional 
ineasures  (ECU  20.3  million  or  65%  of  the  appropriations  available  unused). 
Commitments  for  measures  under  Article  8  of  the  EAGGF  Regulation  were  virtually  zero  (ECU 
600 000 compared  with forecasts  of over ECU 20 million) because of delays in the prior appraisal  of 
projects. 

The rate of implementation  of payment appropriations (83%,  leaving ECU 553 million  unused) was due 
to the  low level of implementation  of programmes  in the first period, which  were not closed  as planned. 
This was true  of Objective  5(b) (ECU  36.1 million  paid  or  16% ofthe  ECU  228 million  outstanding  at 
the  beginning  of  1995)  and  of  programmes  for  marketing  and  processing  under  Objective  5(a)  (ECU 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

\ 95 

94 million  paid  or 22% ofthe  ECU  431 million  outstanding  at the  beginning  of  1995). Because  of this 
situation, the Commission approved an extension to the deadline for payments for these programmes. 

Implementation  ofthe  EAGGF  varied  considerably  from  one  Objective  to  another.  Objective  1 is  still 
the  most  important  (72% of commitments  under the CSFs/SPDs  and  68% of  payments)  and  overall  it 
demonstrates  a  certain  dynamism  in  the  absorption  of  appropriations  (all  but  two  of  the  programmes 
under the CSFs were adopted in  1995), although the situation varied  from  one Member  State to another. 
During  1995, the  Objective  1 CSFs  set  the  pace  for  implementation  of  EAGGF  appropriations  since 
certain  Member  States  (Greece,  Spain  and  Germany)  submitted  applications  to  commit  the  1996 
instalments,  which  meant  that  part  of the  unused  appropriations  for  Objectives  5(a)  and  5(b)  could  be 
committed.  Implementation  therefore  amounted  to  ECU  2  395  million  as  against  ECU  2  250  million 
programmed for the year. 

As stated  above, the Objectives  with the  lowest rates of  implementation  were Objectives  5(a) and  5(b). 
This was due to the fact  that most ofthe  programmes were approved  in November  and December  1994 
and  so the remainder  were approved  in  1995 (by the end of that year all but two programmes  had  been 
approved  in  the  twelve  Member  States).  This  meant  that  the  Member  States  could  not  apply  for 
commitments and payments in respect ofthe  1995 instalment. 

In the case of Objective  5(a), commitment  appropriations  amounted  to  ECU  655.1  million,  62%  ofthe 
ECU  1 057 million  in the budget. However, this rate should  be seen  in context  since the  appropriations 
available were calculated  on the assumption that part ofthe  EAGGF reimbursements  for expenditure by 
the Member  States  in  1993 (the former  programming  period) would  be made  in  1995. In fact,  all  these 
reimbursements  were  made  in  1994  and  implementation  ofthe  1995  budget  therefore  concerned  only 
commitments  for  the  new  period.  This  means  that  implementation  amounting  to' ECU  655.9  million 
should  be  compared  with  the  ECU  958  million  programmed  for  the  1995  instalment  of  the  new 
programmes. This raises the rate of implementation to 68%. 

This  ECU  655.9  million  comprises  commitments  under  "indirect  programming"  (mainly  Regulation 
(EEC)  No  2328/91),  which  accounted  for  ECU  578  million,  and  commitments  for  marketing  and 
processing  measures  (Regulation  (EEC)  No  866/90),  which  amounted  to  ECU  78  million.  In  the  first 
case, appropriations  for  the three  new  Member  States totalled  ECU  129.7 million  (22%) and  those  for 
the  twelve  to  ECU  448.3  million  (78%),  or  75% of  the  ECU  594  million  available  for  the  twelve  in 
1995.  The  reason  for  this  was  that  implementation  in  1994  was  lower  than  programmed  in  Spain, 
France, Italy and the Netherlands. Ofthe  ECU 78 million  in commitments  for marketing and  processing 
measures,  only  ECU  8.4  million  (11%)  related  to  commitments  from  the  1995  instalment  (including 
ECU  6.9  million  for  Finland), while the  remainder  comprised  commitments  from  the  1994  instalments 
for the new period which had not been approved  in  1994 but were approved  at the beginning of 1995. 

The position with regard to the appropriations for Objective  5(b) is similar, with  implementation  of ECU 
249.5 million (49%) ofthe  ECU 507.5 million originally entered. Of this amount, only ECU  170 million 
(68%) related to commitments  programmed  for  1995 and ECU 42.9 million  (25%) of this amount  went 
to  Austria  and  Finland.  The  remaining  ECU  79.5  million  committed  in  1995  related  to  instalments 
programmed  for  1994  and  committed  at  the  beginning  of  1995  following  delays  in  approving  the 
programmes.  The  only  Member  States  which  committed  the  1995  instalments  were  Spain,  Germany 
(Bavaria,  Hesse,  Lower  Saxony,  Rhineland-Palatinate  and  Schleswig-Holstein),  France  (a  very  small 
number of programmes: Auvergne, Burgundy, Limousin) and the Netherlands (Friesland  and Zeeland). 

Implementation  varies  considerably  from  one Member  State  to  another.  Consumption  of  commitments 
was highest  in Germany  (ECU  728.9 million) followed  by Spain  (ECU  650.3 million) while  in terms of 
payments  the  order  was  reversed  (Germany:  ECU  527.2  million;  Spain:  534.9  million).  It  would, 
however, be premature  to draw conclusions  because  1994 and  1995 were years when  programmes  were 
approved  at  different  rates  depending  on  the  Objectives  and  the  Member  States.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
important  to  stress  that  the  time  lost  in certain  Member  States  (France  for  Objectives  1 and  5(b),  Italy 
and  the  United  Kingdom  for  Objective  5(b))  may  well  prove  hard  to  make  up  in  later  years.  A  large 

196 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

number  of  programmes  for  the  new  Member  States  were  approved  and  appropriations  committed  in 
1995  totalled  ECU  231.1  million.  Hence  all  the  SPDs  for  Objectives  1 and  6  and  all  the  "indirect 
programming"  under  Objective  5(a)  were  approved  and  committed  while  under  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
866/90 only appropriations  for Finland were committed  in  1995 and  under Objective  5(b) commitments 
were made for Austria and Finland. 

A large number of programmes were approved  under the Leader Community Initiative; these  amounted 
to ECU 236 million  in commitments (ECU 221 million excluding appropriations carried  over and  made 
available again). 

FIFG 

Table 121:  FIFG implementation  in  1995 for  the period 1994-99  (including  carry-overs  and  appropriations 

made available again - ECU million) 

Available (1) 

Obj.l 

Obj.5(a) 

Obj.6 

Total (2) 

Commitments  1995 

Obj.l 
Obj. 5(a) 
Obj.6 
Total  (*) 

270,83 
178,97 
1,43 
451,23 

270,83 

177,02 

1,43 

270,83 
177,02 
1,43 
449,28 

% 
(2)/(l) 

100% 
99% 
100% 
100% 

Obj.l 

81,27 

Payments  1995 
Obj. 5(a) 

Obj.6 

81,02 

0,72 

Total 

81,27 
81,02 
0,72 
163,01 

I 

• 

. 

1 

. 

1 

(*) Not including ECU 50 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud  measures 

1995  was  the  second  year  of  programming  for  the  FIFG,  except  in  the  three  new  Member  States.  In 
order  to  monitor  carefully  the  actual  implementation  of  programmes  on  the  spot,  the  Commission 
adopted Regulation (EC) No  1796/95 of 25 July  1995 laying down detailed rules for the  implementation 
of assistance  granted  by the FIFG. All the commitment  appropriations  entered  in the  budget  were  used 
and  some  commitments  had  to  be  held  over  to  the  1996  budget.  Total  commitments  for  the  FIFG 
amounted  to  ECU 485.5  million  (see Table  113), including  ECU 449.3  under  the  CSFs/SPDs  (93% of 
the work ofthe  FIFG). Payments  in  1995 amounted  to ECU 262.5 million,  including  ECU  163 million 
for the CSFs/SPDs for  1994-99, 94% of FIFG payments. 

In the case ofthe  Pesca Initiative,  1995 was the second year of programming  for  the seven  programmes 
adopted  at the end  of  1994 and the first for the others (Netherlands, France,  Italy, United  Kingdom). In 
1995  ECU  28.2  million  ofthe  ECU  45  million  in  the  budget  was  committed.  The  appropriations  not 
implemented  in  1995 concerned the ERDF and the ESF while those for the FIFG were committed  in  full 
(ECU 20.7 million). Only ECU 5.3 million out of ECU 31.9 million  in payment appropriations was paid 
out  (ECU  600  000  to  the  Netherlands,  ECU  2.2  million  to  Italy  and  ECU  2.5  million  to  the  United 
Kingdom).  Late  adoption  of  the  programmes  and  complex  management  mechanisms  may  explain  the 
low level of consumption  of Pesca appropriations compared with the previous period. A solution  should 
be found  to these problems  in  1996. The shortfall  of ECU 24 million  in commitment  appropriations will 
have to be recovered  in the budgets for  1997-99. 

To  simplify  management,  the three Objective  5(a) FIFG  programmes  for  the  new  Member  States  were 
committed  in  a  single  instalment.  Decisions  for  two  other  programmes  were  amended  to  permit 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

197 

commitment  in a single  instalment.  Six programmes had to be reprogrammed  to take account  of  delays 
in  implementing  1994. These  concerned  Italy (Objectives  1 and  5(a)), the  United  Kingdom  (Objective 
5(a)) and the Netherlands (Objective  5(a)). The Objective  1  programme  in Germany was  reprogrammed 
because appropriations were used more quickly than had originally been expected. 

2. 

Implementation  of programming  for  1994-99 

2.1.  Implementation  1994-95 

Table 122:  Implementation in 1994-95 for  the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations made 

available again in 1995 - ECU million) 

Available 
1 9 9 4 - 9 5 ( 1)  (a) 

Obj.l 

Obj.2 

Obj.3 

Obj.4 

Obj.5(a)A 

Obj.5(a)F 

Obj.5(b) 

Obj.6 

Total  (2)(b) 

C o m m i t m e n ts  1994-95 

T o t al 
V. (2)/(l) 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
IT 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
FI 
SE 
UK 

40.266,37 

27.268,56 

3.796,91 

3.357,11 

363,63 

1.387,32 

313,45 

1.181,25 

125,92 

107,00 

3.892,08 
4.572,22 

8.317,41 
497,67 
1.709,66 
3.024,80 

37,20 
28,80 
4.549,40 

532,32 

62,16 
30,29 
286,85 

659,21 
904,39 

299,95 
7,97 
105,02 
54,15 
- 
31,10 
105,78 
1.250,05 

97,76 
85,00 
307,77 

.

426,59 
778,40 

.

200,47 
6,46 
282,27 
64,06 
- 
60,33 
73,00 
975,00 

4,63 
6,00 
29,61 
.

118,10 
95,39 
.
60,61 
0,53 
22,23 
11,70 
-
14,83 
- 
- 

53,03 
38,67 
322,72 

.

77,41 
518,73 

.
117,47 
12,22 
25,27 
61,50 

61,42 
13,72 
85,16 

.

.

4,08 
46,59 
24,87 

39,83 
63,27 

44,77 
1,10 
9,16 
2,00 

23,00 
40,00 
14,78 

.

.

.. 

.. 

9,16 
9,79 
261,74 

162,09 
373,18 

107,00 
0,84 
25,61 
78,33 

32,81 
- 
120,70 

81,00 
44,92 

37.794,15 
9 4% 
337,82 
216,34 
5.125,65 
4.572,22 
9.800,64 
3.231,03 
1.709,66 
3.855,07 
29,12 
506,76 
300,54 
4.549,40 
304,49 
277,42 
2.978,01 

A v a i l a b le 
1994-95  ( l ) ( c) 

Obj.l 

Obj.2 

Obj.3 

Payments  1994-95 
Obj.5(a)A 

Obj.4 

Obj.5(a)F 

Obj.5(b) 

O b j . 6|  Total  (2)  (d) 

T o t al 

35.529,48 

17.754,80 

1.877,84 

2.407,64 

188,68 

730,60 

149,28 

661,85 

62,96 

79,77 

2,32 
3,00 
14,81 

3,33 
30,29 
16,13 

29,31 
19,99 
156,94 

74,51 
74,24 
234,26 

16,51 
19,19 
209,82 

2.470,05 
2.791,66 
5.549,60 
279,66 
1.399,16 
1.555,47 

%(2)/(D 
B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
IT 
L 
N 
AT 
P 
FI 
SE 
UK 
(a)  Not  including  ECU  1 500  000  in  appropriations  available  for  anti-fraud  measures  and  ECU  44  232  000  under  heading  B2-1000 

100,23 
5,59 
253,32 
32,03 

19,63 
14,40 
3.264,05 

149,97 
3,99 
52,51 
21,42 

53,50 
0,42 
12,56 
39,16 

30,31 
0,34 
11,12 
5,85 

58,73 
5,37 
12,15 
30,75 

11,20 
0,11 
6,21 
0,20 

30,17 
36,50 
818,57 

15,55 
38,06 
518,85 

4,58 
5,66 
134,20 

30,71 
6,86 
41,73 

6,90 
12,00 
11,82 

447,96 
423,29 

118,44 
207,93 

244,54 
503,68 

55,81 
242,97 

9,97 
41,13 

65,83 
47,70 

331,36 

69,45 

15,94 

7,42 

40,50 
22,46 

23.833,64 
6 7% 
210,34 
152,37 
3.236,20 
2.791,66 
6.492,14 
1.746,36 
1.399,16 
1.959,41 
15,81 
367,50 
143,81 
3.264,05 
147,19 
115,88 
1.791,78 

(Structural  actions  directly  linked  to  markets  policy)  not  allocated  by  Objective  in  1994. 

(b)  Not  including  ECU  174  000  in  commitment  appropriations  for  anti-fraud  measures,  and  for  Objective  5(a)  for  agriculture,  ECU  43,65 

million  under  heading  B 2 - 1 0 00  and  ECU  356,6  million  of  reimbursements  under  reg.(EEC)  No  2328/91  (in  1994  only). 
(c)  Not  including  ECU  990  000  in  appropriations  available  for  anti-fraud  measures,  ECU  61  million  under  heading  B2-1000  not 

allocated  by  Objective  in  1994  and  a  reserve  of  ECU  522  million  for  prior  measures. 

(d)  Not  including  ECU  126  000  in  appropriations  available  for  anti-fraud  measures,  a  reserve  of  ECU  279,098  million  for  prior 

measures,  ECU  16,012  million  for  the  former  G D R,  and  for  Objective  5(a),  ECU  43,65  million  under  heading  B2-1000  and  ECU  417,02 
million  of  reimbursements  under  reg.(EEC)  No  2328/91  (in  1994  only). 

For  the  Funds  as  a  whole,  budgetary  implementation  of  commitment  appropriations  for  the  new 
programming  period  stood  at  90%  in  1994  and  91% in  1995,  which  means  ECU  2  billion  was  not 
implemented  in  1994 and ECU 2.1 billion  in  1995. However, for the two years  1994 and  1995, the  rate 
of implementation  ofthe  appropriations available for the CSFs/SPDs alone under the various  Objectives 
was  94%). If  these  first  two  years  are  compared  with  the  period  1989-93,  the  results  are  less  good. 
However,  implementation  of appropriations  was very  good  between  1989  and  1993 with  rates  of  over 
99% in  1989 and  1991 to  1993 (although only 93.7% in 1990). 

198 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

In  1994  commitments  of  appropriations  for  the  CSFs/SPDs  stood  at  virtually  99%  for  all  funds  wim 
only the ESF using no more than 95% of its allocation (ECU 272 million  unused). The main  reason why 
appropriations remained unused was the delay in adopting the Community Initiatives  in  1994 when only 
12% of appropriations was committed. This left ECU  1  697 million  unused of which  ECU 339.1  million 
was carried over and ECU 311.6 implemented  in 1995. 

The rate of implementation  of payment appropriations  was  75% in  1994 with  ECU  4.8  million  unused. 
1995  therefore  represented  an  improvement  with  a  rate  of  implementation  of  82%  and  ECU 
3 759 million unused. This corresponds to the beginning of effective  implementation  ofthe  programmes 
in 1995. 

2.2.  Implementation  of each Fund in 1994-95 in the context of  1994-99 

ERDF 

Table 123:  ERDF implementation in 1994-95 for  the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations 

made available again in 1995 - ECU million) 

Available (1) 

Commitments  1994-95 
Obj.2  Obj.5(b) 

Obj.l 

Obj.6 

Total (2) 

% 
(2V(D 

Payments  1994-95 

Obj.l 

Obj.2  Obj.5(b) 

Obj.6 

Total 

Obj.l 
Obj.2 
Obj. 5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total  (*) 

16.766,42 
2.932,64 
581,95 
44,26 
20.325,27 

16.705,60 

-  2.931.52 
- 

485,60 
- 

44,26 

16.705,60 
2.931,52 
485,60 
44,26 
20.166,97 

10.626,76 

-  1.375.72 
- 

100% 
100% 
83% 
100% 
99% 

257,48 
- 

22,13 

53,75 

1.027,06 
1.847,77 
3.582,35 
107,89 
568,45 
1.087,57 

11,44 
9,98 
2.161,09 

169,41 

24,39 
17,77 
104,49 

395.86 
326,44 

119.65 
3.01 
33,48 
13,80 

12.40 
26,78 
297,66 

2,41 
3,74 
40,32 

35,72 
83,81 

21.93 
0.21 
7,40 
16,67 

7,78 
0,00 
37,48 

11.20 
10,93 

10.626,76 
1.375,72 
257,48 
22,13 
12.282,09 

80,55 
21,51 
1.171,87 
1.847,77 
4.013,93 
518,14 
568,45 
1.229,15 
3,22 
52,32 
40,45 
2.161,09 
31,38 
37,71 
504,55 

(*) Not including ECU 600 000 in available appropriations, ECU 45 000 in commitments and ECU 37 000 in payments for  anti-fraud  measures. 

In  the  case  ofthe  ERDF,  progress  in  commitments  under  the  CSFs/SPDs  at  the  end  of  1995  shows  a 
slight  backlog  of  1.3%  (ECU  265  million)  compared  with  the  instalments  for  1994 and  1995  shown  in 
the financing  tables. However, this is due to a variety of situations. Generally, for the ERDF Objective 1 
shows  commitments  running  ahead  of  the  financing  plans  by  ECU  526  million  (3%), to  the  greatest 
degree  in Greece, Spain, Ireland  and Portugal, where extra  implementation  totalled  ECU  1 071  million. 
By  contrast,  under-implementation  in  Belgium,  Germany,  France,  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom 
amounted to a total of ECU  1 178 million. 

Overall,  Objective  2  showed  ERDF  commitments  lagging  behind  the  financing  plans  by  ECU 
650 million (18%). The main reason was that most assistance was adopted at the end of  1994 and  during 
1995.  This  rate  of  adoption  did  not  permit  programmes  to  advance  sufficiently  for  the  second 
instalments  to  be  committed.  A  number  of  operations  were  the  subject  of  a  single  commitment,  in 
accordance  with  Article  20(3)  of  the  Coordination  Regulation,  which  helped  improve  slightly  the 
utilization  of commitment  appropriations.  Lags  in  implementation,  totalling  ECU  709  million,  affected 
mainly  Belgium,  Germany,  France,  Italy, the Netherlands  and the United  Kingdom  while  only  Austria, 
Luxembourg and Sweden outstripped their plans since single commitments were made there. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

199 

In  the  case  of  Objective  5(b), ERDF  commitments  fell  39% (ECU  305  million)  short  ofthe  financing 
plans.  The  reason  was  similar  to  that  affecting  Objective  2.  Most  Member  States  were  affected,  but 
mainly  France,  Italy  and  the United  Kingdom, where  under-implementation  totalled  ECU  244  million. 
The  Member  States  where  programme  implementation  proceeded  satisfactorily  were  Spain  and 
Denmark. Operations  in Austria and Finland were adopted in 1995. 

Operations  under  Objective  6 were adopted  in  1995. Commitments  for  the  first  instalments  were  made 
as programmed. 

In  the  case  of  the  Community  Initiative  programmes,  very  few  of  which  were  adopted  in  1994, 
budgetary  implementation  for  the ERDF reflects  their progress  in  1994 and  1995. There  was a  general 
delay  in  implementing  all  the  regional  Initiatives  which  resulted  in  a total  shortfall  as  compared  with 
expectations  of  ECU  833  million  (32%). Since  financial  implementation  of these  Initiatives  is  directly 
linked  to  the  adoption  of  the  programmes,  utilization  of  commitment  appropriations  was  strongly 
affected  by the number of new programmes which were the subject  of a single commitment. This means 
that no firm conclusion  about progress in the financial  implementation  ofthe  Community  Initiatives can 
be drawn from  implementation  of commitment appropriations. 

ESF 

Table 124:  ESF implementation  in 1994-95 for  the period 1994-99  (including carry-overs  and appropriations 

made available again in 1995 - ECU million) 

Available (1) 

Obj  1  Obj.2 

Obj.3  Obj.4  Obj.5(b)  Obj 6 

Total (2) 

Commitments  1994-95 

Obj.l 
Obj .2 
Obj  3 
Obj .4 
Obj  5(b) 
Obj  6 
Total  (*) 

6572,80 
1187,19 
3822,31 
634,59 
256,95 
32,49 
12506,33 

5.780,37 

- 
-  865,39 

-
-
-  3.357,11 

-  363,63 
- 

180,31 
- 

32,49 

5.780,37 
865,39 
3.357,11 
363,63 
18031 
32,49 
10.579,31 

% 
(2)/(l) 

88% 
73% 
88% 
57% 
70% 
100% 
85% 

Obj.l  Obj.2 

4.084,30 

- 
-  502,13 

Payments  1994-1995 
Obj 3  Obj 4  Obj.5(b)  Obj.6 

.
.

.
.

.. 
.. 

-  2.407,64 

-  188,68 
- 

100,57 
- 

16,25 

Total 

4.084,30 
502,13 
2.407,64 
188,68 
100,57 
16,25 
7.299,57 

(*) Not including  ECU 400 000 in available appropriations, ECU  119 000 in commitments and ECU 81 000 in payments for anti-fraud  measures 

The  general  situation  relating  to  implementation  in  1994 and  1995  shows  better  results  than  those  for 
1995  alone.  The  rate  of  implementation  of  commitment  appropriations  was  85%  taking  all  the 
Objectives together, which demonstrates the multi-annual nature ofthe  programmes. 

The  situations  of  the  various  Objectives  and  Member  States  do  not  differ  substantially  from  those  in 
1995.  Apart  from  Objective  6,  which  was  fully  implemented,  utilization  was  highest  for  Objective  1, 
whether  in  terms  of  available  appropriations  (83%),  the  1995  instalment  (86%)  or  the  1994-95 
instalment  (91%).  However,  this  conceals  substantial  backlogs  in  two  Member  States  (Italy  and  the 
United Kingdom). Implementation  of Objective 3 was clearly  lagging in Germany (18% ofthe  financing 
plan  for  1995  and  58%) of that  for  1994-95)  and, to'a  lesser  extent,  in  Belgium  (53%) ofthe  financing 
plan  for  1995). There  was  a  complete  failure  to  use  the  1995  instalment  for  Objective  4  in  Belgium, 
Germany,  France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Despite the assistance  provided  by the adoption in 
1995  of  a  number  of  single-instalment  decisions  for  the  SPDs  and  OPs  under  Objectives  2  and  5(b), 
implementation  remains  particularly  weak,  or  indeed  zero,  in  Denmark  (Objectives  2  and  5(b)), 
Germany  (Objectives  2 and  5(b)), Spain  (Objective  5(b)), France (Objective  2), Italy  (Objectives  2 and 
5(b), Luxembourg (Objective  5(b)) and the Netherlands (Objectives 2 and 5(b)). 

200 

7th Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds 

(1995) 

Since programmes  under the Employment  Community Initiative were approved  in December  1994 and 
those under Adapt  in May  1995, the Member States used the following  months to seek partners  in other 
countries. Hence the first contracts with project promoters were not signed until mid-1995 with the result 
that no appropriations were used in  1994 and only a limited amount in 1995. 

EAGGF 

Table 125:  EAGGF  implementation in  1994-95 for 

the  period  1994-99  (including  carry-overs and 

appropriations made available again in 1995 - ECU million) 

% 
(2)/(D 

100% 
78% 
100% 
100% 
94% 

Payments  1994-1995 

Obj.l  Obj.5a**»  Obj.5(b)  Obj.6 

Total 

2.844,47 

730,60 
- 

303,81 
- 

23,87 

2.844,47 
730,60 
303,81 
23,87 
3.902,74 

Available (1) 

Obj.l  Obj.5a**  Obj.5(b)  Obj.6 

Total  (2) 

Commitments  1994-95 

Obj.l 
Obj.5(a) 
Obj.5(b) 
Obj.6 
Total  * 

4275,92 
1769,48 
515,41 
47,74 
6608,55 

4.275,75 
- 

1.387,32 
- 

515,34 
- 

47,74 

14,00 

861,60 
699,19 
979,67 
69,21 
332,56 
477,78 

1,90 
3,80 
776,14 

59,91 

53,03 
38,67 
322,72 

2,79 
2,57 
135,24 

77,41 
518,73 

104,15 
151,36 

117,47 
12,22 
25,27 
61,50 

61,42 
13,72 
85,16 

48,78 
0,30 
9,37 
31,30 

11,60 
0,00 
17,87 

36,80 
10,94 

4.275,75 
1.387,32 
515,34 
47,74 
6.226,15 

69,82 
41,24 
1.319,56 
699,19 
1.161,23 
739,30 
332,56 
644,03 
12,52 
36,54 
96,60 
776,14 
109,82 
24,66 
162,94 

Not  including  ECU 400 000  in available  appropriations,  ECU  10 000  in comrrrtments  and ECU  8 000  in payments  for  anti-fraud 
measures. 
* Not  including ECU  43,65  million  under heading  B2-1000 (Structural  actions  directly  linked  to markets  policy) and  ECU  356,6 

million  of reimbursements  under reg.(EEC) N°2328/91  (in  1994 only). 

** Not  including ECU  43.65  million  under  heading  B2-1000 and  ECU  417,02  million  of reimbursements  under  reg.(EEC)  N°2328/91 

(in  1994 only). 

At the end  of  1995, progress  in  using CSF/SPD  commitment  appropriations  for  the  EAGGF  Guidance 
Section  lagged  slightly  behind  (by 0.4% or ECU  25.6 million) the  1994 and  1995  instalments  shown  in 
the financing tables. This was, however, the result of a variety of situations. Overall, commitments  under 
Objective  1 were  ahead  of  the  financing  plans  by  ECU  790  million  (23%).  This  was  most  marked  in 
Greece,  Spain,  Ireland  and  Portugal.  However,  France  and  Italy  were  lagging  behind.  Commitments 
under Objective  5(a) were lagging behind the financing  plans by ECU  115 million  (8%) mainly  because 
of  under-implementation  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2328/91  (agricultural  structures)  everywhere,  but 
most notably  in Italy, and a lag of one year everywhere except Spain and  Luxembourg  in  implementing 
OPs  under  Regulation  (EEC)  No  866/90  (marketing  and  processing).  EAGGF  commitment 
appropriations  for  Objective  5(b) lagged  behind  the financing plans  by  ECU  25  million  (32%)  because 
of delays in implementing the OPs everywhere except Spain and Germany. Assistance under Objective 6 
was  adopted  in  1995. Commitments  for  the first instalments  were  adopted,  so there  was no  divergence 
from  what had been programmed. Since very few programmes under the Community  Initiatives (mainly 
Leader) had been adopted  in  1994, implementation  in  1995 reflected  progress during the two years  1994 
and  1995. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

201 

FIFG 

Table 126:  FIFG implementation in 1994-95 for the period 1994-99 (including carry-overs and appropriations 

made available again in 1995 - ECU million) 

Available (1) 

Commitments  1994-95 
Obj.l 

Obj.5(a) 

Obj.6 

Total (2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Obj.l 
Obj. 5(a) 
Obj.6 
Total  (*) 

506,84 
317,97 
1,43 
826,23 

506,84 

313,45 

1,43 

506,84 
313,45 
1,43 
821,71 

100% 
99% 
100% 
99% 

Obj.l 

199,28 

Payments  1994-95 
Obj.5(a) 

Obj.6 

149,28 

0,72 

Total 

199,28 
149,28 
0,72 
349,28 

(*) Not including ECU  100 000 in appropriations available for anti-fraud  measures. 

The  rate  of  implementation  of  FIFG  appropriations  for  the  two  years  1994-95  was  satisfactory, 
amounting  to  99%) ofthe  appropriations  available  for  the  CSFs/SPDs  (ECU  4.5  million  unused).  With 
regard  to  payments,  at  the  end  of  1995, ECU  199.3  million  (39%)  had  paid  for  Objective  1 out  ofthe 
ECU  506.8  million  committed  in  1994  and  1995. This  is a reasonable  rate  in  view  ofthe  fact  that  the 
programming period  was reduced by approving programmes at the end of  1994. Similarly,  in the case of 
Objective  5(a)  fisheries,  by the  end  of  1995  ECU  151.6  million  (48%)  had  been  paid  out  ofthe  ECU 
317.8 million  committed  in  1994-95, which  is satisfactory.  1995 was the  first  year  of programming  for 
Objective  6 and  the  figures  for  1995 remain  reasonable  (ECU  720 000, or  50%, paid  out  of  ECU  1.43 
million  committed).  In  the  case  of Pesca,  ECU  53.1  million  (65% of  ECU  81  million)  was  committed 
and ECU  17.2 million  (32% ofthe  ECU 53.1 million committed) paid out. 

202 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

B.  CHECKS AND FINANCIAL  MANAGEMENT 

Under Article 205 of the Treaty, the Commission  is responsible  for  implementation  of the  Community 
budget as a whole, and therefore ofthe  Structural Funds budget. It ensures that implementation  is correct 
and  effective,  since  this  is  essential  for  the  effectiveness  and  credibility  of  Community  structural 
measures.  However,  in  doing  so,  it  must  take  account  of  the  fact  that  on-the-spot  management  of 
Structural  Fund  programmes  and  projects  is the  responsibility  of  the  Member  States,  in  line  with  the 
principle  of  subsidiarity  and  partnership  which  governs  the  Structural  Funds.  Nevertheless,  with  the 
launching  of  the  second  programming  period  (1994-99)  and  the  increase  in  Structural  Fund 
appropriations, the Commission  is keeping a closer watch on the quality ofthe  management and control 
system  employed  both by itself and by the Member  States. All those involved  are aware of this need: at 
the  informal  ministerial  meeting  in  Strasbourg  in  March  1995,  for  example,  the  Commission  and 
Member  States  agreed  on  the  need  to  improve  and  strengthen  the  control  and  management  of  the 
Structural  Funds.  Following  that,  in  May  1995  Mrs Wulf-Mathies,  the  Member  with  special 
responsibility  for  regional  policies  and  cohesion,  wrote to the  Member  States  stressing  once  again  the 
importance  of  improving the  financial  management  system  for  Community  appropriations,  and  control 
and  assessment,  and  requesting  the  Member  States  to  take  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  that  these 
requirements  are  met.  As  for  the  Commission  itself,  in  1995  its  attention  was  directed  towards  the 
stepping up of on-the-spot checks, which  it had been pursuing since  1994 and continued  in  1995, and, at 
a  more  fundamental 
level,  the  launching  of  an  exercise  to  rationalize  and  improve  financial 
management. 

1.  Checks 

1.1.  Checks carried out by the Commission's  Structural Funds  departments 

The Commission's role is to ensure that appropriate systems for financial  monitoring and management of 
programmes  have been  put  in place  in the Member  States. To do this,  it makes  on-the-spot  checks  and 
systems  audits  to  ensure  that  Structural  Fund  appropriations  are  put  to  proper  use.  However,  under 
Article 23(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, it is primarily the Member States that are responsible  for 
ensuring  that  proper  use  is made  of Community  funds  and  preventing  irregularities.  For  example,  they 
are  responsible  for  the  reliability  of  certificates  of  expenditure  submitted  to  the  Commission,  and  the 
eligibility  of  expenditure  incurred  in  implementing  programmes.  In  this  way,  each  of  the  Structural 
Funds  is  subject  to  specific  checks  by  the  departments  responsible  for  them.  All  these  checks  are 
intended  to  verify  the  reliability  of the  control  and  management  systems  in the  Member  States,  and  to 
check  the  regularity  of  expenditure  incurred  under  the  programmes.  1995  saw  greater  coordination  of 
these  monitoring  activities  among  themselves,  and  greater  coordination  with  the  checks  made  by 
Financial Control, the UCLAF1 and the Court of Auditors. 

ERDF:  For the ERDF, 20 on-the-spot  inspections were carried out in  1995 (one  in Denmark, one  in the 
Netherlands, two in France, Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom, three in Spain  and Portugal, and  four 
in  .Germany). As  required  by  Article  23  of  Regulation  (EEC) No  4253/88  as  amended,  the  inspection 
programmes  are  communicated  to the  Member  States  concerned.  Firstly,  these  checks  are  intended  to 
verify  the existence and effectiveness  of a system for the management and control  of operations, and the 
reliability  ofthe  information  forwarded  to the Commission  (in  particular  certifications  of  expenditure). 
Secondly,  they  are  intended  to  check  on  proper  use  of  ERDF  funds,  accounting  accuracy,  legality, 
regularity  and  sound  financial  management  in the  light ofthe  objectives  of each  form  of assistance  and 
of Community  rules  and  policies.  Each  programme  of  inspection  visits  was  drawn  up to take  account, 
inter alia, ofthe  checks made by Financial  Control  and the Court of Auditors  and the results ofthe  risk 
analysis and previous checks. 

1 The Commission's Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention. 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

203 

The checks show that individual or system irregularities frequently  occurred  in operations on the ground. 
In  general,  these  relate  to  the  unreliability  of  certifications  of  expenditure,  which  are  the  basis  for 
Community payments and advances, and the weakness of certain internal checking procedures, which do 
not adequately  reflect  Community  rules. The declarations  of expenditure  often  include  expenditure  not 
eligible for  financing  by the ERDF (such as the salaries or operating  expenditure  of ministries  or  other 
public  bodies),  and  expenditure  declared  as  actually  incurred  sometimes  includes  estimates  of  future 
expenditure.  The  beneficiaries'  declarations  of  expenditure  are  in  some  instances  submitted  to  the 
Commission  and  certified  by  the  authorities  appointed  by  the  Member  States  without  any  internal 
checks, which  can  lead  to  incorrect  submissions  and  formal  irregularities.  In  addition,  in many  regions 
Community rules on public procurement are not fully  complied  with and the programming of  assistance 
is not monitored or assessed with sufficient  precision. For example, in some cases the legal and financial 
commitments  and  payments  are  not  established  by  the  deadlines  laid  down  in  the  decisions  to  grant 
assistance. 

ESF:  As with  the  ERDF,  and  as  is done  each  year,  a coordinated  control  programme  was  sent  to  the 
Member States before the beginning of 1995. The programme was implemented  as planned: a total of 73 
inspection  visits  were  made,  10% of  which  were  unscheduled  visits  in  coordination  with  the  Unit  on 
Coordination of Fraud  Prevention. In general the checks covered the management  systems and  revealed 
a  number  of  weaknesses  in  the  national,  regional  and  local  administrations.  These  were  analysed  in 
partnership  and  solutions  to  ensure  the  proper  administration  of  Community  and  national  funds  are 
under  consideration.  More  specifically,  the  checks  revealed  problems  with  ineligible  expenditure 
(financing  costs,  for  example),  operations  not  eligible  under  the  ESF,  accounting  documents  not 
acceptable  for tax purposes, non-compliance with the VAT rules of the Member  State,  non-compliance 
with the principle of sound financial  management (disproportionate  costs), etc. The checks also revealed 
a few cases of fraud,  which are being pursued by the national authorities. 

EAGGF:  In  1995, 35  inspection  visits were made to check the  use made  of  EAGGF  appropriations,  a 
considerably  larger number than in  1994 (21). These were organized  on the initiative ofthe  departments 
responsible  for  the  EAGGF  or  the  Financial  Control  of  the  Member  States  concerned.  The  audits 
focused  on the systems used and on the entries in the accounts, which were checked for compliance with 
Community  rules. Priority  was  given  to  programmes  and  operations  covered  by  the  first  programming 
period,  1989-93, funds  for which should have been committed by the end of  1993 or, where an extension 
was  granted,  in  1994  or  1995.  Once  again,  in  accordance  with  Article  23  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
4253/88, as amended, the Member  States were requested to increase the number of their own  inspection 
visits and keep the Commission  informed  ofthe  results of these audits. 

As  a  rule,  the  systems  introduced  by  the  majority  of  Member  States  to  check  declared  expenditure 
function  well. Nevertheless  a number  of  weaknesses  and  irregularities  were  revealed  in  almost  all  the 
Member  States  and  measures.  Examples  of  these  include:  uncertainty  as  to  the  validity  of  some 
commitments  made  before  the  end  of  the  prescribed  period,  the  lack  of  publicity  and  information  on 
EAGGF part-financing,  non-compliance with Community  rules on public procurement, the award  of aid 
for  ineligible expenditure, unsuitable and  inadequate  control  measures, major  delays  in payments to the 
final beneficiaries,  incorrect application  of conversion  rates, and a risk of duplicate  Community  funding 
from  different  sources. 

FIFG:  In  1995  the  departments  responsible  for  the  FIFG  made  six  inspection  visits  (one  in  Greece, 
France, Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom,  and  two  in  Spain)  to  check  20  projects  financed  under  the  old 
rules (Regulations (EEC) No 4028/86 and 4042/89), since checks on the FIFG are not due to begin  until 
1996. The  inspections  revealed  irregularities  in four  Member  States.  In  France  (La  Seyne-sur-Mer  and 
Saint-André),  one  aquaculture  project  had  been  stopped  by  the  beneficiary  himself  (a  decision  on 
possible  suspension  is  pending),  and  ineligible  expenditure  was  detected  for  another.  In  Greece 
(Thessaloniki,  Khalkidiki  and  Athens),  a  processing  plant  had  not  yet  started  operation  (a  report  was 
requested from  the Member State for  1996) and, in the case of an eel farm  project, the Member  State has 
been  requested  to make a thorough check ofthe  beneficiary  company  and the construction  company. In 
Spain  (Madrid),  a  small  amount  of  ineligible  expenditure  was  discovered  in  a  processing  project. 

204 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Finally,  in  Italy  (Naples  and  Bari),  in  one  of  the  three  processing/marketing  projects  inspected,  a 
considerable  delay  in  implementation  was  discovered.  The  Unit  on  Coordination  of  Fraud  Prevention 
took part in the inspection  visits to Greece and Madrid. No major  irregularities were detected  during the 
other inspection visits, to Lugo (Galicia, Spain), relating to vessel construction  projects, and  in  Scotland, 
relating to six aquaculture projects. 

All  Funds:  In  most  cases  the  results  of  each  inspection  are  communicated  to  the  Member  State 
concerned,  drawing  its attention to shortcomings and requesting changes to bring the  procedures  in line 
with  current  rules  and  in  most  cases  the  Commission  also  requests  the  designated  authority  in  the 
Member  State  to  submit  a  new,  duly  corrected  declaration  of  expenditure,  and  makes  the  necessary 
financial  adjustments.  However, the Commission  departments may - where the situation  warrants - stop 
any further  funding.  They then propose to the Member State (pursuant to Community  rules) a number of 
general  or  specific  solutions to  permit  compliance  with  Community  rules  and  national  provisions,  and 
then monitor their implementation.  When judicial  inquiries are opened (in cases of suspected  fraud),  the 
Commission  suspends payments until the procedure is closed, so that it can then take the necessary  steps 
(payment, reduction  or discontinuation). However, the most important effect  of these  inspections  is their 
role  in  instructing  the  regional  authorities  and  bodies  responsible  for  the  administration  and  internal 
auditing ofthe  Structural  Funds how to adjust  their practices and procedures  where they do not  comply 
with the rules. 

The Commission departments regularly remind the authorities ofthe  Member States ofthe  need to apply 
the  provisions  on  financial  implementation  contained  in  the  Commission  decisions  approving  the 
programmes  at  all  administrative  levels.  In  1995, the  departments  responsible  for  the  Funds  focused 
more  closely  on  monitoring  the  results  of  inspection  visits  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  (sector  letters, 
annual report) and  Financial  Control, and  intensified  their cooperation  with the Unit on Coordination  of 
Fraud  Prevention.  In  addition,  all departments took part  in discussion  meetings  held  at the  Commission 
on the problems  linked to the eligibility of expenditure2. 

Inspection  activities  were  also  intensified  by  the  introduction  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1681/94  concerning  irregularities  and  the  recovery  of  sums  wrongly  paid  in  connection  with  the 
structural  policies. On the whole, the situation resulting from  the information  forwarded  by the  Member 
States  is far  from  satisfactory3,  since the  Commission  continues to discover  a large  number  of  cases of 
irregularity which are not reported. 

Finally, at the  request  ofthe  European  Parliament,  in October  1995 the Commission  presented  a report 
on  irregularities  in the management of Community  Structural  Funds in the new German  Lander4  for  the 
period  1991-93.  The  report  highlights  the  irregularities  and  suspected  cases  of  fraud  detected,  the 
weaknesses  in the management and control  systems, inadequate knowledge of Community  rules and the 
lack  of  administrative  organization,  due  to  the  exceptional  political,  economic  and  administrative 
situation  in the new German  Lander during that transitional period. It also describes the measures taken 
by the Commission  and the Member State to correct and prevent such irregularities. 

1.2.  Inspections carried  out by Financial  Control 

In  1995  Financial  Control  carried  out  its  Structural  Fund  inspection  activities  in  line  with  the  current 
discussions  on  improving  financial  management5.  The  main  aim  was  to  rationalize  the  inspections, 
partly  by  investigating  whether  random  sampling  could  be  used  to  grant  approval  within  the 
Commission  and partly by increased use of systems audits in the Member States. 

2 See 1.2 below - Inspections carried out by Financial Control. 
3 See 1995 Annual Report "Protecting the Community's financial interests" (COM(96) 173 final). 
4OJNoL353, 17.12.1995. 
5 See below: 2. Improving financial management. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

205 

In  1995, Financial  Control  made 86 on-the-spot  inspections  in which  expenditure totalling around  ECU 
7  250  million  under  the  forms  of  assistance  audited  was  checked.  The  main  aim  of  the  control 
programme  was  to  check  the  legality,  regularity  and  effectiveness  of transactions  under  the  Structural 
Funds  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  complete  the  audit  records  for  each  Fund  and  each  Member  State 
available  to  Financial  Control  and  update  the  1994  systems  audit  report.  To  that  end,  the  checks 
concentrated  on  an  audit  of  the  administration  and  control  systems  in  the  Member  States  for  all  the 
Funds,  in accordance  with the audit methods  developed  by Financial  Control. One of the  more  general 
findings was that the certifications  of expenditure  by the authorities designated  in the Member  State are 
not always based  on a reliable or adequate control  system. This is particularly  the case with the  lack  of 
checks  on  the eligibility  of expenditure  at the various  stages of processing  of the  financial  information 
forwarded  by the final beneficiaries,  resulting in some expenditure being rejected  as ineligible  in a large 
number of spot checks on projects. These cases involve the purchase of second-hand  equipment,  general 
or personnel  costs  incurred  outside the eligibility  periods, non-entry  into the  accounts  of revenue  to  be 
deducted  from  declared  expenditure,  methods  of  converting  expenditure  into  ecus  not  complying  with 
the rules (ESF), the purchase of land, financial  commitments not complying with the rules or outside the 
time limits laid down  in the programmes (EAGGF), etc. 

In order to make better use ofthe  resources ofthe  various authorities involved in checks, and in line with 
the guidelines adopted by the Commission under the SEM 2000 exercise, negotiations continued  in  1995 
with a view to extending the cooperation protocols concluded between the Commission  and the  relevant 
national  inspection  authorities  to  other  Member  States.  For  example,  following  the  establishment  of  a 
special  inspection  coordination  body within  the Greek  Ministry of Finance, a protocol  was  signed  with 
Greece  (April  1995), and thorough  discussions  with  the Netherlands  will  make  it possible  to adapt  the 
formula  ofthe  protocols  to the decentralized  or distributed  inspection  systems  ofthose  Member  States 
with a similar structure (in particular the United Kingdom, Sweden and Finland) and those with a  federal 
structure  (Belgium,  Germany  and Austria). As far  as the existing protocols  are concerned,  coordination 
of inspections with France, Italy and Spain was put into practice in line with the coordinated plans drawn 
up and discussed at the beginning ofthe  year. 

Finally,  following  the  systems  audit  programme  carried  out  between  1992  and  1994,  and  the  report 
mentioned  above,  it became apparent that there was a special  problem  with  expenditure  eligibility.  The 
reason  is  that  the  regulations  governing  the  Structural  Funds  do  not  give  any  detailed  definition  of 
eligible  expenditure,  and  that,  although  the  texts  approving  the  various  forms  of  assistance  contain 
standard  clauses  for  certain  general  aspects  (expenditure  committed  and  paid,  supporting  documents, 
definition  ofthe  final  beneficiary  and  eligibility  dates), they  do not provide  any  specific  guidelines  on 
certain  items or particular types of expenditure. Therefore  a detailed discussion  within  the  Commission 
was  launched  in  1995  to  clarify  some  of  these  complex  eligibility  problems.  The  inter-departmental 
working party set up to that end in September  1994 and chaired by Financial Control  produced  an  initial 
set  of  datasheets  describing  and  harmonizing  the  approach  of  the  Structural  Funds  to  certain  items  of 
expenditure,  such  as  second-hand  equipment,  depreciation,  VAT,  bank  interest,  eligibility  periods  and 
the  concept  of final beneficiary.  The work centred  on the establishment  of transparent  and  monitorable 
methods  of  implementing financial engineering  measures  - venture  capital  funds  (guidelines  laid  down 
by the Commission  in July  1995) and guarantee funds.  Several eligibility  issues remain to be studied  for 
1996 (investments  in  land  and  property,  for  example). Subsequently, the question  of eligibility  was  put 
on the agenda for the group of personal representatives ofthe  European  Finance Ministers set up as part 
ofthe  exercise for improving financial  management described below. 

2. 

Improving  financial  management 

When  it  took  up  office,  the  new  Commission  decided  to  launch  an  internal  discussion  on  ways  of 
strengthening  financial  management  within  the  Commission.  The discussion  began  in  1995  as  a three-
stage process  and  are of vital concern to the departments  responsible  for the  Structural  Funds. The first 
stage  consisted  in  consolidating  the  internal  administration  system  within  the  existing  framework  by 
rationalizing  the  Commission's  financial  procedures  and  departments.  The  idea  was  to  give  the  budget 

206 

7tn  Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

and  financial  units  a  more  effective  structure,  provide  better  training  for  staff  and  modernize 
management  tools,  in  order  to  rationalize  financial  management  procedures,  improve  assessment  of 
Community  programmes  and  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  action  taken  in  response  to  the 
observations  of  the  other  Community  institutions  on  budget  issues.  The  second  stage  was  aimed  at  a 
more  substantial  reform  of  internal  procedures  and  organization,  in  particular  to  introduce  greater 
transparency  into budget  decision-making  and  initiate an assessment  process for  the  measures  adopted. 
These  two  stages  were  introduced  successively  in  the  course  of  1995  and  continued  in  parallel 
throughout the year. 

The third stage ofthe  exercise was launched at the end of  1995 and is to continue  in  1996. It is aimed at 
strengthening  and  developing  the  partnership with  the  Member  States  in those  areas  in which  they  are 
responsible  for  administering  Community  appropriations.  This  therefore  very  much  concerns  the 
Structural  Funds.  For  example,  discussions  began  at  ministerial  level  in  various  areas  relating  to  the 
organization  and administration  of Community appropriations  in the Member  States to ensure that their 
administration  is  proper  and  effective.  These  discussions,  which  are  intended  to  improve  cooperation 
between the Commission and the Member States, concern  in particular, as far as the Structural Funds are 
concerned,  the  question  of  finding  a  common,  transparent  and  universally  agreed  definition  of 
expenditure eligible for  Structural Fund part-financing.  The discussions will therefore be decisive for the 
immediate  future  of  the  programmes,  both  as  regards  their  monitoring  and  in  terms  of  their  proper 
economic and administrative  implementation. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

207 

C.  COORDINATION  OF FINANCIAL  INSTRUMENTS 

!•  Cohesion  Fund 

Cohesion Fund, Structural Funds and environment: 
Like  the  Structural  Funds,  the  Cohesion  Fund  provides  major  financial  support  for  environmental 
projects.  The  Regulation  establishing  it  specifies  that  a  suitable  balance  must  be  struck  between 
transport  infrastructure  and environmental  projects, the two  sectors for  which  it was  set up. From  its 
ECU  16  million  budget  for  the  period  1993-99,  45%  of  appropriations  in  its  first  two  years  of 
operation  (1993-94)  were  allocated  to  environmental  projects.  For  the  period  as  a  whole,  a  50/50 
balance  between  environment  and  transport  will  be  sought.  Projects  cover,  for  example,  water 
management, waste water treatment and waste disposal. In all cases the Commission  seeks  maximum 
coherence and coordination between Cohesion Fund and Structural Fund  financing. 

The  need  to  coordinate  assistance  from  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the  Structural  Funds,  the  EIB  and  other 
financial instruments  for  environmental  and trans-European  transport  network  projects  is mentioned  in 
the  preamble  to  the  Council  Regulation  establishing  the  Cohesion  Fund1.  Article  1 ofthe  Regulation 
states  that  the  Fund  may  contribute  to  financing  project  stages  that  are  technically  and  financially 
independent.  The Commission  must accordingly ensure that an item  of expenditure  relating to a project 
in several  stages  financed  from  the Cohesion  Fund  is not  granted  assistance  at the  same time  from  the 
Structural  Funds, and Article 9 ofthe  Regulation (on cumulation  and overlapping)  states that no item  of 
expenditure  may  benefit  from  both  the  Cohesion  ¥\md  and  the  Structural  Funds  and  that  combined 
Cohesion Fund and other Community aid for a project  may not exceed 90% of total expenditure thereon. 
This  does  not  rule  out  separate  contributions  to  a  large  project  from  several  instruments  provided  that 
expenditure on the  individual  stages can be clearly  identified  in terms of either time or the nature  ofthe 
stages. 

The purpose  is to allow  financing  in tandem, with the ERDF  in particular,  of  large  projects  comprising 
several  stages.  Such  coordination  of the  available  Community  financial  instruments  helps  increase  the 
impact  of  assistance,  particularly  where  trans-European  transport  networks  are  concerned,  and  so 
accelerates  their  establishment.  Separation  into  project  stages  requires  close  coordination  between 
financial  instruments  and  both  physical  and  financial  monitoring.  Aid  for  environment  and  trans-
European  transport  infrastructure  projects  can  in fact  be  granted  from  the  Structural  Funds, mainly  the 
ERDF but also, to a lesser extent, the EAGGF. Action is therefore taken to prevent double  financing. 

This  involves  in the  first  place  organizational  arrangements  for  coordinated  financing.  When  the  CSFs 
were  being  drawn  up,  the  Commission  mounted  a  general  coordination  exercise  to  implement  the 
doubling in real terms of commitment appropriations for Objective  1  regions in the countries  benefitting 
from  the  Cohesion  Fund  as  envisaged  by  the  Edinburgh  European  Council.  The  CSF  financing  plans 
accordingly explicitly mention the resources allocated from  the Cohesion Fund2. In the case of Spain  for 
example, where only  some regions are eligible under Objective  1, ECU  7.95  billion  from  the  Cohesion 
Fund  for  the  period  1993-99 was entered  in the  Objective  1 CSF. This  amount  was  determined  on  the 
basis  of  the  Edinburgh  target.  Under  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  partnership,  the  submission  of 
suitable  projects  to  achieve  the  doubling  in  real  terms  of  Structural  Fund  appropriations  in  the  less 
prosperous  parts  of  Spain  is  the  responsibility  of  the  national  government  and  the  Objective  1 CSF 
Monitoring  Committee.  As  a  "non-regional"  fund,  the  Cohesion  Fund  does  not  normally  collect 
regionalized data. 

In  the  second  place,  even  closer  attention  has to be  paid  to  coordinating  the  projects  themselves  given 
that  Structural  Fund  assistance  is  principally  for  programmes  whereas  the  Cohesion  Fund  finances 
individual  projects  or  groups  of  projects.  Coordination  procedures  were  introduced  when  the  cohesion 

1  Council Regulation (EC) 1164/94 of 16 May 1994, OJ No L 130, 25.5.1994. 
2  See  1994 Annual  Report. 

208 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

financial  instrument,  which  preceded  the  Cohesion  Fund,  came  into  operation  in  order  to  ensure  that 
project  or  project  stages  submitted  had  not  already  been  presented  for  Structural  Fund  assistance.  The 
departments  responsible  for  Structural  Fund  management  have to be consulted  before  the  Commission 
takes a decision to grant assistance from  the Cohesion Fund. Checking procedures were also  introduced 
to ensure that no item  of expenditure can be simultaneously financed from  the  Structural  Funds and  the 
Cohesion  Fund.  These  procedures  have  so  far  functioned  effectively.  There  has  been  neither 
disagreement  between the departments responsible for managing the Structural  Funds and the  Cohesion 
Fund nor any case of double financing.  In certain cases Member  States have applied  for  financing  from 
different  instruments for various stages of a single project; this is in accordance with the rules. 

A major project in Portugal: 
The Cruz-Braga motorway was initially included in the 1994-99 CSF for ERDF 
financing. After the Cohesion Fund started to operate, it was considered that, as 
an element of the trans-European transport networks, it should be financed by 
the Cohesion Fund, so allowing more ERDF aid to be devoted to transport. The 
second stage of construction was therefore taken out ofthe ERDF OP and given 
Cohesion Fund financing at a higher rate under Article 7 of the Cohesion Fund 
Regulation.  To  prevent  any  overlapping  of  Community  aid,  Commission 
officials,  in  cooperation  with  the  national  authorities,  identified  two  distinct 
stages of the project using physical indicators. Then, for financial management 
purposes,  a  date  was  set from which  payment  applications  and  supporting 
documents  were  to  be  sent  to  the  Fund.  The  Commission  also  stepped  up 
monitoring at the time when aid was transferred from the ERDF to the Cohesion 
Fund,  two  inspections  visits  being  made  in  four  months.  Obviously,  the 
administrative burden of managing projects in several stages is lighter if stages 
are clearly separate. 

The Commission  is examining how the four Member States concerned (Spain, Greece, Ireland,  Portugal) 
could  be  more  closely  involved  in this  coordination,  given  that  under  the  OPs  selection  of  individual 
projects  is generally done at regional programming level. 

2.  EIB 

The  EIB confirmed  in  1995 that  economic  and social  cohesion  remains  its priority,  an objective  in  any 
case assigned to it by the Treaty on European Union. In 4995 out of a total of ECU 21.4 billion  in  loans 
granted  (a  7.5% increase on  1994, which' itself represented  an  increase of  1.6%  on  1993), ECU  18 782 
million  was  granted  in  the  Community  (a  5.2%  increase  on  1994  compared  with  a  fall  of  2%> from 
1993). A total of ECU  12 144 million was granted to regions lagging behind  in development or  suffering 
from  industrial decline. 

Table 127:  EIB - Financing for regional development (ECU million) 

Total  activity  in  the  EU  (1) 
Regional  development 

Objective  1 

Countries  eligible  u n d e r t he  Cohesion  Fund 

1995 

1994 

1993 

18.782 
12.144 
68% 
5.881 
48% 
4648 
38% 

17.682 
12.035 
72% 
5.748 
48% 
4.746 
39% 

16.779 
12.462 
74% 
7.228 
58% 
6.142 
34% 

(1)  Amount  of  finance  granted,  i.e.  individual  loans  signed  and  appropriations 

allocated  for  current  global  loans. 

The  concentration  of  financing  in  favour  of  investment  located  in  regional  development  zones,  which 
had eased  in  1993 (72% in  1994 against  74% in  1993), again  lessened  in  1995 (68%). In contrast to the 
upward  trend  ofthe  period  1989-93, the  bank's  activity  in  promoting  regional  development,  although 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

209 

greater  in  absolute  terms,  is  in  relative  terms  lower  than  the  level  attained  in  1992.  Despite  this 
slackening, economic and social cohesion remains the EIB's priority. 

In the regions  where  development  is  lagging behind  (Objective  1), EIB  loans  amounted  to  ECU  5 881 
million,  i.e.  48%  ofthe  total  for  regional  development  (48%  in  1994,  58%  in  1993),  again  a  lower 
proportion  than  in  1993  or  for  the  period  1989-93.  Assistance  in  the  four  Cohesion  Fund  countries 
(Greece,  Spain,  Ireland,  Portugal)  amounted  to  ECU  4  648  million,  26%  of  total  financing  in  the 
Community  (28%)  in  1994,  37%o in  1993)  and  38% of  total  regional  development  financing  (39%  in 
1994). 

Table 128:  EIB - Breakdown by sector of financing for regional development (ECU million) 

R e g i o n al  development 

: 

Energy 
Transport 
Telecommunications 
Environment  and  other  infrastructure 
Industry,  agriculture  and  services 

I  T O T AL 

I 
2TÏÏÏÏ9" 
4.385 
885 
1.614 
3.251 
12.144 

Vo 

\^S% 
36,1% 
7,3% 
13,3% 
26,8% 
ÎWW 

T O T A L| 

The breakdown  between  individual and global  loans confirms the upswing in global  loans (sharply down 
in  1993). Individual  loans were slightly down. 

3.  ECSC 

Under  Article  56  of  the  ECSC  Treaty,  the  Commission  has  at  its  disposal  a  loan  instrument  for 
conversion  investment to create jobs in areas affected  by the reduction of activity and employment  in the 
coal and  steel  sector. These can be accompanied  by  interest-rate  subsidies (calculated  on the  number of 
jobs  to  be  created)  of  up  to  3%  for  five  years.  The  regional  orientation  of  these  loans  and  their 
coordination  with  the  Structural  Funds  have  been  progressively  strengthened  by  operational  provisions 
adopted  by  the  Commission  since  19903  which  have  increased  their  concentration  in  zones  eligible 
under the regional objectives  ofthe  CSFs and the Community Rechar and Résider Initiatives. 

The  total  volume  of  new  ECSC  conversion  loans  approved  by  the  Commission  in  1995  and  given 
Council  assent  in February  1996 was ECU  394.4 million  with  the number  of jobs  to  be created  around 
27 000. The sum of ECU  11.45 million was committed under the ECSC budget for  1995 for  interest-rate 
subsidies  on  current  loans.  During  1995  the  Commission  made  102  conversion  loans,  95  global  loans 
totalling ECU  196 million and seven direct loans totalling ECU 64.2 million. 

4.  European  Investment  Fund 

The  purpose  ofthe  Fund,  established  in June  1994, is to  support  medium  and  long-term  investment  by 
providing  long-term  guarantees  for  loans  taken  out  for  investment  in  trans-European  networks  and 
SMEs. 

The  loan  volume  guaranteed  in  1995  was  ECU  686.8  million,  of  which  ECU  116.46  million  was  for 
transactions  actually  signed.  Trans-European  network  projects  amounted  to  94%  of  the  total  volume 
signed:  17% in transport,  26% in telecommunications  and 51% in energy.  SMEs projects  accounted  for 
6% of operations. 

3  O J N oC  188/9, 28.7.1990,  OJ No  C  59/4, 6.3.1992, Commission  Decision  E/l967/94  of  12 December  1994. 

210 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

5.  The financial  mechanism  ofthe  European Economic Area 

The  Agreement  on  the  European  Economic  Area  provided  for  a  financial  mechanism,  paid  for  by  the 
EFTA  countries  and  managed  by  the  EIB,  to  help  promote  economic  and  social  cohesion  in  the 
Community.  Its  scope  is  defined  in  Protocol  38  to  the  Agreement:  grants  totalling  ECU  500  million 
between  1994  and  1998  and  10-year  interest-rate  subsidies  of 2%  on  a total  loan  volume  of  ECU  1.5 
billion. Assistance  is given  for  projects  in Greece, Ireland, Northern  Ireland, Portugal  and, for  1989-93, 
the Spanish Objective  1  regions. 

Following  enlargement,  the contributions  of Austria, Finland  and  Sweden  have  been  taken  over  by  the 
Community  budget  and  the  Commission  is  accordingly  represented  on  the  Financial  Mechanism 
Committee, which approves projects. 

In  1995 the Committee approved interest-rate subsidies on ECU 302.4 million in loans for seven  projects 
in Spain and one in Greece and ECU 68 million  in grants for four projects  in Greece and three  in  Spain. 
These were in the three eligible sectors: transport, environment and education  and training. 

Piraeus  container  terminal,  an example  of assistance from  the  Community 
instruments: 
The port of Piraeus is the principal cargo entry point to Attica, the region which 
is home to some 50% ofthe population of Greece, a country where sea transport 
has recently  grown  in  importance, more than  90% of  goods  arriving  by sea. 
Piraeus is one ofthe  two Greek ports to have a specialized container terminal. 
One of its three sections, Ikonion, already has a teiminal and a second, Ikonion 
II, is partly complete. Under the EEA Financial Mechanism, ECU 12.1 million 
has  been  granted  to  complete  the  second  terminal,  which  will  substantially 
increase the port's container traffic  capacity. A loan of ECU 42.9 million  from 
the EIB has also been granted plus an interest-rate subsidy of 2% a year for ten 
years. The Cohesion  Fund is also contributing ECU  15 million for completion 
ofthe quay wall and purchase of cranes, tractors and other specific equipment. 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural Funds (1995) 

211 

D.  COMPLEMENTARITY  WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITY  POLICIES 

Introduction 

Endeavours  to  achieve  the  complementarity  between  structural  measures  and  other  sector-specific 
Community policies required under the regulations on the Structural Funds (Article 7 ofthe  Framework 
Regulation),  which  is  a  matter  for  this  Annual  Report,  were  stepped  up  in  1995.  Selecting  the 
environment as the theme for this Report illustrates those endeavours, which are evident in various ways 
and  at various  levels. In  terms  of  legislation  and  regulations,  attention  to  coordination  and  forecasting 
continued  to  increase  in  1995  with  a view  to  preventing  and  penalizing  infringements  of  the  rules  on 
competition  and public procurement, particularly  in environmental fields. In terms  of financial  support, 
the  Structural  Funds  supplement  Community  Initiatives  in  certain  sectors,  like  equal  opportunities, 
support for SMEs, trans-European networks, and research and technological  development. 

Within  the  Commission,  a  start  has  been  made  on  assessing  possible  ways  of  enhancing  synergy 
between  the  various  Community  policies  and  the  Structural  Funds.  The  Commission  also  urges  the 
Member  States  and  authorities  responsible  for  implementing  programmes  to  take  account  of  these 
guidelines at their level. Complementarity between Community policies must apply both in the drawing-
up  of  programmes,  guaranteed  since  the  review  of  the  Regulations  in  1993,  and  in  their  practical 
implementation.  The  Commission  therefore  urges  the  Member  States  to  make  a  special  effort,  at  all 
administrative  levels and stages of implementation (in particular within the Monitoring Committees and 
when  awarding public contracts or applying aid  schemes), to reduce the risks of  infringing  Community 
rules. In  1995 the Commission also gave consideration to the drafting of recommendations  incorporating 
certain concerns stemming from  other Community policies in the current programming ofthe  Structural 
Funds. This consideration  gave rise to several Commission  communications  on cohesion  policy and the 
environment,  the  integrated  management  of coastal  zones1, structural  assistance  and  employment2  and 
encouraging  local  development  and  employment  initiatives,  while  further  communications  were  being 
prepared,  in particular  on incorporating equal opportunities  in Community  policies. As the  environment 
is touched on throughout this Report, this section will not deal with the topic. 

Complementarity  with employment  policy 

With more specific  reference to employment, the Structural Funds are, as already stressed in this Report, 
the  Community's  prime  weapon  in  the  fight  against  unemployment.  Of  the  five  priority  measures 
advocated  by  the  Essen  European  Council,  three,  improved  vocational  training,  a  more  effective 
employment  market  and  measures  to  facilitate  the  integration  into  the  labour  market  of  groups 
particularly affected  by unemployment, are the direct concern ofthe  Structural  Funds. The priority to be 
given  to  these  measures  was  confirmed  by  the  European  Councils  in  Cannes  and  Madrid,  which  also 
supported the Commission's proposals on local development and employment  initiatives. 

The Structural  Funds are the main  instrument used for these ends, particularly  under Objectives  3 and 4 
for  the ESF but also  under the regional  Objectives  (Objectives  1, 2 and  5(b)) for  all the  Funds.  During 
the year, the Commission  tabled a series of documents containing suggestions on  how to  implement  the 
employment  priorities  of  the  European  Councils.  In  June  1995  it  adopted  a  communication  on  a 
European  strategy to encourage local development and employment initiatives, which  includes a strategy 
to  support this  process  and  distribute  the  results through  the  Monitoring  Committees  for  the  Structural 
Funds. Its October communication  on the European  employment  strategy has the  Structural  Funds at its 

1 For these two communications see Chapter I. A. 1.2. Greater integration ofthe  "environment" factor  and Chapter 

I.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 

2 Communication  first  presented  at the informal  ministerial meeting in Madrid (30 November-1 December  1995) 
and subsequently published in 1996 (COM(96) 109 final of 30 March  1996) - See Introduction. C. Employment, 
a major challenge for the Union. 

212 

7 th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

centre  and  this  is  spelt  out  in  detail  in  the  communication 
Employment" referred  to above. 

"Community  Structural  Policies  and 

However, the very nature ofthe  operations, which are directly aimed at making the employment  market 
more  effective  (e.g.  support  for  vocational  training),  makes  any  attempt  at  quantification  difficult. 
Nevertheless, the Structural Funds have made a considerable effort  to adapt themselves to the  situations 
which the Essen summit identified  as priorities. 

1.  The Structural Funds, equal opportunities and combatting social  exclusion 

Combatting  social  exclusion  and  promoting  equal  opportunities  are  among  the  Community  policy 
priorities  set in Essen  and endorsed  in Cannes and Madrid. In this area the ESF  intervenes mainly  with 
regard  to  Objective  3,  but  also,  albeit  less  identifiably,  with  regard  to  the  regionalized  objectives 
(Objectives  1,2 and 5(b)). 

The Structural  Funds  and combatting social  exclusion 

Combatting social  exclusion  is a clear Objective  3 priority ofthe  ESF, with ECU  5.6  billion to be spent 
on  achieving  the  goal  in  1994-99.  At  variance  with  past  practice,  the  approach  adopted  will  involve 
tackling  the phenomenon  of social  exclusion  in an  integrated  fashion  and not  as an  appendage  to  other 
policies.  Priority  will  thus  be given  to  facilitating  the  return  to the  labour  market  and  consequently  to 
training measures. For the first time, the ESF regards setting up integration  pathways to employment  as 
eligible,  whether  they  target  employment  or  social  integration.  In  this  respect  Community  funding 
supports both social accompanying measures and training measures proper. 

The Structural  Funds  and equal  opportunities 

The amendments to the regulations  governing  Structural  Fund assistance  in  1993 extend  the  obligation 
to observe the principle  of equal  opportunities  to all  assistance  from  the  Funds. In  decisions  approving 
programmes,  a  standard  clause  has  been  specially  inserted  to  ensure  compliance  with  this  new 
obligation. Two approaches have been adopted in programmes, varying according to the Member States. 
Some  Member  States  (the  United  Kingdom,  Germany  and  Spain)  have  adopted  specific  measures 
targeting women  while  others have preferred  a broader  approach, which  entails  checking  the  impact  of 
the equal opportunities policy by means of precise assessment  indicators. This is the case in particular in 
France. The Objective  1  and Objective  3 appropriations allocated to this priority are estimated  at at least 
2% ofthe  total, or ECU 785 million for the period  1994-99. In Objective  5(b) measures relating to rural 
society, there  is  increasing  emphasis  on  equal  opportunities  for  men  and women,  given  the  fact  that  in 
many  regions  over  40%> of  farm  income  comes  from  activities  outside  the  holding,  which  are  almost 
always  carried  out  by  women.  Such  activity  creates  wealth  and  employment  and  contributes  towards 
maintaining  and  developing  a  dynamic  economy.  The  NOW  programme  (1991-93)  was  renewed  and 
strengthened  within  the framework  ofthe  EMPLOYMENT Community  Initiative (1994-99). With  ESF 
funds  amounting to ECU 361 million, NOW focuses  on devising, testing and implementing new training 
and  employment  ideas  for  women3.  One  of  the  priority  objectives  of  EMPLOYMENT-NOW  is  the 
uptake of positive results from  projects financed  under the CSFs. 

In  1995 a working GROUP on equal  opportunities  comprising Members ofthe  Commission  was  set up 
under  the  chairmanship  of  Mr  Santer  and  an  interdepartmental  working  party  prepared  a  draft 
communication  from  the  Commission  to  Parliament  and  the  Council  entitled  "Incorporating  equal 
opportunities  for women  and men  into all Community policies and activities". The document contains a 
section  on  the  Structural  Funds, the  main  financial  instrument  able to play  a part  in  implementing  this 
Union  priority.  Considerations  covering  indicators  and  ways  of  measuring  the  degree  to  which  the 

See Chapter I.B.I  Community initiatives, analysis of programmes in the Member States. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

213 

principle  of  equality  is taken  into  account  in  current  programming  must  nevertheless  be  pursued.  The 
document  proposes  the  establishment  of  basic  indicators  for  certain  types  of  positive  measures  in  the 
field  of  equal  opportunities  with  a  view  to  defining  criteria  to  be  applied  by  programme  Monitoring 
Committees in selecting projects. A cross-sector assessment study has been  undertaken  to throw light on 
the way this aspect is actually implemented by the Structural Funds. The Commission  is also to draw up 
methodological  guidelines  for  the Monitoring  Committees. Work carried  out  to  date  supports  the view 
that  cohesion  and  the  complementarity  between  various  types  of  Community  assistance  should  be 
enhanced. 

2.  The Structural  funds, the common  agricultural  policy and  rural  development 

The Structural Funds and the common agricultural policy 

Since  agriculture  is  still  one  of  the  main  activities  for  many  regions  of  the  Community,  most  of  the 
programmes  for  1994-99  include  measures  relating  to  the  sector.  It  is  therefore  essential,  on  the  one 
hand, to ensure that the measures  proposed  by the  Member  States  in development  plans  for  rural  areas 
under  Objective  1 or  Objective  5(b)  are  compatible  with  the  guidelines  of  the  CAP  and,  on  the  other 
hand, to take  into consideration  the contribution  which  agricultural  measures  make  to the  development 
of  economic  activity.  With  regard  to  the  more  specific  case  of  Objective  5(b),  measures  relating  to 
agriculture  in the  SPDs were devised  with an eye to the necessary complementarity  between  the  reform 
of  the  CAP  and  rural  development.  Those  measures  take  account  of  the  diversity  of  agriculture  in 
Objective  5(b) areas  (in terms  of structures, forms  of collective  organization,  traditions  and  know-how, 
geographical  situation,  and  relative  distance  from  markets).  Matching  this  diversity  in  structures  is  a 
variety  of  solutions  to  allow  each  agricultural  holding  to  adapt  to  the  market  and  extend  the  range  of 
products  or  services  offered  (farm  tourism,  environment),  while  endeavouring  to  control  production 
costs. 

The measures planned  allow a sufficient  number of farmers  to stay in farming  to contribute towards the 
socio-economic  development  of rural  areas and the Commission  has ensured  that certain  guarantees  are 
forthcoming. Generally speaking, each time a national aid scheme is proposed, a check is made to ensure 
that  it  is  compatible  with  the  existing  rules  of  the  CAP  and  those  on  State  aid.  The  measures  given 
priority have included  the application  of new technologies, energy  saving and  quality  promotion.  In the 
case  of  irrigation,  for  example,  priority  has  been  given  to  measures  to  improve  existing  structures  to 
avoid  water  losses (through  evaporation,  leaks, etc.) without affecting  the area  irrigated.  If it was  found 
that  new  areas  were  being  irrigated,  the  Commission  placed  severe  restrictions  on  the  extension  and 
asked to be informed  ofthe  crops which  it was intended to grow there. 

The same approach  was followed  under Objective  5(a) with regard to structures  for  both  production  and 
marketing.  In  order  to  maintain  market  balance  in  certain  products,  investment  aid  which  would  have 
increased  production  was  banned  (pigmeat,  eggs  and  poultrymeat).  Restrictions  were  imposed  on 
beef/veal.  For  the  processing  and  marketing  of  agricultural  products,  the  Commission  laid  down 
selection criteria following  the guidelines set by Community policies, and in particular the CAP. In some 
sectors,  investment  aid  was  prohibited  or  authorized  subject  to  strict  limits  and  an  accompanying 
reduction  in  existing  capacity,  the  aim  being  to  modernize  and  rationalize  the  sectors  concerned 
(beef/veal,  pigmeat, etc., and some processed fruit and vegetables). 

The challenges facing  rural society 

More generally, since the  1988 reform  ofthe  Structural Funds, the Commission  has introduced a  specific 
policy  for  rural  areas.  Rural  society  is  undergoing  far-reaching  changes  and  is  increasingly  subject  to 
pressures  which  threaten  an  already  delicate  balance. Predominantly  rural  areas  account  for  more  than 
80%o of Community  territory  and over one quarter of its population. The prosperity  and environment  of 
rural  communities  are  increasingly  threatened  while agriculture, the  main  activity  in  a  large  number  of 
rural areas, is going through a crisis which calls into question the very basis of their existence. Economic 

214 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

decline, an ageing population, the drift  of young people to the towns, the disappearance  of services vital 
for  the  quality  of  life  due  to  a  lack  of  sufficient  population,  and  desertification  are  some  of  the  risks 
facing certain rural areas. 

In  order  to  strengthen  economic  and  social  cohesion,  Article  130a  ofthe  Treaty  on  European  Union 
provides  that  the  Community  should  reduce  "disparities  between  the  levels  of  development  of  the 
various  regions  and  the  backwardness  of  the  least-favoured  regions,  including  rural  areas."  To  assist 
rural  areas, their  advantages  should  be turned to account, taking all aspects  of economic  and  social  life 
into consideration  by giving thought to agriculture and  all other aspects of rural  society  which  are  vital 
for  an  integrated  and  viable  rural  economy and  satisfactory  "quality  of  life".  Maintaining  agriculture  in 
some rural areas is often  a condition of their survival and calls for the coordination  of various measures, 
such  as the common  organization  of markets, diversification  of production,  improving  product  quality, 
and  implementing  policies  relating to plant health and research. At the same time, efforts  to  modernize 
and adapt agricultural  structures must be pursued  in order to make agricultural  holdings competitive and 
to preserve the natural environment through an appropriate protection policy. 

However,  for  many  years jobs  in  agriculture  have  constantly  declined.  Agriculture  now  accounts  for 
only 5.5% ofthe  total working population whereas this figure stood at over 20% in the early  1960s. The 
drift  to large conurbations  holds no solution  since, on the one hand,  persistent  unemployment  curbs  the 
recruitment of labour and aggravates existing problems and, on the other hand, the flight  from  the land is 
likely  to  lead  to  its  abandonment,  thereby jeopardizing  the  overall  equilibrium  of  the  territory  of  the 
Union.  A  Community  policy  for  multi-sector  rural  development  must  therefore  help  to  preserve  the 
social  fabric  and develop viable rural  communities. Accordingly,  alternative  solutions  must be found  to 
keep  the  population  in the  countryside,  wherever  possible,  by  creating  new jobs  outside  agriculture  in 
sectors  like tourism, craft  trades, SMEs, farm  relief services, the renovation  of villages, and  maintaining 
the residential environment and the historic heritage. 

This development policy for rural areas must be put into effect  throughout the Community. The financial 
measures  under  Objective  5(a)  play  a  part  in  achieving  this,  as  do  the  ineasures  accompanying  the 
reform  ofthe  CAP. However,  efforts  must focus  as a priority on regions economically  most  affected  or 
least  developed.  Accordingly,  appropriations  must  be  concentrated  on  Objective  1 and  6  regions  and 
Objective  5(b) areas within both the CSFs/SPDs and the Community  Initiatives, in particular  LEADER. 
For  the  period  1989-93, approximately  ECU  15 billion  has  been  allocated  to  rural  development.  That 
figure is expected to double in 1994-99. 

3.  The Structural  Funds and the common  fisheries  policy 

Since  1994, the  year  marking  the  incorporation  of  the  CFP  into  the  Structural  Fund  mechanisms,  the 
instruments  mobilized to assist fisheries  structures (both the CSFs/SPDs and the PESCA Initiative) have 
a dual purpose  in so far as they seek to ensure the survival and sustainable development of the policy by 
helping the fishing  effort  to adapt to dwindling stocks. These  instruments also help strengthen  economic 
and  social  cohesion  through  aid  to  reinforce  structures  in  the  fishing  industry  as  a  whole  -  the  fleet, 
aquaculture,  processing  and  marketing  of  products  and  port  facilities.  Furthermore,  measures  financed 
by the FIFG in relation to the fishing fleet must comply with the objectives ofthe  Multiannual  Guidance 
Programmes (MGPs), which  place restrictions on the fishing effort  of each  Member  State. In  particular, 
aid  for  the  construction  of  new  fishing  vessels  is  authorized  only  where  the  annual  intermediate 
objectives  ofthe  MGP, and subsequently the final objectives, are observed. 

4.  The Structural  Funds and  SMEs 

As far  as assistance  to  SMEs and the craft  sector  is concerned, the  OPs adopted  for  1994-99  reflect  the 
importance which the Community attaches to SMEs. Thus an average of  10% ofthe  ERDF's resources is 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

215 

allocated  specifically  to  measures  for  SMEs4.  Furthermore,  the  SME  Community  Initiative  helps  raise 
the  level  of  know-how  in  small  firms  while  ADAPT  promotes  employment  and  the  adaptation  of  the 
labour  force  to  industrial  change  and  should  also benefit  small  firms. 

During  1995,  most  of  the  programmes  relating  to  the  SME  Community  Initiative  (ECU  1 billion, 
including  ECU  800 million  for  Objective  1 regions) were  adopted.  Through  the  Monitoring  Committees, 
the  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  economic  and  social  partners  invited  to  take  part  in  the 
implementation  ofthe  programmes  include  representatives  of  SMEs  so they  are  more  closely  associated 
with  the  Community  programmes,  as  recommended  in  the  report  which  the  Commission  sent  to  the 
Madrid  European  Council,5  which  stressed  the 
importance  of  SMEs  as  a  dynamic  source  of 
the 
employment,  growth  and  competitiveness 
in  the  European  Union.  It  should  be  noted  that 
Commission  staff  responsible  for  enterprise  policy  attend  Monitoring  Committee  meetings 
for 
programmes  relating  more  specifically  to  SMEs,  like  those  on  industry  and  services,  particularly  in  the 
Objective  1 countries  (Ireland,  Portugal  and  Greece), and those ofthe  SME  Initiative. 

EUROPARTENARIAT  - events fostering  contacts between European  firms: 
Two  EUROPARTENARIAT  events were  organized  in  Germany  and  Portugal 
in  1995.  They  were  intended  to  stimulate  cooperation  and  foster  contacts 
between firms in eligible regions (Objectives  1, 2, 5(b) and 6) and those in other 
Member States or non-member countries. 
EUROPARTENARIAT  North  Rhineland-Westphalia  (Dortmund,  20  and  21 
March  1995)  drew  around  5 000  visitors  from  54  countries.  The  357  Gennan 
firms had  around  10 000  business meetings  with  the 2 000  visiting  SMEs, 200 
of which came from countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States. 
EUROPARTENARIAT  Portugal (Lisbon, 24 and 25 November  1995) was also 
a great success. The 406 Portuguese firms established  contact with around 2 000 
SMEs in the course of  13 000 meetings. 
The  Commission  also  supports  participation  in  such  events  by  firms  from  the 
central  and  eastern  European  countries,  the  Commonwealth  of  Independent 
States and the Mediterranean. 

5.  The  Structural  Funds,  research  and  technological  development 

Measures  undertaken  since  1993  in  connection  with  the  Commission  Communication  on  Cohesion  and 
RTD  Policy6  were  continued  in  1995.  In  the  wake  ofthe  Communication,  greater  account  was  taken 
from  1994  on  of  economic  and  social  cohesion  in the  Fourth  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and 
of  research  and  technological  development  in  the  Structural  Funds.  In  particular,  spending  on  actions 
relating  to  RTD  financed  by the  Structural  Funds  increased  substantially  in  absolute  terms  (partly  owing 
to  the  fact  that  global  funding  for  the  Structural  Funds  almost  doubled  for  1994-99)  and  as  a  percentage 
compared  with  the  previous  period7.  For  the  record,  those  measures  account  for  nearly  5%  of  the 
Community  contribution  under  Objective  1 and  12%  under  Objective  2.  In  addition,  the  revised  ESF 
Regulation  provides  for  the  Fund  to  support,  under  Objectives  1, 2 and  5(b),  measures  covering  training 
in research,  science  and  technology. 

In  1995  most  ofthe  programmes  under  the  SME  and  ADAPT  Community  Initiatives  were  launched. 
The  SME  Initiative  provides  for  financing  to  promote  cooperation  for  RTD  between  SMEs  themselves 
and  between  SMEs  and  research  centres,  technology  transfer  centres,  universities  and  training  centres. 
The  ADAPT  Initiative  (ECU  1.5  billion,  including  ECU  400  million  for  Objective  1 regions)  encourages 

4  See  1994 Annual Report. 
5  Commission  Report  on  Small  and  Medium-Sized  Enterprises:  A  dynamic  source  of  employment,  growth  and 

competitiveness  in the European Union (SEC(95) 2087). 

6 COM(93) 203 of  12 May  1993. 
7  See  1994 Annual  Report. 

216 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

inter  alia  cooperation  and  exchanges  between  firms  and  research  in  technology  transfer  to  firms  and 
vocational  training  bodies.  Added  to  this  are  innovative  measures  under  Article  10  of  the  ERDF 
Regulation,  for  which  calls  for  proposals  were  issued  in  the  second  half  of  1995  covering  the 
development of innovative regional strategies, regional strategies for the development ofthe  information 
society  and  inter-regional  networks  for  the  development  of  specific  applications  concerning  the 
information  society8.  Funds  set aside for these measures  in  1995-99 amount to  ECU  20 million  for the 
information  society  and  ECU  15  million  for  cooperation  measures  to  encourage  innovation  and 
technology  transfer. 

Furthermore, in accordance with the  1993 Communication, the Fourth Framework  Research  Programme 
takes  account  of economic  and  social  cohesion, mainly  under the third  activity  (disseminating  research 
results  and  turning  them  to  account)  and  fourth  activity  (training  and  mobility  of  research  workers). 
Within the former,  18 innovation centres (of a total of 52) are currently operating  in Objective  1 regions 
and  one  in an Objective  6 region. Most ofthe  Objective 2 and 5(b) areas are covered  by the network  of 
innovation  centres. The  measure  for  research  workers  offers  them  many  opportunities  in  less-favoured 
regions, and  in particular  in Objective  1 and 6 regions, through  additional  one-year  grants to  encourage 
researchers to return to their laboratories of origin; grants for high-level  scientists to spend time  in those 
regions; facilities  for  networks  linking  less-favoured  regions and more prosperous regions; the  selection 
of  applications  for  access  to  major  installations  taking  account  of  the  impact  on  the  scientific  and 
technical  potential  of  less-favoured  regions;  encouragement  for  less-favoured  regions  to  participate  in 
Euroconferences  and  regular  assessment  of the  progress  of the  programme  in  the  field  of  cohesion  (a 
working party responsible for monitoring was set up to that end in 1995). 

6.  The Structural  Funds and trans-European  networks 

Generally  speaking, the  Structural  Funds continue to devote a large part of their budget to financing  the 
series  of  trans-European  networks9.  With  the  establishment  of  a  "progress  chart"  for  monitoring 
financial  assistance  from  the  various  Community  instruments  and  a  procedure  for  multiannual 
programming for the TENs for transport, better coordination  and cohesion  could  be established  between 
the various  instruments. More specifically,  the salient fact  in  1995 as regards the  implementation  ofthe 
TENs was the adoption ofthe  financial  Regulation10, which  lays down the conditions and procedures  for 
the grant of Community  financial  assistance to projects of common  interest within the framework  ofthe 
TENs  for  transport,  telecommunications  and  energy.  That  Regulation  provides  for  a  budget  of  ECU 
2 345 million for the period  1995-99. 

Trans-European  transport  networks 

The  development  of trans-European  transport  networks, which  should  make  up for  some  shortcomings 
in  outlying  regions  in  terms  of  infrastructures  and  connections  with  the  central  regions  of  the 
Community,  is bound  up closely with the common transport policy11. The Community's  contribution  in 
this area takes the form  of guidelines to help to achieve two fundamental  objectives,  namely the  internal 
market  and  economic  and  social  cohesion.  The main  purpose  ofthe  networks  is to  link  isolated,  island 
and  peripheral  regions  with  the centre ofthe  Community.  In  accordance  with  the  Treaty  provisions  on 
the  subject  (Articles  129b,  129c  and  129d),  the  guidelines  define  the  objectives,  priorities  and  broad 
lines of measures  envisaged.  They are also to identify  projects  of common  interest.  All  these  proposals 
are  included  in the Community  guidelines  for the development  ofthe  trans-European transport  network 

8 See Chapter l.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
9 See 1994 Annual Report. 
10 Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995. 
"This  is set out  in the  Commission  communication  "The future  development  ofthe  common  transport  policy" 
(COM(92)  494).  Its  chief  points  are  the  trans-European  network  policy  and  the  need  to  take  account  of 
environmental protection in transport policy. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

217 

to which  Parliament  gave a second  reading  in  December  1995. These  consider  multimodal  transport  as 
one  of the  solutions  to  be adopted  to  strengthen  environmental  protection  and  also  identify  the  various 
components ofthe  trans-European transport networks: 

• 

• 

the road network (75 000 km): 20 000 km of road is to be built or improved  in the next ten years and 
around 40%> ofthe  work will be carried out in outlying regions; 
the railway network  (73 000 km by the year 2010), where the objective  is to eliminate bottlenecks in 
the  central  regions  and  improve  the  quality  of  the  network  in  peripheral  regions  (plant  and 
equipment, electrification,  new access lines, etc.); 

•  ports, which are vital for the outlying Member States, as is the information  and management  network 
for  shipping,  the  future  development  of  which  (improved  safety  and  efficiency  plus  greater 
environmental  protection  in ecologically sensitive areas) directly concerns outlying countries; 
the airport network, which acts more specifically  as a gateway, in particular  in outlying areas, and the 
progressive  introduction  of  an  air  traffic  management  network,  the  current  lack  of  which  is  a  real 
handicap in certain outlying areas. 

• 

The Community  provides  financial  assistance through  the  financial  Regulation  mentioned  above.  Such 
assistance  involves  part-financing  feasibility  studies, loan guarantees  and  interest-rate  subsidies  and,  in 
duly justified  cases,  direct  grants  for  investment  to  supplement  resources  committed  by  the  Member 
States.  The  financial  perspective  approved  includes  ECU  1.8  billion  to  finance  transport  projects,  in 
particular the  14 projects given priority at the Essen European Council12. ECU 240 million was allocated 
in  1995. To optimize the effectiveness  of Community assistance, the Commission  proposed an  indicative 
multiannual  programme  for  1996-99.  The  budget  for  the  TENs  for  transport  supplements  financing 
under  the  Structural  Funds  (in  particular  under  the CSFs), which  funds  some  sections  ofthe  TENs  for 
transport (in  Spain,  Ireland  and Italy), and the Cohesion  Fund, which  also funds  sections of TENs  in the 
eligible  Member  States. These  measures  are moulded  into a coherent  whole through  inter-departmental 
consultation  procedures  within  the  Commission.  The  ERDF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  contribute  very 
substantially  to the  implementation  of  projects  of common  interest  within  the  trans-European  transport 
networks,  thereby  helping  to  make  up  for  shortcomings  in  infrastructure,  which  constitute  one  of  the 
barriers  to the  free  movement  of  persons  and  goods  towards  or  from  the  outlying  regions.  The  ERDF 
also  part-finances  work  covering  access  to  the  TENs.  By  their  efforts  to  support  projects  relating  to 
various  modes of transport, the two Funds are one ofthe  Community's  main  instruments  for  developing 
the  trans-European  network  and  achieving  its  objective,  namely  lasting  mobility  in  line  with  the 
Community policy on the environment. 

Trans-European  energy  networks 

The  guidelines  on  the  TEN  for  gas  and  electricity  were  given  a  second  reading  by  Parliament  on  26 
October  1995, as  were  the  specific  measures  relating to the  TENs  for  energy.  Through  the  CSFs/SPDs 
and  also  INTERREG  II, the  Structural  Funds  contribute  substantially  to  the  development  ofthe  trans-
European  energy  networks.  In  1995  the  Commission  granted  a  substantial  contribution  under 
INTERREG  (REGEN)  for  the  development  of  gas  networks  in  Greece  and  the  Iberian  peninsula13. 
These  projects  form  part  of  the  ten  energy  projects  given  priority  by  the  Essen  European  Council  in 
December  1994. Furthermore,  one ofthe  fundamental  objectives  ofthe  policy  on  the  TENs  for  energy 
(Article  129b ofthe  Treaty)  is to contribute towards  economic  and  social  cohesion  and  in  particular  to 
linking  the  outlying  regions  with  the  central  regions  ofthe  Community.  To  implement  that  policy,  in 
1995 the  Commission  granted  ECU  12.2 million  from  the  budget  heading  for  trans-European  networks 
to  part-finance  studies  on  energy  networks,  including  ECU  6.5  million  (53%)  for  projects  in  regions 
whose development  is lagging behind. 

12 See 1994 Annual Report. 
13 See Chapter I.B.I. Community initiatives. 

218 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Trans-European  telecommunications  networks 

Lastly,  in the telecommunications field, the guidelines for the ISDN TENs were adopted  on  19 October 
1995 and set out a general framework  for the financing of Community measures relating to the ISDN. 

7.  The  Structural  Funds and the transparency  of public contracts 

Observance  of  the  Community  rules  on  the  award  of  public  contracts  is  one  of  the  requirements 
explicitly  mentioned 
in  Article  7  of  the  Framework  Regulation  on  the  Structural  Funds.  The 
Commission  monitors  compliance  with  the  provisions  applicable  on  the  subject  by  two  means,  firstly 
when  part-financing  applications  are  made  and  secondly  when  it  acts to  oversee  the  Funds  and  verify 
compliance  with  those  provisions.  In  the  former  case,  and  in  particular  by  virtue  of  the  principle  of 
partnership  and  programming,  observance  ofthe  provisions  applicable  to  public  procurement  (Treaty 
and  directives)  is verified  beforehand  solely  in  respect  of  major  projects  of  a value  in  excess  of  ECU 
25 million. During the implementation  ofthe  programmes, the Commission  may verify  compliance with 
the  rules  on  public contracts  through  the  Monitoring  Committees.  However,  given  the  large number  of 
projects  concerned,  the Commission's  checks are not comprehensive.  It is the task first and  foremost  of 
the  authorities  responsible  in the  Member  States  systematically  to verify  compliance  with  the  rules  on 
public  procurement  when  public  contracts  are  awarded  in  connection  with  the  implementation  of 
programmes. During each on-the-spot  inspection visit14, compliance with the rules on public contracts is 
one ofthe  points verified  systematically.  Furthermore, when  disputes  arising  from  infringements  ofthe 
rules  on  public  procurement  are  investigated,  the  Commission  takes  action  where  Community  part-
financing  is concerned.  Thus  in  1995  some  major  cases  of  dispute  showed  that  Community  financing 
was  involved. 

Despite  these  various  sources  of  information,  chance  still  remains  a  significant  factor  and  the  risks  of 
discrimination  are  high.  The  way  the  system  works,  by  part-financing  programmes  and  not  projects, 
implies that verification  of compliance with the rules on public procurement  is essentially the task  ofthe 
national  authorities  responsible  for 
implementing  the  programmes  and  selecting  the  projects. 
Nonetheless the Commission  is giving thought to improving the situation. This  involves ensuring  firstly 
that national  legislation to implement Community directives is properly adopted. Furthermore, a solution 
which  should  be considered  and discussed  in partnership with the Member  States could  entail  issuing a 
certificate  of compliance  with  the rules  on public procurement  to the awarding  authorities,  setting  up a 
body to verify  observance ofthe  provisions applicable on the subject and increasing the responsibility  of 
the authority awarding contracts part-financed  by the Community. It would  be based  on subsidiarity  and 
partnership.  At all  events  further  progress  must  be  made  to  improve the  system  of  controls  so that  the 
situation  regarding  public contracts  is clearer and there are controls which  lay more stress on  prevention 
and  less on penalization  after the event. 

8.  The  Structural  Funds  and  competition  policy 

Under Articles 92 and 93 ofthe  Treaty, the Commission  keeps under review public aid to firms in so far 
as it distorts competition  and affects  trade between  Member  States. Among  its criteria  for  assessing  aid, 
the Commission  gives prominence to economic and social cohesion, as the general texts adopted  in  1995 
show.  Thus  the  Guidelines  on  aid  to  employment15  state  that  the  Commission  will  be  favourably 
disposed  towards aid to create new jobs  in less-favoured  regions. Similarly, the Community  Framework 
for  State  aid  for  research  and  development16  provides  for  higher  rates  where  subsidized  projects  are 
carried  out  in  an  assisted  region.  Conversely,  it  is  important  for  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  its 

14 See Chapter II.B. Checks and financial management. 
,5OJNoC334,  12.12.1995. 
16OJNoC45,  17.2.1996. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

219 

structural  policy  is consistent with competition  policy as aid to firms accounts for a considerable  part of 
structural  intervention.  To  ensure  such  consistency,  the  Commission  examines  aid  measures  set  out  in 
programming  documents  and  verifies  in particular  that  national  payments  to Community  part-financed 
projects fall  within the framework  of schemes approved  by the Commission  in accordance with  Articles 
92 and 93 ofthe  Treaty. 

In  1995, the efforts  begun  in  199417 to  improve consistency  between  competition  policy  and  structural 
policy  continued.  Firstly,  the  revision  of  maps  of  regions  eligible  for  regional  aid  at  national  level  in 
Spain  and  Belgium  was  completed.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  such  maps  meet  the  timetable  for 
programming  of  the  various  Structural  Fund  Objectives,  they  improve  consistency  between  regions 
assisted  nationally  and  those  eligible  under  the  Structural  Funds.  Secondly,  the  list  of  schemes  part-
financed  by  the  Community  was  forwarded  to  the  Commission  by  the  three  new  Member  States 
(Austria, Finland  and  Sweden). Some ofthose  schemes were accepted  as such as they had been  adopted 
in  1994  under  the  Agreement  on  the  European  Economic  Area.  Others,  which  had  been  implemented 
before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  EEA  Agreement,  were  adjusted  in  accordance  with  the  Community 
rules on competition.  The maps relating to regional aid  in the new Member  States were thus adopted  in 
1995. The fact  that there  remain  some areas eligible  under Objectives  1, 2, 5(b) and  6 but  not  included 
by  a  Member  State  in  its  regional  aid  map  is  not  incompatible  with  part-financing  by  the  Structural 
Funds  of  schemes  for  aid  to  firms.  The  aid  schemes  which  are  authorized  in  such  eligible  areas  must 
comply  with  the  provisions  on  aid  to  SMEs  or  the  de  minimis  aid  rules,  or  else  should  fall  under 
horizontal  aid  schemes  for  the  environment  or  aid  for  research  and  development.  Lastly,  better 
coordination  of decision-making  procedures  covering, on the one hand, the granting  of assistance  from 
the  Structural  Funds and, on the other hand,  State aids continues to bear fruit  in so far  as it has  enabled 
decisions on the granting of Structural Fund assistance to be approved more quickly. 

9.  Structural  policy and education  and training 

1995  was  the  first  year  ofthe  new  generation  of  Community  action  programmes  in  the  field  of 

education  and  vocational  training.  These  new  action  programmes,  namely  SOCRATES^  and 
LEONARDO  DA VINCI19  have been  adopted  by the Council  on the basis of Articles  126 and  127 of 
the  Treaty  on  European  Union.  Both  programmes  call  for  a  consistent  or  complementary 
implementation  with  other  Community  programmes  and  initiatives. In addition,  Art.  8 ofthe  Council 
Decision  establishing  LEONARDO  DA  VINCI  stipulates  that  "in  the  context  of  their  responsibility 
for  implementing  Community  support  frameworks,  the  Member  States  shall  be  free  to  establish 
consistency between  this programme and the Structural  Funds". 

This  emphasis  on  consistency  and  complementarity  is  evident  against  the  background  of  the 
development  after  the  European  Council  in  Essen,  that  put  education  and  training  on  the  top  of  the 
political  agenda  as  keys  to  employment  and  competitiveness.  It  is  necessary  that  the  results  of 
innovative  education  and  training  projects  are  transferred  into  mainstream  funding  ofthe  Structural 
Funds. 

Practical  steps has been  taken to ensure complementarity  between  the Community  Initiatives  ADAPT 
and  EMPLOYMENT  and the LEONARDO  DA VINCI  programme. Commission  services  responsible 
in  March  1995  which 
for  these  programmes  issued  a  framework  paper  on  complementarity 
demonstrated  the  scope  for  measures  to be taken.  These  ineasures  aimed  to  avoid  double  funding  on 

17 See 1994 Annual Report. 
18 Decision  819/95/EC  ofthe  European  Parliament  and  ofthe  Council  of  14  March  1995  establishing  the 

Community action programme "Socrates". 

19 Council  Decision  94/819/EC of 6 December 1994 establishing  an action  programme  for  the  implementation 

of a European Community vocational training policy. 

220 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

the  on  hand  and  to  benefit  from  a complementary  implementation  of both  sets  of  programmes  on  the 
other  hand. 

^ a aa 

ÇHAFTERffl 

INTER-INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE, REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP, 

DIALOGUE WITH THE SOCIAL PARTNERS 

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

223 

A. 

INTER-INSTITUTIONAL  DIALOGUE 

Implementation  of  the  Structural  Funds  entails  a  constant  and  wide-ranging  dialogue  between  the 
Commission  and  the  other  Community  institutions.  Both  the  number  of  partners  involved  and  the 
subjects  under  discussion  are  constantly  growing.  The  form  of these  discussions  ranges  from  the  now 
systematic  exchange  of  information  between  the  Commission,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of the  Regions  to the adoption  of official  texts  addressed  to 
the other institutions  in the form  of communications from  the Commission  and opinions and  resolutions 
from  the other  institutions. These exchanges take the fonn  principally of meetings, whether formal  (e.g. 
meetings of Parliament  or its Committees, ministerial  meetings) or informal  (seminars  or joint  working 
parties) at political or technical  level (inter-departmental or within  the Structural  Funds committees). 

These  varied  contacts  naturally  cover  a very  wide  range  of  subjects.  During  1995,  these  included  the 
main topics which  affected  the Structural  Funds and economic and  social  cohesion  during the year: the 
adoption ofthe  programmes for the new Member States and the new PEACE Initiative for  reconciliation 
and peace  in Northern  Ireland, preparation  ofthe  Commission  Decision  on the allocation  ofthe  reserve 
for the Community  Initiatives and the consultations which that entailed, preparation  of the second  phase 
of programmes  under  Objective  2 for  1997-99 and responses to the Fifth  Periodic  Report  on the  Social 
and  Economic  Situation  and  Development  of  the  Regions  in  the  Community,  which  was  adopted  in 
1994.  They  also  embraced  topics  relating  to  the  implementation  ofthe  Structural  Funds  such  as  their 
effectiveness  and  assessment,  progress  in  implementing  operational  programmes  and  the  finance  they 
involve  and  the  inclusion  of the  economic  and  social  partners. Other  topics  discussed  include  subjects 
relating  to  the  context  of  the  Structural  Funds  such  as  their  links  with  the  development  of  a  spatial 
planning  policy  on  a  European  scale  or  the  contribution  of  the  Structural  Funds  to  promoting  job-
creation. 

1.  Dialogue with the European Parliament and the Economic and Social  Committee 

1.1.  The European  Parliament 

The Commission  and Parliament maintained  a continuous and fruitful  dialogue during  1995. Pursuant to 
the  code  of  conduct  signed  by  the  two  bodies  in  July  1993, all  programming  documents  concerning 
structural  measures  are sent to Parliament. The dialogue between  the Commission  and  Parliament  takes 
the  fonn  of  the  adoption  of  resolutions  and  opinions  on  structural  policies  proposed  by  Parliament's 
specialist  committees  and  regular  attendance  by  Commission  representatives  at  meetings  of  those 
committees. 

During the year, Parliament issued opinions on a number of operations by the Structural  Funds:  financial 
assistance  to  Portugal  for  a  specific  programme  to  modernize  the  textiles  and  clothing  industry,1  the 
special  programme  of  aid  for  peace  and  reconciliation  in  Northern  Ireland  (PEACE  Initiative)2,  the 
Commission's  proposal  on  emergency  Community  aid  for  the reconstruction  ofthe  areas  devastated  by 
the hurricane which  hit Madeira  in October  1993 and the proposal  for a Decision  on the reduced  rate of 
excise duties on traditional  rum produced  in the overseas departments. 

Parliament also issued an opinion on the Fifth  Periodic Report on the Social and Economic  Situation and 
Development  of  the  Regions  in  the  Community.  It  noted  that,  despite  a  general  improvement  in  the 
situation  in the  regions  ofthe  Community,  economic  and  social  disparities  were  still  considerable  and 
asked for the factors  which  have a negative  impact and help increase imbalances to be  identified,  for  an 
assessment  to  be  made  of  structural  and  financial  assistance  and  for  further  measures  to  be  taken  and 

1 Originally adopted in 1993 as the Textiles and Clothing in Portugal Initiative and then transferred  to Heading 3  of 
the Financial Perspective (see 1994 Annual Report and Chapter I.B.I - Community Initiatives - of this Report). 

2 See Chapter I.B. 1  Community Initiatives. 

224 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

penalties introduced to prevent poor utilization of appropriations. It also asked for a study on the criteria 
for eligibility under the Structural Funds to ensure greater effectiveness  and for consideration  to be given 
to future  enlargement  ofthe  Union. Parliament also adopted a resolution  on  "Europe 2000+" in which  it 
asked the Inter-governmental  Conference  beginning in  1996 to incorporate  in the Union Treaty the basis 
of a Europe-wide  policy on spatial planning, including the adoption of common  guidelines to ensure the 
coherence  and  complementarity  of  the  various  Community  policies,  the  strengthening  of  the  trans-
European networks and a legal framework  to facilitate cross-border and inter-regional  cooperation. 

The  Commission  demonstrated  complete  willingness  to  keep  the  Committee  on  Regional  Policy 
informed  about  developments  in the  implementation  of the  structural  policies.  Mrs  Wulf-Mathies,  the 
Member  with  special  responsibility  for  regional  policy  and  cohesion,  presented  the  regional  aspects  of 
the  1995  work  programme  and  informed  members  of  Parliament  about  the  follow  up  to  the  informal 
ministerial  meeting  in Strasbourg on 30 and 31 March3 and the Commission's proposal on the allocation 
ofthe  reserve for the Community  Initiatives.4 In addition, she covered cross-border  cooperation  and the 
link between economic and social cohesion and economic and monetary union, a topic also dealt with by 
Mr  de  Silguy,  the  Member  with  special  responsibility  for  economic  and  monetary  matters.  Before  the 
end  of  the  year,  Mrs  Wulf-Mathies  presented  the  Commission's  work  programme  for  1996,  the 
guidelines  for  assistance  to Objective  2 areas for  1997-99 and the communication  on  "Cohesion  policy 
and  the  environment."5  The  Director-General  for  Regional  Policy  and  Cohesion  presented  the work  of 
the  cohesion  financial  instrument,  the  predecessor  to  the  Cohesion  Fund,  in  1993  and  1994  and  the 
communication  on the new regional programmes under Objectives  1  and 2 ofthe  Structural Funds. 

With more specific  reference to the ESF, the working party set up at the end of  1994 with members  from 
Parliament's Committee on Social Affairs  and the ESF continued  its work throughout  1995. This flexible 
structure  comprises  five  members  of  the  Committee  on  Social  Affairs  and  the  Director  and  Heads  of 
Division responsible for the ESF. On average, it met once a month during  1995 and dealt with  horizontal 
matters,  such  as  implementation  of  the  budget,  implementation  of  the  OPs,  assessment  and  the 
Community  Initiatives, and more specific topics, such as innovative ineasures under Article 6 ofthe  ESF 
Regulation,  the  information  society,  the  report  of  the  Court  of  Auditors,  etc.  The  working  party  also 
went to Italy to take an on-the-spot  look at measures part-financed  by the ESF. 

Turning  to  agriculture  and  rural  development,  as  part  ofthe  preparation  of  an  opinion  on  the  Fifth 
Annual  Report  on  the  Structural  Funds  (1993),  a  discussion  was  held  on  implementation  of  a  rural 
development  policy  in  the  European  Union  under  the  various  Objectives  concerned  (1, 5(a)  and  5(b)) 
and  the  Leader  Community  Initiative.  Topics  included  the  maintenance  of  jobs  in  rural  areas,  the 
diversification  of economic  activity  both  in agriculture  and  in other  sectors, the  problems  of  protecting 
the  countryside  and  the  defence  of  the  environment  as  well  as  more  administrative  matters  such  as 
payment  channels  and  the participation  ofthe  economic  and  social  partners. Opinions  were  also  issued 
on  the  definition  in  the  three  new  Member  States  of  mountain  and  less-favoured  agricultural  areas 
pursuant to Council  Directive  75/268/EEC  of 28 April  1975 on  mountain  and  hill  farming  and  farming 
in certain  less-favoured  areas. Opinions were issued on the implementation  ofthe  Community  Initiatives 
in  the  three  new  Member  States  and  in  particular  on  the  allocation  of  appropriations  between  the 
Initiatives and the allocation  ofthe  reserve for the twelve original Member States. 

Dialogue  between  the  Commission  and  Parliament's  Committee  on  Fisheries  was  also  continuous. 
Parliament  had  requested  socio-economic  measures  for  fishermen  and  gave  a  very  warm  welcome  to 
their  adoption  during  the  year.6  Mrs  Bonino,  the  Member  with  special  responsibility  for  Fisheries, 
explained  the  Commission's  point  of view  on  this  matter  to  Parliament's  September  1995  part-session. 
Dialogue  between  the  Commission  and  Parliament's  Committee  on  Fisheries  continued  in  1995  with 

3 See Chapter III.A.3 Informal meetings ofthe ministers responsible for regional policies and spatial planning. 
4 See Chapter I.B.I  Community Initiatives. 
5 See Chapter I.A.I .2 Greater integration ofthe "environment" factor. 
6 See Chapter I.A.5.2. Objective 5(a) for Fisheries. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

225 

subject-based  seminars,  one  of  which  was  devoted  to  structural  policy  in  the  sector  (Santiago  de 
Compostela, 2-3 October  1995). 

1.2.  The Economic and Social  Committee 

The Commission  follows the work ofthe  Economic and Social Committee attentively  and makes policy 
and technical  contributions  at all  levels. In  1995 contacts continued  and the Commission  considered  all 
the opinions  issued  by the Committee. These  included three opinions on Commission  reports: the  Fifth 
Report on the Implementation ofthe  Structural Funds (1993), the Fifth  Periodic Report on the Social and 
Economic  Situation  and  Development  ofthe  Regions  in the Community  and  the  Annual  Report  on  the 
cohesion  financial  instrument  (1993-94).  In  each  case, the  Commission  took  note  ofthe  Committee's 
remarks and suggestions  and gave its reactions. The Committee also adopted  an opinion  on the  PEACE 
Initiative. 

The Committee chose to deliver an own-initiative opinion  on  "the future  of cohesion"  with  reference  to 
further  enlargement.  On  local  development  initiatives,  it  stressed  their  advantages  from  the  economic, 
spatial and social points of view. In the case of planning, it issued an opinion on  "Europe 2000+" and on 
"Spatial  planning  and  inter-regional  cooperation  in  the  Mediterranean  area"  with  a  view  to  greater 
economic  and  social  cohesion.  The  Committee  broadly  shared  the  points  of  view  expressed  by  the 
Commission  in  "Europe  2000+"  and  stressed  the  need  for  a  Community  view  on  spatial  planning.  It 
therefore  supported  vigorously  the  development  of  cross-border  cooperation  under  the  revised 
INTERREG  II  Initiative7  and  the  work  of  the  Committee  on  Spatial  Development  in  drawing  up  the 
European  Spatial  Development  Perspective  (ESDP).  The  Committee  also  expressed  the  desire  to  see 
planning policy brought within the scope ofthe  Union Treaty. 

At  the  same  time,  the  dialogue  on  the  ESF  continued  in  1995  with  Commission  representatives 
contributing to the work ofthe  Committee on aspects ofthe  labour market and the  implementation  ofthe 
Structural  Funds. This was also true of fisheries, where the Committee unanimously  adopted two  further 
opinions8 on two amendments to the FIFG Regulation (changing the unit of tonnage and  socio-economic 
ineasures for sea fishermen). 

2.  Relations with  the Committee ofthe  Regions 

During  1995 the Commission  laid the basis for an intensive dialogue with the Committee ofthe  Regions 
by  proposing  wide-ranging  cooperation  based  on  an  annual  programme  of  consultations  extending 
beyond  the  five  areas  laid  down  in  the  Treaty  and  concerning  both  proposals  for  legislation  and  the 
preliminary  consultation  process.  When  she addressed  the Committee's  September  meeting,  Mrs  Wulf-
Mathies  expressed  her  views  on  the  information  society  as  a means  of  increasing  cohesion  within  the 
Community  and  stressed  the  role  to  be  played  by  the  Member  States  and  local  authorities  to  ensure 
equitable participation  in all the regions. 

The Committee also expressed  its views on  a number of current topics which  influence  regional  policy 
and cohesion directly or indirectly. These included the PEACE Initiative, urban development,  innovative 
measures under Article  10 ofthe  ERDF Regulation and the Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund (1994). 
In  its own-initiative  "Opinion  on the role of regional  and  local  authorities  in the partnership  principle of 
the  structural  funds,"  the  Committee  noted  that  progress  had  been  made  in  this  field  but  asked  for  the 
local  authorities to be  more closely  associated  with the  implementation  of structural  measures.  It  asked 

7 See Chapter I.B.I  Community Initiatives. 
8 See Chapter I.A.5.2. Objective 5(a) for Fisheries. 

226 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

for Article 4 ofthe  Structural  Funds Regulation  to be amended  so that regional  and  local authorities  are 
expressly included  in the partnership.9 

The  Committee  of  the  Regions  also  issued  a  reasoned  opinion  on  the  Commission's  "Europe  2000+" 
communication,  which  it  welcomed  warmly.  The  Committee  agreed  with  the  main  conclusions  and 
came out in favour  of a Community  policy on spatial planning, to be expressed first of all  in the ESDP. 
It confirmed  the proposal  it had  already  made  in its opinion  on the revision  of the  Treaty  on  European 
Union, that  spatial  planning,  like  inter-regional,  cross-border  and  trans-national  cooperation,  should  be 
included  in the treaty. 

Two ofthe  opinions  directly  concerned  rural  society. One, on the development  of  rural  tourism,  called 
for  "greater consistency  in Community  intervention and a harmonization  ofthe  different  Member States' 
policies." The second  concerned  the European  Charter  on Mountain  Areas drawn  up by the Council  of 
Europe's Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, to which the Committee  recommended 
that  the  European  Union  and  the  Member  States  should  accede.  Other  opinions,  particularly  those  on 
"Europe 2000+" and on  "Measures to combat the socio-economic and environmental  impact of drought 
in southern Europe" dealt with the problem ofthe  countryside. 

3. 

Informal  meetings ofthe  ministers responsible for regional  policies and spatial  planning 

The ministers  responsible  for  regional  policy and spatial  planning held  two  informal  meetings  in  1995, 
one in Strasbourg on 30 and 31 March under the French Presidency and one  in Madrid  on 30 November 
and  1  December under the Spanish  Presidency. 

The  Strasbourg  meeting  considered  the  implementation  of  regional  policies  between  1994  and  1999, 
specifically  the results  of work  in  1994 on  drawing  up the programmes  under  Objectives  1, 2 and  5(b) 
and the conditions required for the successful  implementation  of assistance from  the Structural  Funds in 
the years to come. Agreement  was reached  on a number of points: the priority to be given to  promoting 
lasting jobs, which should  involve all the partners and sectors concerned, the general  need to concentrate 
assistance on a number of major  priorities which took full  account ofthe  Union's  policy guidelines, and 
the  over-riding  need  to  ensure  the  effectiveness  of  Structural  Fund  expenditure,  whether  through 
rigorous  monitoring,  the  most  exhaustive  possible  independent  assessment  or  more  rigorous  financial 
controls. Greater effectiveness  ofthe  Structural  Funds was a matter for both the Member  States and  the 
Commission. It was agreed  at Strasbourg to hold a further  meeting to consider  how the  Structural  Funds 
could  have  a greater  impact  on  employment.  Further  consideration  would  also  be  given  to  improving 
and strengthening the partnership so as to give still greater priority to employment. 

At their meeting on 30 November and  1 December in Madrid, the Ministers discussed  preparation  ofthe 
new Objective  2 programmes  for  1997-99.10  Most ofthe  ministers  favoured  an  approach  constituting a 
continuation ofthe first phase (1994-96). However, they acknowledged  that efforts  needed to be made to 
improve the effectiveness  ofthe  Structural  Funds by concentrating  resources on areas where the need  is 
greatest.  The  ministers  and  the  Commission  also agreed  that  measures  part-financed  by  the  Structural 
Funds  should  make  a  significant  contribution  to  promoting  employment  in  Objective  2  areas.  They 
considered  that the new Objective  2 programmes should cover research  and development, the  protection 
ofthe  environment  and  the  promotion  of  equal  opportunities  while  also  taking  account  ofthe  specific 
situations and needs of each area. 

9  See Chapter III. B Regional partnership. 
10 Under Article 9 ofthe  Structural  Funds Framework Regulation, Objective 2 is programmed  in two consecutive 
three-year phases (1994-96 and  1997-99). At the end ofthe  first  phase, the Commission,  in close consultation 
with the Member States, will propose a revised list ofthe eligible areas. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

227 

These  meetings  continued  the  consideration  of  spatial  planning  matters  begun  in  earlier  years.11  They 
concentrated  on three  major  and  related  aspects: preparation  of the  ESDP, the  launch  of  trans-national 
cooperation  projects  concerned with planning and the scope which a European  planning strategy  should 
have. Trend scenarios for Europe were presented at the Strasbourg meeting comprising maps setting out 
likely future  developments  if policies remained unchanged. Further consideration  was given to this point 
at Madrid. The initial policy options suggested by the Member States were  presented  as a prelude to the 
application on their territories ofthe  principles agreed at the Leipzig meeting  in  1994. The minsters also 
agreed to consider a first official  draft ofthe  ESDP in 1997. 

On  the  question  of  cross-border  cooperation  on  planning  the  minsters  agreed  at  both  meetings  on  the 
importance  they  attached  to  the  new  strand  C  of  the  INTERREG  II  Initiative.12  Mrs  Wulf-Mathies 
presented  two  documents  setting  out  considerations  on  the  future  of  spatial  planning  policy  at 
Community  level,  one  based  on  the  policy  and  institutional  perspectives  for  the  planning  of  the 
European territory and the other on the European dimension of planning. 

4.  Committee  opinions 

The five Committees  which assist the Commission  in implementing the Structural  Funds13 continued  to 
have a heavy work  load  in  1995. This took two main  forms:  the adoption  of programming  for  the  new 
Member States and the implementation  ofthe  Structural Funds. 

The  Advisory  Committee  on  the  Development  and  Conversion  of  Regions  met  three  times,  was 
consulted  by  written  procedure  twice  and  issued  a  total  of  16  opinions,  three  of  them  by  written 
procedure and all unanimously favourable. They concerned the programmes for the new Member States, 
firstly,  the  list of areas  eligible  under  Objective  2 and then the  SPDs as such  for  Objectives  1, 2 and  6. 
As regards the implementation  ofthe  Structural  Funds, the Commission  informed  the  Committee  of  its 
guidelines for  launching activities under Article  10 ofthe  ERDF Regulation,14  following  which  a guide 
to  innovative  measures  was  distributed  to  the  members  of  the  Committee.  European  planning 
perspectives were discussed  with particular  reference  to the conclusions ofthe  informal  meetings  ofthe 
ministers responsible15. There were useful  discussions on various matters relating to the  implementation 
of  principles  and  programmes  such  as  the  assessment  of  regional  policies,  the  verification  of 
additionality, internal Commission  procedures for the approval of programmes, financial irregularities in 
the  management  of the  Structural  Funds  and  the  implementation  of the  provisions  on  information  and 
publicity. These discussions enabled  the Commission  and the Member  States to make  each  other  aware 
of their aims and the challenges they faced  and so to identify  better the points requiring  improvement  if 
assistance, particularly from  the ERDF, was to be implemented  effectively. 

The  ESF  Committee  was  also  very  busy  during  1995.  Since  its  members'  three-year  term  of  office 
expired,  its composition  was renewed  in October by a Council  Decision. It held five meetings at which, 
in accordance with the  rules, it issued  opinions on the draft  Commission  Decisions  on the  CSFs/SPDs, 
mainly for the new Member  States. Like the Advisory Committee  on the Development  and  Conversion 
of Regions, the ESF Committee  considered  in partnership  matters of a horizontal  nature  relating  to the 
implementation  of  the  Structural  Funds,  including  budgetary  implementation,  irregularities  notified  by 
the Member States and the identification  of final beneficiaries.  Other, more forward-looking,  discussions 
covered  the  PEACE. Community  Initiative,  progress  on  the  Community  Initiatives,  the  guidelines  for 
employment  aid  and  the  implementation  of  social  dialogue  measures  and  innovative  measures  under 

1 ] See in particular the Corfu and Leipzig meetings in 1994 referred to in the 6th Annual Report (1994). 
12 See Chapter I.B.I  Community Initiatives. 
13 Pursuant to Article 17 ofthe Framework Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as amended). 
14 See Chapter I.B.2 Innovative measures and technical assistance. 
15 See paragraph 3 above. 

228 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Article 6 ofthe  ESF Regulation. The Committee also branched out in a new direction  when  it considered 
drawing up a work programme for  1996. In order to encourage more active participation  by its members, 
it began to discuss setting up an ad hoc working party to contribute to work arising from  the conclusions 
ofthe  Essen European Council and action plans for employment. 

The  Committee  on  Agricultural  Structures  and  Rural  Development  (STAR  Committee)  also  met 
frequently  in  1995  and  considered  all  the  structural  measures  in  the  sector.  It  issued  180  favourable 
opinions. The Committee was closely associated with work on the new phase of Objective  5(b) and each 
meeting  included  a  specific  agenda  item  to  report  progress  on  the  SPDs  under  that  Objective.  The 
Committee also issued unanimously  favourable  opinions on all the summary programme documents  for 
Objective  5(b)  submitted  in  1995  and  on  the  draft  decisions  approving  them.  It  issued  many  other 
opinions  on  measures  concerning  Objective  5(a) including the new  programmes  on  the  processing  and 
marketing of agricultural products and measures to accompany the reform  ofthe  CAP (particularly those 
with reference to the environment). 

The Standing Management  Committee on Fisheries Structures met six times  in  1995 and considered  all 
the structural ineasures  in the sector. It issued a total of six favourable  opinions, five unanimously  on the 
SPDs  for  Objective  5(a)  fisheries  and  Objective  6  in  the  new  Member  States  and  one  on  the  new 
regulation on the implementation  of assistance from  the FIFG.16 

The  Management  Committee  for  Community  Initiatives  met  at  the  end  of  1995  to  hold  an  initial 
discussion  on  the  allocation  of  the  reserve  for  the  Community  Initiatives  and  amendments  to  the 
guidelines  for  INTERREG  II,  URBAN,  EMPLOYMENT  and  ADAPT.  This  was  a  discussion  for 
guidance  prior  to  Parliament  issuing  its opinion  early  in  1996, after  which  the  Committee  adopted  its 
formal  opinion.  The  meeting  provided  an  opportunity  for  the  Commission  to  set  out  the  priorities  on 
which  it had  based  its proposal  to allocate  appropriations  from  the reserve17 and  for  the  Member  States 
to give their reactions, which the Commission  undertook to take  into account as far  as possible. At that 
meeting,  the  Commission  explained  to  the  Member  States  its  guidelines  for  the  part-financing  of 
national networks under LEADER II. 

16 Commission  Regulation  (EC) No  1796/95 of 25 July  1995, OJ No L 174, 26.7.1995. 
17 See Chapter  I.B.I. Community  Initiatives. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

229 

B.  REGIONAL  PARTNERSHIP 

1.  Overview 

With  the  actual  physical  commencement  ofthe  programmes  in  1995, the  monitoring  of  assistance  in 
partnership  at  regional  level  entered  its  active  phase  (in  the  case  of  Objective  5(b),  for  example,  86 
meetings of regional Monitoring Committees were held in  1995). It was accordingly  felt  appropriate  to 
report  here  how  the  partnership  and  programme  monitoring  are  organized  at  regional  level.  The 
information  on  the  preparation  of  the  new  programmes  presented  in  the  previous  Annual  Report 
illustrates how greatly the administrative structures ofthe  regions and States ofthe  European  Union and 
their  operation  differ  from  one  to  another.  The  effective  operation  of  the  regional  partnership  in  the 
context  of the  Structural  Funds  is  influenced  of course by this  institutional  and  political  diversity.  The 
information  currently available on the establishment of bodies to manage and monitor assistance  testifies 
first and foremost to a broad level of participation by the regional authorities. This is an improvement on 
the  previous  programming  period.  The  situation  is  more  complex  as  regards  the  other  regional, 
especially  local,  partners,  depending  on  their  institutional  and  financial  responsibilities.  However,  in 
some cases, these bodies bring together or represent local authorities involved in monitoring assistance. 

Participation  of  the  environmental  authorities: The review  of  the  Structural  Funds  Regulation  in 
1993  made  participation  by  the  environmental  authorities  in  preparing  and  implementing  the 
programmes  compulsory.  Their  role  is  particularly  important  in  ensuring  compliance  with  the 
Community  rules  on  the  environment. In particular,  the rules governing  their  involvement  must  be 
laid down  in  the programming  documents.  The Commission communication  on  "Cohesion  Policy 
and  the  Environment"^  also  stressed  the  importance  of  the  environmental  authorities  when 
implementing  structural  assistance.  This  stems  in  particular  from  the  provisions  making  the 
environmental  authorities  members  of  the  Monitoring  Committees  for  various  programmes, 
especially where they include measures with an environmental impact. 

In the implementation  of structural  assistance, the Monitoring Committees  are the principal  mechanism 
for  conducting  the  partnership  at national,  regional  or even  subregional  level.  The  Committees,  which 
meet at least twice a year for  each form  of assistance (SPD, OP, global grant, etc), are functioning  well 
in  general  and  their  operating  procedure  allows  the  various  regional  and  local  partners  to  be  fully 
involved.  However,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  a  certain  amount  of  complexity  in  national  and 
Community  procedures  is one  ofthe  regulatory  constraints  under which  the partnership  has to  develop 
(various levels of co-operation, time limits, a multiplicity of sectors aided, etc). 

This complexity can sometimes discourage the full  and active participation  of all the partners concerned. 
The Commission  believes that the management ofthe  Structural  Funds can be simplified.  However, the 
requirement  to  use  the  Structural  Fund  appropriations  properly  warrants  procedures  that  ensure  both 
effectiveness  and  supervision.  A  large part ofthe  work  of these Committees  usually  involves  financial 
monitoring  and  following  the  physical  implementation  of  assistance.  The  general  analyses  of  the 
strategies, the results and the  impact ofthe  assistance  should-also be improved.  Moreover,  the  working 
procedures  of  the  Committees,  given  their  highlyoperational  task,  do  not  always  lend  themselves  to 
promoting  the  new  guidelines  or  suggested  new  departures  that  might  be  adopted  by  the  Community 
institutions  during  the  lifetime  of the  programmes  (for  example,  the  communications  on  employment, 
the environment, equal opportunities). 

The review ofthe  regional partnership2 and the opinion expressed on it by the Committee ofthe  Regions 
support  this  analysis  in the  main.  The  Committee  notes  in  particular  that  "with  a few  exceptions  local 
and  regional  authorities  are more  involved  at present than  in the  last  programme  period"  (point  17). It 

1 See Chapter I.A.I.2. Greater integration ofthe "environment" factor. 
2 Own-initiative Opinion No 234/95 of 20 July  1995 on the role of regional and local authorities  in the partnership 

principle ofthe Structural Funds. 

230 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

stresses that the partnership needs a "political will" to be in place beforehand  and  points to the  "benefits 
flowing  from  the close  involvement  ofthe  partners" (point 36). However,  it also feels  that the  rules on 
the Structural  Funds should be less complicated  (point 23). Ofthe  Committee's  proposals, the  following 
merit particular mention: 

• 

• 

• 

the  programming  documents  should  be jointly  signed  by  the  various  partners  concerned  (State, 
region,  Commission).  This  was  the  practice  formerly  with  the  Integrated  Mediterranean 
Programmes  and  is  obviously  of  particular  political  interest,  but  it  would  prove  rather  hard  to 
implement; 

the  "current partnership provisions  in the Structural  Funds Regulations are vague" and this needs to 
be  remedied.  This  interesting  proposal  may  not  be  immediately  applicable,  perhaps,  but  the 
Commission  recognizes  its cogency. Indeed, a certain  regulatory  lack of clarity  in the allocation  of 
responsibilities when  implementing assistance  is likely in some instances to harm  both  its visibility 
and its proper implementation on the ground; 

the  formal  inclusion  in  Article  4  of  Regulation  (EEC) No. 2052/88,  as  amended,  of  the  local  and 
regional authorities  "since they are the ones with the democratic legitimacy to represent the regional 
and local need and priorities."  Article 4 already mentions the "competent authorities and bodies  [...] 
designated by the Member State at national, regional, local or other level". 

While  sharing  this  concern  to  improve  the  operation  of  the  regional  partnership,  the  Commission  is 
aware ofthe  limits placed  on  it by considerations  of subsidiarity  and the  institutional,  legal  or financial 
responsibilities of each partner. 

2. 

Implementation  ofthe  regional  partnership  in the Member  States3 

Belgium:  Under  the  federal  structure  of  this  country,  programmes  are  managed,  implemented  and 
monitored  by  both  the  Walloon  and  Flemish  Regions.  The  Monitoring  Committees  meet  under  the 
presidency  ofthe  federal  Ministry  for  Foreign  Affairs.  The projects,  their  conformity  to  the  eligibility 
criteria  and  compliance  with  Community  rules  are  examined  by  the  technical  committees.  The 
Commission  can  be  present  and,  while  unable to vote,  it can  make technical  comments.  In  the  case  of 
Wallonia  alone, Commission  participation  in these technical  committees  is  laid  down  in the  provisions 
for  implementing  the  programmes.  A  preliminary  choice  of  projects  is  done  by  another  body,  the 
selection  committee,  on  which  the  Commission  is  not  represented.  The  technical  committees,  which 
meet  twice  a  year  before  the  meetings  of  the  Monitoring  Committees,  act  on  the  basis  of  this  initial 
selection.  Both  the  Flemish  and  Walloon  regions  are  represented  on  the  Objective  5(b)  fisheries 
Monitoring Committee. 

Denmark:  Like  Belgium,  Denmark  organizes  technical  committees  alongside  the  Monitoring 
Committees. The technical committees met seven times in  1995. The Commission can attend  - although 
it has not yet done so - but only as an observer. 

Germany:  For the  new  Lander and  Eastern  Berlin  (Objective  1), the CSF  is implemented  by  an  inter 
regional, multifund  Monitoring Committee, by horizontal monitoring sub-committees, and  in each  Land 
by  a  multifund  monitoring  sub-committee.  The  inter-regional,  multifund  Monitoring  Committee  met 
twice  in  1995  to  discuss  general  topics  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  CSF.  It  set  up  the 
sub-committees for each Land and adopted  guidelines on the technical  assistance measures. The Lander 
sub-committees  met  in  all  the  Lander  in  1995  and  in  June of  that  year  the  Commission  organized  an 
information  seminar  at which  certain  aspects of practical  and financial implementation  were  discussed, 
as were measures to ensure that Community policies were taken into account more  fully. 

3 It should be noted that in the case ofthe  fisheries sector under Objective 5(a), which is not regionalized, regional 

representatives are full members ofthe relevant Monitoring Committees in several Member States. 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

231 

Specific  arrangements  were  also  made  for  Objective  2.  Beside  the  Monitoring  Committee  at  federal 
level, which covers all the Lander and all the Funds, the Commission  proposed  awarding  responsibility 
for  programmes  receiving  more  than  ECU  40  million  in  Community  aid  to  sub-committees  in  each 
Land.  These  will  ensure  effective  regional  monitoring  of  these  programmes  and  are  in  line  with  the 
principle  of partnership. Negotiations  with  the national  authorities  on this  subject  were  still  ongoing  at 
the end of  1995. It should  be noted that the Objective  2 Monitoring Committee  and the  sub-committees 
(where  involved)  are  responsible  for  the Objective  2 programmes  and  for  those  under  the  Community 
Initiatives (except for the INTERREG programmes, for which specific  Monitoring  Committees were set 
up, given their particular aim). In the individual case of Berlin, a single sub-committee, which  met at the 
end  of  1995,  is  responsible  for  the  Objective  2  (Western  Berlin)  programmes  and  the  Objective  1 
(Eastern Berlin) programmes, including the Community Initiatives which concern  Berlin. 

Lastly,  the  responsibility  for  implementing  each  Objective  5(b)  programme  was  given  to  the  Lander. 
The Lander are represented  on both  Monitoring Committees  dealing with  fisheries  aid,  i.e. nine  Lander 
are represented on the Objective  5(a) Committee and six Lander plus Eastern Berlin  are on the  Objective 
1 committee. 

Spain:  Two  regional  Monitoring  Committee  meetings  took  place  in  each  region  in  1995  for  the 
Objective  1 programmes  and  one  meeting  in  each  for  the  Objective  2  and  5(b)  programmes.  The 
regional  authorities  took  part  in preparing  the CSF priorities  for  Objectives  1 and  2  and  in  drawing  up 
the regional OPs. The amount of Structural  Fund assistance allocated  to them  differs  depending on  their 
responsibilities,  the  Structural  Finds  involved  and the types  of ineasures  implemented.  A  more  limited 
share ofthe  Community  aid is also allocated to the local authorities, even though they were not  involved 
in preparing the CSFs. Thus, as regards assistance approved and/or planned  under Objective  1, measures 
for which the Autonomous Communities or the local authorities are responsible account for  respectively 
35% and  10% of total  ERDF assistance  in the CSF, percentages which reach  48% and  16% respectively 
in  the  case  of  Objective  2  assistance.  The  regional  authorities  are  also  represented  on  the  multifund 
regional  Monitoring  Committees  for Objectives  1  and 2. On the other hand, the  local  authorities  are not 
always  represented,  except  for  the  Objective  2  Basque  Country  programme  (the  three  Diputaciones 
F or ales sit on  it)  and  the  Balearic  Islands  programme  (three  members  represent  all  eleven  beneficiary 
municipalities)  and  on  the  Monitoring  Committees  for  the  Objective  1 "local  environment"  and  "local 
development" OPs. 

The desire to  involve the  local  authorities  in the implementation  ofthe  Objective  5(b) programmes  also 
resulted  in certain  regions  in the full  involvement of the* district councils  and mountain  and  hill  farming 
associations  in  the  programming  process.  Lastly,  where  fisheries  measures  are  concerned,  each 
Autonomous  Community  is  represented  either  on  the  Objective  5(a)  Monitoring  Committee  (six 
Communities)  or  on  the  Objective  1  Monitoring  Committee  for  the  fisheries  programme  (eleven 
Communities). 

France:  The  Monitoring  Committees  for  Objectives  1 and  2  are  chaired  by  the  regional  prefect  and 
include  representatives  of  the  local  authorities  (regional  Council,  general  Council,  municipality),  the 
national  departments  in the region  and the Commission.  All these Committees  (five  for  Objective  1, 19 
for  Objective  2) were established  and  met  in  1995.  Responsibility  for  implementing  the Objective  5(b) 
programmes  was  given  to  the  regional  representatives  of  the  State,  but  the  local  authorities  and  the 
economic  and  social  partners  are  also  represented  on  each  Monitoring  Committee.  To  take  account  of 
the great internal  heterogeneity  of certain regions which cover an extensive area eligible under  Objective 
5(b),  some  programmes  include  ineasures  (or  sub-measures)  that  are  programmed  on  an  sub-regional 
(department)  level, the aim  being to  increase  local authority  involvement.  Lastly, all the  coastal  regions 
are full  members ofthe  Pesca Monitoring Committee. 

Ireland:  Ireland  is  regarded  as  a single  "region"  for  the  purposes  of  managing  and  administering  the 
Structural  Funds.  However,  the  eight  regional  authorities  have  responsibility  for  monitoring  Structural 
Fund  expenditure  in  their  respective  regions.  To  this  end,  meetings  are  regularly  organized  between 
them  and  the  national  administration  to  discuss  progress.  They  will  also  be  involved  in  the  mid-term 

232 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

review ofthe  CSF, which must take place in  1996. The regional authorities also attend  a special  meeting 
that  takes  place  after  the  ordinary  meetings  of  the  CSF  Monitoring  Committee.  The  Monitoring 
Committee  at  regional  level  includes  elected  local  representatives,  and  representatives  of  voluntary 
organizations, local authorities, the public authorities and the social partners. 

Italy:  The  Italian  regional  authorities  play  an  important  role  in the  implementation  of the  operations 
part-funded  by the Structural Funds, especially as regards Objective  1  (the Mezzogiorno), since they are 
the organizations  mainly responsible for carrying out the OP. Approximately half the Community  funds 
provided  for  under the Objective  1  CSF are managed  by the regional administrations. Regions also take 
part  in  centrally-managed  programmes.  Similarly,  the  regions  are  responsible  for  implementing 
Objective  2  programmes,  while  for  Objective  5(b)  both  the  regions  and  the  autonomous  provinces  are 
responsible.  With  regard  to  fisheries  aid  under  the  FIFG,  six  regions  (Abruzzi,  Basilicata,  Calabria, 
Apulia,  Sicily,  Sardinia)  sit  on  the  Objective  1 FIFG  Monitoring  Committee,  while  the  autonomous 
province of Trento takes part in the Objective  5(a) Monitoring Committee. 

The  dialogue  between  the  Commission,  the  State  and  the  regions  has  developed  satisfactorily  in 
general.  The  quality  of  the  information  provided  by  the  regional  authorities  responsible  for  the 
implementation  of  the  programmes  is  on  the  whole  good,  and  the  Monitoring  Committees  are 
appropriately  consulted.  Moreover,  considerable  efforts  have been  made to  improve  the  organization 
of  the  regional  bodies  implementing  the  aid,  in  line  with  the  agreement  negotiated  between  the 
Commission  and the  Italian  Government  in July  19954 . Thus, regional  coordinating  units ("cabine  di 
regia")  to  liaise  with  the  national  coordinating  unit  ^ cabine  di  regia")  were  established  in  each 
region,  at  both  political  and  administrative  level,  to  coordinate  the  various  departments  involved  in 
implementing  the  priorities  or  specific  measures  under  the  various  programmes.  These  coordinating 
units were established  quicker  in the Objective  2 areas than elsewhere. 

Netherlands:  The  programmes  for  all  the  eligible  Objective  1  and  2  areas  are  administered  and 
monitored  by the national  agency for the development  of trade and  industry, a body that operates  under 
the  auspices  of  the  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs.  This  agency  issues  final  approval  to  the  projects 
part-funded  by the  ERDF  in particular.  The  projects  are  selected  in advance  by  a technical  Committee 
which the Commission  can attend as an observer. At the meetings ofthe  Monitoring Committees, which 
it  does  attend,  the  Commission  is  informed  in  particular  of  the  projects  which  were  selected  for  part-
fuliding-  and  those  which  were  rejected  through  a  document  listing  both  categories  and  the  financial 
impact.  By  contrast,  responsibility  for  implementing  Objective  5(b)  programmes  was  given  to  the 
regions. 

Austria:  The  regional  partnership  in  Austria  continued  to  prepare  the  new  programmes  in  1995. The 
Objective  1 and  2  programmes  were  prepared  by  a  partnership  comprising  the  national,  regional  and 
local  authorities.  An  extended  partnership  including  the  Commission  and  the  social  partners  will 
subsequently operate  in the SPD Monitoring Committees. 

Portugal:  In the case of this Member State, which  is entirely eligible for Objective  1  but in which  there 
is little regional ization, the Commission  stressed to the Portuguese authorities the  great  importance  that 
. it attaches  to the  implementation  of the  partnership  with  the  regional  authorities.  With  the  creation  in 
1995  of  regional  advisory  subcommittees  whose  task  it  is  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  regional 
OPs,  the  situation  should  now  improve.  It  should  be  noted  that  representatives  of  the  autonomous 
regions  ofthe  Azores  and  Madeira  attend  meetings ofthe  Monitoring Committee  for  the  Fisheries  OP, 
as observers. 

Finland:  A  very  extensive  partnership  has  developed  in  Finland  for  the  preparation  of  the  new 
programming  documents. A pyramidal  approach  was adopted  to the preparation  and  implementation  of 
the  SPDs  for  Objectives  2 and  6. The  first  stage was the preparation  ofthe  programmes  in  each  ofthe 

4 See Chapter  I.A.2. Objective 1 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

233 

regions  concerned.  The  central  authorities  then  gathered  the  regional  projects  into  a single  programme 
adopted  by the  Commission  in the  form  of an  SPD for  each  Objective  covering  the  entire  country  and 
including estimated allocations ofthe  appropriations between the activities and various regions. The two 
SPDs  are  monitored  by  a  Monitoring  Committee  made  up  of  representatives  of  all  the  regions,  the 
funding  ministries, the Commission  and the social partners. Management ofthe  programme  is entrusted 
in each region to a management Committee comprising representatives ofthe  region, the local offices  of 
the national  ministries  and  the  social  partners. The regional  management  Committee  draws  up  its own 
plan  for  implementing  the  programme  in  its region  based  on the  plan  initially  submitted  to the  central 
authorities. Project  funding  is to a large extent decided by the local offices  ofthe  central  ministries or by 
the  ministries  themselves,  but  the  regional  management  Committee  examines  and  must  adopt  all  the 
projects, thereby giving it control over implementation  and enabling  it to decide to a very large extent on 
how the SPD is implemented  in its region. 

Implementation ofthe  programmes under Objectives 3 and 4 is similarly very decentralized. The Finnish 
Ministry  of  Employment  coordinates  the  assistance  relating  to  human  resources  for  all  the  Objectives 
and  is  also  responsible  for  implementing  most  of  the  horizontal  ESF  programmes.  Other  Ministries, 
Education  and  Trade  and  Industry  in  particular,  also  assume  responsibilities,  while  the  municipal 
authorities,  social  partners  and  non-governmental  organizations  take  part  in  carrying  out  the  ESF 
measures at regional  and  local  level. At project  level, the adoption  ofthe  budget and  national  legislation 
ensure  that  the  decision-making  procedures  on the  projects  part-funded  by the  ESF  are  widely  shared. 
Under the  horizontal  programmes, the  decision-making  process  is decentralized  within  the  Ministry  of 
Employment  and  within  the  other  Ministries  concerned  (Trade  and  Industry,  Agriculture).  At  regional 
level,  the  advisory  committees  for  the  employment  areas  and  the  regional  management  committees 
ensure  that  the  activities  are  integrated  by  scrutinizing  all  the  projects  in the  regional  aid  programmes 
before the competent authorities take the final decision. Lastly, the ESF lays stress on the need to ensure 
practical  cooperation  between  the  administrators  in the  interest  groups, the  regions,  the  municipalities, 
the  universities  and  other  educational  establishments, the  employment  agencies  and  the  representatives 
of trade and industry. Most ofthe  projects  in the programmes are therefore  carried out in partnership. 

Sweden:  The  Swedish  regional  partners  were  fully  involved  in  the  preparation  of  the  programmes 
submitted  to  the  Commission.  They  include  representatives  of  local  and  regional  government,  county 
councils, the employers, the trade unions, the financial  organizations, the agricultural  and  environmental 
lobby  and  local  or  other  associations.  They  will  be  represented  on  the  SPD  Monitoring  Committees 
alongside  the  national  government  and  the  Commission.  In  addition,  most  of  the  programme  budget 
(80%)  will  be  implemented  by  the  regional  management  committees  that  derive  from  the  local  and 
regional  structures  in  place.  Some  measures, those  under  Objective  5(a) for  example,  will  be  managed 
by central agencies, while the Sami people will receive a global grant. 

the  main 

in  particular 

interested  partners, 

United  Kingdom:  The regional  partnership was strengthened  in the programmes adopted  in  1994. For 
each  Objective  1,  Objective  2  or  Objective  5(b)  SPD  a  Monitoring  Committee  was  established  at 
regional  level,  chaired  by  the  regional  manager  of  the  relevant  Government  Office,  including 
the  Ministries  concerned 
representatives  of  all 
(Environment,  Trade  and  Industry,  Transport,  Education,  Employment  and  Agriculture)  and  the 
Commission.  The  local  authorities, the training, education  and  private  sectors  are  also  represented  on 
the  Monitoring  Committees.  The  number  of  Monitoring  Committee  members  range  in  number  from 
five  or  six  (Gibraltar)  to  close  on  forty  in  other  regions  (East  Midlands  for  example).  The  local 
authorities  are  heavily  represented.  They  usually  account  for  about  a  third  of  the  seats  on  the 
Committees  and  are  ordinarily  represented  by  officials,  although  elected  representatives  also  sit  in 
certain  cases.  More  specifically,  in  the  case  of  the  Objective  2  programmes,  the  Commission  made 
strong  representations  to  the  United  Kingdom  authorities  that  the  lack  of  participation  by  elected 
members  (participating  in  four  ofthe  sixteen  Objective  1 and  2  Monitoring  Committees)  and  by  the 
economic  and  social  partners,  whose  involvement  ran  into  central  government  resistance,  should  be 
remedied.  This  expanded  partnership  was  able to  play  a modest  role  in  a number  of  cases,  thanks  to 
ad hoc meetings  organized  by the chairmen  ofthe  Monitoring  Committees. 

234 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

The  urban  development  associations  and  the  regional  and  local  development  offices  are  also 
represented.  Mention  should  also  be  made  ofthe  lesser  role  played  by  collective  and  environmental 
bodies  (e.g.  the  National  Rivers  Authority  or  Scottish  Natural  Heritage)  and  sometimes  major  local 
companies.  The private  sector  is often  asked  to participate  through  the  involvement  of the  Chambers 
of  Commerce  or  other  bodies  like  Railtrack,  Training  and  Enterprise  Councils  (which  play  a  major 
role  in  England  and  Wales)  and  Local  Enterprise  Councils  (the  competent  authorities  in  Scotland). 
The  involvement  of  local  higher  education  establishments  (universities)  and  the  post  secondary 
schooling (over  16 years) sector was also ensured. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

235 

C.  DIALOGUE WITH THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PARTNERS 

1.  The socio-economic  partnership in monitoring structural  assistance 

In  monitoring  the  Structural  Fund  programmes,  and  most  notably  at  meetings  of  the  Monitoring 
Committees,  the  Commission  stresses  the  importance  of  greater  participation  by  the  socio-economic 
partners,  who,  since  they  too  are  working  towards  social  and  economic  development,  can  usefully 
contribute  to  the  implementation  of  the  programmes  in  their  regions.  The  involvement  of  the  social 
partners  varies  from  one  Member  State  to  the  next  depending  on  the  institutional,  legal  or  financial 
responsibilities  delegated  to  them.  This  involvement  also  varies  depending  on  the  Objectives  of  the 
Structural Funds. 

1.1.  Overview 

In  1995, the Commission  concluded  its analyses ofthe  involvement ofthe  economic and social  partners 
in implementing and monitoring structural measures. In general, four scenarios can be distinguished: 

• 

• 

• 

the social  and economic partners are directly  involved  in the Monitoring  Committees. Only  a small 
amount  of Community  assistance  is dealt  with  in this  manner,  but  almost  all  ESF  assistance  under 
Objectives 3 and 4 is monitored with social partner participation; 

the  socio-economic  partners  are  not  directly  involved  in  the  Monitoring  Committees  but  are 
represented, for example, through national or regional economic and social councils; 

the  economic  and  social  partners  are  not  directly  or  indirectly  involved  in  the  Monitoring 
Committees.  However,  additional  activities  (information  sessions,  advisory  committees,  seminars, 
etc.)  are  provided  for,  sometimes  on  a regular  basis, to  keep them  informed  about  implementation 
and to allow them to voice their concerns and put forward  suggestions; 

•  no particular  provision  has been  made to involve the  economic  and  social  partners  in  implementing 
and  monitoring  structural  assistance.  A  significant  amount  of  Community  assistance  falls  into  this 
category. 

Recent  trends  indicate  that  the  authorities  responsible  for  implementing  structural  assistance  are  now 
more  willing  to  involve  a  greater  number  of  partners  and  actors  in  monitoring  Community  structural 
ineasures.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  supports  all  the  additional  information,  consultative  or 
cooperative  activities  organized  by  the  competent  authorities  that  allow  the  various  partners  to  be 
involved  as effectively  as possible, with  due regard  to their  real  responsibilities  and  their  technical  and 
operating capabilities. 

1.2.  Implementation  ofthe  socio-economic  partnership in the Member  States 

A description  ofthe  different  situations  in the Member  States, broken  down  by  region-based  Structural 
Fund Objectives and then the non-regional Objectives, is useful  for illustrating the above. 

Region-based programming  (Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) ) 

Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Denmark:  Provision  is  made  in  these  four  Member  States  to 
supply the social partners (trade unions and representatives of employers' associations  in particular) with 
information  on  the  progress  of the  programmes.  The  social  partners  are  full  members  of  the  SPD  and 
Community  Initiative Monitoring Committees and their presence is a necessary condition. For example, 
for Objective  5(b) in Belgium  and Denmark, the representatives ofthe  social partners number four,  there 
are two employers' representatives  and two workers' representatives  in Belgium  while  in Denmark  there 

236 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

are  two  union  representatives,  one  employers'  representative  and  one  representing  the  Chamber  of 
Agriculture.  In  the Netherlands  they  are  five  in  number:  one  employers'  representative,  three  workus' 
representatives and one agriculture representative. 

Germany: The social partners are involved in different  ways depending on the Objectives.  In the case of 
Objective  1 (the  new  Lander),  meetings  of  the  horizontal  Monitoring  Committees1  are  preceded  by 
preparatory  meetings  with  the  economic  and  social  partners. In  the  case  of  Objective  2, the  economic 
and  social  partners  should be involved  in the Land  subcommittees  proposed  by the Commission  for  the 
programmes  in  receipt  of  the  most  significant  funding,  but  discussions  in  this  regard  were  still 
continuing  at the end  of  1995. As for  Objective  5(b), the economic and  social  partners  (local  chambers 
and  organizations  party  to  collective  agreements)  are  informed  at  meetings  held  before  and  after  the 
Monitoring Committee. 

Spain:  The  social  partners  are  not  members  of the  Monitoring  Committees  for  the  Objective  1 and  2 
CSFs  and  OPs.  They  are  instead  informed  of the  progress  of  the  CSF,  the  programmes,  projects  and 
related  global  grants through  the  Spanish  Economic  and  Social  Committee  after  each  CSF  Monitoring 
Committee. The Commission  has for the first time persuaded  the  Spanish  authorities  to hold  a meeting 
with the social  partners within the Economic and Social Committee (ESC). One purpose  ofthe  meeting 
was  to  inform  the  ESC  ofthe  conclusions  ofthe  Committee  monitoring  the  Objective  1 CSF  for  the 
second half of the year. By contrast, the involvement ofthe  social partners in Objective  5(b) differs  more 
widely from  region to region. Two regional Monitoring Committees  include trades union  and  Economic 
and Social Committee representatives, the other regions organize only specific  information  meetings. 

France:  The  economic  and  social  partners'  involvement  in  programme  monitoring,  which  is  quite 
extensive  in  terms  of  the  number  of  interests  represented,  varies  depending  on  the  Objective  and  the 
region.  In  the  case  of  Objective  1  programmes,  the  social  partners  are  represented  on  Monitoring 
Committees  by a representative ofthe  regional Economic and Social Council  in the case of Corsica and 
Nord Pas-de-Calais,  while  in  the  overseas  departments  (Réunion,  French  Guiana,  Guadeloupe, 
Martinique)  the  local  chambers  (chambers  of  trade  and  industry,  agriculture  and  trades)  are  formally 
involved  in  the  Monitoring  Committees,  although  the  arrangements  vaiy.  They  are  either  members  of 
the actual Monitoring Committee or are invited to information  meetings held after the Committee meets. 
Furthermore, when the SPDs were adopted  for the overseas departments, formal  meetings  including  not 
only  the  local  chambers  but  also  employers'  or  professional  groiups  and  trades  union  representatives 
were held with all representatives ofthe  social partners in each region. It should also be noted that, when 
Commission  officials  undertake  missions  to  each  region,  they  regularly  meet  the  local  chambers  to 
discuss aspects of programme  implementation. 

In  the  case  of  Objective  2  and  all  these  SPDs,  the  social  partners  are  represented  in  the  Monitoring 
Committees by a representative ofthe  regional Economic and  Social Council. By contrast, the  Objective 
5(b)  Monitoring  Committees  include,  in  addition  to  the  local  partners,  representatives  of  the  regional 
chambers  of  agriculture, trades, commerce  and  industry,  as well  as members  ofthe  regional  Economic 
and  Social  Council.  Some  Monitoring  Committees  also  include  representatives  of  environmental 
protection  associations. 

Ireland: The social partners have been fully  involved  in the management of Structural  Fund  expenditure 
since  the  reform  ofthe  Funds  in  1989. Their  representatives  are  full  members  ofthe  OP  Monitoring 
Committees  and  take  part  in  the  decision-making  process  on  Structural  Fund  assistance.  This 
involvement  is  highly  regarded  and  provides  very  important  sectoral  experience  at  the  various 
Monitoring  Committee  meetings.  Furthermore,  the  social  partners  are  represented  on  each  of  the 
regional  Monitoring  Committees2.  Lastly,  the  social  partners  attend  a  special  meeting  organized  after 

1 See Chapter II1.B. Regional partnership. 
2 See Chapter III.B. Regional partnership. 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

237 

each  ordinary  meeting  of  the  CSF  Monitoring  Committee.  They  are  thus  fully  integrated  into  the 
Structural Funds management structure in Ireland. 

Italy:  The  enlargement  of  the  partnership  to  include  the  economic  and  social  partners  was  a  genuine 
innovation  compared  to  the  previous  period.  Representatives  of the  main  trades  union  and  employers' 
organizations  contribute  to  the  work  of  the  Objective  1 Monitoring  Committees  in  a  regular  manner 
through  attendance  at  technical  meetings  preparatory  to  the  Monitoring  Committees  and  at  an 
information  meeting on the decisions taken there. Objective 2 saw a more complete approach  in that the 
economic  and  social  partners  participated  in  the  drawing  up  of  the  conversion  plans  and  in  the  SPD 
negotiations  in  1994  and  this  participation  gained  formal  recognition  through  their  full  membership  of 
the  Objective  2  SPD  Monitoring  Committees,  made  up  of  one  trades  union  representative,  one 
representative  of  the  employers'  associations  and  one  representative  of  the  local  authorities.  The 
socio-economic  partners were also represented on all the Monitoring Committees for Objective  5(b), but 
only in an advisory capacity. 

Austria:  The social partners (employers' organizations, trades unions, chambers of commerce and, in the 
case of Objective  1, farming  organizations) are represented on the Monitoring Committees. Their precise 
role in these committees was still being discussed at the beginning of  1996, however. 

Portugal:  As  in  the  case  of  the  regional  partnership,  the  Commission  attaches  great  importance  to 
implementing the partnership with the socio-economic partners in Portugal and  it has stressed this fact to 
the  Portuguese  authorities.  The  Commission  has  ensured  that  the  national  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  is informed  about four times a year of progress in implementing the Objective  1  CSF. 

Finland  and  Sweden:  The  representatives  of  the  social  partners  (employers'  organizations,  trades 
unions,  chambers  of  commerce  and,  in  the  case  of  Objective  6,  representatives  of  the  farming 
organizations)  are  full  members  of  the  Monitoring  Committees  in  Finland  and  Sweden.  These 
organizations are also consulted when decisions are being taken on important projects. It should be noted 
that  efforts  have  been  made  to  extend  the  partnership  to  include  in  the  Monitoring  Committees  other 
organizations representing the local residents (for example, the popular movements  in Sweden). 

United Kingdom:  The  social  dialogue  in the  UK  programmes  is not  as  well  developed  as  in the  other 
Member States. No single programme fully  involves all the social partners in assuming responsibility  for 
its regional  implementation.  The  social  partners are sometimes  included  as part of an  enlarged  regional 
partnership,  but not  in the Monitoring  Committees. They are given  information  on the programmes  but 
how  this  information  is  communicated  to  them  varies  from  region  to  region.  The  chairman  of  the 
Monitoring Committee  sometimes provides reports after  the event to the social  partners  involved  (in the 
case of Objective  5(b), specific  information  meetings are held after  the Monitoring Committee  meetings 
for the  local authorities  and associated  bodies). In other  instances, the social partners  are  informed  in so 
far as this is deemed  useful. There is no regular advance consultation  ofthe  social partners in any region. 

Non-regional  programming  (Objectives 3, 4 and 5(a)) 

In  the  case  of  Objective  3,  the  social  and  economic  partners  are  represented  on  the  Monitoring 
Committees of all Member States, except for the United Kingdom. The situation  is virtually the same  for 
the Objective  4 Monitoring Committees where the social partners are full  members. It differs,  however, 
in that  the  economic  partners  (the  local  chambers,  for  example)  are  more  often  represented  than  is the 
case  under  other  Objectives.  Thus,  in Germany,  the Objective  4  Monitoring  Committees  include  in an 
advisory  capacity  the  Association  of  German  Chambers  of  Industry  and  Commerce  (DIHT)  and  the 
Zentralverband  des Deutschen  Handwerks (ZdH - German  union of craft  industries). This  is equally true 
of Finland, France, the Netherlands, Austria and Italy. 

In  the  case  of  structural  measures  in  the  fisheries  sector  (Objective  5(a)),  the  economic  and  social 
partners  (fishing  and/or  aquaculture  enterprises,  those  employed  in  the  industry,  fishing  organizations) 
take  a  direct  part  in  the  Monitoring  Committees  in  six  Member  States  (Austria,  Denmark,  Finland, 

238 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Greece, Ireland,  Sweden), while  in  two  others  (France  and  the Netherlands)  their  involvement  is  only 
indirect, i.e. prior to meetings ofthe  committee. 

2.  The economic and social  partners at Community  level 

The  Commission  has  consolidated  the  statutory  practice  of  consulting  annually  the  social  partners 
organized  at Community  level. The working group proposed by the Commission  at the  December  1994 
meeting was established  in  1995. This group made it possible to by-pass the strictly annual nature of this 
consultation  procedure  and  turn  it into an on-going cooperative  process. Two meetings  ofthe  group  in 
1995 helped to improve the preparation ofthe  formal  annual consultation  procedure which, for technical 
reasons, took place at the beginning of  1996. During this procedure, the Commission  presented the Sixth 
Annual  Report  on  the  Implementation  ofthe  Structural  Funds  in  1994.  It  also  gave  an  early  progress 
report on  Structural  Funds activities  in  1995 and described  the work  under way on the first three-yearly 
report on economic and social cohesion. Notable among the social partners' comments were: 

• 

• 

• 

their  desire,  shared  by  the  Commission,  to  demonstrate  the  results  and  impact  of  the  structural 
measures and in particular their contribution to economic and social cohesion. To this end, the social 
partners showed a marked interest in preparing the three-yearly report on cohesion. They felt that this 
report should  also identify  the first steps to be taken  in redirecting  structural  policies  after  1999 with 
a view to increasing their  effectiveness; 

the  concerns  of  certain  sectors:  the  on-going  problems  in  the  agriculture  and  fisheries  sectors,  the 
desire of bodies  such  as the chambers  of commerce  and  industry to participate  actively  in  structural 
operations, the difficulties  of SMEs in gaining access to Community aid; 

the desire to  see the  Commission  analyse  practical  issues  such  as the  participation  ofthe  social  and 
economic  partners  in  monitoring  the  implementation  ofthe  aid  measures  in  greater  detail  in  future 
reports; 

•  while acknowledging  a gradual  improvement, the need to make significant  progress  in involving the 
social  partners  in  monitoring  the  implementation  of the  structural  measures.  The  social  partners  do 
however  recognize  the  technical  difficulties  inherent  in  their  participation  when  this  involves,  for 
example,  evaluating  or  estimating  the  potential  impact  ofthe  projects  in  creating  dynamic  regional 
development  or even  in job  creation.  As a result, they  also wish  to  see targeted  technical  assistance 
measures to strengthen their technical  and operational capabilities. 

The  Commission  echoes  most  of the  social  partners'  wishes. It  is aware  that  their  participation  can  be 
effective  only where the partners involved  have the necessary technical  and operational  capabilities. For 
this  reason,  the  ERDF  funded  15  seminars  in  1995  organized  by  the  ESC  to  prepare  regional  and 
national  representatives  of  its  member  confederations  for  attendance  at  the  Objective  1  Monitoring 
Committees.  An  introductory  seminar  was  held  in  Luxembourg,  with  Commission  participation,  to 
establish the aims, policies and working methods. The results, conclusions  and  proposals  of each  ofthe 
15 seminars  organized  in the regions  whose development  is lagging  behind  in the Member  States  were 
submitted to a joint session at Lisbon, from  which the ESC was able to produce a general  progress report 
and  submit  its  conclusions  to  the  Commission.  The  ESC  notes  that  trades  union  participation  in  the 
Monitoring  Committees  is  rather  limited  and  feels  that  its  member  organizations  should  continue  to 
insist  on  participating  in  the  Committees  to  ensure  that  the  programmes  and  projects  create  dynamic 
regional  development that  in turn creates jobs. The ESC has noted that the technical  capabilities  needed 
to monitor  structural  operations  are  lacking. The Committee  feels that the technical  assistance  provided 
for  under  the  Structural  Funds  Regulations  should  be  used  to  improve  these  capabilities.  With  this  in 
mind, the ESC would  favour  the establishment  of a network  of regional  experts to assist the  monitoring 
activities of union  officials. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

239 

The  relationship  between  the  ESF  and  certain  categories  of  social  partner  mainly  takes  the  form  of 
funding  for  training.  Such  training,  provided  for  under  Article  6  of  the  ESF  Regulation3,  is  likely  to 
strengthen the training measures  in the Objective 4 programming  documents and the ADAPT Initiative, 
both  of  which  provide  for  the  active  participation  of  the  social  partners  in  implementing  the 
programmes.  At  the  end  of  1994, the  Commission  drew  up,  in  collaboration  with  the  social  partners 
concerned,  guidelines  for measures funded  in this regard, and  it submitted  them  to the ESF  Committee. 
These guidelines concerned first and foremost  the Community's economic and  instititutional  framework 
within  which  other  types  of  ineasures  develop,  secondly  the  new  methods  of  production  and 
organization  of work  and thirdly, a series of themes  linking  issues of  industrial  change  with  the  labour 
market. 

Thus,  in  accordance  with  the  guidelines,  in  1995  the  ESF  funded  training  ineasures  for  the  social 
partners  at  Community  level4.  In  the  case  ofthe  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  this  involved  14 
training courses in which the  15 Member States participated, covering the impact of new technologies on 
employment  in  various  sectors,  such  as  high-speed  trains,  telecommunications,  air  transport  and  the 
environment.  Furthermore,  various  training  sessions  were  organized  for  employers'  representatives 
under  the  programmes  submitted  by  UNICE-CONPRI.  The  action  programme  submitted  for  the  first 
time  by  the  CEEP  sought  to  provide  a  response  to  the  prospects  for  managing  equal  representation 
between  the  social  partners.  The  Fondazione  Régionale  Pietro  Seveso  set  in  motion  an  action 
programme  on  the  prospects  for  developing  and  evaluating  industrial  relations  models  in  Europe.  The 
ESF  funded  sectoral  studies  alongside  the  appropriate  social  partners  which  looked  at  the  difficulties 
inherent  in  the  effects  of  industrial  change  on  working  practices  (vocational  qualifications,  new  skills 
and  trades  in particular).  These  sectoral  studies  involved  the textiles,  clothing  and  footwear  industries, 
among  others. Lastly,  as  a result  ofthe  reflection  process  started  at the  end  of  19945, the  groundwork 
was  done on  producing  a mechanism  to  associate  the  social  and  economic  partners  with  the  effects  of 
industrial  change.  New  structures  better  adapted  to  future  social  dialogue  were  introduced.  In  this 
context, the accent will  be placed on the need to integrate  in the process of European  social  dialogue all 
organizations  that  can  contribute  significantly  to  industrial  relations. A Commission  communication  in 
1996 should further  clarify  this issue. 

As  regards  rural  issues, the  Advisory  Committee  on  Questions  of  Agricultural  Structure  Policy  is  the 
body most consulted by the Commission. It met on two occasions in  1995, and at these meetings a wide-
ranging discussion ofthe  problems of rural development policy took place. Specific  problems relating to 
the Community  aid  scheme  for  early retirement  from  farming,  aid  for the  installation  of young  farmers 
and the introduction  ofthe  LEADER II initiative were also discussed. The Commission  also informed  its 
partners about  progress  on the  CSFs/SPDs  and the  OPs for  Objectives  1, 5(b)  and  6,  progress  with  the 
LEADER  II  Initiative,  and  the  ineasures  accompanying  the  reform  of  the  CAP6.  Lastly,  the  role, 
workings and future  ofthe  advisory Committee on Agricultural  Structures were also discussed. 

Similarly,  in  the  fisheries  sector,  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Fisheries  is  the  body  through  with  the 
industry  engages  in a dialogue  with the  Commission.  It  received  on  several  occasions  information  and 
explanations  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  FIFG,  measures  under  Article  4  of  the  FIFG 
Regulation7  and  the  PESCA  Initiative.  In  March  1995,  Mrs  Bonino,  the  Member  ofthe  Commission 
with responsibility  for fisheries, attended a meeting ofthe  committee that dealt with, inter alia, structural 
assistance  for  the  industry  and  socio-economic  ineasures  for  deep-sea  fishermen.  In  addition,  the 
Commission  worked  with the Joint Committee on Social  Problems in Sea Fishing, established  as part of 

3 See Chapter I.B.2. Innovative actions and technical assistance. 
4 These  measures  continue  those  undertaken  in  the  preceding  period.  In  this  regard,  a  comprehensive  ex post 
evaluation  ofthe  AFETT and CONPRI  1  measures should be undertaken in 1996. Such an exercise is obviously 
of great importance both for the ESF, which funds the measures, and for the beneficiaries. 

5 See the 1994 Annual Report. 
6 Regulations (EEC) Nos 2078/92, 2079/92 and 2080/92. 
7 See Chapter l.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 

240 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

the  European  social  dialogue.  Furthermore,  the  industry  was  represented  at  some  sessions  of  the 
thematic  seminars  organised  by  the  Commission  for  Members  of  the  European  Parliament8:  the  first 
seminar  (Ancona,  22-23  June  1995) related  to the  preservation  offish  stocks, the  second  (Santiago  de 
Compostela, 2-3 October  1995) dealt with structural policies for aquaculture and fisheries. 

8  See  Chapter  III.A.l.  Dialogue  with  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

241 

D. 

INFORMATION  AND COMMUNICATION, DISSEMINATION  OF BEST PRACTICE 

1. 

Information  and  communication 

Provisions concerning the Member States 

The duties ofthe  Member  States with regard to information  and publicity are laid down by Article 32 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended and the Commission Decision of 31 May  1994,1 in which the 
Commission  undertook  to  provide  the  authorities  concerned  in  the  Member  States  with  a  practical 
manual to facilitate  implementation. The manual was published  in  1995 and sent to those responsible  for 
structural  policies  in  the  national  administrations,  who  were  also  invited  to  consider  this  matter  and 
ensure that it was considered by the Monitoring Committees. 

The  obligation  to provide  information  also forms  part  of the  standard  clauses  attached  to the  decisions 
adopting the SDPs and the Monitoring Committees strive constantly to apply the Community  rules. The 
Commission  representatives drew the attention ofthe  Monitoring Committees to this matter at meetings 
during  1995. As part ofthe  implementation  ofthe  OPs, a number of Monitoring  Committees  have  also 
adopted communications plans financed by technical assistance. 

Commission  information  activities 

Article 7 ofthe  ERDF Regulation permits the Commission to take certain technical  assistance  measures 
on  its own  initiative.  It  has  part-financed  attendance  at major  events, the organization  of  seminars  and 
other  one-off  measures.  During  1995,  the  Commission  had  stands  at  40  events  which  it  was  part-
financing and provided documentation  and information  for  17 000 visitors. Particular attention was paid 
to  media  coverage  of  these  events  and  the  provision  of  specific  information  for  the  press.  The 
Commission  also produces various types of publications which are distributed mainly through a regional 
database of some 30 000 addresses. This now includes the new Member States. The publications  already 
produced  and  made  available  to  the  public  include  almost  all  the  programming  documents  for  the 
Objective  1 regions  (full  and  summary  CSFs)  and  the  Objective  2  areas  (summaries  only). News  on 
regional policy is contained  in a monthly newsletter and an Internet site for regional and cohesion  policy 
has been created.2 

''The  environment  and  the regions: towards sustainable  development" 
This  is  the  title  of  an  information  booklet published  by  the  Commission for  the  general public.  It 
reviews the state ofthe  environment in the regions and sets out the main lines of Community policy  on 
the  environment  - particularly  the Fifth  action programme  on  the environment -  and  the  measures 
taken in the various regions ofthe  Community.  It covers measures under the Structural Funds and the 
Cohesion Fund and includes examples of projects carried out since 1989. 

Following  its adoption  of a revised communications  strategy in March  1995, the Commission  continued 
its efforts  to extend  its contacts  and objectives. A pilot project  which  had begun  successfully  in  France 
was  extended  in  cooperation  with  Commission  offices  in  the  Member  States  to  Spain,  the  United 
Kingdom  and  Germany.  This  extension  of  the  media  plan  enhanced  knowledge  and  so  extended 
coverage of regional  policy  issues by national and regional  press and television. As part of this  strategy, 
the  Commission  broadened  the  scope  of  its video  image  bank,  which  is  used  frequently  by  television 
stations, and is developing a picture library for the same purpose. 

1 Commission  Decision  concerning  information  and publicity  measures to be carried  out  by the  Member  States 
concerning assistance from the Structural Funds and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) - OJ 
No L 152, 18.6.1994 (see also the 1994 Annual Report). 

2 Server Europa: http..//www.cec.lu. 

242 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Making  the  ESF  better  known,  to  the  general  public  in  particular,  and  making  its  working  more 
transparent  led to the preparation  and coordination  of a communications  plan and related  measures. The 
first meeting with representatives of each Member State was organized  in  1995 and two seminars will be 
held  in  1996. This contact  led to an exchange of views on information,  communications  and  knowledge 
of  the  ESF  in  the  Member  States.  A  general  information  booklet  on  the  ESF  was  produced  and 
distributed  in nine  languages and over  160 000 copies to meet a real need for  information.  A number of 
publications  on  the  EMPLOYMENT  and  ADAPT  Community  Initiatives  and  Objective  4  were  also 
produced  and  the  ESF  took  part  in  a  number  of  events  to  increase  the  exchange  of  experience  and 
knowledge, including those held in Opio and Seville. 

In  the  case  of  the  EAGGF  Guidance  Section,  this  desire  for  information  took  the  fonn  of  active 
participation  in the preparation  of regional  booklets for the Madrid  European  Council. The  Commission 
intends to step up its policy of information  on rural development in the  future. 

The FIFG did not lag behind in terms ofthe  production  of documentation  nor the organization  of events. 
The  publications  produced  in  1994  on  structural  measures  for  fisheries3  were  distributed  in  all  the 
Member  States. They were supplemented  by  15 booklets for the general public financed  under Article 4 
of  the  FIFG  Regulation4  on  FIFG  assistance  in  each  Member  State  and  a  publication  entitled 
"Aquaculture  and the environment  in the European Community." The Commission  organized  a seminar 
on  structural  policy  on  fisheries  and  aquaculture  at  Santiago  de  Compostela  (Spain)  attended  by  a 
number  of  Members  of the  European  Parliament  and  representatives  of those  working  in the  sector.  It 
also  organized  in Brussels  a round  table  on  the  conversion  of  areas  dependent  on  fisheries,  to  provide 
better knowledge of and analyse experience in this area in Europe. 

2.  Measures to disseminate good  practice 

The  Commission's  measures  to  provide  information  on  the  Structural  Funds  cover  not  only  the 
programmes  and  their  implementation  but  also  innovative  measures,  so  that  these  can  later  be 
disseminated  on a larger  scale. The spread of good practice takes various forms,  mainly  networking  and 
major  events organized by the Commission. 

In  the  case  of  innovative  measures  and  inter-regional  cooperation  under  Article  10  of  the  ERDF 
Regulation, dissemination takes three main  forms: 

•  first  of all,  in view  of their  operation  through  networks, RECITE  (internal  cooperation)  and  ECOS-
OUVERTURE  (external  cooperation) pilot projects, which contribute to the exchange of  experiences 
leading rapidly to the transfer  of knowledge among their members. This transfer  concerns  innovative 
practices  on  subjects  of  common  interest  to  the  network,  e.g.mechanisms  for  the  control  and 
prevention  of  pollution  in  the  case  of  ENVIRONET,  vine-growing  techniques  in  the  case  of 
DYONISOS, instruments  for computer calculation  in the case ofthe  network  of scientific  centres. At 
an earlier stage, the PACTE/Exchange  of experiences programme for  smaller networks seeks to raise 
initial  awareness  of  inter-regional  cooperation  through  the  exchange  of  information  and  experience 
on matters of common  interest relating to regional  development; 

• 

for  all these  networks the Commission  organizes  launch  days so that their  members  can  meet.  They 
also  attend  review  days  to  summarize  good  practice  and  extend  it  on  a  regional  level.  These  days 
result in the production  of documents which are widely distributed; 

3 "The  European  Community  and the fishing  industry.  Practical  guide to structural  aid".  "The common  fisheries 
policy,"  information  file  including  the  structural  aspect.  "The  new  common  fisheries  policy,"  an  information 
booklet containing a chapter on structural assistance. 

4 See Chapter I.B.2. Innovative measures and technical assistance. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

243  -  Q UU 

• 

the Directoria events organized  by the Commission  each  year  in Brussels (twice  in  1995) enable the 
delegations  of  some  500  local  authorities  representing  1 200  participants  to  meet  and  be  informed 
about  programmes  of  innovative  measures  and  inter-regional  cooperation  which  concern  them,  to 
receive  through  case  studies  methodological  support  on  development  techniques  and  good  practice 
and, most important, to begin cooperation projects through  a pool of appointments  based on calls  for 
proposals. 

Most  of  the  Community  Initiatives  make  provision  for  cross-border  measures,  principally  the 
establishment  of  networks  for  the  exchange  of  information  and  meetings  between  participants  in 
partnerships,  all  of  which  are  designed  to  disseminate  good  practice  and  stimulate  cross-border 
cooperation. Hence, for the new period ofthe  Community Initiatives, appropriations to finance  networks 
are  available  under  LEADER  (ECU  34 million),  SME (ECU  25 million)  and  PESCA  (ECU  5 million) 
and are  incorporated  in the ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT programmes.  Since  some of the  programmes 
were adopted  in  1995, most activities relating to the exchange of information  remained  at a preparatory 
stage  and  will  be  implemented  in  1996. In  the  case  of  PESCA,  calls  for  tenders  and  proposals  were 
prepared  for  publication  in  1996 to  encourage  innovative  cross-border  projects  and  disseminate  good 
practice  through  publications,  conferences,  partnership  meetings,  the  creation  of  networks,  etc.  It  is 
intended to publish guides to good practice under the ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT Initiatives. 

The  LEADER  network  has,  however,  continued  to  operate  strongly  thanks  to  the  experience  acquired 
through  LEADER  I.  The  European  Observatory  for  Innovation  and  Rural  Development  organizes  the 
European  rural  development  network,  which  includes  the  whole  of  LEADER  II.  The  Observatory's 
activities  include the  publication  of a number  of journals  and the organization  of various  meetings  and 
events.  The  INFO-LEADER  monthly  information  bulletin  is  a  useful  means  to  encouraging  the 
European rural development network because it offers  a forum  for all those concerned by LEADER II to 
publish news and seek partners, cooperation or exchanges  likely to be of interest to all those  involved  in 
the Initiative. In particular, a number of national or international  meetings attended  by several  LEADER 
groups took place  in  1995; in March the Murcia LEADER group organized  a meeting on the restoration 
of buildings  for  rural  tourism,  in the  spring ten  local  action  groups  in Portugal,  France  and  Wales took 
part  in  a seminar  in  Poland  to  present the  LEADER  Initiative,  in July there  was  a  national  meeting  of 
local  action  groups  in  Paris  organized  by  the  CNASEA  (Centre  national  pour  l'aménagement  des 
structures  des  exploitations  agricoles  -  national  centre  for  improving  the  structures  of  agricultural 
holdings)  and  in  Spain  a  national  network  for  rural  development  was  established  to  federate  the  local 
action  groups. In  October,  a seminar to  launch  the  LEADER  Initiative  was organized  by Carinthia  and 
the  local  action  group  for  the Norische  region.  Also  in  October,  the  tenth  meeting  of  members  of  the 
Greek LEADER network was held at Mirina on Lemnos. 

^WÇ^Hé 

CHAPTER IV 

FURTHER REVIEW OF THE 1989-93 PERIOD 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

247 

Introduction 

The very nature of programming means that evaluation ofthe  entire first period,  1989-93, is an ongoing 
process.  The  programmes  were  adopted  throughout  the  period  (some  in  1993)  with  their  physical 
execution  taking  place  as  late  as  1995, and  many  programmes  were  extended,  as  was  their  financial 
implementation  (for  although  expenditure  commitments  were  not  possible  after  the  end  of  1993, 
payments  to  beneficiaries  by  the  Member  States  and  to  the  Member  States  by  the  Commission  were 
authorized  until  1995, or  even  1996).  That  continuing  situation  explains  why  evaluation  ofthe  entire 
period  is also a gradual  process. Although  initial work by the Commission  started  in  19941, it was  often 
preliminary  in  nature  and  in  any  case  related  only  to certain  measures.  The  successive  annual  reports, 
from  1993  onwards,  sought  to  present  the  results  as  they  became  available  to  the  Commission.  This 
report continues that work for the evaluations carried out in  1995. 

However, this type of framework,  a report prepared annually to set out the activities ofthe  previous year, 
does  not  easily  lend  itself  to  an  overall  summary  of  an  entire  programming  period  without  becoming 
excessively long or failing to meet legislative requirements. Nevertheless, under the  1993 revision  ofthe 
rules (Article  16 ofthe  Framework Regulation), the Commission must prepare every three years a report 
on  economic and  social  cohesion taking  into account all financial instruments  and  Community  policies 
(first  and foremost  the  Structural Funds) to analyse of their contribution to the achievement  of cohesion. 
The first such report was prepared  in 1996. 

A.  EX POST EVALUATION  OF ADDITIONALITY 

Because  structural  measures  provide  part-financing  for  national  programmes,  the  principle  of 
additionality  is particularly  important  when  gauging the  true  economic  impact  of those  ineasures.  The 
Commission  has  to  ensure  that  Member  States  maintain  their  public  or  similar  structural  expenditure 
over the relevant programming period at at least the same level as during the previous period. There was 
therefore  intensive work in  1995 on verifying  additionality for the  1989-93 period, because  it is not until 
a  year  after  the  legal  end  of  the  financial  commitments,  while  national  and  Community  payments  are 
still being made, that such work can reliably be undertaken. The work on some Member States and  some 
Objectives has been concluded, but it often  proved  difficult. 

1.  Objectives  1 and 2 

The  ex  post  additionality  evaluation  started  in  1995  for  these  Objectives.  The  situation  varies 
substantially  between  the  Member  States.  The  information  presented  at  the  end  of  1995  by  Belgium 
(Wallonia),  Denmark,  Spain,  Ireland  and  the  Netherlands  was  satisfactory,  demonstrating  that 
additionality  had  been  observed  in  1989-93.  In  contrast,  the  information  forwarded  by  Germany, 
Belgium  (Flanders)  and  Greece  was  incomplete  and  did  not  permit  a proper  evaluation.  Lastly,  by  the 
end of  1995 France, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal had not submitted any figures at all. 

2.  Objectives 3 and 4 

As in the case of Objectives  1  and 2, the verification  exercise is useful  and effective  if the Member  State 
agrees to cooperate.  Thus, a reliable  conclusion  was  reached  for  the  Member  States  which  applied  the 
Commission's methodology rigorously: Luxembourg, France, Germany, Denmark (although the exercise 
was  based  on  an  unrepresentative  sample)  and  Portugal,  where  additionality  was  clearly  respected.  In 
two cases, additionality  was verified  without the Commission  receiving figures which  were  sufficiently 
detailed  (the  Netherlands)  or  representative  (Italy).  Greece  supplied  figures  only  for  1990-91,  while 

See the 1993 and  1994 Annual Reports. 

2 48 

. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

conclusions  for  other  Member  States (Belgium  and the United  Kingdom,  where  additionality  could  not 
be  verified),  which  looked  at the  entire  national  budget,  were  not  reliable.  Lastly,  two  Member  States 
raised  an  objection  of  principle:  Ireland  felt  that  additionality  could  not  be  measured  for  Objectives  3 
and  4  as  the  whole  country  was  eligible  under  Objective  1,  and  Spain  held  that  the  sources  of  the 
information  supplied to the Commission did not have to be revealed. 

In  conclusion,  the  evaluation  exercise  demonstrated  that  additionality  had  been  respected  in  France, 
Germany,  Denmark,  Luxembourg  and  Portugal.  On  the  basis  ofthe  findings,  the  same  can  be  said  of 
Italy and the Netherlands. On the other hand, the evaluation exercise could not be completed  in  1995 for 
Belgium, Spain, Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom. 

B.  EX POST EVALUATION  OF OBJECTIVES 

Work  on  ex post  evaluations  ofthe  various  Objectives  started  in  1994 and  was  pursued  intensively  in 
1995.  The  reader  is  asked  to  refer  to  the  previous  Annual  Report  for  Objective  1, whose  results  and 
impact  were  presented  in  detail,  and  for  Objective  2,  the  preliminary  results  of  which  were  also 
presented there. With regard to the latter Objective, the in-depth analysis by the assessors was still  under 
way  in  1995. Preliminary  results for  Objectives  3, 4 and  5(b) were given  in the previous  report  and  are 
confirmed  here by the work done in  1995. Results for Objective  5(a) were available for presentation  only 
in this Report. 

1.  Objectives 3 and 4 

1995 saw the final ization ofthe  expost  evaluation reports for the former  Objectives  3 and 4 for  1989-93. 
Despite the delay  in the  submission  of reports by some Member  States, the summary  ofthe  results was 
completed  by the end ofthe  year and should be distributed  in  1996. This will  permit coordination  ofthe 
approaches ofthe  Commission  and the Member States and will help preparation  ofthe  policy  guidelines 
for the ESF, particularly  with  regard to ensuring appropriate rules for assistance  and the effect  on target 
groups. 

The final conclusions  do  not  differ  from  the  preliminary  results  already  described  in the  1994  Annual 
Report. It  is worthwhile  giving  some  details  on the  implementing  conditions  for  the  programmes.  The 
summary  report  stresses  two  key  elements  of  the  1988  reform,  multiannual  programming  and 
evaluation.  Multiannual  programming  produced  changes  in  the  way  the  national  administrations 
operated but it helped to create a true continuous development and assistance strategy. In addition, a new 
evaluation culture gradually developed at Community level and in each Member State. 

Another  fundamental  principle ofthe  1988 reform  was the  strengthening  of partnership, and this  led  to 
the increased  involvement of regional actors and social partners. While in countries with a decentralized 
structure  the  report  notes  a  growing  convergence  and  even  a  movement  of  resources  to  the  most 
appropriate  level, the  involvement  ofthe  social  partners  remained  modest  in  most  cases  between  1989 
and  1993. Neither the bodies responsible for the actual monitoring of beneficiaries  nor those  involved  in 
business training have anything other than a purely formal  role in partnership. 

2.  Objective 5(ai 

The method  of evaluating  Objective  5(a) agriculture  is quite different  from  those  for  the other forms  of 
assistance,  mainly  because  it falls  under  two  Regulations:  Council  Regulations  (EEC) Nos 2328/91  on 
improving  the  efficiency  of  agricultural  structures  and  866/90  on  improving  the  conditions  for  the 
processing and marketing of products. 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

24Q 

Measures  under  Regulation  (EEC) No 2328/91  (production structures):  These  measures  have  long 
been an  important  element  ofthe  common  agricultural  policy. Ex post  evaluation  concentrates  on  their 
application,  using  questionnaires  drawn  up  by  the  Commission  and  sent  by  the  Member  States  every 
year with information  on: 

• 
• 

investments on holdings; 
the  number  of  holdings  targeted  by  the  programme  broken  down  by  region,  the  income  bands  of 
beneficiary  farmers, cultivated area, production type; 

•  a breakdown  by category of investment, the main purpose ofthe  investments  and their total  amount, 

the planned amount of aid; 

•  start-up aid for young farmers and additional aid intended to facilitate their investments; 
•  compensatory  allowances, with the number of farms  per region  and by size, areas benefiting  and  the 

amounts granted  in different  regions. 

The  overall  impact  of  those  measures  on  the  development  of  agricultural  structures  has  not  been 
systematically  analysed.  However, there have been  studies on certain  measures  in some Member  States 
while aid to young farmers was the subject of a Commission report which had not been completed  by the 
end of 1995. 

Measures  under Regulation  (EEC) No 866/90  (processing and  marketing  of products):  Only  since 
1991  have  ineasures  to  improve  the  processing  and  marketing  of  products  been  the  subject  of  a 
programming  procedure  under  Regulation  (EEC)  No 866/90;  before  then  the  Commission  selected 
projects  submitted  under  Regulation  (EEC)  No 355/77.  Member  States  were  obliged  to  inform  the 
Commission  ofthe  results ofthe  various  projects  in the form  of final reports  on  each  project  drawn  up 
after  completion. Now,  under Regulation  (EEC) No 866/90, monitoring and evaluation  are governed  by 
Articles  25  and  26  of  Regulation  (EEC) No 4253/88  (as  amended)  coordinating  the  Structural  Funds, 
which  provide  for  the  setting  up  of  Monitoring  Committees  and  the  establishment  of  physical  and 
financial  indicators  to  determine  the  progress  of ineasures. The  Monitoring  Committees  established  to 
evaluate  application  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No 866/90  are  now  in  place  in  all  Member  States,  and 
appropriate  monitoring  and  evaluation  programmes  have  been  prepared.  It  is  they  who  will  be 
organizing expost  evaluation for the period 1989-93. 

3.  Objective  5(b» 

Numerous environmental initiatives: 
Assistance for  the  environment  represented a  significant part  of  the  operational programmes.  For 
1989-93 the percentage  ofthe  Community contribution for  environmental protection  is the same  as 
for  1994-99: 11.4% and 11.7%.  Depending on the region, measures might relate to the reduction and 
prevention  of  agricultural  or  agri-food  industry pollution,  the  management  of  natural  resources 
(water, flora  and fauna),  the reintroduction of rare  or  endangered species, waste  disposal  in  rural 
areas,  and  rehabilitation  and  development  of  the  cultural  heritage, for  example,  by  means  of 
protected sites or nature reserves. 
The  success  of  this  aspect  of  the  programmes  undoubtedly  stems  from  greater  environmental 
awareness. Furthermore,  environmental rules, particularly  concerning the disposal of waste,  require 
substantial  public  investments  which  are  a  heavy  burden  on  the  budgets  of  rural  authorities. 
Community grants have often been decisive in providing the facilities required. 
In the case of private  systems of waste disposal and treatment of effluent, measures must be financed 
with regard  to the general  guidelines  on  environmental aid. Many  rural areas  are  now seeking  not 
simply to protect  but to build on the environment by developing new forms  of tourist activity based on 
the discovery of nature. Measures of this type are easily implemented because the investment required 
is  often slight:  a  reception  centre,  the  marking  of paths,  observation points  in  remote  areas,  etc. 
Initiatives of  this  type  have succeeded  and  are  increasing in number.  The links  between  protection 
and  use of  the  environment  should  be  encouraged as  a  way  of  turning  what  may  appear  to  be cm 
obligation (application ofthe  rules) into new and profitable activities suitable for  rural areas. 

250 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

The expost  evaluation  of Objective  5(b) for  1989-93 was completed during  1995 with the finalization of 
the coordination  report for the 21 regions covered. The final results ofthe  exercise do not differ  from  the 
interim  results  presented  in  the  1994  Annual  Report,  which  the  reader  should  consult,  remembering 
always that the evaluation  was  carried  out  only  in a limited  number  of regions.  It  should,  however,  be 
noted  that many  problems  were encountered  in establishing  quantified  and  comparable  data  permitting 
measurement  of  trends  in  income, job  creation  and  the  deceleration  of  rural  population  decline.  The 
report does establish  a more  systematic  summary  of physical  implementation  (agricultural  and  forestry 
investments,  renovation  of  villages,  SMEs1 aided,  industrial  and  tourist  infrastructure,  environmental 
initiatives, etc.). During  1989-93 the Objective  5(b) areas covered  17%> ofthe  Community's territory and 
5.1%) of  its population  (16.3  million  inhabitants). The total  amount  of Community  aid  was  ECU 3 000 
million, or about 5%> ofthe  total available Structural Funds appropriations. 

C.  EX POST EVALUATION  OF THE COMMUNITY  INITIATIVES 

In  1989  the  Commission  launched  a  series  of  Community  Initiatives  under  Article  11  of  Regulation 
(EEC) No 4253/88. These Initiatives  are the special financial instruments  of structural  policy which  the 
Commission  proposes  to the  Member  States  on  its own  initiative  to  support  ineasures  which  will  help 
solve problems having a particular  impact at European  level, and which are not covered  by the  Member 
States'  development  plans. The Community  Initiatives were  intended to provide  flexibility  and to  offer 
special  possibilities  for  cooperation  and  innovation,  for  example  by  encompassing  ineasures  which 
extended  beyond  national  borders,  by  bringing  a genuine  Community  dimension  or  by  experimenting 
with  new  approaches.  In  total,  the  contribution  of  Community  funds  to  carrying  out  the  Initiatives 
amounted to ECU 5 300 million, representing almost  10% ofthe  overall total  allocated to the  Structural 
Funds. 

In  1995, the Commission  undertook  an ex post  evaluation  of all the Initiatives, grouping the  evaluation 
work  according  to  the  three  main  types  of Initiative: regional  development  Initiatives,  human  resource 
Initiatives and LEADER, the rural development Initiative. 

Consideration ofthe  environment between 1991 and 1993: 
Many  of the Community  Initiatives  in the period  1989-93 included measures for  the environment,  in 
various kinds of region:  mining  (RECHAR),  coal and steel (RESIDER),  border regions  (INTERREG)  and 
via  various  types  of  measure  - research  and development,  product  quality,  etc.  Of those Initiatives, 
ENVIREG,  launched  in  1990,  was  specifically  aimed  at  protecting  the  environment  in  the  least-
developed  coastal  regions  (see  below).  In  rural  areas  LEADER  aided  the  implementation  of  many 
environmental  protection  measures.  That  Initiative  particularly  encouraged  the  development  of 
innovative ecological products  and processes  in less-favoured rural areas.  For  example,  in Greece 
(Lefkada island) the  use of olive stones as an energy source has been encouraged; in Italy (Umbria), 
a  system  to  recycle  waste  from  a potter's  studio has  been developed;  in France  (Haut-Jura),  low-
pollution  burners fed  by smallwoodfrom forestry  activities have been installed. 

1.  Regional  development  Initiatives.Regional  development  Initiatives 

Evaluation  of  the  regional  development  Initiatives  covered  ten  Community  Initiatives  based  on  four 
main themes: 

• 

integration  of the  least-developed  regions  into the  internal  market:  STRIDE, to reinforce  the  capacity 
for  innovation  and  technological  development  in certain  regions  assisted  under  Objectives  1 and  2; 
TELEMATIQUE,  for  the  promotion  of  the  use  of  advanced  telecommunications  services  in  the 
Objective  1  regions; PRISMA, aimed at improving the infrastructure  and services for enterprises  in the 
Objective  1  regions in terms of policies of quality and access to public procurement markets; 

•  protection  of the  environment:  ENVIREG, to  improve  and  protect the  environment  and  to  encourage 

economic development, mainly  in the coastal areas ofthe  Objective  1  regions; 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

251 

•  cooperation and cross-border networks: INTERREG, to help frontier  regions to prepare for the Internal 

Market, principally by improving cross-border cooperation; 

•  diversification  of  the  activities  of  industrial  areas  dependent  on  sectors  in  crisis:  RESIDER, for  iron 

and steel areas; RENAVAL for naval shipyard areas; RECHAR for coal-mining areas. 

Table 129:  Community Initiatives 1989-93 - Assistance by Initiative and Member State (ECU million) 

INTERREG/ 
REG EM 

RESIDER 

RENAVAL 

STRIDE 

TELEMATIQUE 

6? 
12,4 
37,3 

Belgium 
Denmark 

TTZ 

TO" 

30,4 

171,2 

89,9 

25,3 
52,4 

84,0 
139,2 
16,1  (I) 

17,7 
32,2 
5,2  (2) 
9,4 
22,6 

Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United  K i n g d om 
Community  (4) 
T o t al 
(1) Includes  ECU  12 060 000 for  Objective  1  regions 
(2) Includes  Prisma-Telematique. 
(3) ENVIREG-STRIDE 
(4) This  figure  represents  the  value  of Interreg  forEUR-12, and  includes  ECU 82 390 000 for Article  10 ERDF appropriations. 

27,6 
24,0 
87,3 

1 077.2 
1.369,7 

101,8 
17,7 

3,4 
184,2 

23,0 
8,7 

18,2 
65,3 

52,4 
58,8 

17,5 
5,7 

299,1 

82,2 

118,4 

2,0 

~TS— 
2,2 
4,3 
59,3 
155,9 
16,4  (.1) 
13,1 
94,9 
2,1 

4,6 

54,1 

30,2 

441,6 

—57? 
14,6 

222,4 
292,2 
498,7 
215,9 
182,3 
398,9 
10,8 
32,2 
323,6 
335,2 
1.077,2 
3.661,2 

41,3 

75,5 

1,7 

11,0 

64,7 

35,6 
5,4 

235,2 

The general  value ofthe  Community Initiatives  lies in the development of cross-border cooperation, the 
visibility ofthe  Community  action and  its demonstration  effect,  and the innovation  which  the flexibility 
ofthe  programmes  can  permit. It must be said that despite the positive effects  ofthe  programmes, there 
were certain factors  which reduced the potential effectiveness  ofthe actions: 

• 

• 

the  breadth  of the  objectives  which  gave the  advantage  of  flexibility  also  led  to  a  reduction  of  the 
specific  nature  of  the  Initiatives,  so  that  they  sometimes  appeared  to  be  merely  an  extension  of 
existing national policies; 
the administrative  arrangements  for the programmes  were often  complex, and  the  lack  of  coherence 
between  the  Member  States  in  both  content  and  timing  meant  that  some  of the  potential  for  cross-
border cooperation  was lost. 

However,  the  socio-economic  actors  involved  regarded  the  Initiatives  favourably  since  their  "bottom-
up" approach enabled them to demonstrate capacity for innovative action. 

STRIDE, PRISMA, TELEMATIQUE 

These  three  Community  Initiatives  provided  a  crucial  connection  between  cohesion  and  integration. 
Their  aim  was  to  assist  the  less-favoured  regions  in  developing  the  technical  and  human  capital 
infrastructure  needed  to  give firms in those regions  access to the wider benefits  of the  internal  market. 
The three programmes were linked by their emphasis on technological development and  innovation: 

•  STRIDE was  aimed  mainly  at  stimulating  the  R &D  capacity  of the  Objective  1 regions,  although 
certain measures  in Objective  2 regions were also eligible for funding.  It provided  funds  to  Objective 
1  regions  to  assist  investment  in  basic  R&D  infrastructure  through  regional  technological  studies, 
new investments  and project  running costs to start up R&D activities and R&D centres preparing  for 
and  participating  in  EC-funded  research.  It  also  supported  links  and  networks  between  research 
centres  and  industry  in  both  Objective  1 and  2  regions,  covering  a  wide  range  of  consortia  and 
technology  transfer  methods.  The  area  which  received  the  most  funding  was  research  activities 
including R&D centres, R&D and equipment grants (57%); 

•  TELEMATIQUE concentrated  on  supporting  the  use of advanced  telecommunications  services,  rather 
than just  increasing access to them, and emphasizing the role of SMEs. The programme  supported  a 
wide range of projects covering data communications (including database and network development), 

252 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

support for service users, development of advanced  services for SMEs and marketing, promotion  and 
training activities. Data communications received the greatest proportion  of funding  (42%); 

PRISMA  aimed  at helping  firms  in the Objective  1 regions  to benefit  from  the completion  of the 
internal  market,  placing  particular  emphasis  on  meeting  quality  standards  in  private  and  public 
markets.  The majority  (75%>) of the  funding  was used  for projects  in calibration  and metrology, 
which included both laboratory infrastructure  and associated quality system  projects. 

STRIDE, PRISMA,  TELEMATIQUE: Breakdown  by Member State  (ECU  million) 

B  PRISMA 
•  TELEMATIQUE 
m STRIDE 

I 

L 

N 

P 

UK 

B 

DK 

D 

EL 

E 

.m  4 

•J3. 

F 

IRL 

The value added by STRIDE,  TELEMATIQUE and  PRISMA 

The key areas  examined  were  innovation, the demonstration  effects  of the  programmes, the degree of 
internationalization,  any links to other programmes and the level of additionality  (the extent to which the 
actions would have taken place if the programmes had not existed). 

STRIDE:  There was quite a high degree of innovation. The programme  concept  itself was novel, and the 
programme  design  led to  significant  new links  between  universities  and  local  firms  (especially  in 
Portugal and Greece). There was a substantial  impact on the rate and level of technological  innovation in 
support  of research  leading to product  development,  and in the provision  of support  services.  Overall, 
several  hundred  new products  and processes were developed  with  STRIDE support,  and it facilitated the 
introduction  of a rich variety of research  techniques  into certain  regions and  countries for the first time. 
Where the beneficiaries  has been  involved  closely in the design and implementation  ofthe  projects, the 
demonstration  aspect was quite  successful. 

Internationalization  was a specific  objective  ofthe  programme, and it helped  to foster  the  development 
of a large  number  of trans-national  links. However,  very few projects  involved  contractors  from  other 
Member  States.  The  main  success  came  from  encouraging  research  organizations  and  firms  to 
participate  in the Framework  Research  Programmes,  and from  building  links  to help  the mobility of 
research  workers,  which  meant  that  large  numbers  of beneficiaries  could  be reached  with  a relatively 
small  budget.  Formal  collaboration  between  projects  was difficult  due to a  lack  of knowledge  of the 
content of other  STRIDE programmes, differences  in timescales and delays in implementation.  However, 
there  were  examples  of  informal  collaboration.  Links  to other  programmes  occurred  mainly  through 
Framework  Programmes,  and in a few cases  through  a contribution  of current  expenditure  to ERDF-
funded  capital  projects.  There was  little collaboration  with  other  programmes,  even  those apparently of 
interest such as SPRINT or COMETT. 

Generally  the additionality  of the  Initiative  was good  in  that  it  brought  forward  a  large  number of 
projects  which  would  not otherwise  have  been  funded,  and in some  cases  developed  whole  lines of 
action at a regional  level  which did not previously exist. An area of concern  was a few projects  in Italy 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

253 

where  large  finns,  particularly  multi-nationals,  had  received  large  grants, and  also  aid  to  major  public 
sector schemes and  laboratories where the programme was being used to fund  activities which  would  in 
all likelihood have been carried out anyway. 

The STRIDE Initiative was an extremely  successful  experiment  in introducing a technological  dimension 
to  Community  regional  policy.  It  had  profound  effects  on the  pattern  of  expenditure  within  the  wider 
CSFs and stimulated  interest in a number of other regional technology initiatives. 

Some ofthe key outputs from STRIDE: 
•  68 new research centres and 100 others equipped or developed in the 

less favoured regions; 

•  approximately 300 new products and processes and 46 new patents; 
•  4 400 jobs directly or indirectly created. 

TELEMATIQUE: This Initiative had an advantage enjoyed  by no other Community Initiative at the time in 
that the national administrations already had experience of a similar programme - the STAR programme. 
However,  the  budget  of  the  programme  at just  under  ECU 220  million  was  a tiny  fraction  of  what  is 
spent on telecommunications  in the less developed regions in one year. As already stated, the aim  ofthe 
programme  was  less  to  develop  innovative  services  than  to  support  the  use  of  advanced  services. 
Innovation  tended  to  lie  in the  application  of  existing  technologies  to  new  situations.  A  key  objective 
was the opening up to  SMEs ofthe  opportunities offered  by advanced telecommunications  services and 
the information  society. 

The demonstration  effect  ofthe  programme was most effective  in terms of illustrating  success  and  thus 
encouraging  new  users.  This  tended  to  be  indirect,  rather  than  the  result  of  specific  demonstration  or 
promotional  ineasures. 

The  degree  of  internationalization  within  the  programme  was  limited.  Opportunities  for  cross-border 
collaboration,  providing  access to services  in other Member  States and exchanging  experience  between 
projects  were  missed.  However,  it  should  not  be  assumed  that  internationalization  is  in  all  cases 
desirable.  Where only  expertise  is required  from  another  Member  State, there  is not  necessarily  a need 
for  formalized  involvement, and  indeed the problems of obtaining and justifying  matching funding  may 
be insurmountable. 

There  was  usually  a  degree  of  deadweight  in that  projects  would  probably  have  gone  ahead  at  a  later 
date  or  in  a  less  ambitious  form.  However,  in  a  fast-moving  field  such  as  telecommunications,  this 
advance can have in itself a significant  impact. 

Some ofthe key outputs from  TELEMATIQUE : 
•  17 000 SMEs using advanced telecommunications services 
•  32 000 new users of advanced services 

PRISMA:  The  value  added  by  PRISMA  lay  in the  fields  of  innovation,  demonstration  and  additionality. 
The  programme  itself  was  innovative,  especially  the  idea  of  solving  the  problems  of  SMEs  in  less-
favoured  areas  through  the  introduction  of  service-support  infrastructures  such  as  calibration  and 
metrology  laboratories. From  a local perspective, the technology employed  was also  innovative  as these 
technologies had not previously been transferred  to these areas. There were also examples of  innovative 
project  design.  These  projects  tended  to  have  a  high  demonstration  effect  since  firms  can  see  the 
quantifiable  benefits  of calibration  and  quality  certification.  The public  procurement  projects  were  less 
successful,  but this is a more difficult  area for SMEs and the level of resistance was that much  higher. 

Levels  of  deadweight  were  generally  low,  particularly  for  the  calibration  and  metrology  service  since 
private  companies  do  not tend  to  invest  in  facilities  which  offer  this  service  to other  SMEs  because  of 
low  returns  and  significant  risks,  and  because  this  is  not  an  area  in  which  government  agencies 
traditionally  invest. 

254 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

In  general,  this  reinforcing  of  standardization  and  quality  assurance  made  a  real  contribution  to  the 
completion ofthe  Internal Market. 

Some ofthe key outputs from PRISMA : 
•  300 projects in the field of calibrations and standards 
•  4 500 participant organizations benefiting from the services. 

ENVIREG 

The ENVIREG Initiative had four very specific  objectives: 
• 

to  reduce  pollution  in  coastal  areas whose  economy  depends  significantly  on  tourism,  with  priority 
given to areas experiencing rapid economic growth and with serious environmental  problems; 
to  promote  land-use  planning  in  coastal  areas  so  as  to  preserve  natural  ecosystems  and  check  the 
deterioration of coastal habitats; 
to contribute to the development of systems and infrastructure  to manage toxic and hazardous wastes; 
to  strengthen  technical  expertise  relating  to  the  design  and  management  of  pollution  control  and 
treatment infrastructure  and technologies. 

• 

• 
• 

The Initiative covered  the coastal  zones of Objective  1, 2 and  5(b) areas around  the  Mediterranean  and 
other coastal locations  in Southern Europe, with a hinterland  up to  10 km. In the case of toxic waste and 
technical assistance, the entire relevant Objective  1  regions were eligible. 

The value added by ENVIREG 

ENVIREG  was  able  to  help  finance  a  number  of  projects  which  were  of  significance  because  of  their 
innovative  content  and  which  might  otherwise  not  have  gone  ahead.  Funds  were  also  often  used  to 
support  projects  focusing  on  responding  to  specific  directives,  including  the  Urban  Waste  Water 
Treatment  Directive  and  the  Toxic  Waste  Management  Directive,  which  posed  serious  challenges  to 
many  of  the  Objective  1  regions.  In  particular  ENVIREG  made  a  contribution  to  environmental 
improvements in Objective  1  regions by: 

•  allowing  individual  regions  to  carry  out  investment  in  waste  water  and  waste  management 

• 

• 

infrastructure; 
carrying out technical  assessments of issues, or feasibility  studies which  helped  improve designs and 
environmental  benefits; 
focusing attention on coastal zone management issues; 
targeting coastal biotopes - an innovative approach; 
adding emphasis to water resource management and the reuse of treated  effluent; 
acting as a catalyst which encouraged other projects building on or enhancing the ENVIREG projects. 

In  addition,  AMBER, a technical  assistance  structure,  was  created  to  organize  exchanges  of  experience 
and the dissemination  of good practice between those involved in environmental  projects. 

This Initiative  led to a significant  change  in Community  structural  policies through  better  integration  of 
the environmental dimension  into the new generation of CSFs and OPs. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

255 

Some  ofthe  key outputs from ENVIREG: 
•  over 800 projects  were financed; 
•  a significant  impact  was  made on the  level  of collection,  treatment 
and  disposal  of  urban  waste  and  waste  water,  making  a  decisive 
contribution  to  reducing  the  gap  with  the  rest  of  Europe.  Almost 
two  thirds  of  the  funds  were  devoted  to  waste  water  treatment 
installations  in  Objective  1  coastal  regions,  mainly  in  Spain, 
southern  Italy and Greece. 

In  Portugal  Envireg  part-financed  major  clearing  and  prevention 
measures  (waste  compacter  at  Matosinhos,  tannery  waste  recycling  at 
Alviela,  floating  barriers,  pump  vessels,  purgers  and  holding  dams  to 
control  petroleum  and  chemical  pollution  in  Madeira  and  the  Azores), 
integrated  approach  combining  preservation  of  both 
within  an 
ecosystems  and  countryside  of  importance  for  tourism,  and  here  local 
planning  efforts 
the  environment  were  particularly 
important. 

to  manage 

RESIDER, RENAVAL, RECHAR 

These  three  Community  Initiatives  seek  the  diversification  of  areas  affected  by  industrial  decline  and 
together  account  for  Community  expenditure  totalling  ECU  943.9  million.  The  RESIDER  programme 
concerns  areas  adversely  affected  by  the  decline  of  the  steel  industry  and  which  subsequently  require 
restructuring.  The  programme  covers  18  regions  in  eight  Member  States.  RENAVAL  centres  on  areas 
dependent  on  shipbuilding,  ship conversion  and  repair where there  have  been  similar  employment  losses 
and  covers  26  regions  in  nine  Member  States.  RECHAR  assists  those  areas  hit  particularly  hard  by  the 
rapid  decline  of coal  mining  and threatened  by consequent job  losses. It covers  26  coal  mining  regions  in 
six  Member  States. Four  Member  States  (France, Germany,  Spain  and  the  UK)  received  over  80%>  ofthe 
funding,  with  the  UK  being the  largest  recipient. 

EC  funding  was  not  made  available  to  directly  support  the  industries  in  decline,  but  to  encourage  the 
creation  of  employment,  the  establishment  of  new  businesses  and  the  expansion  of  existing  firms  in  the 
areas  affected.  This  was  to be achieved  by: 

investing  in  infrastructure  projects; 

• 
•  directly  assisting  capital  investment  in  SMEs; 
• 

indirect  assistance  (e.g. through  intermediaries)  to  SMEs  by the  provision  of technical  assistance  such 
as research  and  development,  marketing, etc.; 
in the  case  of RECHAR, providing  vocational  training and  aid  for  redeployment. 

• 

Clearly  the  programmes  were  too  small  to  deal  entirely  with  the  problems  caused  by  the  decline  ofthe 
industries  they  were  supposed  to  support.  The  programmes  were,  therefore,  only  a  starting  point  for 
stimulating  and  encouraging  new  activities. 

The  value  added  by RESIDER, RENA VAL  andRECHAR 

Evaluation  puts the  level  of  full  dependency  on  the  programmes  as  relatively  high:  45% of  RECHAR  and 
3 3%  of  RENAVAL  and  RESIDER  projects  were  entirely  dependent  on  Community  assistance;  only  5%  or 
less  of  projects  (and  none  at  all  for  RECHAR) would  have  gone  ahead  in the  absence  ofthe  programmes. 
Thus  it can  be  said  that  the  programmes  had  a positive  effect  on  the  implementation  ofthe  projects.  The 
level  of  leverage  of these  projects  from  the  private and  public  sector was also  relatively  high  at  2.66%. 

One  ofthe  most  significant  outcomes  was  the  level  of  private  sector  investment  pulled  in  to  areas  which 
had  suffered  from  a  progressive  lack  of  investment  as  they  were  considered  so  unattractive.  Measures 
funded  included  both  "hardware" type  investment  such  as  infrastructure  or  environmental  improvements 

256 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

or direct aid to SMEs, and "software"  type  investment,  such as indirect aid  to  SMEs and,  in the case of 
RECHAR, aid for tourism, vocational training and economic conversion  bodies. Generally, between 67%> 
and 80%> of funding  was spent on "hardware" type projects. 

The study highlighted  a number of projects  where cross-border cooperation  occurred  through  European 
networks  and  between  projects  situated  close  to  national  borders.  There  were  also  examples  of 
complementary  linkages between ERDF and ESF projects under Rechar which are regarded as examples 
of good practice. 

Some ofthe  key outputs from RESIDER, RENA VAL andRECHAR: 
•  904 projects under RESIDER; 
•  1  771 projects funded under RENAVAL; 
•  2 220 projects supported under RECHAR; 
•  ECU 2 000 million of non-EC funds attracted to the programmes; 
•  a  large  number  of  jobs  directly  or  indirectly  supported  by  the  three 

Initiatives. 

INTERREG I 

INTERREG seeks to stimulate cross-border cooperation with the double objectives  of: 
•  accelerating  the  process  of Community  development,  particularly  in terms  of the  completion  of  the 

internal market, by acting on the areas where Member States meet - the frontier  zones; 

•  overcoming specific development problems resulting from  geographical or economic handicaps. 

Thirty-one operational  programmes were approved of which nine related to external  frontiers,  and  22 to 
the internal borders ofthe  Community. ECU  1  077 million from  Community funds  was allocated to this 
Initiative, and  was  divided  among  2 500 projects. Approximately  half of the  expenditure  on INTERREG 
went to communication  and energy  infrastructure,  this focus  being particularly  marked  in the  Objective 
1  regions.  However,  two  other  sectors  which  proved  to  be  effective  in  promoting  cross-border 
cooperation were tourism  and the environment. 

The value added by INTERREG I 

The  very  open  objectives  of  the  programme,  which  put  the  emphasis  as  much  on  socio-economic 
development  of  the  frontier  regions  as  on  actual  cross-border  cooperation,  led  to  a  high  level  of 
integration  of Community, national and regional policies. One ofthe  key effects  ofthe  programme  was 
its  ability  to  reinforce  local  policies.  Two  thirds  of  the  projects  could  not  have  operated  without  the 
support  of  the  programme,  and  a  further  20% were  significantly  enhanced  in  scale  or  timescale.  The 
cross-border  nature  of the  programme  led to the development  of many  innovative  implementation  and 
management  mechanisms  and  new  forms  of  partnership  both  at  an  international  level  and  within  the 
Member  States. In  a third  of the  frontier  areas there  were  more  ambitious  forms  of  support  for  cross-
border  cooperation  which  stimulated  other  forms  of  cooperation  between  the  semi-public  and  private 
sectors. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

257 

Table 130:  Interreg I: Breakdown  of projects by sector 

Sector 

No. of projects 

%  of projects 

%  of 
expenditure 

SME 
Tourism 
Environment 
Rural development 
Employment and training 
Research  and higher education 
Communication  infrastructure 
Cross-border organizations 
Cross-border development plans 

278 
659 
187 
182 
160 
142 
464 
229 
174 

11,1 
26,4 
7,5 
7,3 
6,4 
5,7 
18,6 
9,2 
7,0 

7,5 
16,4 
8,9 
5,3 
3,7 
2,7 
49,3 
3,8 
2,5 

The  programme  also  exerted  a  strong  demonstration  effect  by  giving  credibility  to  the  concept  of  cross-
border  working:  a  third  of  projects  led  in  turn  to  other  cross-border  projects.  At  a  cultural  level,  the 
objectives  of  the  project  were  not,  in  general,  to  promote  uniformity  but  rather  to  add  value  to  local 
customs  and  practices  so  that  the  experience  of  both  parties  could  be  exchanged  and  developed, 
enhancing  the  richness  of  both  sides.  This  was  particularly  the  case  for  projects  in  the  tourism  sector, 
where  regions  were  able  to  develop  an  appreciation  of  their  own  heritage  as  part  of  the  process  of 
exchanging  experience  with  others.  In  terms  of  the  contribution  to  innovation  and  excellence,  the  key 
elements  of  INTERREG  I  were  in  the  fields  of  circulation  of  information,  exchange  of  experience, 
transfers  of  know-how  and  technology  and  the  creation  of  new  dynamics  of  economic  and  cultural 
exchange. 

Some  ofthe  key outputs from  INTERREG I: 
Because  ofthe  extremely  diverse  nature  ofthe  projects  involved,  it  is hard  to 
list  a  series  of  concrete  outputs.  However,  in  the  short  term,  INTERREG  has 
contributed to: 
• 
• 

increasing the level of qualification  through training; 
improving the accessibility  of regions and their services through  improved 
communications  links; 

•  making regions more attractive through tourism  and cultural  projects; 
•  creating employment through the work financed  by the projects. 
In  the  longer  term,  Interreg  will  have  contributed  to  an  improvement  in  the 
standard of living in these regions through: 
• 

the  development  of human  resources  which  should  reduce  the  fragility  of 
the regions when faced  by economic change; 
the  opening  up  and  internationalization  of  relationships  between  local 
SMEs; 

• 

•  concrete measures to follow  up the preparatory  studies carried  out; 
• 

the effect  ofthe  environmental  improvement actions. 

2.  Human  resources  Initiatives:  NOW. HORIZON  and  EUROFORM 

These  three  Community  Initiatives  were the  subject  of expost  evaluations  by  independent  assessors.  The 
main  aims  of  this  exercise  were  to  estimate  the  coherence  and  effectiveness  of  implementation  at 
programme  and  project  levels  and  to  evaluate  the  value  added  by  the  Community,  i.e.  cross-border 
working,  harmonization  and  circulation  of  information.  The  study was  carried  out  between  August  1994 
and  July  1995  and  the  final  report  was  presented  in  December  1995. That  timetable  allowed  the  study's 
conclusions  and  recommendations  to  be  used  for  the  preparation  and  launch  of  the  EMPLOYMENT  and 
ADAPT Community  Initiatives  for  the new  programming  period  1994-99. 

A  total  of  4  408  projects  under  the  three  Initiatives  NOW,  HORIZON  and  EUROFORM  were  aided  in  the 
twelve  Member  States  between  1991  and  1994, the  majority  of  them,  managed  by  public  bodies,  being 
targeted  at  local  or  regional  problems.  The  eligible  measures  mainly  involved  improvements  to  the 

258 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

training  sector  (which  absorbed  most  of the aid), advisory  services, services  and  aid  systems  for  target 
groups and job creation. 

The results ofthe  NOW Initiative, which targetted unemployed women, are positive  in that trends on the 
labour market  indicate an increase  in jobs for  women to which the Initiative  seems to have  contributed. 
However,  there  is  still  a  grey  area  in  that  pay  rates  for  men  and  women  still  differ  and  part  of  that 
increase  in  jobs  for  women  is  in  unstable  jobs.  The  major  variations  in  employment  rates  and 
percentages of female  employment throughout Europe must also be taken into account. 

Evaluation ofthe  overall  impact ofthe  HORIZON Initiative, which was targeted  at people suffering  from 
incapacity or a specific  handicap, raised a number of problems since there are no comparable statistics at 
Community  level.  However,  it  appears  that,  in  general,  HORIZON'S  funding  was  relatively  modest 
compared  to  the  size  of  these  groups  and  the  amount  of  national  aid.  Results  were  therefore  mixed, 
although  its  impact  appears  to  have  been  more  significant  in the  priority  regions  where  it  contributed 
ECU 295 per potential  beneficiary. 

EUROFORM mainly  benefited  the jobless,  with  the  training  sector  receiving  most  of  the  funding.  The 
Community  contribution  to training activities undertaken  within this Initiative  was estimated  at  10%> of 
the total commitments  in the priority regions where ESF funding  already accounts for the majority  ofthe 
ineasures for training. The innovative aspects of EUROFORM above all (its trans-national  nature, the type 
of  measure,  the  beneficiary  groups,  the  geographical  targeting  and  the  characteristics  of  the  bodies 
responsible for  implementing  it) were more evident than for NOW and HORIZON. 

The value added by NOW, HORIZON and EUROFORM 

The  added  value  aspect  was  considered  from  the  point  of  view  of the  Initiatives'  innovative  features, 
such as their trans-national  nature, circulation of information  and harmonization. For their  trans-national 
nature, the  study  attempted  to  measure  the  degree  of  implementation.  An  analysis  by  project  revealed 
that  about  20%  of  the  total  resources  was  devoted  to  trans-national  activities  and  that  the  average 
number  of  partners  per  project  was  slightly  under  three.  More  importantly,  the  trans-national  aspect, 
which would have been  absent had  it not been for the Initiatives, was deemed to be the most  innovative 
aspect ofthe  Community  Initiatives. The report also defined  certain major  constraints  militating  against 
improving this aspect,  such as the tight timetable for the projects, poor coordination  at programme  level 
and difficulties  in identifying  partners at Community  level. These factors  must be taken  into account  for 
the new programming period. Other constraints related to language and cultural barriers. 

These  conclusions  were  taken  into  consideration  by  the  Commission  in  its  definition  of  the  new 
generation  of  Community  Initiatives. To this end, common  selection  criteria  and  coordinated  selection 
procedures  were  agreed  with  the  Member  States  and  technical  assistance  was  granted  to  support 
structures. In addition, the approval  rules now include a "trans-national  cooperation  agreement"  between 
the partners participating in the projects covering the main aspects of project  implementation. Lastly, the 
condition that at least three partners must participate was accepted as being best practice. 

With regard to circulation  of information,  the evaluation concluded that, despite good communication  of 
information  at national  level, the impact ofthe  results ofthe  project and the media  impact were  modest. 
The two main  weaknesses were insufficient  product development  by the public  bodies (such  as training 
manuals, computer systems, etc.) and, more generally, the lack of a communication  strategy at all levels, 
obstructing  the  proper  dissemination  of  the  results.  To  improve  the  circulation  of  information,  the 
responsible  bodies  in  the  ESF, the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  agreed  to  launch  a  coherent 
communication  strategy  which  should  bring  about  the  creation  of  a more  systematic  information  base 
and  produce  skills  at project  level. The  impact ofthe  Initiatives on the content  ofthe  CSFs for  the  new 
programming  period  was  considered  poor.  This  is  partly  due  to  the  inherent  characteristics  of  the 
Initiatives (trans-national  nature and many small projects), which are difficult  to integrate  into the CSFs. 
Better  coordination  at  Commission  and  national  levels  is  needed.  The  study  found  that  the  impact  on 
local,  regional  and  national  policies  was  particularly  great  at  local  level,  where  cooperation  between 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

259 

oL(>0 

existing  bodies  increased  markedly,  as  did  the  ability  to  participate  in  trans-national  activities. 
Nevertheless,  the  overall  impact  on  national  measures  and  policies  was  deemed  slight,  with  a  few 
exceptions. This can also be explained  by the basic characteristics ofthe  Initiatives, which  restrict  their 
impact on national programmes with rather larger  funding. 

The  main  recommendations  of  the  study  for  the  next  programming  period  were,  firstly,  that  a  clear 
strategy  is needed  to  demonstrate  the  potential  impact  of the  Initiatives  and  improve  the  coherence  of 
their  trans-national  dimension.  Secondly,  even  though  the  demand  for  training  is  higher  than  in  other 
sectors,  the  Initiatives  should  be  restricted  to  those  which  are  more  innovative  in  the  labour  market. 
Lastly,  priority  must  be  given  to  better  coordination  with  the  main  ESF  programmes  so  as  to  create 
synergies, including developing monitoring and evaluation systems. 

3.  The rural development  Initiative: LEADER I 

A public  invitation  to tender was  launched  in  1995 to select assessors  for  LEADER I. The analysis  must 
cover  the 217  local  action  groups  created  in the twelve  Member  States  and  their  activities,  along  with 
those  ofthe  coordination  unit for  1990-94. The first stage must  be the  definition  of  a working  method 
and will have to include an analysis ofthe  impact ofthe Initiative, the added value achieved compared to 
other  operational  programmes,  the  effectiveness  of  the  use  of  funds  and  the  establishment  of 
implementing rules. The study must be carried out in  1996 and 1997. 

fo/ 

\m$mm 

am 

ANNEX I: 

Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

265 

Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 

Table 1: Objective 1 - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
1,9? 
0,00 
7,00 
0,00 
8,97 
921,90 
606,05 
482,60 
12,00 
2.022,55 
1.812,99 
368,56 
452,19 
19,30 
2.653,04 
3.202,10 
837,75 
571,12 
167,93 
4.778,90 
96,22 
115,64 
9,50 
1,11 
222,47 
498,13 
295,13 
154,76 
6,19 
954,21 
1.558,98 
223,39 
411,69 
34,57 
2.228,63 
10,00 
5,00 
0,00 
2,20 
17,20 
19,96 
5,04 
3,80 
0,00 
28,80 
709,83 
370,86 
275,10 
23.93 
1.379,72 
128,71 
58,87 
27,42 
3,60 
218,60 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
1,97 
0,00 
7,00 
0,00 
8,97 
921,90 
606,05 
482,60 
12,00 
2.022,55 
1.812,99 
368,56 
452,19 
19,30 
2.653,04 
3.202,10 
837,75 
571,12 
167,93 
4.778,90 
96,22 
115,64 
9,50 
1,11 
222,47 
498,13 
295,13 
154,76 
6,19 
954,21 
1.558,98 
223,39 
411,69 
34,57 
2.228,63 
10,00 
5,00 
0,00 
2,20 
17,20 
19,96 
5,04 
3,80 
0,00 
28,80 
709,83 
370,86 
275,10 
23,93 
1.379,72 
128,71 
58,87 
27,42 
3.6C 
218,60 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
20,77 
0,00 
1,39 
0,00 
22,16 
452,44 
476,56 
314,87 
8,10 
1.251,97 
1.131,50 
253,46 
315,50 
5,34 
1.705,79 
2.517,66 
765,90 
454,79 
40,96 
3.779,30 
37,65 
66,94 
6,12 
0,87 
111.56 
391.45 
293,80 
167,06 
4,00 
856,30 
875,35 
66,54 
216,99 
0.00 
1.158.89 
4.29 
3.46 
0.53 
1,28 
9,56 
9,98 
2,52 
1,90 
0,00 
14,40 
1.123,93 
411,86 
86,53 
19,09 
1.641,42 
83.14 
53,27 
25.75 
1,64 
163,81 

ECU million 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
20,77 
7,41 
1,39 
0,00 
29,57 
452,44 
476,56 
314,87 
8,10 
1.251,97 
1.131,50 
253,46 
315,50 
5,34 
1.705,79 
2.517,66 
765,90 
454,79 
40,96 
3.779,30 
37,65 
95,74 
6,12 
0,87 
140,37 
391.45 
293,97 
167,06 
4,00 
856,47 
878,35 
80,79 
216,99 
0,00 
1.176,13 
4,29 
3,46 
0.53 
1,28 
9,56 
9,98 
2,52 
1,90 
0,00 
14,40 
1.123,93 
437,67 
86,53 
19,09 
1.667,23 
83,14 
53,27 
25,75 
1,64 
163,81 

14.513,10 

14.513,10 

10.715,16 

10.794,61 

8.960,80 
2.886,29 
2.395,18 
270,83 

8.960,80 
2.886,29 
2.395,18 
270,83 

6.648,15 
2.394,31 
1.591,42 
81,27 

6.651,15 
2.470,76 
1.591,42 
81,27 

feËLCluM 

GERMANY 

GREECE 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

IRELAND 

ITALY 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

PORTUGAL 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 
TOTAL 

TOTAL 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

Budget headings B2-1000,  B2-1100, B2-1200, B2-1300. 

266 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 

Table 2: Objective 2 - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not including carry 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available again 
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 
6,00 
0,00 

6,00 
20,33 
17,68 

38,01 
545,10 
114,11 

659,21 
261,90 
51,19 

313,09 
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 
0,09 
9,06 

9,15 
38,91 
15,24 

54,15 
24,80 
6,30 

31,10 
83,22 
22,56 

105,78 
352,26 
165,99 

518,25 

1.734,74 

1.332,61 
402,13 

and 

appropriations 

made available again 
Ô,ÔÔ 

4,63 

4,63 

6,00 
0,00 

6,00 

20,33 
17,68 

38,01 

545,10 

114,11 

659,21 

261,90 

51,19 

313,09 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,09 

9,06 

9,15 

38,91 
15,24 

54,15 

24,80 

6,30 

31,10 

83,22 

22,56 

105,78 

352,26 

165,99 

518,25 

1.739,37 

1.332,61 

406,76 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available again 
9,43 
0,00 

9,43 
8,35 
0,00 

8,35 
15,63 
10,30 

25,92 
395,86 
52,10 

447,96 
98,97 
43,15 

142,12 
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
7,77 
4,53 

12,30 
13,80 
7,62 

21,42 
12,40 
3,15 

15,55 
26,78 
11,28 

38.06 
22,03 
123,40 

145,43 

866,54 

611,01 
255,53 

ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 

TOTAL 

ERDF 
ESF 

ECU million 

Including carry-overs 

and 

appropriations 

made available again 
9,43 
2,32 

11,75 
8,35 
0,00 

8,35 
15,63 
16,89 

32,52 
395,86 
52,10 

447,96 
98,97 
46,09 

145,06 
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 
7,77 
4,53 

12,30 
13,80 
7,62 

21,42 
12,40 
3,15 

15,55 
26,78 
11,28 

38,06 
22,03 
130,93 

152,96 

885,91 

611,01 
274,90 

Budget headings B2-1201,  B2-1301. 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

267 

Annex I: Financial  implementation  by Objective in 1995 

Table 3: Objective 3 - CSF 

M e m b er  S t a te 

Fund 

C o m m i t m e n ts 
(1994-99) 

P a y m e n ts 
(1994-99) 

ECU million 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not  including  carry 

Including  carry-overs 

overs and 

appropriations 

and 

appropriations 

overs and 

appropriations 

and 

appropriations 

made available again 

made available again 

made available  again 

made available  again 

33,39 

33,39 

34,24 

42,33 

41,00 

41,00 

12,30 

39,04 

48,22 

48,22 

96,49 

104,48 

206,97 

206,97 

169,65 

169,65 

396,80 

396,80 

312,88 

3 1 2 , 88 

0,00 

3,29 

0,00 

3,29 

0.00 

3,51 

0,00 

4,00 

143,83 

143,83 

142.57 

142,57 

64,06 

64,06 

32,03 

32,03 

60,33 

60,33 

73,00 

73,00 

30.17 

36.50 

30,17 

36,50 

497,00 

497,00 

436.17 

436,17 

1.567,90 

1.567,90 

1.306,51 

1.349,82 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

B E L G I UM 

D E N M A RK 

G E R M A NY 

S P A IN 

F R A N CE 

I T A LY 

L U X E M B O U RG 

N E T H E R L A N DS 

A U S T R IA 

F I N L A ND 

S W E D EN 

U N I T ED  K I N G D OM 

T O T AL 

Budget  heading  B2-1302. 

268 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * 

Table 4: Objective 4 - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

ECU  million 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not  including carry 

Including  carry-overs 

overs and 

appropriations 

and 

appropriations 

overs  and 

appropriations 

made available again 

made available again 

made  available  again 

and 

appropriations 

made  available  again 

0,00 

5,00 

0,00 

0,00 

5,00 

0,00 

0,00 

2,50 

0,00 

0,00 

2,50 

0,00 

62,70 

62,70 

38,13 

38,13 

0,00 

0,00 

0,27 

0,00 

11,70 

14,83 

0,00 

94,50 

0,00 

0,00 

0,27 

0,00 

11,70 

14,83 

0,00 

94,50 

0,00 

0,00 

0,21 

0.00 

5,85 

7.42 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,21 

0,00 

5,85 

7,42 

0,00 

54,11 

54,11 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

TOTAL 

Budget heading B2-1303. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

269 

Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * 

Table 5: Objective 5(a) agriculture - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not including  carry 

Including  carry-overs 

overs and 

appropriations 

and 

appropriations 

overs  and 

appropriations 

made available again 

made available again 

made available  again 

and 

appropriations 

made available  again 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

EAGGF 

EAGGF 

30,23 

16,73 

30,23 

16,73 

12,74 

16,49 

12,74 

16,49 

ECU million 

GERMANY 

EAGGF 

165,13 

165,13 

160,90 

160,90 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

EAGGF 

21,10 

21,10 

27,64 

27,64 

EAGGF 

252,08 

252,08 

242,14 

242,14 

EAGGF 

EAGGF 

EAGGF 

EAGGF 

EAGGF 

EAGGF 

0,00 

5,47 

4,89 

61,50 

61,42 

13,72 

22,80 

0,00 

5,47 

4,89 

61,50 

61,42 

13,72 

22,80 

0,00 

2,01 

1,96 

30,75 

30,71 

6,86 

22,43 

0,00 

2,01 

1,96 

30,75 

30,71 

6,86 

22,43 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

EAGGF 

TOTAL 

EAGGF 

655,07 

655,07 

554,63 

554,63 

Budget  headings  B2-1001,  B2-1002. 

270 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex I: Financial implementation  by Objective in 1995 * 

Table 6: Objective 5(a) fisheries-  CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 

ECU  million 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

0,00 

23,28 

12,46 

19,90 

31,62 

22,37 

0,89 

1,40 

2,00 

23,00 

40,00 

0,11 

0,00 

23,28 

12,46 

19,90 

31,62 

22,37 

0,89 

1,40 

2,00 

23,00 

40,00 

o,n 

TOTAL 

FIFG 

177,02 

177,02 

1,29 

18,63 

9,93 

0,00 

1,29 

18,63 

9,93 

0,00 

25,31 

25,31 

0.00 

0,00 

2.33 

0,20 

6,90 

12,00 

4,43 

81,02 

0,00 

0,00 

2,33 

0,20 

6,90 

12,00 

4,43 

81,02 

Budget  heading B2-1101. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

271 

Annex I: Financial implementation  by Objective in  1995 * 

Table 7: Objective 5(b) - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

TOTAL 

TOTAL 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 

ECU  million 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not  including carry 

Including carry-overs 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available again 
4,82 
1,55 
2,79 

and 

appropriations 

made available again 
4,82 
1,55 
2,79 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available again 
2,41 
0,77 
1,40 

and 

appropriations 

made available again 
2,41 
0,77 
1,40 

9,16 
3,36 
0,00 
0,00 

3,36 
49,48 
5,10 
81,19 

135,77 
25,22 
5,30 
58,06 

88,58 
45,02 
29,73 
35,70 

110,46 
12,41 
3,27 
15,83 

31,50 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 
1,94 
0,92 
4,45 

7,31 
33,34 
13,68 
31,30 

78,33 
16,03 
5,18 
11,60 

32,81 
36,78 
29,24 
8,57 

74,59 

571,86 

228,39 
93,97 
249,50 

9,16 
3,36 
0,00 
0,00 

3,36 
49,48 
5,10 
81,19 

135,77 
25,22 
5,30 
58,06 

88,58 
45,02 
29,73 
35,70 

110,46 
12,41 
3,27 
15,83 

31,50 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 
1,94 
0,92 
4,45 

7,31 
33,34 
13,68 
31,30 

78,33 
16,03 
5,18 
11,60 

32,81 
36,78 
29,24 
8,57 

74,59 

571,86 

228,39 
93,97 
249,50 

4,58 
2,45 
0,00 
0,00 

2,45 
15,54 
4,26 
51,41 

71,21 
26,00 
3,21 
52,48 

81,69 
27,77 
18,21 
30,59 

76,57 
6,20 
1,64 
7,91 

15,75 
0,21 
0,00 
0,00 

0,21 
7,40 
0,46 
1,59 

9.45 
16,67 
6,84 
15,65 

39,16 
7,78 
2,59 
5,56 

15.94 
22,68 
19,42 
4.29 

46,39 

363,41 

135,13 
57,40 
170,89 

4,58 
2,45 
0,00 
0,00 

2,45 
15,54 
4,26 
51,41 

71,21 
26,00 
3,21 
52,48 

81,69 
27,77 
18,21 
30,59 

76,57 
6,20 
1,64 
7,91 

15,75 
0,21 
0,00 
0,00 

0,21 
7,40 
0.46 
1,59 

9,45 
16,67 
6,84 
15,65 

39,16 
7,78 
2.59 
5,56 

15,94 
22,68 
19,42 
4,29 

46,39 

363,41 

135,13 
57,40 
170,89 

Budget headings B2-1003, B2-1202, B2-1304. 

272 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex I: Financial implementation by Objective in 1995 * 

Table 8: Objective 6 - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

ECU million 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
22,40 
21,10 
36,80 
0,70 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
22,40 
21,10 
36,80 
0,70 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 
11,20 
10,55 
18,40 
0,35 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 
11,20 
10,55 
18,40 
0,35 

81,00 
21,86 
11,39 
10,94 
0,73 

44,92 

125,92 

44,26 
32,49 
47,74 
1,43 

81,00 
21,86 
11,39 
10,94 
0,73 

44,92 

125,92 

44,26 
32,49 
47,74 
1,43 

40,50 
10,93 
5,70 
5,47 
0,37 

22,46 

62,96 

22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 

40,50 
10,93 
5,70 
5,47 
0,37 

22,46 

62,96 

22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

TOTAL 

TOTAL 

FEDER 
FSE 
FEOGA 
IFOP 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

Budget headings B2-1004,  B2-1 102, B2-I203, B2-1305. 

w.  a^H 

ANNEX II: 

Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

275 

Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * 

Table 1: Objective 1 - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

ECU  million 

C o m m i t m e n ts 

(1994-99) 

P a y m e n ts 

(1994-99) 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not  including  carry 

Including  carry-overs 

overs and 

appropriations 

and 

appropriations 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available again 

made available again 

made available  again 

and 

appropriations 

made available  again 

BELGIUM 

GERMANY 

GREECE 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

IRELAND 

ITALY 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

PORTUGAL 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

ERDF 
ESF 
E A G GF 
FIFG 
T O T AL 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 
E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 
E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 
E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 
E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

FIFG 

T O T AL 

T O T AL 

ERDF 
ESF 
E A G GF 
FIFG 

67,93 
24,70 

14,00 
0,37 

107,00 

1.844,97 

1.166,51 

861,60 

19,00 

3.892,08 

3.151,22 

684,71 

699,19 

37,10 

4.572,22 

5.367,19 

1.666,10 

979,67 

304,46 

8.317,41 

236,69 

185,46 

69,21 

6,30 

497,67 

748,60 

619,31 

332,56 

9,19 

1.709,66 

2.018,14 

462,35 
477,78 

66,54 
3.024,80 

24,30 

8,20 

1,90 

2,80 

37,20 

19,96 
5.04 
3,80 
0,00 

28,80 

2.925,37 
795,89 

776.14 
52,01 

4.549,40 

301,24 

162,11 

59,91 

9,06 

532,32 

67,93 
24,70 
14,00 
0,37 

107,00 

1.844,97 

1.166,51 

861,60 
19,00 

3.892,08 

3.151,22 

684,71 

699,19 

37,10 

4.572,22 

5.367,19 

1.666,10 

979,67 

304,46 

8.317,41 

236,69 

185,46 

69,21 

6,30 

497,67 

748,60 

619,31 

332,56 

9,19 

1.709,66 

2.018,14 

462,35 

477,78 

66,54 

3.024.80 

24,30 

8,20 

1,90 

2,80 

37,20 

19,96 
5,04 
3,80 
0,00 

28,80 

2.925,37 

795,89 
776,14 

52,01 
4.549,40 

301,24 

162,11 

59,91 

9,06 

532,32 

53,75 
12,35 

6,08 
0,19 
72,36 

1.027,06 

852,73 
578,67 
11,60 

2.470,05 
1.847,77 

4 1 1 , 53 

518,12 

14,24 
2.791,66 
3.582,35 

1.166,94 

668,62 

109,22 

5.527,13 
107,89 

101,85 

37,65 

3,46 

250,86 

568,45 

539,59 

285,46 

5,50 

1.398,99 

1.087,57 
186,02 

251,65 
15,99 

1.541,22 

11,44 

5,06 

1,55 

1,58 

19.63 

9,98 

2,52 

1,90 

0,00 

14,40 

2.161,09 
624.37 

419,63 
33,14 

3.238,23 

169,41 

104,89 

52.69 

4,37 

331,36 

53,75 
19,76 

6,08 
0,19 
79,77 

1.027,06 

852,73 
578,67 

11,60 

2.470,05 
1.847,77 

4 1 1 , 53 

518,12 

14,24 
2.791,66 
3.582,35 

1.166,94 

6 9 1 , 08 

109,22 

5.549,60 

107,89 

130,65 

37,65 

3,46 

279,66 

568,45 

539,76 

285,46 

5,50 

1.399,16 

1.087,57 
200,27 

251,65 

15,99 

1.555,47 

11,44 

5,06 

1,55 

1,58 

19,63 

9,98 

2,52 

1,90 

0,00 

14,40 

2.161,09 
650,18 

419,63 
33,14 

3.264,05 

169,41 
104,89 
52,69 

4,37 
331,36 

27.268,56 

27.268,56 

17.655,89 

17.754,80 

16.705,60 
5.780,37 
4.275,75 
506,84 

16.705,60 
5.780,37 

4.275,75 
506,84 

10.626,76 
4.007,85 
2.822,01 
199,28 

10.626,76 
4.084,30 
2.844,47 
199,28 

Budget  headings  B2-1000,  B2-1100,  B2-1200,  B2-1300, 

276 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 

Table 2: Objective 2 - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1994-96) 

Payments 
(1994-96) 

ECU million 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not  including carry 

Including carry-overs 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available again 
49,12 
8,41 

and 

approp ialions 

made available again 
49,12 
13,04 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available again 
24,39 
2,61 

and 

appropriations 

made available again 
24,39 
4,93 

57,53 
24,84 
5,45 

30,29 
198,05 
88,80 

286,85 
545,10 
114,11 

659,21 
751,68 
152,71 

904,39 
239,29 
60,66 

299,95 
6,03 
1,94 

7,97 
66,95 
38,07 

105,02 
38,91 
15,24 

.  54,15 
24,80 
6,30 

31,10 
83,22 
22,56 

105,78 
903,52 
346,53 

1.250,05 

3.792,28 

2.931,52 
860,76 

62,16 
24,84 
5,45 

30,29 
198,05 
88,80 

286,85 
545,10 
114,11 

659,21 
751,68 
152,71 

904,39 
239,29 
60,66 

299,95 
6,03 
1,94 

7,97 
66,95 
38,07 

105,02 
38,91 
15,24 

54,15 
24,80 
6,30 

31,10 
83,22 
22,56 

105,78 
903,52 
346,53 

1.250,05 

3.796,91 

2.931,52 
865,39 

27,00 
17,77 
2,23 

19,99 
104,49 
45,85 

150,34 
395,86 
52,10 

447,96 
326,44 
93,91 

420.35 
119,65 
30,33 

149,97 
3.01 
0,97 

3,99 
33,48 
19,03 

52,51 
13,80 
7,62 

21,42 
12,40 
3,15 

15,55 
26,78 
11,28 

38,06 
297,66 
213,67 

511,33 

1.858,47 

1.375,72 
482,75 

29,31 
17,77 
2,23 

19,99 
104,49 
52,45 

156,94 
395,86 
52,10 

447,96 
326,44 
96,85 

423,29 
119,65 
30.33 

149,97 
3,01 
0,97 

3,99 
33,48 
19,03 

52,51 
13,80 
7,62 

21,42 
12,40 
3,15 

15,55 
26,78 
11,28 

38,06 
297,66 
221,20 

518,85 

1.877,84 

1.375,72 
502,13 

ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
FEDER 
FSE 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 

TOTAL 

TOTAL 

ERDF 
ESF 

Budget headings B2-1201, B2-1301. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  unds  (1995) 

277 

Annex II: Financial implementation  by Objective,  1994-95 * 

Table 3: Objective 3 - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

TOTAL 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ECU million 

C o m m i t m e n ts 
(1994-99) 

P a y m e n ts 
(1994-99) 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not  including  carry 

Including  carry-overs 

overs and 

appropriations 

and 

appropriations 

overs  and 

appropriations 

made available again 

made available again 

made available  atain 

and 

appropriations 

made available  again 

97,76 

97,76 

85,00 

85,00 

66,42 

47,50 

74,51 

74,24 

307,77 

307,77 

226,27 

234,26 

426,59 

426,59 

244,54 

778,40 

778,40 

503,68 

244,54 

503,68 

200,47 

200,47 

100,23 

100,23 

6,46 

6,46 

5,09 

5,59 

282,27 

282,27 

253.32 

253,32 

64,06 

64,06 

32,03 

32,03 

60,33 

60,33 

30,17 

30,17 

73,00 

73,00 

36,50 

36,50 

975,00 

975,00 

818,57 

818,57 

3.357,11 

3.357,11 

2.364,33 

2.407,64 

Budget heading B2-1302. 

278 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex II: Financial implementation  by Objective,  1994-95 * 

Table 4: Objective 4 - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 

ECU  million 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

SPAWN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

TOTAL 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

ESF 

4,63 

6,00 

4,63 

6,00 

29,61 

29,61 

118,10 

118,10 

95,39 

60,61 

0,53 

22,23 

11,70 

14,83 

0,00 

95,39 

60,61 

0,53 

22,23 

11,70 

14,83 

0,00 

2,32 

3,00 

14,81 

65,83 

47,70 

30,31 

0.34 

11,12 

5,85 

7,42 

0,00 

2,32 

3,00 

14,81 

65,83 

47,70 

30,31 

0,34 

11,12 

5,85 

7,42 

0,00 

363,63 

363,63 

188,68 

188,68 

Budget  heading  B2-1303. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

279 

Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 

Table 5: Objective 5(a) agriculture - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

EAGGF 

EAGGF 

53,03 

38,67 

53,03 

38,67 

16,51 

19,19 

16,51 

19,19 

ECU  million 

GERMANY 

EAGGF 

322,72 

322,72 

209,82 

209,82 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

EAGGF 

77,41 

77,41 

55,81 

55,81 

EAGGF 

518,73 

518,73 

242,97 

242,97 

EAGGF 

117,47 

117,47 

LUXEMBOURG 

EAGGF 

NETHERLANDS 

EAGGF 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

EAGGF 

EAGGF 

EAGGF 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

EAGGF 

12,22 

25,27 

61,50 

61,42 

13,72 

85,16 

12,22 

25,27 

61,50 

61,42 

13,72 

85,16 

58,73 

5,37 

12.15 

30,75 

30,71 

6.86 

41,73 

58,73 

5,37 

12,15 

30,75 

30,71 

6,86 

41,73 

TOTAL 

EAGGF 

1.387,32 

1.387,32 

730,60 

730,60 

Budget  headings  B2-1001,  B2-1002  (not  including  budget  heading  B2-1000-Structural  actions  directly  linked  to  markets  policy 
(only  in  1994  -  ECU  43.65  million  in  commitments  and  in  payments)  and  reimbursements  under  reg.(EEC)  No  2328/91 
corresponding  to the year  1993 (ECU  356.6 million  in commitments and  ECU 417.02 million  in payments). 

280 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * 

Table 6: Objective 5(a) fisheries- CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

ECU million 

Commitments 
(1994-99) 

Payments 
(1994-99) 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Not including carry 
overs and 
appropriations 
made available again 

Including carry-overs 
and 
appropriations 
made available again 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FffG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

FIFG 

4,08 

46,59 

24,87 

39,83 

63,27 

44,77 

1,10 

9,16 

2,00 

23,00 

40,00 

14,78 

4,08 

46,59 

24,87 

39,83 

63,27 

44,77 

1,10 

9,16 

2,00 

23,00 

40,00 

14,78 

3,33 

30,29 

16,13 

9,97 

41,13 

11,20 

0,11 

6,21 

0.20 

6,90 

12,00 

11.82 

3,33 

30,29 

16,13 

9,97 

41,13 

11,20 

0,11 

6,21 

0,20 

6,90 

12,00 

11,82 

TOTAL 

FIFG 

313,45 

313,45 

149,28 

149,28 

Budget  heading  B2-1101. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

281 

Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 * 

Table 7: Objective 5(b) - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

ECU million 

C o m m i t m e n ts 
(1994-99) 

P a y m e n ts 

(1994-99) 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not  including carry 

Including carry-overs 

overs and 

appropriations 

and 

appropriations 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available again 

made available again 

made available again 

and 

appropriations 

made available again 

BELGIUM 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

SPAIN 

FRANCE 

ITALY 

LUXEMBOURG 

NETHERLANDS 

AUSTRIA 

FINLAND 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

T O T AL 

ERDF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

T O T AL 

ERDF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

T O T AL 

ERDF 
ESF 

E A G GF 

T O T AL 

ERDF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 

E A G GF 

T O T AL 

T O T AL 

E R DF 

ESF 
E A G GF 

Budget headings B2-1003, B2-1202, B2-1304. 

4,82 

1,55 

2,79 

9,16 

5,93 

1,29 

2,57 

9,79 

99,04 

27,46 

135,24 

261,74 

44,65 

13,29 

104,15 

162,09 

157,11 

64,71 

151,36 

373,18 

43,86 

14,35 

48,78 

107,00 

0,43 

0,11 

0,30 

0,84 

14,02 
2,22 
9,37 

25,61 

33,34 

13,68 
31,30 

78,33 

16,03 

5,18 

11,60 

32,81 

66,36 

36,47 

17,87 

4,82 

1,55 

2,79 

9,16 

5,93 

1,29 

2,57 

9,79 

99,04 

27,46 

135,24 

261,74 

44,65 

13,29 

104,15 

162,09 

157,11 

64,71 

151,36 

373,18 

43,86 

14,35 

48,78 

107,00 

0,43 

0,11 

0,30 

0,84 

14,02 

2,22 

9,37 

25,61 

33,34 

13,68 
31,30 

78,33 

16,03 

5,18 

11,60 

32,81 

66,36 

36,47 

17,87 

120,70 

120,70 

1.181,25 

1.181,25 

485,60 

180,31 

515,34 

485,60 
180,31 
515,34 

2,41 

0,77 

1,40 

4,58 

3,74 

0,64 

1,29 

5,66 

40,32 

15,44 

78,44 

134,20 

35,72 

7,21 

75,52 

118,44 

83,81 

35,70 

88,42 

207,93 

21,93 

7,18 

24.39 

53.50 

0,21 

0,05 

0,15 

0,42 

7,40 

1,11 

4,05 

12,56 

16,67 

6,84 
15,65 

39.16 

7,78 

2.59 

5,56 

15,94 

37,48 

23,04 

8,93 

69,45 

661,85 

257,48 
100,57 
303,81 

2,41 

0,77 

1,40 

4,58 

3,74 

0,64 

1,29 

5,66 

40,32 
15,44 
78,44 

134,20 

35,72 

7,21 

75,52 

118,44 

83,81 

35,70 

88,42 

207,93 

21,93 

7,18 

24,39 

53,50 

0,21 

0,05 

0,15 

0,42 

7,40 

1,11 

4,05 

12,56 

16,67 

6,84 
15,65 

39,16 

7,78 

2,59 

5,56 

15,94 

37,48 

23,04 

8,93 

69,45 

6 6 1 , 85 

257,48 
100,57 
303,81 

282 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Annex II: Financial implementation by Objective, 1994-95 

Table 8: Objective 6 - CSF 

Member  State 

Fund 

Commitments 
(1995-99) 

Payments 
(1995-99) 

ECU million 

Not including carry 

Including carry-overs 

Not  including  carry 

Including  carry-overs 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available again 
22,40 
21,10 
36,80 
0,70 

and 

appropriations 

made available again 
22,40 
21,10 
36,80 
0,70 

overs and 

appropriations 

made available  again 
11,20 
10,55 
18,40 
0,35 

and 

appropriations 

made  available  again 
11,20 
10,55 
18,40 
0,35 

81,00 
21,86 
11,39 
10,94 
0,73 

44,92 

125,92 

44,26 
32,49 
47,74 
1,43 

81,00 
21,86 
11,39 
10,94 
0,73 

44,92 

125,92 

44,26 
32,49 
47,74 
1,43 

40,50 
10,93 
5,70 
5,47 
0,37 

22,46 

62,96 

22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 

40,50 
10,93 
5,70 
5,47 
0,37 

22,46 

62,96 

22,13 
16,25 
23,87 
0,72 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

TOTAL 
ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

TOTAL 

TOTAL 

ERDF 
ESF 
EAGGF 
FIFG 

FINLAND 

SWEDEN 

Budget headings  B2-1004, B2-1102, B2-1203, B2-1305. 

*y^  ^«-

ANNEX III: 

Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

285 

Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 

Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative 

Community 

Initiatives 

(number of CIPs) 

Total cost 

SF 

Commitments 

assistance 
0) 

1994-95 

(2) 

% 

<2V(0 

Payments 

1994-95 
0) 

% 
(3)/(2) 

ADAPT (17) 

Belgium 

Wallonia 

Flanders 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Portugal 

Finland 

Sweden 

United  Kingdom 

Great  Britain 

Northern  Ireland 

EMPLOYMENT  (17) 

Belgium 

Wallonia 
Flanders 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Portugal 

Finland 

Sweden 

United  Kingdom 

Great  Britain 

Northern  Ireland 

LEADER  (68) * 

Germany 

lladen-  Wurttemberg 

Bavaria 

Eastern  Berlin 

Brandenburg 

Hesse 

Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania 

Lower  Saxony 

North  Rhine-Westphalia 

Rhineland-Palatinate 

Saarland 

Saxony 

Saxony-Anhalt 

Thuringla 

3.010,89 

1.444,87 

307,66 

91,95 

51,29 

40,65 

65,68 

480,43 

44,59 

403,24 

622,51 

28,27 

360,49 

0,80 

142,80 

25,75 

29,17 

42,90 

21,72 

650,60 

64 5,H 3 

4.77 

2.738,67 

70,19 

43,53 

26,66 

20,68 

297,53 

83,15 

576,75 

384,42 

99,49 

589,08 

0,60 

90,86 

49,37 

55,55 

66,25 

39,89 

314,85 

296, "o 

m,09 

3.092,11 

382,40 

14,26 

113,45 

0,40 

33,67 

21,29 

29,31 

40.09 

H,'6 

25.4H 

4,20 

35,45 

26.34 

29,69 

31,20 

16,24 

14,96 

29,50 

228,80 

30,10 

256,40 

249,70 

21,20 

190,00 

0,30 

57,55 

11,57 

21,00 

19,70 

11,25 

286,60 

283,50 

3.10 

1.524,15 

32,10 

19,89 

12.21 

10,56 

156,80 

64,40 

386,60 

146,50 

76,10 

348,70 

0,30 

42,44 

23,01 

40,30 

29,15 

20,69 

146,50 

134,60 

11,90 

1.242,44 

169,79 

5,68 

43,05 

0,24 

18,83 

6,20 

15,56 

18,84 

3,54 

8,55 

1,82 

18,01 

15,56 

13,92 

5,69 

3,04 

2,66 

5,31 

42,92 

7,14 

48,10 

46,94 

3,90 

36,10 

0,05 

11,51 

11,57 

3,99 

19,70 

11,25 

53,49 

53,18 

0,31 

308,87 

21,69 

19,89 

1.80 

1,61 

23,14 

8,04 

58,63 

22,27 

7,61 

51,47 

0,30 

4,24 

23,01 

5,67 

29,15 

20,69 

31,36 

20.47 

10,89 

468,76 

124,57 

5,67 

6,08 

0,24 

l'.2l 

5,61 

15.25 

18.21 

3.54 

8.55 

1,21 

18.10 

11,63 

13.26 

2 1% 

18% 

19% 

18% 

18% 

19% 

24% 

19% 

19% 

18% 

19% 

18% 

20% 

100% 

19% 

100% 

100% 

19% 

19% 

10% 

20% 

68% 

100% 

15% 

15% 

15% 

12% 

15% 

15% 

10% 

15% 

100% 

10% 

100% 

14% 

100% 

100% 

2 1% 

15% 

91%, 

38% 

73% 

100% 

14% 

100% 

91% 

90% 

98% 

9'% 

100%, 

100% 

6'%, 

100%, 

'5%, 

95% 

152,62 

2,85 

1.52 

1.33 

2,66 

21,46 

3,57 

24,05 

23,47 

1,95 

18,05 

0,03 

5,76 

5,79 

2,00 

8,64 

5,63 

26,75 

26.59 

0.16 

154,23 

10,85 

9.95 

0.90 

0,80 

11,57 

4,02 

29,31 

11,13 

3,61 

25,73 

0,15 

2,12 

11,51 

2,83 

14,58 

10,35 

15,68 

10.24 

5.44 

132,71 

38,82 

l.'O 

3.04 

0.0-

5.22 

1.68 

4.59 

5.46 

1.06 

2.5 ~ 

0.36 

5.45 

3.62 

4.00 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

44% 

5 0 %, 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50%, 

50%, 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

47% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

28% 

3 1% 

30% 

50% 

30% 

30% 

30% 

30%, 

30%, 

30%, 

30%, 

30%, 

30% 

31%, 

30% 

'Including networks (commitments;  ECU  3,7  million; payments; ECU 2,9  million) 

286 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 

Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd.) 

Community 

Initiatives 

(number  of CIPs) 

Total cost 

SF 

Commitments 

assistance 
0) 

1994-95 

(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 

1994-95 

(3) 

ECU million 
% 
(3V(2) 

Greece 

Spain 

Andalusia 

Aragon 

Asturias 

Balearic  Islands 

Canary  Islands 

Cantabria 

Castile-La  Mancha 

Castile-Leon 

Catalonia 

Extremadura 

Galicia 

Rioja 

Madrid 

Murcia 

Navarre 

Basque  Country 

Valencia 

France 

Aquitaine 

Auvergne 

Lower  Normandy 

Burgundy 

Brittany 

Corsica 

Franche-Comté 

Languedoc-Roussillon 

Limousin 

l'oitou-Charentes 

l'rovence-Alpes-Côle  d'Azur 

Ireland 

Italy 

Abruzzi 

Basilicata 

Bolzano 

( 'ulabria 

( 'ampania 

Emilia-Romagna 

l-riuli-Venezia  Giulia 

Apulia 

Sardinia 

Tuscany 

Umbria 

Valle d'Aosta 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Drenthe 

Flevoland 

Nottlmest  Friesland/Norlhwest 

(ironingen 

Northwest  Fries/and 

Austria  -  Burgenland 

Portugal 

• ' 

263,60 

1.161,93 

249.29 

137.40 

35.53 

11.27 

30.81 

19,89 

142,63 

122,88 

68,10 

56,14 

119.4' 

18,40 

14,15 

24.26 

21.47 

12.63 

77.62 

318,97 

38.51 

31.19 

23.81 

21.19 

28.52 

-.16 

11.55 

33.-1 

40.94 

58.2' 

24.12 

165,58 

435,96 

30.33 

39.10 

19,20 

4-.-I 

51.32 

20.61 

14.54 

53.20 

-3.86 

53.11 

31.15 

1.83 

4,85 

35,17 

2.84 

4.43 

14.43 

13.4-

6,50 

148,00 

354,81 

68,81 

27,48 

13,00 

3,13 

12,33 

6,41 

41,00 

53,50 

13,62 

24,00 

43.82 

3,68 

3,60 

9,52 

4,81 

2,47 

23,63 

122,89 

17,23 

12,78 

10.13 

8.53 

14.09 

3.05 

5.-8 

14.39 

15.04 

9.83 

12.06 

67,92 

183,20 

15.9' 

19.55 

4,80 

23.15 

25.82 

6.35 

4.90 

26.60 

32.3' 

14,81 

8,41 

0.47 

1,01 

8,46 

1.05 

2.11 

2.64 

2,65 

2,57 

156,80 

117,59 

22,56 

112,10 

9.8 S 

24,18 

12,52 

3,07 

1,85 

0.97 

4.47 

9,60 

2,12 

22,44 

2,90 

3,43 

3,36 

I.-4 

4.17 

2.31 

3.12 

95,56 

15.06 

11,96 

9.12 

',48 

4,26 

3,05 

4,9-

12.96 

14.50 

8,01 

4,22 

7,50 

28,62 

6,03 

1,~2 

4,26 

5,96 

2." 

0.69 

0,30 

6,04 

O.5-

0,00 

0,00 

0.28 

. 
1,01 

8,18 

1,05 

2.02 

2.50 

2.61 

2,01 

6,74| 

1 5% 

32% 

14% 

88%, 

96%, 

98% 

15% 

15% 

11% 

18% 

16% 

94%, 
'% 
93%, 

93% 

18% 

8'% 

94% 

13%, 

78% 

8'% 

94%, 

90%, 

88% 

30%, 

100%, 

86%, 

9(1%, 

96'% 

81%, 

35%, 

1 1% 

16% 

38% 

9% 

89%, 

26%, 

11%, 

11%, 
(,%, 

:%, 
0%, 

(1%, 

"* 
100% 

97% 

100% 

96% 

95% 

98% 

78% 

6%| 

11,28 

34,86 

4.93 

4.51 

2.45 

1.22 

0.92 

0.48 

2,24 

4,80 

1.06 

4,39 

1,45 

1.03 

1.01 

0,87 

1.25 

0,69 

1,56 

15,53 

1,25 

2,13 

0,50 

1,52 

1,28 

0,54 

1,49 

0,90 

3,12 

1.53 

1.2-

3,75 

14,00 

3.02 

0,86 

1.8' 

2.98 

1,38 

0.34 

0,15 

3.02 

0.29 

0.00 

0.00 

0.08 

0,41 

2,45 

0.32 

0.60 

0. '5 

0. '8 

0,33 

3,59 

5 0% 

3 1% 

50% 

19% 

20% 

40% 

50%, 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

20%, 

50% 

30% 

30% 

50%, 

30% 

30% 

50% 

16% 

8% 

18%, 

5% 

20% 

30% 

18% 

30% 
'%, 
22%, 

19% 

30%, 

5 0% 

49% 

50% 

50%, 

44%, 

50%, 

50%, 

50%, 

50%, 

50%, 

50%, 

30% 

4 0% 

30% 

30%, 

30%, 

30%, 

30%, 

1 6% 

5 3% 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Annex III: Financial implementation of the Community Initiatives, 1994-95 

Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd.) 

Community 

Initiatives 

(number  of  CIPs) 

Total  cost 

SF 

Commitments 

assistance 
d) 

1994-95 

(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 

1994-95 

(3) 

United  Kingdom 

England 

Highlands  and  Islands 

Northern  Ireland 

Wales 

Scotland 

Networks 

PESCA  (11) 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

United  Kingdom 

SME  (21) 

Belgium -  Wallonia 

Germany 

Bavaria 

Berlin 

Bremen 

Hesse 

Mecklenburg- Western  Pomerania 

North Rhine-  Westphalia 

Saxony 

Saxony-Anhalt 

'Ihuringia 

Greece 

France 

Corsica 

Hainaut 

Objective  2 and  5(b)  areas 

Ireland 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

United  Kingdom 

Highlands 

Northern  Ireland 

Scotland 

Wales 

RECHAR  (26) 

Belgium 

Châtelet 

Limburg 

Germany 

Lower Saxony-

North Rhine-  Westphalia 

160,37 

57,78 

27,91 

31,47 

18,83 

24,38 

66,20 

25,85 

11,96 

11,35 

8.62 

8,41 

605,89 

252,99 

4,25 

48,64 

62,00 

54,63 

95,66 

81,33 

12,18 

81,19 

34,18 

47,17 

84,65 

1.025,51 

14,22 

356,25 

19,68 

36.20 

8,94 

3,40 

35,38 

31,64 

99,6~ 

63,89 

57,45 

156,86 

139,22 

15,75 

25.14 

98,33 

53,20 

26,86 

235,90 

42,99 

6,96 

11,10 

19,-1 

5,22 

900,17 

58,05 

1,86 

56,19 

400,81 

3,30 

280,41 

2,00 

16,40 

23,00 

27,10 

41,50 

28,30 

6,70 

34,17 

10,80 

25,60 

37,42 

491,25 

9,41 

156,83 

6,97 

14,61 

0,9-

1,16 

18,30 

",92 

42,80 

35,10 

29,00 

83,33 

58,49 

3,04 

6,29 

49,1-

28,79 

10,34 

123,98 

20,09 

3.04 

6,20 

8.52 

2.33 

328,02 

15,68 

0.93 

14,-5 

128,38 

1,65 

66,45 

56,16 

22,40 

8,84 

9,-0 

7,58 

7,64 

3,75 

53,11 

0,33 

2,73 

3,83 

4,51 

6,91 

18,78 

1,11 

4,42 

1,15 

4,26 

5,07 

203,53 

7,49 

101,20 

6,9' 

14,61 

0,9' 

1.16 

14.65 

7.92 

4.39 

21,52 

29,00 

10,45 

15,41 

2,60 

6,29 

6.53 

26,49 

9,54 

13,22 

19,74 

3,04 

6.20 

8,52 

1.98 

172,52 

15,68 

0.93 

14,'5 

55,88 

1.65 

7,-4 

85% 

87% 

-4% 

85% 

88%, 

91% 

2 1% 

17% 

17% 

17% 

17% 

17% 

66% 

17% 

13% 

1 1% 

17% 

14% 

4 1% 

80% 

65% 

100% 

100% 

100%, 

100%, 

80%, 

100% 

10% 

61%, 

100%, 

13% 

26% 

85%, 

100%, 

13%, 

91'A 

92% 

t l% 

98% 

100%, 

100%, 

100%, 

85%, 

5 3% 

100% 

100%, 

100% 

44% 

100%, 

12% 

4,82 

1.47 

1.14 

0.-7 

0,81 

0,63 

2,88 

17,16 

0,17 

1,37 

1,92 

2,26 

3,46 

0,00 

0,56 

2,21 

0,58 

2,13 

2,54 

67,71 

2,25 

30,85 

2,09 

4,48 

0,49 

0.35 

4.65 

3.96 

2.20 

2.98 

9.65 

5,23 

4,62 

0.-8 

1.89 

1.96 

7,95 

2,86 

6,61 

7,34 

0.96 

3.10 

2.69 

0.59 

75,60 

7,84 

0,4' 

'.38 

26,80 

0,83 

3,87 

287 

ECU million 
% 
(3y<2) 

9% 

7% 

13% 

8% 

11% 

8% 

11% 

32% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

0% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

3 3% 

30% 

30% 

30% 

31%, 

50% 

30%, 

32% 

50%, 

50% 

14% 

33% 

50% 

30% 

30% 

30% 

30% 

30% 

30% 

50% 

37% 

31% 

50%, 

32%, 

30% 

44% 

50% 

50%, 

50% 

48% 

50% 

50%, 

288 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe  Community Initiatives, 1994-95 

Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd.) 

Community 

Initiatives 

(number  of  CIPs) 

SF 

Commitments 

Total  cost 

assistance 

(D 

1994-95 

(2) 

% 
wo) 

Payments 

1994-95 

(3) 

ECU million 
% 
(3)'(2) 

Saarland 

Saxony 

Saxony-Anhalt 

Ihuringia 

Greece 

France 

Burgundy 

iMnguedoc-Roussillon 

Ijirraine 

Midi-Pyrénées 

Provence-Alpes-Côte  d'Azur 

Rhône-Alpes 

Italy 

Sardinia 

Tuscany 

Portugal 

United  Kingdom 

Exist Midlands 

Eastern  Scotland 

North East  England 

North  West  England 

Wales 

West  Midlands 

Western  Scotland 

Yorkshire 

REGIS  (3) 

Spain 

France - Réunion 

Portugal 

KONVER  (37) 

Belgium 

Brussels 

Flanders 

Wallonia 

Denmark 

Germany 

Bavaria 

Berlin 

Bremen 

Hamburg 

Hesse 

Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania 

Lower  Saxony 

North  Rhine-Westphalia 

Rhineland-Palatinate 

Saarland 

Saxony-Anhalt 

Schleswig-Holslein 

'Ihuringia 

Greece 

France 

Alsace 

Aquitaine 

4,56 

19,81 

l',12 

5,00 

1,37 

15,49 

1,54 

0.81 

10,08 

1.03 

1,01 

1,01 

1,68 

0,78 

0.90 

0,86 

81,57 

4,24 

10.00 

23.46 

5.88 

20.46 

10.13 

3.04 

4,36 

58,83 

28,01 

8,76 

22,05 

238,22 

11,45 

l,"3 

4,80 

4.92 

2,38 

22.86 

53.63 

30,60 

10,00 

2,03 

39,42 

3,08 

2,74 

25,11 

4,44 

2,02 

2,02 

34,13 

1,56 

32.5' 

1,15 

6,26 

29.80 

19,22 

5,00 

1,52 

16,66 

1,54 

1,01 

10.93 

1,15 

1,01 

1,01 

1,68 

0.78 

0,90 

0,86 

364,59 

163,25 

42,15 

10,00 

23,46 

6,90 

20,46 

12,66 

3,04 

4',57 

456,50 

216,93 

115,56 

124,00 

352,13 

11,45 

1.-3 

4,80 

4,92 

2,38 

*~ 

99,28 

21.89 

51.15 

15.28 

46,44 

2'.86 

6,50 

96,19 

751,47 

385,49 

209,17 

156,81 

883,69 

30,43 

5, '5 

J 1.80 

12,88 

5,33 

342,33 

28.95 

18.6' 

21.54 

2.48 

49.S 

33.03 

36.34 

34.35 

2 ~.8 2 

4.58 
r.()4 

29,-9 

38.01 

20,27 

244,06 

19,98 

64,44 

144,54 

130,61 

12,67 

11.'6 

4.47 

1,24 

12,42 

19.45 

12,92 

14,90 

13,91 

1.24 

11,16 

8,94 

19.45 

12,91 

71,02 

4,25 

13,16 

8,45 

10.26 

4,4-

1,24 

12,42 

19.45 

12,92 

14.90 

9,04 

0.65 

11.16 

6.19 

19.45 

11,48 

64,42 

4,04 

11,86 

~3% 

66% 

89%, 

100%, 

90% 

93% 

100%, 

80%, 

92% 

90% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100%, 

100% 

50% 

10%, 

100%, 

100% 

85% 

100% 

80%, 

100% 

10% 

13% 

13% 

8% 

18% 

68% 

100% 

100%, 

100% 

100%, 

100% 

90% 

6~%, 

8'%, 

100%, 

100% 

100%, 

100%, 

100%, 

100%, 

65%, 

52%, 

100%, 
r.w, 
100%, 

89% 

9 1% 

95%, 

90%, 

1,15 

9.91 

8,56 

2,50 

0,68 

1,78 

0.77 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,51 

0.51 

0,39 

0,39 

0,00 

0,26 

37,85 

2,12 

5,00 

11.-3 

0.00 

10,23 

5,ir 

1.52 

2.18 

22,02 

0,00 

4,38 

17,64 

87,33 

5,73 

0,86 

2.40 

2.46 

1,19 

38,74 

4,22 

3.90 

2.24 

0.00 

0,93 

0,00 

6,45 

-.45 

1.35 

0.04 

0.61 

1.83 

9. "2 

5,74 

31,99 

2.02 

5.93 

25% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

12% 

50% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

50% 

50% 

23% 

50% 

0% 

30% 

46% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

0% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

37% 

0% 

50% 

80% 

37% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

30% 

50%, 

38%, 

50% 

0%, 

8%, 

0%, 

50% 

50% 

15%, 

6%, 

5% 

30%, 

50%, 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50%, 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

289 

Annex  III:  Financial  implementation  ofthe  Community  Initiatives,  1994-95 

Table  1: Presentation  by Community Initiative  (ctd.) 

Community 

Initiatives 

(number  of CIPs) 

SF 

Com  litmeiits 

assistance 

(1) 

1994-95 

(2) 

% 
(2)/(l) 

Payments 

1994-95 

(3) 

(3)/(2) 

Auvergne 

Lower 

Normandy 

Brittany 

Centre 

Champagne-Ardenne 

lle-de-France 

iMnguedoc-Roussillon 

Limousin 

Lorraine 

Midi-Pyrénées 

Nord 

Pas-de-Calais 

Provence-Alpes-Côle 

d'Azur 

Picardy 

Poitou-Charentes 

Rhône-Alpes 

P o r t u g al 

U n i t ed  K i n g d o m - G i b r a l t ar 

R E S I D ER  ( 2 0) 

B e l g i um 

Charleroi 

Liège 

G e r m a ny 

Bavaria 

Bremen 

Lower 

Saxony 

North  Rhine- 

Westphalia 

Saarland 

Saxony 

Saxony-Anhalt 

Ihuringia 

G r e e ce 

F r a n ce 

Burgundy 

Lorraine 

Provence-Alpes-Côte 

d'Azur 

Picardy 

Rhône-Alpes 

N e t h e r l a n ds 

P o r t u g al 

U n i t ed  K i n g d om 

Wales 

Western 

Scotland 

R E T EX  ( 1 8) 

B e l g i um  -  W a l l o n ia 

G e r m a ny 

Baden-  Wiirllemberg  * 

Bavaria  * 

Hesse' 

Lower 

Saxony 

North  Rhine-Westphalia 

* 

Saxony 

Ihuringia 

3,78 

7,42 

10,40 

22,02 

5,49 

18,83 

10.06 

21.95 

2.23 

12,45 

2,23 

11,-4 

20,  -0 

3.12 

'.23 

10,66 

2 3 0 , 61 

840,61 

52,89 

24.48 

28,42 

558,30 

12,09 

6.55 

4-.5  2 

39~,40 

4-,  58 

30,29 

-.69 

9.19 

8,94 

105,75 

3.68 

-3.52 

15,26 

-.22 

6,06 

51,50 

10,77 

52,46 

28,54 

23.93 

1.756,22 

6,00 

284,34 

24,45 

129,39 

6,'0 

4.93 

3.'3 

90.14 

25.01 

1,52 

2,33 

5.16 

4,15 

2.43 

5,52 

3.14 

4,05 

I.U 

4,0i 

1.11 

5,87 

9,42 

1.52 

2.23 

7,90 

101,94 

2 8 4 . 20 

24,43 

11.90 

12,53 

164,27 

5,39 

3,28 

14,81 

101,89 

12,90 

14,88 

5,00 

6,12 

4,69 

42,62 

1.84 

31.11 

5.18 

2,31 

2.18 

18,10 

6,91 

23,18 

12,96 

10,23 

592,70 

3,00 

65,87 

0.80 

8,88 

1,40 

1.81 

1.5-

41.85 

9.56 

1.22 

2.02 

4.4' 

3,92 

1,96 

4,'4 

2.'6 

4.05 

1,11 

3.65 

1.11 

5.3' 

8.40 

1,52 

2,23 

7,90 

9,99 

177,10 

23,68 

11.15 

12.53 

62,49 

5.39 

3.28 

14.81 

8,39 

9,9 

10,12 

5,00 

6,12 

4,12 

38,61 

1,84 

2'.5  3 

5.18 

2.31 

l.~4 

18,10 

6,91 

23,18 

12.96 

10,23 

244,56 

3,00 

22,87 

0.23 

8.81 

0.55 

1.21 
o.r 
3.6' 

8.24 

80%, 

8'% 

8'%, 

94%, 

81%, 

86%, 

88%, 

100%, 

100% 

90%, 

100%, 

91%, 

89% 

100%, 

100%, 

9 9% 

1 0% 

6 2% 

9 7% 

94%, 

100%, 

3 8% 

100%, 

100%, 

100%, 

8%, 
".!% 
68% 

100% 

100% 

8 8% 

91  % 

100%, 

88%, 

100%, 

100%, 

80%, 

1 0 0% 

1 0 0% 

1 0 0% 

100%, 

100%, 

4 1% 

1 0 0% 

3 5% 

28%, 

99%, 

39%, 

6'% 

11%, 

9% 

86%, 

0,61 

1.01 

2.23 

1.96 

0.98 

2.3' 

1.38 

2,02 

0,33 

1,82 

0,56 

2,69 

4.20 

0,-6 

1.11 

3,95 

0,00 

7 8 , 30 

5,58 

5.58 

0,00 

3 1 , 25 

2.  '<> 

1.64 

'.40 

4.19 

4.69 

5.06 

2,50 

3,06 

2,06 

17.55 

0,92 

13." 

1.55 

0,~9 

0,52 

7,35 

2,93 

11,59 

6,48 

5.11 

144,10 

1,50 

8.11 

0.1 J 

1.00 

0,36 

0.60 

0,08 

1,83 

4.12 

50% 

50% 

50%o 

50%, 

50%, 

50% 

50% 

50%, 

30%, 

50%, 

50%, 

50%, 

50% 

50% 

50% 

5 0% 

0% 

4 4% 

2 4% 

50%, 

0%, 

5 0% 

50% 

50%, 

50% 

50%, 

50%, 

50%, 

50%, 

50% 

5 0% 

4 5% 

50%, 

50%, 

30%, 

34%, 

50%, 

41  % 

4 2% 

5 0% 

50% 

50%, 

5 9% 

5 0% 

3 5% 

50%, 

11%, 

65%, 

50% 

50%, 

50%, 

50%, 

* CIP adopted  in  1993. Total  cost  and  assistance  1993-97, Commitments  and  payments  1993-95 

290 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 

Table 1: Presentation by Community Initiative (ctd.) 

Community 

Initiatives 

(number of CIPs) 

SF 

Commitments 

assistance 

(1) 

1994-95 

(2) 

% 

(2V(I) 

Payments 

1994-95 

(3) 

ECU million 
% 
(3V(2) 

Greece* 

Spain* 

France* 

Irelnnd* 

Italy 

Régions  objectif  1 * 

Régions  objectifs  2 et  5h* 

Netherlands  •  Twente 

Portugal* 

United  Kingdom 

Northern  Ireland 

Great  Britain 

URBAN  (19) 

Belgium 

Anvers 

Charleroi 

Denmark 

Germany 

Berlin 

Bremen 

( 'hemnitz 

Duishurg 

Erfurt 

Magdebourg 

Rostock 

Brandenburg 

Greece 

Spain 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Amsterdam 

IM  Haye 

Austria  -  Vienne 

Portugal 

United  Kingdom  - Northern  Ireland 

145,33 

361,13 

79,27 

22,46 

249,20 

'8,39 

170,82 

3,50 

526,84 

78,15 

8,40 

69.S 

822,93 

26,56 

15.24 

11,33 

3,04 

270,07 

31,05 

16.31 

141.31 

18.65 

r.18 

19.94 

16,02 

9,61 

67,17 

248,68 

1,03 

87,91 

19,68 

68.23 

31,93 

62,02 

24,52 

87,52 

90,39 

28,89 

11,43 

78,99 

39,37 

39,62 

1,01 

189,00 

36,60 

4,20 

32,40 

384,76 

8,25 

2,58 

5,66 

1,52 

86,37 

16,10 

8.00 

9.20 

•  8,10 

12,89 

12,88 

12,00 

~,20 

45,20 

162,60 

0,51 

9,30 

4,65 

4,65 

9,77 

44,30 

16,95 

11,80 

38,53 

7,04 

6,93 

12,05 

7,90 

4,16 

1,01 

111,37 

29,96 

3.75 

26.21 

157,37 

8,25 

2,58 

5,66 

1,34 

79,00 

16.10 

8,00 

9.20 

6,81 

12,89 

8,92 

9,88 

7,20 

4,52 

22,85 

0,51 

7,89 

3.6-

4.22 

6,84 

9,22 

16,95 

1 3% 

4 3% 

24% 

6 1% 

15% 

20% 

10% 

100% 

59% 

82% 

89% 

81% 

4 1% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

88% 

9 1% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

84% 

100% 

69% 

82% 

100%, 

10% 

14% 

100% 

85% 

'9%, 

91%, 

70% 

2 1% 

100% 

9,14 

34,16 

3,42 

4,06 

6,03 

3,95 

2,OH 

0,51 

63,06 

14,10 

1,88 

12,23 

58,13 

4,12 

1,29 

2,83 

0,40 

23,19 

l.'O 

0.74 

2.99 

2,04 

3,91 

4,46 

4,94 

2,41 

1,70 

11.42 

0,04 

2,37 

1,10 

1.2-

3,42 

4,61 

6,85 

78% 

89% 

49% 

59% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

57% 

47% 

50% 

4'% 

37% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

30% 

29% 

11% 

9% 

33% 

30% 

30% 

50%, 

50% 

34% 

38% 

50% 

8% 

30% 

30% 

30% 

50% 

50% 

40% 

* CIP adopted  in  1993; Total  cost  and  assistance  1993-97, Commitments  and  payments  1993-95 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 

Table 2: Presentation by Member State 

Member 

State 

(number of  CIPs) 

SF 

Commitments 

Assistance 

(1) 

1994-95 

(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 

1994-95 

(3) 

BELGIUM 

ADAPT  (2) 

EMPLOYMENT  (2) 

PESCA  (1) 

S M E ( l) 

RECHAR  (2) 

KONVER  (3) 

RESIDER  (2) 

RETEX  (1) 

URBAN  (2) 

Total  (16) 

1NTERREG/REGEN  (3) 

DENMARK 

ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

PESCA  (1) 

KONVER  (1) 

URBAN  (1) 

Total  (5) 

1NTERREG/REGEN  (4) 

GERMANY 

ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

LEADER  (13) 

PESCA  (1) 

SME  (9) 

RECHAR  (6) 

KONVER  (13) 

RESIDER  (8) 

RETEX  (7)' 

URBAN  (8) 

Total  (67) 

INTERIŒG/REGEN 

(17) 

GREECE 

ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

LEADER  (1) 

PESCA  (1) 

S M E ( l) 

RECHAR  (1) 

KONVER  (1) 

RESIDER  (1) 

RETEX  (1) 

URBAN  (1) 

Total  (10) 

1NTERREG/REGEN  (3) 

1993-95 

"1993-1995 

91,95 

70,19 

4,25 

14,22 

58,05 

30,43 

52,89 

6,00 

26,56 

31,20 

32,10 

2,00 

9,41 

15,68 

11,45 

24,43 

3,00 

8,25 

354,54 

137,52 

65,68 

20,68 

48,64 

5,33 

3,04 

143,37 

480,43 

297,53 

382,40 

62,00| 

356,25| 

400,81| 

342,33! 

558,30! 

284,34 

270,07 

29,50 

10,56 

16,40 

2,38 

1,52 

60,36 

228,80 

156,80 

169,79 

23,00 

156,83 

128,38 

144,54 

164,27 

65,87 

86,37 

3.434,47 

1.324,64 

44,59 

83,15 

263,60 

54,63 

156,86 

2,03 

20,27 

8,94 

145.33J 

67,171 

846,56 

30,10 

64,40 

148,00 

27,10 

83,33 

1,52 

12,91 

4,69 

87,52 

45.2C 

504,76 

5,69 

21,69 

0,33 

7,49 

15,68 

11,45 

23,68 

3,00 

8,25 

97,26 

5,31 

1,61 

2,73 

2,38 

1,34 

13,37 

42,92 

23,14 

124,57 

3,83 

101,20 

55,88 

130,61 

62,49 

22,87 

79,00 

646,51 

7,14 

8,04 

22,56 

4,51 

10,45 

1,37 

11,48 

4,12 

11,80 

4,52 

85.9J 

18% 

68% 

17% 

80% 

100% 

100% 

97% 

100% 

100% 

7 1% 

18% 

15% 

17% 

100% 

88% 

22% 

19% 

15% 

73% 

17% 

65% 

44% 

90% 

38% 

35% 

9 1% 

2,85 

10,85 

0,17 

2,25 

7,84 

5,73 

5,58 

1,50 

4,12 

40,87 

2,66 

0,80 

1,37 

1,19 

0,40 

6,41 

21,46 

11,57 

38,82 

1,92 

30,85 

26,80 

38,74 

31,25 

8,11 

23,19 

4 9 %| 

232,71 

24% 

i :% 

1 5% 

1 7% 

13% 

90% 

89% 

88% 

13% 

10°/. 

17"/i 

3,57 

4,02 

11,28 

2,26 

5.23 

0,68 

5,74 

2,06 

9,14 

l,7C 

45,68 

291 

ECU  million 
% 
(3)/(2) 

50% 

50% 

50% 

30% 

50% 

50% 

24% 

50% 

50% 

42% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

30% 

4 8% 

50% 

50% 

31% 

50% 

30% 

48% 

30% 

50% 

35% 

29% 

36% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

78% 

38% 

5 3% 

292 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 

Table 2: Presentation by Member State (ctd.) 

Member 

State 

(number  of  CIPs) 

SF 

Commitments 

T o t al  cost 

Assistance 

(1) 

1994-95 

(2) 

% 
(2)/(D 

Payments 

1994-95 

(3) 

ECU  million 
% 
(3)/(2) 

SPAIN 

ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

LEADER  (17) 

PESCA  (1) 

REGIS  (1) 

RETEX  (1)* 

URBAN  (1) 

Total  (23) 

1NTERREG/REGEN  (2) 

i 
FRANCE 

ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

LEADER  (11) 

PESCA  (1) 

SME  (3) 

RECHAR  (6) 

REGIS  (1) 

KONVER  (17) 

RESIDER  (5) 

RETEX (1)* 

Total  (47) 

INTERIŒG/REGEN  (5) 

IRELAND 

ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

LEADER  (1) 

PESCA  (1) 

S M E ( l) 

RETEX  (1)* 

Total  (6) 

INTERRJXl'REGEN 

(2) 

PEACE  (1) 

ITALY 

ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

LEADER  (12) 

PESCA  (1) 

RECHAR  (2) 

RETEX  (2)* 

Total  (19) 

INTERIŒG/REGEN  (2) 

LUXEMBOURG 

ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

LEADER  (1) 

URBAN  (1) 

Total  (4) 

LVl ERREG/REGEN  (1) 

403,24 

576,75 

1  161,93 

95,66 

385,49 

361,13 

248,68 

256,40 

386,60 

354,81 

41,50 

216,93 

90,39 

162,60 

3.232,88 

1.509,23 

622,51 

384,42 

318,97 

81,33 

139,22 

39,42 

209,17 

244,06 

105,75 

79,27! 

2.224,121 

28,27 

99,49; 

165,58| 

12,18; 

53,20j 

22,46i 

381,17 

360,49; 

589,08! 

435,96| 

81,19 

34,13 

249,20 

1.750,04 

0,80 

0,60 

4,85j 

1,03 

7,28| 

249,70 

146,50 

122,89 

28,30 

58,49 

16,66 

115,56 

71,02 

42,62 

28,89 

880,63 

21,20 

76,10 

67,92 

6,70 

28,79 

11,43 

212,14 

190,00 

348,70 

183,20 

34,17 

1,68 

78,99 

836,74 

0,30 

0,30 

1,01 

0,51 

2,12 

48,10 

58,63 

112,10 

6,91 

28,01 

38,53 

22,85 

315,12 

46,94 

22,27 

95,56 

18,78 

15.41 

15,49 

8,76 

64,42 

38,61 

7,04| 

333,291 

3,90 

7,61 

7,50 

1,11 

26,49 

6,93 

53,54 

36,10 

51,47 

28,62 

4,42 

1,68 

12,05 

134,35 

0,05 

0,30 

1,01 

0,51 

1,87 

19% 

15% 

32% 

17% 

13% 

43% 

14% 

2 1% 

19% 

15% 

78% 

66% 

26% 

93% 

8% 

91% 

9 1% 

24% 

3 8% 

18% 

10% 

11% 

17% 

92% 

6 1% 

25% 

19% 

15% 

16% 

13% 

100% 

1 5% 

16% 

18% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

88% 

24,05 

29,31 

34,86 

3,46 

0,00 

34,16 

11,42 

137,26 

23,47 

11,13 

15,53 

0,00 

4,62 

1,78 

4,38 

31,99 

17,55 

3,42 

113,88 

1,95 

3,61 

3,75 

0,56 

7,95 

4,06 

21,87 

18,05 

25,73 

14,00 

2,21 

0,39 

6,03 

66,41 

0,03 

0,15 

0,41 

0,04 

0,62 

50% 

50% 

3 1% 

50% 

0% 

89% 

50% 

44% 

50% 

50% 

16% 

0% 

30% 

12% 

50% 

50% 

45% 

49% 

3 4% 

50% 

47% 

50% 

50% 

30% 

59% 

4 1% 

50% 

50% 

49% 

50% 

23% 

50% 

49% 

50% 

50% 

40% 

8% 

3 3% 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

293  aSH 

Annex III: Financial implementation ofthe Community Initiatives, 1994-95 

Table 2: Presentation by Member State (ctd.) 

Member 

State 

(number of CIPs) 

Total cost 

SF 

Commitments 

Assistance 
0) 

1994-95 

(2) 

% 

(2)/(l) 

Payments 

1994-95 

(3) 

ECU  million 

(3)/(2) 

NETHERLANDS 

ADAPT (1) 

EMPLOYMENT (1) 

LEADER  (4) 

PESCA  (1) 

S M E ( l) 

RESIDER  (1) 

RETEX  (1) 

URBAN  (2) 

Total  (12) 

1NTERREG/REGEN  (7) 

AUSTRIA 

ADAPT (1) 

EMPLOYMENT (1) 

LEADER  (1) 

URBAN  (1) 

Total  (4) 

INTERREG/REG  EN  (4) 

PORTUGAL 
ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

LEADER  (1) 

PESCA  (1) 

SME(l) 

RECHAR  (1) 

REGIS (1) 

KONVER  (1) 

RESIDER  (1) 

RETEX (1)* 

URBAN  (1) 

Total  (11) 

INTERIŒG/REGEN  (2) 

FINLAND 

ADAPT (1) 

EMPLOYMENT (1) 

Total  (2) 

SWEDEN 

ADAPT  (1) 

EMPLOYMENT  (1) 

Total  (2) 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

ADAPT  (2) 

EMPLOYMENT  (2) 

LEADER  (5) 

PESCA  (1) 

SME (4) 

RECHAR  (8) 

KONVER  (1) 

RESIDER  (2) 

RETEX  (2) 

URBAN  (1) 

Total  (28) 

INTERIŒG/REGEN  (3) 

PEACE  (1) 

142,80 

90,86 

35,17 

34,18 

26,86 

51,50 

3,50 

87,91 

472,77 

25,75 

49,37 

6,50 

31,93 

113,55 

29,17 

55,55j 

156,80! 

47,17! 
1 
235,901 

1,15j 

156,81 

10,66! 

10,77 

526.84J 

62.02J 

1.292,85| 

42,90 

66,25| 

109,151 

21,72! 

39,89| 

61,60| 

650,60 

314,85 

160,3 7 j 

84,65) 

42,99' 

364,59! 

230,61 i 

52,46| 

78,15i 

24,52; 

2.003,79! 

57,55 

42,44 

8,46 

10,80 

10,34 

18,10 

1,01 

9,30 

158,00 

11,57 

23,01 

2,57 

9,77 

46,92 

21,00 

40,30 

117,59 

25,60 

123,98 

0,86 

124,00 

7,90 

6,91 

189,00 

44,30 

701,43 

19,70 

29,15 

48,85 

11,25 

20,69 

31,94 

286,60 

146,50 

66,20 

37,42 

20,09 

163,25 

101,94 

23,18 

36,60 

1-6,95 

898,73 

11,51 

4,24 

8,18 

1,15 

9,54 

18,10 

1,01 

7,89 

61,63 

11,57 

23,01 

2,01 

6,84 

43,43 

3,99 

5,67 

6,74 

4,26 

13,22 

0,86 

22,05 

7,90 

6,91 

111,37 

9,22 

192,18 

19,70 

29,15 

48,85 

11,25 

20,69 

31,94 

53,49 

31,36 

56,16 

5,07 

19,74 

81,57 

9,99 

23,18 

29,96 

16,95 

327,47 

20% 

10% 

97% 

11% 

92% 

100% 

100% 

85% 

3 9% 

100% 

100% 

78% 

70% 

9 3% 

19% 

14% 

6% 

17% 

11% 

100% 

18% 

99% 

100% 

59% 

21% 

27% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

1 9% 

21% 

85% 

14% 

98% 

50% 

10% 

100% 

82% 

100% 

36% 

5,76 

2,12 

2,45 

0,58 

2,86 

7,35 

0,51 

2,37 

23,99 

5,79 

11,51 

0,33 

3,42 

21,04 

2,00 

2.83 

3,59 

2,13 

6,61 

0,26 

17,64 

3.95 

2,93 

63,06 

4,61 

109,60 

8,64 

14,58 

23,21 

5,63 

10,35 

15,97 

26,75 

15,68 

4,82 

2.54 

7,34 

37.85 

0,00 

11,59 

14,10 

6,85 

127,52 

50% 

50% 

30% 

50% 

30% 

4 1% 

50% 

30% 

39% 

50% 

50% 

16% 

50% 

48% 

50% 

50% 

53% 

50% 

50% 

30% 

80% 

50% 

42% 

57% 

50% 

57% 

44% 

50% 

48% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

50% 

9% 

50% 

37% 

46% 

0% 

50% 

47% 

40% 

39% 

<

&

$

•* 

ANNEX IV: 

Financial implementation  of transitional and innovative  measures 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

297 

Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures * 

Table 1: Implementation in 1995 

Member  State /  Fund 

Commitments 

Payments 

ECU million 

BELGIUM 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

DENMARK 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

GERMANY 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

GREECE 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

SPAIN 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

FRANCE 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

IRELAND 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ITALY 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

LUXEMBOURG 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

25,05 

0,00 

24,99 

0,00 

0^06 

L25 

0,00 

1,10 

0,00 

ÇU6 

MO 

0,90 

5,30 

0,00 

O^ 

2^ 

0,01 

1,63 

0,02 

U£ 

4^40 

0,00 

0,52 

0,00 

M i __ 

3/73 

0,00 

2,38 

0,01 

U33 

4^96 

0,00 

4,16 

0,01 

0J50 

13,89 

0,00 

2,06 

10,30 

U54 

0^95 

0,00 

0,95 

0,00 

0.00 

20,02 

2,46 

16,80 

0,58 

0,18 

2,85 

1,10 

0,67 

0,01 

1,06 

13,24 

8,21 

4,66 

0,15 

0,22 

9,47 

0,00 

3,19 

4,98 

1,30 

15,52 

2,28 

7,44 

3,08 

2,72 

18,44 

1,51 

7,46 

8,40 

1,07 

lfi\_ 

0,00 

4,87 

2,63 

0,31 

36,85 

12,83 

1,79 

20.63 

1,59 

(K58 

0,00 

0,58 

0,00 

0 _^ 

- 

* Budget  headings  B21800,  B21810,  B21820  and  B21830,  Including  carry-overs  and  appropriations  made  available  again. 

298 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures * 

Table 1: Implementation in 1995 (ctd.) 

Member  State /  Fund 

Commitments 

Payments 

ECU million 

NETHERLANDS 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

AUSTRIA 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

PORTUGAL 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

FINLAND 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

SWEDEN 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

ERDF 
ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

COMMUNITY 

» 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

TOTAL 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

2,67 [ 

0,00 

1,74 

0,00 

0^ 

0^26 

0,00 

0,24 

0,01 

0£0 

Iflf^ 

0,00 

7,44 

0,00 

0^42 

0^29 

0,00 

0,28 

0,01 

0£0 

0^57 

0,00 

0,22 

0,02 

0^34 

6^54 

0,00 

3,71 

0,27 

2^56 

30,30 

30,08 

0,00 

0,21 

0,01 

111,92 

30,98 

56,70 

10,87 

13.37 

% 

Zfij 

1,48 

0,76 

0,02 

0,79 

0^15 

0,00 

0,14 

0,01 

0,00 

25,02 

18,00 

5,34 

0,21 

1,46 

( Ul 

0,00 

0,10 

0,00 

0,00 

0^10 

0,00 

0,10 

0,00 

0,00 

6^14 

0,97 

1,75 

1,35 

2,07 

34,50 

33,48 

1,02 

0,00 

0,00 

193,85 

82,32 

56,69 

42,06 

12,77 

Budget  headings  B21800,  B21810,  B21820  and  B21830,  Including  carry-overs  and  approprialions  made  available  again. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

299 

Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures * 

Table 2: Implementation in 1994-95 

Member  State /  Fund 

Commitments 

Payments 

ECU million 

BELGIUM 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

DENMARK 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

GERMANY 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

GREECE 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

SPAIN 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

FRANCE 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

IRELAND 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

ITALY 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

LUXEMBOURG 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

__ 

49,13 

0,00 

45,34 

3,20 

(^59 

3/79 

0,00 

1,75 

0,00 

2__ 

10,11 

1,27 

6,63 

1,33 

__%_ 

33,68 

2,11 

29,20 

0,02 

2__ 

68,00 

55,00 

1,60 

5,55 

S___ 

11,38 

0,00 

3,65 

4,71 

3£2 

M2 

0,00 

4,87 

0,57 

___ 

32,19 

0,00 

8,81 

20,97 

1,12 

0,00 

1,12 

0,00 

OfJO 

56,29 

6,61 

48,52 

0,80 

0,35 

5,13 

2,40 

1,20 

0,21 

1,31 

32,12 

24,88 

5,59 

1,01 

0,64 

33,20 

7,59 

18,22 

5,47 

1^2 

52,54 

32,97 

8,65 

6,83 

4,10 

53,89 

23,26 

8,34 

20,12 

2,17 

12,19 

0,88 

5,68 

5,22 

0,41 

95,45 

32,39 

12,28 

47,69 

3,08 

0,64 

0,00 

0,63 

0,00 

0__ 

Budget  headings  B21800,  B21810,  B21820  and  B21830,  Including  carry-overs  and  appropriations  made  available  again. 

300 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex IV: Financial implementation of transitional and innovative measures 

Table 2: Implementation in 1994-95 (ctd.) 

Member  State /  Fund 

Commitments 

Payments 

ECU million 

NETHERLANDS 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

AUSTRIA 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

PORTUGAL 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

FINLAND 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

SWEDEN 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 

COMMUNITY 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGGF 

FIFG 
TOTAL 

ERDF 

ESF 

EAGQF 

FIFG 

4,471 

0,00 

1,95 

0,00 

2__ 

0^26 

0,00 

0,24 

0,01 

76,39 

59,01 

7,99 

6,33 

3^06 

0^29 

0,00 

0,28 

0,01 

___ 

0,00 

0,22 

0,02 

___ 

11,96 

0,00 

5,26 

0,27 

46,66 

46,28 

0,01 

0,21 

| 

' 

356,31 

163,67 

118,92 

43,20 

30,52 

" 

1LQ4 

8,29 

1,25 

0,44 

1,07 

0,15 

0,00 

0,14 

0,01 

0,00 

66,58 

52,51 

5,72 

6,44 

1,91 

_Y_ 

0,00 

0,10 

0,00 

0,00 

__ 

0,00 

0,10 

0,00 

0,00 

16,12 

2,88 

8,08 

2,59 

2,57 

78,04 

76,01 

2,03 

0,00 

0,00 

513,57 

270,68 

126,54 

96,82 

19,54 

Budget  headings  B21800,  B21810,  B21820  and  B21830,  Including  carry-overs  and  appropriations  made  available  again. 

3o/ 3>â 

ANNEX V: 

Regional breakdown of financial implementation 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

303 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial  implementation 

Table 1: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1995 

Member Stale / 

Region 

' 

I 

* 

I 

3 

| 

4 

|  5(a) (agr.)  j  5(a) (Hsh.)  | 

Sb 

| 

6 

Objective 

BELGIUM 

Brussels 

Flanders 

Wallonia 

Multi-regional 

DENMARK 

0st  for Storebaelt 

Vest for Storebaelt 

Multi-regional 

GERMANY 

Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania 

Brandenburg 

Saxony-Anhalt 

Saxony 

Thuringia 

Berlin 

Schleswig-Holstein 

Hamburg 

Lower Saxony 

Bremen 

North  Rhine-Westphalia 

Hesse 

Rhineland-Palatinate 

Baden-Wurttemberg 

Bavaria 

Saarland 

Multi-regional 

GREECE 

Eastern Central and  Islands(l) 

Central  and Western  Macedonia 

Péloponnèse and Western  Central  Gr.  (2) 

Thessaly 

Crete 

Epirus (3) 

Thrace (4) 

Eastern Aegean  Islands (S) 

Multi-regional 

SPAIN 

Galicia 

Asturias 

Cantabria 

Basque Country 

Navarre 

Rioja 

Aragon 

Madrid 

Castile-Leôn 

Castile-La  Mancha 

Extremadura 

Catalonia 

Valencia 

Balearic Islands 

8,97 

-
8,97 
-
-
-
-
-
2.022,55 
370,40 

272,79 

338,53 

461,58 

297,82 

109,98 

-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
171,46 

2.653,04 
195,86 

118,41 

140,50 

55,24 

84,20 

82,46 

72,66 

9 !,25 

1.812,45 

4.778,90 
589,88 

224,68 

106,55 

" 
-
-
-
-
296,07 

240,09 

155,20 
-
589,60 
-

4,63 
-
0,00 

4,63 
-
6,00 
0,00 

6,00 
-
38,01 
-
-
-
-
-
13,10 

0,00 
-
6,49 

2,61 

5,37 

1,20 

3,10 

0,00 

6,14 
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-

659,21 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

5,00 
-
-
5,00 

0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-

-
0,00 
-
-
-1 
-1 
*! 

-
-
-
62,70 

33,40 

1,90 

0,00 

25,95 

5,55 

41,00 
-
-
41,00 

48,22 
-
-
-
-
-
8,09 

6,12 

0,00 

0,00 

6,28 

0,00 

7,90 

5,04 

8,34| 

0,00| 

6,45 

0,00 
'  1 
-
-
-

-
-
-
206,97 
I 
"1 

"1 

• '! 

192,43 

20.66J 

22,83 

11,87 

13,86 

79,13 

-

288,98 

10,37 

6,78 

0,00 

0,00 

18.41 j 

i 
"I 
15,561 

'1 

0,00 

'! 

30,23 
0,27 

12,31 

5,90 

11,75 

16,73 
-
-
16,73 

165,13 
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,49 

0,68 

4,74 

0,11 

0,00 

3,33 

0,00 

3,50 

13,56 

0,50 

138,23 
-
-

-

-
-

21,10 
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
• 
-

0,00 

-
-
0,00 

23,28 

-
23,28 

12,46 
-

-
-
-

-

-

-

-
-
12,46 
-

-
-

-

-
19,90 

-
-

-

-
• 

9,16 
-
4,31 

4,86 

3,36 
-
-
3,36 

135,77 
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,69 

15,60 

5,49 

14,05 

7,97 

8,79 

70,36 

2,82 
-
-
-
-
-
-

-

-
88,58 
-
-
-
3,78 

10,11 

1,94 

40,95 

6,52 

-
17,05 

8,21 

(1) Including the OP for  Attica 

(2) Including the OPs for Central Greece, Western  Greece and the Péloponnèse 

(3) Including the OPs for Epirus  and the Ionian Islands 

(4) Including the OPs for Thrace and Western  Macedonia 

(5) Including the OPs for the northern  and southern  islands ofthe  Aegean 

CI 

92,19 
1,73 

24,79 

65,68 

0,00 

9,03 
0,00 

0,00 

9,03 

617,61 
59,24 

24,41 

75,35 

65,28 

93,96 

41,22 

6,19 

1,24 

48,79 

16,72 

49,30 

19,47 

17,59 

5,67 

34,44 

15,81 

42,92 

61,64 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

61,64 

239,54 
2,90 

12,52 

0,97 

2,31 

4,17 

3,43 

24,18 

3,36 

9,60 

4,47 

22,44 

2,12 

3 j2 

3,07 

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
" 
-
-
-
-
-

-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-

-
" 

178,59 

3,89 

41,4i 

115,99 

17,30 

104,40 

0,00 

6,00 

98,40 

3.039,76 

429,63 

297,20 

413,88 

526,86 

391,78 

172,38 

23,49 

1,92 

75,62 

25,72 

60,16 

45,95 

33,70 

26,30 

118,36 

31,72 

365,07 

2.714,68 

195,86 

118,41 

140,50 

55,24 

84,20 

82,46 

72,66 

91,25 

1.874,09 

6.076,89 

592,78 

237,20 

107,52 

219,18 

43,89 

17,24 

78,99 

107,42 

305,66 

244,56 

177,64 

323,71 

592,72 

21,65 

304 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 

Table 1: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1995 (ctd.) 

Member State / 

Region 

Objective 

|  5(a) (agr.)"  5(a) (fish.) 

Andalusia 

Murcia 

Ceuta and Melilla 

Canary Islands 

Multi-regional 

FRANCE 

Ile-de-France 

Upper Normandy 

Lower Normandy 

Picardy 

Champagne-Ardenne 

Burgundy 

Centre 

Nord-Pas-de-Calais 

Brittany 

Loire Region 

Poitou-Charentes 

Lorraine 

Alsace 

Franche-Comté 

Limousin 

Aquitaine 

Midi-Pyrénées 

Auvergne 

Rhône-Alpes 

Languedoc-Roussillon 

Proven ce-Al pes-Côte d'Azur 

Corsica 

Martinique 

Guadeloupe 

French Guiana 

Réunion 

Multi-regional 

IRELAND 

Multi-regional 

ITALY 

Piedmont 

Valle d'Aosta 

Lombardy 

Trentino 

Veneto 

Friuli-Venezia Giulia 

Liguria 

Emilia-Romagna 

Tuscany 

Umbria 

Marche 

Lazio 

Abruzzi 

Molise 

Campania 

Apulia 

Basilicata 

Calabria 

Sicily 

Sardinia 

Multi-regional 

700,29 

169,37 

25,42 

307,57 

1.374,18 

222,44 
-
-
-
-
-
-

9,40 
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
14,25 

24,45 

54,03 

8,12 

112,20 

954,21 
954,21 

2.228,59 
-
-

-

-

-
-
-

134,37 

26,75 

124,02 

203,67 

51,65 

117,17 

189,39 

50,95 

1.330,62 

-
-
-
-
39,75 

313,09 
-
45,19 

17,08 

37,58 

0,00 

13,91 

0,00 

12,02 

0,00 

41,94 

17,10 

39,96 

0,00 

2,10 

3,82 

13,63 

19,25 

0,00 

19,86 

29,64 

. 

-
-
-
-
-
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 
-
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 
-

-
-

-

-
-
-
-
62,70 

0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

71 

• 

• 

-
-

0,00 
-
-
0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
. 

-
-
-
-
145,56 

396,80 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

"I 
"j 

-
-
-
1 
-1 

-
-
-
396,80 
-
-
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 
-

0,00 

0,0C 

-
-
-
-
21,10 

252,08 
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-

-

-
-
-
-
-
252,08 
-

0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-

-

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
0,00 

1 

-
-
110,46 
-
0,00 

12,80 
-
0,00 

20,35 

1,12 
-
0,00 

12,52 

3,75 

1,40 

0,21 

6,86 

14,01 

2,84 

4,89 

25,68 

1,56 

0.00 

0,32 

2,14 
-

31,50 
9,78 

0,00 

0.00 

0.00 

0,00 

5,22 

4.19 

3.39 

0,00 

0,00 

8,93 

0,00 

-

-
-
-
-
19,90 

31,62 
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-

-
" 

-
" 

-
-
-
-

-
" 
31,62 
-

22,37 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
22,37 

ECU million 

Total 

710,14 

171,11 

25,42 

337,42 

1.762,61 

1.633,61 

4,74 

45,19 

41,02 

48,29 

1,96 

45,12 

5,04 

28,82 

8,72, 

54,47 

30,38 

80,09 

4,25 

13,93 

32,55 

33,58 

23,21 

58,11 

6,54 

36,39 

45,74 

19,90 

24,45 

54,03 

8,12 

120,96 

758,04 

996,85 

996,85 

2.353.29 

9,78 

0,28 

0,00 

4,26 

0,00 

5,52 

4,19 

4,08 

0,90 

0.00 

8,93 

0,00 

140,40 

26,75 

126,78 

209,71 

53,37 

123,13 

189,39 

52,30 

9,85 

1,74 

0,00 

29,86 

99,43 

307,12 
4,74 

0,00 

11,13 

10,71 

1,96 

10,86 

3,92 

7,40 

8,72 

0.00 

9,52 

38,73 

4,04 

4,97 

18,54 

26,92 

4,68 

13,17 

4,98 

16,53 

15,79 

5,65 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

8,76 

75,39 

42,64 
42,64 

70,83 
0,00 

0,28 

0,00 

4,26 

0,00 

0,30 

0,00 

0,69 

0,90 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

6,03 

0,00 

2,77 

6,04 

1,72 

5,96 

0,00 

1,35 

40,52 

1.393,52 

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-

-
-
-
: 

-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
• 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

305 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 

Table 1: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1995 (ctd.) 

Member  State / 

Region 

« 

1 

2 

| 

3 

| 

4 

|  5(a) (agr.)  |  5(a) (fish.) 

| 

5b 

| 

6 

Objective 

LUXEMBOURG 
Multi-regional 

NETHERLANDS 

North Netherlands 

East Netherlands 

West Netherlands 

South Netherlands 

Multi-regional 

AUSTRIA 

East Austria 

South Austria 

West Austria 

Multi-regional 

PORTUGAL 

North 

Centre 

Lisbon and the Tagus valley 

Alentejo 

Algarve 

Azores 

Madeira 

Multi-regional 

FINLAND 

Continental  Finland 

Islands 

Multi-regional 

SWEDEN 

South Sweden 

West Sweden 

Central Norrland 

Upper Norrl and 

Multi-regional 

UNITED KINGDOM 

North 

Yorkshire and  Humberside 

East Midlands 

East Anglia 

South East 

South West 

West Midlands 

North East England 

North West 

Wales 

Scotland 

Northern  Ireland 

Gibraltar 

Multi-regional 

COMMUNITY 

TOTAL 

-
-
17,20 

" 
17,20 
-
-
-
28,80 
28,80 
-
-
-
1.379,72 
97,80 

59,99 

93,98 

57,69 

24,88 

84,70 

82,35 

878,33 

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
218,60 
-

•> 

-
-
-
• 

-
50,17 

39,14 

129,29 

\ 

0,00 
0,00 

9,15 
9,15 

0,00 
-
0,00 
• 
54,15 
22,41 

11,12 

20,62 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
31,10 
-
-
31,10 

105,78 
15,00 

24,00 

18,00 

48,78 
-
518,25 
0,00 

103,79 

6,55 

" 

6,13 

0,00 

122,96 

95,65 

32,70 

15,58 

134,89 

0,00 

3,29 
3,29 

143,83 

1 
" 
-
-
143,83 

64,06 
-
-
-
64,06 
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
60,33 
-
-
60,33 

73,00 

-
-
-
73,00 

497,00 

" 

-
1 
J 
-
-
-
-

-
" 

0,27 
0,27 

0,00 

-
-
0,00 

11,70 
-
-
-
11,70 
-
-
-
-
* 

-
-
-
14,83 

-
14,83 

-! 
1 
-! 

• 

"! 
-j 
-

"! 
-I 
"I 

-

-! 

-
14.513,03 

-
1.739,37 

497,00 
-
1.567,91 

-
94,50 

5,47 
5,47 

4,89 
-
-
-
-
4,89 

61,50 
-
-
-
61,50 
-
-
-
-

-

-
61,42 
-
-
61,42 

13,72 

13,72 

22,80 

-

-

-
22,80 
-
655,08 

0,00 
0,00 

7,31 
4,50 

1,42 

1,40 

0,00 

78,33 
21,18 

27,21 

29,94 
" 
-
-
-
-
-
" 

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

"1 

32.81 
30.48 

2.33 

-
-1 

1 
-

-
74,59 

-1 
1 

7,51 

1.39 

5.11 

2,16 

27.6S 

23.77 

81,00 

-
81,00 

44,92 

44,92 
-
-

^ 

0,89 
0,89 

1,40 
-

-
-
1,40 

2,00 
-
-
-
2,00 
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
23,00 
-
-
23,00 

40,00 
-
-
-

40,00 

0,00 
-

-

-
-

-

ECU million 

CI 

Total 

1,83 
1.83 

5 73 

6,16 

3,03 

7,89 

0,00 

40,30 

43,43 
8,85 

0,00 

0,00 

34,58 

147,98 
0,00 

0,00 

9,22 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

11,75 

11,75 

241,16 

19,80 

21,65 

9,29 

0,00 

190,42 

343,97 

81,24 

38,33 

50,56 

173,84 

1.527,70 

97,80 

59,99 

103,20 

57,69 

24,88 

84,70 

82,35 

138,76 

1.017,09 

48,85 
0,00 

0,00 

48,85 

31,94 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

31,94 

305,86 
0,00 

4,36 

4,24 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

10,13 

23,46 

5,88 

42,98 

51,30 

46,62 

0,00 

116,89 

588,78 

35334 

30,48 

2,33 

320,53 

30936 

15,00 

24,00 

18,00 

48,78 

203,58 

1.637,10 

0,00 

108,16 

18,29 

1,39 

6,13 

5,11 

133,09 

121,27 

88,75 

85,64 

249,11 

175,91 

0,00 

644,26 

588,78 

0,00 
-
176,92 

7.57 
-
571,86 

125,92 

2.666,65 

22.111,23 

306 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 

Table 2: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1994-95 

Member State / 

Region 

I 

2 

j 

3 

1 

4 

|  5(a) (agr.)  [  5(a) (fish.)  | 

5b 

| 

6 

Objective 

BELGIUM 
Brussels 

Flanders 

Wallonia 

Multi-regional 

DENMARK 

0st for Storebœlt 

Vest for Storebaelt 

Multi-regional 

GERMANY 

Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania 

Brandenburg 

Saxony-Anhalt 

Saxony 

Thuringia 

Berlin 

Schleswig-Holstein 

Hamburg 

Lower  Saxony 

Bremen 

North  Rhine-Westphalia 

Hesse 

Rhineland-Palatinate 

Baden-Wiirttemberg 

Bavaria 

Saarland 

Multi-regional 

GREECE 

Eastern  Central  and  Islands(l) 

Central  and Western  Macedonia 

Péloponnèse and Western  Central  Gr.  (2) 

Thessaly 

Crete 

Ëpirus (3) 

Thrace (4) 

Eastern  Aegean  Islands (5) 

Multi-regional 

SPAIN 

Galicia 

Asturias 

Cantabria 

Basque Country 

Navarre 

Rioja 

Aragon 

Madrid 

Castile-Leôn 

Castile-La  Mancha 

Extremadura 

Catalonia 

Valencia 

Balearic  Islands 

107,00 
-
-
107,00 
-
-
-
-
-
3.892,08 
625,34 

568,39 

673,61 

916,10 

571,53 

211,42 
-
-
-

-
-
-

-

325,70 

4.544,89 
298,72 

239,23 

284,40 

111,61 

131,00 

143,54 

146,81 

156,40 

3.033,18 

8.372,41 
937,94 

338,64 

155,98 

537,87 

407.0C 

284.9C 

886,02 

62,16 
-
38,32 

23,84 
-
30,29 
9,52 

20,77 
-
286,85 
-
-
-
-
-
49,19 

15,39 
-
13,52 

14,94 

115,00 

21,26 

23,46 

13,64 

20,46 

-
-

-
-

97,77 
3,73 

30,40 

52,73 

10,91 

85,00 
-
-
85,00 

307,77 
-
-

-
-
15,88 

12,20 

5,99 

18,58 

12,33 

43,02 

15,50 

10,17 

16,37 

8,66 

13,01 

136,05 
-
-
-

-
-

-

4,63 
0,29 

3,45 

0,27 

0,62 

6,00 
-
-
6,00 

29,61 
-
-
-
-1 

-
-

-
-j 

j 
-j 
-I 

-i 

-| 

-i 

53,03 
C.27 

16,10 

9,63 

27,03 

38,67 
-
-
38,67 

322,72 
-
-
-

-

0,49 

0,68 

4,74 

0,11 

4,85 

3,02 

3,50 

13,56 

0,50 

29,61 

287,95 

"i 
.1 

1 
i 
-i 
•I 

J 

4,08 
-
-
-
4,08 

46,59 
-
-
46,59 

24,87 
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

-

24,87 
-
-

; 

-

9,16| 
-! 
4,31! 

4,86! 

1 

9,79 
-
-
9,79 

26I,74| 

-i 

-i 

20,91! 

•! 

44,41 j 

-! 

5,49; 

23,66! 

20,17: 

8,79 

! 
Ï35~i49 

2,82 

-; 

-, 

659,21 

426,59 

118,10 

101,86 

39,83 

162,09i 

192,43 

22,83 

11,87 

13, se 

79,13 

41,32 

13,44 

4,34 

20,04 

36,7* 

288,9! 

31,i: 

10,3 

? 

12,9 

"i 

-i 

-! 
1 

•! 
-
-

----- 

'j  -----  — 

-i 

6,43; 

16.43; 

6,20! 

78,83 

11,32, 

- 

Wfib] 

8,2 

1 

-! 

-! 

-: 

-, 

-j 

-! 

-| 

-| 

-j 

-| 

-
-
-
-

-i 

-| 

-j 

-i 

-! 

- 

-! 
- 

-! 

- 

-! 

-j 

-i 

-! 

-; 

"! 
-j 

-! 

-i 

-j 

-; 

- 

" 
-i 

ECU million 

CI 

Total 

97,26 
1,73 

26,59 

68,61 

0,33 

13,37 
0,00 

0,00 

13,37 

646,51 
59,24 

24,41 

75,35 

65,28 

93,96 

41,22 

6,19 

'

'24 
48,79 

16,72 

49,47 

19,74 

17.59 

5,90 

35,70 

i5,8i 

69,90 

85,98 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

85,98 

315,12 
2,90 

12,52 

0,97 

2,31 

4,17 

3,43 

24,18 

3,36 

9,6C 

4,4" 

22,44 

2,1: 

3,11 

3,07| 

435,09 

6,02 

119,17 

266,94 

42,97 

229,70 

9,52 

20,77 

199,41 

5.772,15 

684,58 

592,81 

748,96 

981,38 

665,49 

317,71 

55,18 

7,92 

130,05 

44,09 

217,82 

83,49 

74,40 

34,56 

207,04 

52,61 

874,08 

4.630,87 

298,72 

239,23 

284,40 

111,61 

131,00 

143,54 

146,81 

156,40 

3.119,17 

10.195,22 

940,84 

351,16 

156,95 

242,50 

56,87 

25,83 

136,91 

130,57 

547.46 

411,47 

307,41 

356.88 

889,14 
3 4 - 6o 

(1) Including the OP for Attica 

(2) Including the OPs for Central  Greece, Western  Greece and the Péloponnèse 

(3) Including the OPs for  Epirus  and the  Ionian  Islands 

(4) Including the OPs for  Thrace and Western  Macedonia 

(5) Including the OPs for  the northern  and southern  islands ofthe  Aegean 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

307 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 

Table 2: Regional breakdown of commitments in 1994-95(ctd.) 

Member State / 

Region 

1 

1 

2 

| 

3 

| 

4 

|  5(a) (agr.)  |  5(a) (fish.)  j 

5b 

] 

6 

Objective 

ECU million 

CI 

Total 

Andalusia 

Murcia 

Ceuta and Melilla 

Canary Islands 

Multi-regional 

FRANCE 

Ile-de-France 

Upper Normandy 

Lower Normandy 

Picardy 

Champagne-Ardenne 

Burgundy 

Centre 

Nord-Pas-de-Calais 

Brittany 

Loire Region 

Poitou-Charentes 

Lorraine 

Alsace 

Franche-Comté 

Limousin 

Aquitaine 

Midi-Pyrénées 

Auvergne 

Rhône-Alpes 

Languedoc-Roussillon 

Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 

Corsica 

Martinique 

Guadeloupe 

French Guiana 

Réunion 

Multi-regional 

IRELAND 

Multi-regional 

ITALY 

Piedmont 

Valle d'Aosta 

Lombardy 

Trent i no 

Veneto 

Friuli-Venezia Giulia 

Liguria 

Emilia-Romagna 

Tuscany 

Umbria 

Marche 

Lazio 

Abruzzi 

Molise 

Campania 

Apulia 

Basilicata 

Calabria 

Sicily 

Sardinia 

Multi-regional 

1 337,33 

263,91 

44,19 

453,00 

2.725,59 

497,61 
-
-
-

-

69,87 
-
" 
-

-
-
-

48,49 

57,57 

100,61 

26,87 

194,21 

1.680,13 
1 680,13 

3.024,71 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-

150,90 

37,74 

177,22 

203,67 

98,05 

189,15 

189,39 

170,58 

1.808,01 

-
-
-
-
118,10 

95,39 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-

-
-! 

-

"i 
-! 
-
-
-
-
95,39 
-
"I 

60,61 
1 

* 

-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"i 

-
-
-
-
266,62 

778,40 
-
-

" 
-
-
-

-
-
-

-

-

-

-

-
-
778,40 

-
-
-
-
39,75 

904,39 
-
91,59 

35,45 

76,49 

24,64 

29,61 

24,20 

114,06 

28,52 

85,14 

34,04 

80,44 

19,60 

17,30 

37,86 

27,17 

38,68 

31,69 

42,27 

65,65 

-
-
-
-1 

-! 
-j 

299,95 
65,15 

200,47 
18,32 

6,00 

23,00 
-
22,57 

24,00 

30,53 

12,00 

40,36 

35,00 

21,00 

20,34 

1,86 

26,25 

7,90 

16,23 

8,00 

6,33 

27,64 

9,84 

4,57 

5,51 

18,30 

-
-
-

49,71 

60,61 

-
-
-
-
101,86 

678,61 
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-

-

" 

-
-
-
-
678,61 
-

-
-
-
-
39,83 

63,27 
-
-
-
-
-

-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-
-

" 
-
-

-
63,27 
-

117,47 

44,77 

-
-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
" 

-

-
-

-

-
-
-
-
-
117,47 

-
-
-
-
-
373,18 
-
1,09 

31,54 
-
4,12 

29,69 

5,09 
-
26,19 

27,78 

20,85 

10,20 

6,75| 

13,92 

32,02! 

34,391 

33,89! 

44,88 

24,91 

11,65 

12,09 

-i 

-i 

-i 
! 
-j 

2,14; 

-! 
-I 

107,00 ! 
9.78J 

0,59, 

4,79s 

6,23 

17,30! 

5,22| 

4.19} 

6,78! 
I 
15.79 

10.75! 

8,93 

16,66 

t 

-j 
"I 
" 
-j 

44,7" 

-
-
-
-
-| 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-| 

-| 

-i 

-! 

-! 

-| 

-j 

-1 
l 
- 

-! 
i 
-j 

-j 

- 
-j 

- 
-j 

- 

- 

- 

. 

- 

-j 

. 
- 

-| 

9,85 

1,74 

0,00 

29,86 

175,01 

333,29 
4,74 

0,00 

11,13 

10,71 

1,96 

10,86 

3,92 

7,40 

8,72 

0,00 

9,52 

38,73 

4,04 

4,97 

18,54 

26,92 

4,68 

13,17 

4,98 

16,53 

15,79 

5,65 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

8,76 

101,56 

53,54 
53,54 

134,35 
0,00 

0,28 

0,00 

4.26 

0,00 

0,30 

0,00 

0,69 

0,90 

o,00 

0,00 

0,00 

6,03 

0,00 

2,77 

6,04 

1,72 

5,96 

0,00 

1,35 
104,04 

1.347,18 

265,65 

44,19 

482,86 

3.466,76 

3.724,14 

4,74 

92,68 

78,13 

87,20 

30,72 

70,16 

33,21 

191,33 

63,44 

112,91 

64,42 

129,36 

30,39 

36,18 

50,57 

99,16 

65,75 

96,72 

61,58 

70,45 

93,52 

54,13 

57,57 

100,61 

26,87 

202,97 

1.719,37 

1.733,67 

1.733,67 

3.989,32 

93,25 

8,73 

54,04 

18,39 

56,09 

37,52 

41,05 

47,11 

66,89 

50,32 

35,44 

55,31 

156,93 

37,74 

179,99 

209,71 

99,77 

195,11 

189,39 

171,93 

2.184,61 

308 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex V: Regional  breakdown  of financial  implementation 

Table 2: Regional  breakdown  of commitments  in  1994-95(ctd.) 

Member State / 

Region 

Objective 

|  5(a) (agr.)  \  S(a)(fish.)" 

LUXEMBOURG 
Multi-regional 

NETHERLANDS 

North Netherlands 

East Netherlands 

West Netherlands 

South  Netherlands 

Multi-regional 

AUSTRIA 

East Austria 

South Austria 

West Austria 

Multi-regional 

PORTUGAL 

North 

Centre 

Lisbon and the Tagus valley 

Alentejo 

Algarve 

Azores 

Madeira 

Multi-regional 

FINLAND 

Continental  Finland 

Islands 

Multi-regional 

SWEDEN 

South  Sweden 

West  Sweden 

Central  Norrland 

Upper Norrland 

Multi-regional 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

North 

Yorkshire and  Humberside 

East Midlands 

East Anglia 

South East 

South West 

West  Midlands 

North East  England 

North West 

Wales 

Scotland 

Northern  Ireland 

Gibraltar 

Multi-regional 

COMMUNITY 

TOTAL 

-
-
37,20 
-
37,20 

-
-
28,80 
28,80 
-

-
4.548,75 
210,00 

126,00 

124,54 

78,62 

28,48 

216,21 

148,65 

3.616,26 
-

-

-

-
532,32 

-

162,13 
-
81,89 

288,30 
-

7,97 
7,97 

105,02 
33,38 

36,48 
-
35,16 
-
54,15 
22,41 

11,12 

20,62 

-

-

-

-

31,10 

-
31,10 

105,78 
15,00 

24,00 

18,00 

48,78 

1.250,05 
25,00 

204,44 

31,66 

43.65 

29,00 

240,88 

193,55 

137,26 

75,34 

264,27 

5,00 

6,46 
6,46 

282,27 
-
-
-

282,27 

64,06 

" 
-
-
64,06 
-
-

-

-

• 
" 
60,33 
-

60,33 

73,00 

73,00 

975,00 

-

: 

-
-

0,53 
0,53 

22,23 
-
-
-
-
22,23 

11,70 
-
-
"! 
!1,70J 
-! 
i 

•i 

1 
-1 
"i 

-! 
1 
14,83 i 

12,21 
12,21 

25,27 
-
-
-

25,27 

61,50 

61,50 

1,10 
1,10 

9,16 
-

-
-
9,16 

2,00 

-

2,00 
-

-

—_ 

0,84* 
0,84| 

25,61 
16,86! 

3,28j 

3,18: 

2,29; 
-: 
78,33 
21,18; 

27,21, 

29,94i 

-: 

- 

- 

-| 

-\ 
- 

-| 

-! 

-| 

-; 

- 
-j 
-: 
-\ 

.!  ""' 

7 

61,42 

23,00 

14.83] 

-i 

61,42 

13,72 

23,00 

40,00 

13,72 

85,16 

40,00 

14,78 

-

-

-': 

-! 
-i 

-j 

-j 
-' 
i 
-j 
-i 

"i 

-; 
"i 

32,81 

30,48 

2.33 

- 

-;; 

-; 

120,70' 

7,51: 

8,59 

31.17 

15.01 

27,08; 

81.00 

- 

- 

81,00: 

•".92; 
-: 
T 

* 

44,92: 

-! 

-; 

- 

-, 

-, 

- 

-: 

-, 

-' 

•] 

-| 

23.77! 

"  -'--"~: 

-i 

-! 

7,57. 

-! 

ECU  million 

1,87 
1,87 

61,63 
6,16 

3,03 

7,89 

0,00 

44,54 

43,43 
8,85 

0,00 

0,00 

34,58 

192,18 
o,oo 
0,00 

9,22 
o,oo 
o.oo 
0,00 

0,00 
[82795 

4 8( 85 
0,00 

0,00 

48,85 

31,94 
0,00 
oToo 

0,00 

0,00 

31,94 

327,47 
0,00 

4,36 

4,24 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

10,7 3 

23,46 

5,88 

42,98 

5Y.3Ô 

47,79 

0,00 

30,98 

30,98 

568,38 

56,40 

79,99 

11,07 

37,45 

383,47 

343,97 

81,24 

38,33 

50,56 

173.84 

4.740,93 

210,00 

126,00 

133,76 

78,62 

28,48 

216,21 

148,65 

3 799.22 

353,34 

30,48 

2.33 

320,53 

309,36 

15,00 

24,00 

18,00 

48,78 

203,58 

3.305,48 

25,00 

208,81 

43.40 

8,59 

43,65 

60,17 

251,01 

232,02 

305.27 

145,40 

421,23 

336,09 

5,00 

137,33 

1 219,84 

589,06 

589,06 

-
27.265,911 

-
3.796,91 

975,00 
-
3.357,12 

85,16 

-1 

363,63 

1.571,64 

14,78 
-
313,45 

1.181,25. 

125,92 

2.975,84 

40.951,67 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

309 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 

Table 3: Regional breakdown of payments in 1995 

Member State / 

Region 

• 

1 

2 

| 

3 

| 

4 

|  5(a) (agr.)  |  5(a) (fish.)  | 

5b 

| 

6 

Objective 

ECU million 

CI 

Total 

BELGIUM 
Brussels 

Flanders 

Wallonia 

Multi-regional 

DENMARK 

0st  for Storeba:lt 

Vest for Storeba:lt 

Multi-regional 

GERMANY 

Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania 

Brandenburg 

Saxony-Anhalt 

Saxony 

Thuringia 

Berlin 

Schleswig-Holstein 

Hamburg 

Lower  Saxony 

Bremen 

North  Rhine-Westphalia 

Hesse 

Rhineland-Palatinate 

Baden-Wiirttemberg 

Bavaria 

Saarland 

Multi-regional 

GREECE 

Eastern  Central  and  Islands(l) 

Central  and Western  Macedonia 

Péloponnèse and Western  Central  Gr.  (2) 

Thessaly 

Crete 

Epirus (3) 

Thrace (4) 

Eastern Aegean  Islands (5) 

Multi-regional 

SPAIN 

Galicia 

Asturias 

Cantabria 

Basque Country 

Navarre 

Rioja 

Aragon 

Madrid 

Castile-Leôn 

Castile-La  Mancha 

Extremadura 

Catalonia 

Valencia 

Balearic  Islands 

1,22 
-
-
-
1,22 

18,63 
-
-
18,63 

9,93 
-
" 
" 
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-
-

-
" 
9,93 
-
-

-
-

-
-
-
-
0,00 

12,75 
0,13 

8,21 

4,40 

0,00 

16,49 
-
-
16,49 

160,90 
-
-
-
" 
-
-
0,24 

0,34 

2,37 

0,05 

1,45 

1,67 

0,91 

1,75 

6,78 

0,25 

145,09 
-
-
-

-
-

27,65 
-
" 
-

29,57 
-
-
29,57 
-
-

-
-
1.251,97 
247,43 

228,36 

165,63 

298,53 

129,16 

47,19 
-
-
-
" 
-
-
" 
-
-
-
135,67 

1.705,79 
106,54 

124,56 

119,65 

59,56 

49,68 

50,41 

74,40 

59,42 

1.061,57 

3.772,23 
390,88 

132,54 

42,03 

300,55 

252,77 

147,46 

429,69 

11,75 
-
0,00 

11,75 
-
8,35 
0,00 

8,35 
-
32,52 
-
-
-
-
-
11,90 

0,00 
-
3,25 

4,22 

2,68 

0,60 

1,55 

" 
2,55 

5,77 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-

447,96 

" 

148,42 

16,72 

5,93 

6,93 

29,46 

4233 
1,49 

9,39 

26,00 

5,45 

39,04 
-
-
39,04 

104,48 

" 
" 
-
-
8,81 

6,72 

1,80 

0,00 

6,84 

12,91 

6,23 

4,06 

6,58 

2,60 

7,13 

40,82 
-
-; 

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
169,65 

15,54 

6,72 

0,62 

2,10 

13,45 

220.4C 

18,5 

5,18 

0,0C 

0,00 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

2,50 
-
-
2,50 

0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0,00 
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
"i 
38,13 

-
-
-

-

-

-

4,581 

"I 

2,15| 

2,43| 

"1 
2,451 
'I 
' 

-I 

2.45] 

71,21 i 
-! 
-j 

-i 
"i 
"; 

1,84; 

•\ 

11,30, 
-: 
2,75, 

7,99( 

6,37; 

4,39 

34,86 

1,72 

-; 

-, 
-: 
-. 

81,69 
-
-

3.23; 

10,92 

1,82, 

37,83, 

5.37 

-, 
-, 
15,75! 

-> 

6,76! 

" 

-j 

-\  • 

-j 

-! 

-! 

-1 

-| 
-! 

-| 

3833 
0,86 

12,39 

25,08 

0,00 

4,25 
0,00 

0,00 

4,25 

218,18 
14,18 

7,63 

22,73 

27,43 

36,96 

10,15 

1,83 

0,00 

20,75 

5,10 

22,58 

3,10 

3,92 

1,70 

12,43 

6,24 

21,46 

30,26 
0,00 

0,00 
o.oo 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

30,26 

94,42 
1,45 

2,45 

0,48 

0,69 

1,25 

1,03 

4,51 

1,01 

4,8C 

2,24 

4,35 

i.oe 
l,5f. 

1,2: 

140,54 

2,48 

32,15 

99,23 

6,68 

91,70 

0,00 

8,35 

83,36 

1.849,20 

261,62 

235,99 

188,37 

325,96 

166,12 

78,04 

10,63 

2,14 

37,66 

16,21 

42,37 

19,58 

16,80 

14,42 

59,22 

21,11 

352,97 

1.736,05 

106,54 

124,56 

119,65 

59,56 

49,68 

50,41 

74,40 

59,42 

1.091,83 

4.631,72 

392,33 

134,99 

42,52 

167,87 

35,61 

9,41 

51,36 

49,28 

305,35 

255,00 

151,85 

255,72 

431,25 

13,16 

(1 ) Including the OP for  Attica 

(2) Including the OPs for Central  Greece, Western  Greece and the Péloponnèse 

(3) Including the OPs for  Epirus and the Ionian  Islands 

(4) Including the OPs for  Thrace and Western  Macedonia 

(5) Including the OPs for the northern  and southern  islands ofthe  Aegean 

310 

7th Annual Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 

Table 3: Regional breakdown of payments in 1995 (ctd.) 

Member State / 

Region 

1 

I 

2 

| 

3 

| 

4 

|  5(a) (agr.)  |  5(a) (fish.)  | 

5b 

| 

6 

Objective 

ECU million 

CI 

Total 

-
-
-
-
112,72 

312,88 

-
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-

-j 

-
-
-

312,88 
-
-
0,00 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 
-

Andalusia 

Murcia 

Ceuta and Melilla 

Canary Islands 

Multi-regional 

FRANCE 

Ile de France 

Upper Normandy 

Lower Normandy 

Picardy 

Champagne-Ardenne 

Burgundy 

Centre 

Nord-Pas-de-Calais 

Brittany 

Loire Region 

Poitou-Charentes 

Lorraine 

Alsace 

Franche-Comté 

Limousin 

Aquitaine 

Midi-Pyrénées 

Auvergne 

Rhône-Alpes 

Languedoc-Roussi 1 Ion 

Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 

Corsica 

Martinique 

Guadeloupe 

French Guiana 

Réunion 

Multi-regional 

IRELAND 

Multi-regional 

ITALY 

Piedmont 

Valle d'Aosta 

Lombardy 

Trentino 

Veneto 

Friuli-Venezia Giulia 

Liguria 

Emilia-Romagna 

Tuscany 

Umbria 

Marche 

Lazio 

Abruzzi 

Molise 

Campania 

Apulia 

Basilicata 

Calabria 

Sicily 

Sardinia 

Multi-regional 

638,23 

101,59 

22,33 

254,35 

1.059,82 

147,44 

" 
-
" 
-

-
-
8,94 

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
10,45 

21,89 

32,40 

7,60 

66,16 
-
856,47 
856,47 

1.176,10 
-

-
• 
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
68,22 

15,52 

63,21 

92,91 

29,20 

60,93 

74,06 

25,47 

746,59 

-
-
-
" 
14,92 

145,06 
-
18,49 

12,15 

30,47 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

11,74 

0,00 

22,85 

6,74 

15,48 

0,00 

1,10 
-
2,59 

2,11 

15,62 

0,00 

5,71 

0,00 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

0,00 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 
-
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0.00 

-

-

" 

-
-
-
-
0,00 

25,31 
" 
-

-
-
27,65 

242,14 

-

-
-
-

-

-

-
-

242,14 

25,31 

1 

-
-
38,13 

0,00 ! 
-1 
-
-
-! 
-1 
-j 
"! 
"! 
1 
-! 

-; 
-; 

-: 
-! 

•; 

-

-' 

-i 

-: 
0,00 

-i 

0,00 ; 

o.oo 

0,00 

-; 

-! 
-: 

"I 

; 

: 

-
-

^ 

- 

•; 

-
-
0,00 

•I 
"i 
-1 
-! 
"i 

76,57! 

-  7 
0,00| 

7.77J 

-j 

0,00; 

9,40! 
0,5 lj 
": 
3,08; 

4.16! 

2.57 
K 23: 

0,00 

4,80 

12,46; 

3,42 

3,65 

18,98 

K55 
o.oo; 
1,92, 

"-' 

1.07 

15,75 
4,89; 

0,00; 

0,00 

0.00; 

~Ô7Ô0;~ 

2.61; 

2,09' 

1,6') 

0,00 

0,00, 

4,46 

0.00. 

• ' " . ' • "' 

-; 
-' 

-; 

-: 
-i 

-j 

4,93 

0,87 

0,00 

0,92 

59,56 

100,79 
2,37 

0,00 

1,51 

4,99 

0,98 

3'21 
1,96 

2,44 

3,51 

0,00 

2,29 

-1 

- 

" 
- 

-; 

-! 

-i 

-! 

" 

- • 

Ï47ÎÔ 

-; 

-! 

J 

-j 

- 

-, 

"-: 

-! 

7 

- 

-] 

-; 
-: 

-! 

-, 

j 

- 

-! 

-; 

-| 

- 

-i 

-j 

-j 

-"  " """".; 
-I 
-' 

- 

-j 
- 

-j 

2,02 

1,49 

5,14 

7,18 

1,82 

2,74 

2.Ï4" 

2,28 

6,01 

1,32 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

4778 

26,90 

16,42 
16,42 

34,65 
0,00 

0,08 

0,00 

1,87 

0,00 

0,15 

0,00 

0,34 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

3,02 

o_oo 
1-:'8 
3.02 

0,80 

2,98 

o.oo 
0.68 

20,26 

643,15 

102,46 

22,33 

255,28 

1.312,80 

1.050,19 

2,37 

18,49 

21,43 

35,45 

0,98 

12,60 

2,47 

23,12 

6,59 

27,01 

11,60 

30,81 

2,02 

7,38 

17,61 

13.19 

7,59 

37,34 

3,69 

8,00 

7,93 

11,78 

21.89 

32,40 

7,60 

70,55 

608,30 

872,89 

872,89 

1.226,50 

4.S9 

0,08 

0,00 

1,87 

0,00 

2,76 

2,09 

2,04 

0,00 

0.00 

4,46 

0,00 

71,23 

15,52 

64,59 

95,93 

30,06 

63,91 

74,06 

26,15 

766,85 

0,00 

0,00, 

0,00 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds (1995) 

311 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 

Table 3: Regional breakdown of payments in 1995 (ctd.) 

Member  State  / 

Region 

1 

I 

2 

1 

3 

| 

4 

|  5(a) (agr.)  |  5(a) (fish.) 

| 

5b 

| 

6 

Objective 

ECU million 

CI 

Total 

LUXEMBOURG 
Multi-regional 

NETHERLANDS 

North Netherlands 

East Netherlands 

West Netherlands 

South Netherlands 

Multi-regional 

AUSTRIA 

East Austria 

South Austria 

West Austria 

Multi-regional 

PORTUGAL 

North 

Centre 

Lisbon and the Tagus  valley 

Alentejo 

Algarve 

Azores 

Madeira 

Multi-regional 

FINLAND 

Continental  Finland 

Islands 

Multi-regional 

SWEDEN 

South  Sweden 

West  Sweden 

Central  Norrland 

Upper Norrland 

Multi-regional 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

North 

Yorkshire and  Humberside 

East Midlands 

East Anglia 

South East 

South West 

West  Midlands 

North East  England 

North  West 

Wales 

Scotland 

Northern  Ireland 

Gibraltar 

Multi-regional 

COMMUNITY 

TOTAL 

-
-
9,56 
-
9,56 
-
-
-
14,40 
14,40 
-

-
1.667,01 
77,75 

47,03 

65,08 

27,04 

15,90 

96,87 

74,80 

1.262,54 
-

-
7 

163,81 

: 

44,47 

16,55 

102,78 

-
10.794,35J 

0,00 
0,00 

12,30 
12,30 

0,00 
-
0,00 
-
21,42 
7,62 

5,56 

8,24 
-
-
-
-
" 

-
-

-
15,55 

15,55 

38,06 
5,04 

8.20 

6,16 

18,66 
-
152,96 
0,00 

19,31 

5,85 

4,37 

0,00 

Ï9J6 

37,38 

27,54 

14,33 

25,09 
-
0,00 
-
-
885,91 

4,00 
4,00 

142,57 
-
-

-
142,57 

32,03 
-

"1 

32,03) 
-

1 
-
-; 

-! 
-! 
"! 

30,17! 

": 

-i 
30,17, 

36,50! 

-! 
i 
36,50! 

436,17; 

-1 

-;' 
-! 

1 

"1 
~i 

•I 

0,06 
0,06 

2,33 
-
-

-
2,33 

0,20 
-

-
0,20 
-

-
-
-

2,00 
2,00 

1,96 
-
-

-
1,96 

30,75 
-

-
30,75 
-

-

0,21 
0,21 

0,00 
-
-
-

0,00 

5,85 
-

5,85 
-

i 

-1 

7,42 

30,71 

6,90 

1 

-| 
7,42! 

-,' 

j 

"l 
-1 
-; 
- 

-J 

"j 
"j 
"I 
-! 

"i 
.! 
"! 
-i 
-! 

-; 

30,71 

6,86 

6,90 

12,00 

-

12,00 

4,43 

6,86 

22,43 

-

-

-

0,211 
0,21 j 

9,451 
5,78; 

1,24 

2.00J 

0,43 

-| 

39,16! 
10,59! 

13,60! 

14,97; 

-| 

-: 
-! 

-i 

-! 

15.94 
15,24 

0,70 

46,39 

3.97^ 

0.96 

S.79 

1,67 
7 
15.26 

11.66 

"i 
436,17; 

-1 
1.349,83 i 

1 
-j 

1 
-| 
54,11 

22,43 

554,64 

" 
4,43 
-
81,02 

4.09 

-: 
363,41 

0,60 
0,60 

21,87 
1,85 

1.11 

2,37 

0,00 

16,54 

21,04 
3,75 

0,00 

0,00 

17,29 

79,35 
0,00 

0,00 

4,61 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

74,74 

23,21 
0,00 

0,00 

23,21 

,5,97 

0,00 

o.oo 
0,00 

0,00 

15,97 

116,71 
0,00 

2,18 

2,12 

0.00 

0,00 

0,00 

5,07 

11,73 
°^ôo 
18,11 

17,06 

17,61 

0,00 

42,84 

244,31 

7,10 

7,10 

200,04 

19,93 

11,91 

4,37 

0,43 

163,40 

164,85 

36,36 

19.16 

23,21 

86,12 

1.74636 

77,75 

47,03 

69,70 

27,04 

15,90 

96,87 

74,80 

1.337,28 

170,39 

15,24 

0,70 

154,45 

131,85 

5,04 

8,20 

6,16 

18,66 

93,79 

942,91 

0,00 

21,49 

11.94 

0,96 

4,37 

8,79 

24,17 

50,77 

72,01 

47,70 

70,36 

120,39 

0,00 

509,97 

244,31 

1.060,37 

15.206,61 

- 

- 

"j 
- 

- 

-| 

" 
-! 
1 
-; 

- 

-j 

-I 

-j 

-j 

4°.S0 

-! 

-| 

40,50; 

" - «j 

-, 

-! 
-; 

-! 

22.46J 

"j 

-! 

- 

- 

- 
7 
-i 

-; 

-1 

-, 

-| 
6 2'9 6! 

312 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial  implementation 

Table 4: Regional breakdown of payments in  1994-95 

Member  State  / 

Region 

Objective 

|  5(a) (agr,)  |  5(a) (fish.) 

\ 

5b 

| 

BELGIUM 
Brussels 

Flanders 

Wallonia 

Multi-regional 

DENMARK 

0st  for Storebarlt 

Vest for  Storebaîlt 

Multi-regional 

GERMANY 

Mecklenburg-Western  Pomerania 

Brandenburg 

Saxony-Anhalt 

Saxony 

Thuringia 

Berlin 

Schleswig-Holstein 

Hamburg 

Lower  Saxony 

Bremen 

North  Rhine-Westphalia 

Hesse 

Rhineland-Palatinate 

Baden-Wurttemberg 

Bavaria 

Saarland 

Multi-regional 

GREECE 

Eastern  Central  and  Islands(l) 

Central  and Western  Macedonia 

Péloponnèse and Western  Central  Gr  (2) 

Thessaly 

Crete  . " 

Epirus (3) 

Thrace (4) 

Eastern  Aegean  Islands (5) 

Multi-regional 

SPAIN 

Galicia 

Asturias 

Cantabria 

Basque Country 

Navarre 

Rioja 

Aragon 

Madrid 

Castile-Leon 

Castile-La  Mancha 

Extremadura 

Catalonia 

Valencia 

Balearic  Islands 

2931 
-
17,56 

11,75 
-
19,99 
4,26 

15,73 
" 

156,94 

-

-
-
29,94 

7,70 
-
6,76 

10,38 

57,50 

10,63 

11.73 

9,37 

12,93 

-
-
-
447,96 

148,42 

16,72 

5,93 

6,93 

29,46 

232 
0,15 

1,73 

0,13 

0,31 

3,00 
-

3,00 

14,81 
-
-
-

-

-

" 

-

74,52 
2,40 

24,59 

39,39 

8,13 

74,24 
-
-
74,24 

234,26 
-

-
-
12,71 

9,76 

4,80 

9,29 

9,87 

34,41 

10,03 

6,62 

10,60 

6,93 

10,41 

108,84 

14,81 

-1 
"I 
" 
-! 
1 
" 
-! 

-
244,54 
-

j 
"1 
25,87; 

10,05| 

0,62; 

2,58| 

22,62] 

"I 

79,77 
-

79,77 
-
-
-
-
-
2.470,05 
402,99 

422,32 

355,83 

618,89 

306,05 

107,01 
-

-j 
-
-
-
-! 
1 

256,96| 

2.760,70 
157,97 

184,97 

191,60 

87,741 

73,08| 

80,95 

111,47 

92,00 

1.780,92 

5.570,03 
561,98) 

188,19! 

66,75! 

-! 
-

-i 

421,46 

335,25 

212,34 
-
570,72 

(1 ) Including  the  OP  for  Attica 

(2)  Including  the OPs  for  Central  Greece,  Western  Greece and  the  Péloponnèse 

(3) Including the OPs for  Epirus  and the  Ionian  Islands 

(4)  Including  the  OPs  for  Thrace  and  Western  Macedonia 

(5)  Including  the OPs  for  the  northern  and  southern  islands  o f t he  Aegean 

16,51 
0,13 

10,11 

6,27 

0,00 

19,19 
-
-
19,19 

209,83 
-
-

-
0,24 

0,34! 

2,37j 

0.05| 

3.88 

l,67j 

2,411 

1,75; 

6,78 

0,25 

-i 

190,08 
-! 
•i 
T 
1 
-1 
-1 
-
-

3,26 
-
-
-
3,26 

30,29 
-
-
30,29 

16,13 

4,58 
-
2,15 

2,43 

5,66 
'  " 
-
5,66 

134,20 

-
—  —; 

- 

-
-

6,95 
-
25,71 

2,75 

12,79 

12.47 

4,39 

67,43 

1.72 

-

: 

—  —: 

: 

16.13 

-

-
-
-
-
" 
-
-

-
-

-
-

; 

" 

-
-
-

-
-
7 

-
-

-

-
-

40,87 
0,86 

13,29 

26,54 

0,17 

6,41 
0,00 

0,00 

6,41 

232,71 
14,18 

7,63 

22,73 

27,43 

36,96 

10,15 

1,83 

0,00 

20,75 

5,10 

22,66 

3,32 

3,92 

1,81 

13,05 

6.24 

34,95| 

45,68 
0,00 

0,00 
o7oo 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0.00 

45.68 

137,26 
1,45 

2,45 

0,48 

0,69 

1,25 

1.03 

4,51 

1,01 

4,80 

2.24 

4,39 

1,06 

251,14 

3,55 

69,44 

166,28 

11,87 

158,78 

4,26 

15,73 

138,79 

3.468,92 

417,18 

429,95 

378,57 

646,32 

343,01 

159,80 

26,48 

5,14 

64,87 

25,40 

121,20 

38,44 

37.15 

18,55 

103,56 

31,55 
6 2 1,77 

2.806,38 

157,97 

184,97 

191,60 

87,74 

73,08 

80,95 

111,47 

92,00 

1.826,60 

6.674,27 

563,43 

190,64 

67,23 

179,53 

42,10 

11,54 

70,78 

60,86 

426,25 

337,49 

216,73 

269,04 

572,28 

14,19 

65,83 

80,25 

9,97 

118,44 

-! 
1 
" 
-; 
"i 
"I 
-: 

-, 

"! 

:• 

-; 

-
"! 

4.55 

14.08 

3.95 

56,77 

7,77 

-

24.56 

6,76 

: 

220,40 

23,03 

-

-| 

5.18 

-! 
1,02; 

~ 

~T,56 

1,22 

7th Annual Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

313 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial implementation 

Table 4: Regional breakdown of payments in 1994-95 (ctd.) 

Member State / 

Region 

Objective 

5(a) (agr.)  I  5(a) (fish.) 

-
-
" 
-
65,83 

47,70 
-
-
-
-
-
-

" 
-

-
-
-

-
-
-

-

-
47,70 
-
" 
3031 
" 
-
-
-
-
" 

" 
-
-
-
80,25 

402,85 
" 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-

-
" 
-
-

-j 
-
-

-
-
-
-
9,97 

41,13 
-
-
-

-
-

-
-

-

-
-
-

-

-
402,85 
-
-
58,73 

-
41,13 
-

11,20 

1 

-

-

-

-

-

-
-
-
-
14,92 

423,29 
-
41,69 

21,34 

49,92 

12,32 

7,85 

12,10 

62,76 

14,26 

27,03 

15,21 

35,72 

9,80 

8,69 
-
19,61 

8,88 

25,33 

15,85 

16,92 

18,01 

149,97 
32,57 

3,00 

11,50 
-
11,28 

12,00 

15,27 

6,00 

20,18 

17,50 

10,50 

10,17 

-
-
-
-
158,75 

503,68 
-
-
-
-
" 
" 
-

-
" 
" 
-

-
-

-
-
-! 
-1 
-

-
•i 
"1 
-
503,68 
-
-
100,23 
9,16 

0,93 

13,12 

3,95 

8,11 

4,00 

3,16 

13,82 

4,92 

2,29 

2,75 

9,15 

-
-
-
-

207,93 
-
0,54 

17,14 
-
2,06 

14,06 

2,50 

16,18 

11,79 

11,12 

5,63 

3.27 

S.33 

21.47 

19.19 

IS.15 

2S.57 

13.23 

5.83 

7.SI 

-

1.07 
-
-
53,50 
4.S9 

0,30 

2.39 

3,11 

S.65 

2.61 

2.09 

3.39 

7.90 

5.37 

4.4C 

S.33 

Andalusia 

Murcia 

Ceuta and Melilla 

Canary Islands 

Multi -regional 

FRANCE 

Ile de France 

Upper Normandy 

Lower Normandy 

Picardy 

Champagne-Ardenne 

Burgundy 

Centre 

Nord-Pas-de-Cal ais 

Brittany 

Loire Region 

Poitou-Charentes 

Lorraine 

Alsace 

Franche-Comté 

Limousin 

Aquitaine 

Midi-Pyrénées 

Auvergne 

Rhône-Alpes 

Languedoc-Roussillon 

Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 

Corsica 

Martinique 

Guadeloupe 

French Guiana 

Réunion 

Multi-regional 

IRELAND 

Multi-regional 

ITALY 

Piedmont 

Valle d'Aosta 

Lombardy 

Trentino 

Veneto 

Friuli-Venezia Giulia 

Liguria 

Emilia-Romagna 

Tuscany 

Umbria 

Marche 

Lazio 

Abruzzi 

Molise 

Campania 

Apulia 

Basilicata 

Calabria 

Sicily 

Sardinia 

Multi-regional 

956,74 

148,12 

31,71 

327,07 

1.749,70 

286,71 
-
-
-
" 
-
-
" 
40,02 
-

-
-
-

-j 

-i 

-1 

27.36J 

38,45 

55,99 

17,00! 

107,87| 

"1 
1.369,631 
1.369,63 

1.555,41 

-

-| 

-1 

-! 

76,48 

19,32 

89,8 

92,9 

52.4C 

78.2c 

74,0( 
86,9( ' 
985,28 

-

-
-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-

7 

-

-

7 

-

-

-
7 

" 

ECU million 

4,93 

0,87 

0,00 

0,92 

102,40 

113,88 
2,37 

0,00 

1,51 

4,99 

0,98 

3,21 

1,96 

2,44 

3,51 

0,00 

2,29 

14,10 

2,02 

1,49 

5,14 

7,18 

1,82 

2,74 

2,14 

2,28 

6,01 

1,32 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

4,38 

39,99 

21,87 
21,87 

66,41 
0,00 

0,08 

0,00 

1,87 

0,00 

0,15 

0,00 

0,34 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

3,02 

0,00 

1,38 

3,02 

0,8C 

2,9S 

0,0C 

Ô761 

961,67 

148,99 

31,71 

327,99 

2.181,82 

2.027,17 

2,37 

42,24 

39,99 

54,90 

15,36 

25,12 

16,56 

105,23 

33,95 

38,82 

28,62 

55,45 

15,09 

18,51 

26,61 

45,98 

28,86 

56,65 

31,21 

25,03 

31,83 

28,69 

38,45 

55,99 

17,00 

112,25 

1 036,41 

1.391,50 

1.391,50 

2.025,77 

46,62 

4,31 

27,02 

8,94 

28,05 

18,76 

20,52 

23,55 

33,00 

25,16 

17,72 

27,65 

79,50 

19,32 

91,19 

95,93 

53,26 

81,24 

74,06 

87,57 

24,8c 

30,3 

58,7: 

Il,2C 

52,0: 

1.162,40 

314 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex V: Regional breakdown of financial  implementation 

Table 4: Regional breakdown of payments in 1994-95 (ctd.) 

Member  State  / 

Region 

1 

I 

2 

| 

3 

| 

4 

|  5(a) (agr.)  |  5(a) (fish.) 

| 

5b 

| 

6 

Objective 

LUXEMBOURG 
Multi-regional 

NETHERLANDS 

North  Netherlands 

East  Netherlands 

West Netherlands 

South  Netherlands 

Multi-regional 

AUSTRIA 

East Austria 

South  Austria 

West  Austria 

Multi-regional 

PORTUGAL 

North 

Centre 

Lisbon  and the Tagus  valley 

Alentejo 

Algarve 

Azores 

Madeira 

Multi-regional 

FINLAND 

Continental  Finland 

Islands 

Multi-regional 

SWEDEN 

South  Sweden 

West  Sweden 

Central  Norrland 

Upper  Norrland 

Multi-regional 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

North 

Yorkshire and  Humberside 

East  Midlands 

East  Anglia 

South  East 

South  West 

West  Midlands 

North  East  England 

North  West 

Wales 

Scotland 

Northern  Ireland 

Gibraltar 

Multi-regional 

COMMUNITY 

TOTAL 

3,99 
3,99 

52,51 
16,69 

18,24 
-
17,58 

21,42 
7,62 

5,56 

8,24 
-
-
-
-

-

15,55 

15,55 

38,06 
5,04 

8,20 

6,16 

18,66 

518,85 
12,50 

69,63 

18,40 

23,13 

14,50 

78,06 

86,33 

79,82 

44,21 

89,78 

2.5C 

-
-
19,63 
-
19,63 
-
-
-
14,40 
14,40 

-
-
3.263,42 
148,28 

88,34 

89,53 

43,78 

18,78! 

181,16 

123,80 

2.569,75) 

-f 
"I 
"i 
-| 

- 

-', 

-! 

-! 
331.36J 

-j 

-; 

-j 

-| 

100,46 

40,65 

190,211 
1 

-1 

5,59 
5,59 

253,32 j 

034 
0,34 

11,12 

"I 

11,12 

5,85 

5,85 
-

1 
"1 
253,32) 

32,031 
i 
"! 

•! 

32,03! 
-
-

"! 
"i 
"' 
1 

-! 
30,17! 

"! 

7,42 

30,17! 

7,42 

36,501 
-! 

-! 
36,50| 

818,57 j 

"; 
-; 

1 
-1 

-i 
-i 
-! 
-! 
818,57) 

-1 

17.721,101 

1.877,84 

2.407,651 

188,68 

5,37 
5,37 

12,15 
-

-
-
12,15 

30,75 
-
-
" 
30,75 
-
' 
-! 
1 

-
-
-
-
30,711 
Ï 
-
30,71 

6,86 

-
-
-
6,86 

41,73 

"i 
-1 

I 

•! 
41,73) 

-1 

914,931 

0,17 
0,17 

6,21 
-
-
-

6,21 

0,20 
-
-

0,20 
-

-
" 
-

6,90 

-
6,90 

12,00 

-
12,00 

11,82 

-
-

-

-

0,42 
0,42 

12,56 
7,27 

1,64 

2,50 

1,15 

39,16 
10.59 

13,60 

14,97 
-
-
-

-

-

15,94 
15,24 

0,70 

-

69,45 

3,97 

4.56 

2Î.82 

S.09 

15,26 

11,66 

11,82 

4,0? 

-
-
-

-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" 
-
-

40,50 

40,50 

22,46 

-

22,46 

: 

: 

ECU million 

CI 

Total 

0,62 
0,62 

23,99 
1,85 

1,11 
2,37 

0,00 

18,66 

21,04 
3,75 

0,00 

0,00 

17,29 

16,50 

16,50 

391,48 

25,81 

40,61 

4,87 

18,73 

301,46 

164,85 

36,36 

19,16 

23,21 

86,12 

109,60 
0,00 

3.373,01 

148,28, 

0,00 

4,61 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

104,98 

23,21 
0,00 

0,00 

23,21 

15,97 
0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

15,97 

127,52 
0,00 

2,18 

2,12 

0,00 

0,00 

0,00 

5,07 

11,73 

0,00 

18,11 

17,06 

18,19 

0,0C 

53,06 

244,31 

88,34 

94,14 

43,78 

18,78 

181,16 

123,80 

2.674,73 

170,39 

15,24 

0,70 

154,45 

131,85 

5,04 

8,20 

6,16 

18,66 

93,79 

1.919,31 

12,50 

71,82 

24,49 

4,56 

23,13 

36,32 

83,13 

106,15 

180,27 

77,58 

159,18 

208,40 

2,50 

929,28 

244,31 

149,28 

661.85 

62,9« 

1.231,34 

25.215,63 

3/i^<> 

ANNEX VI: 

Major projects adopted in 1995 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

317 

--hW 

Annex VI: Major projects adopted in 1995 

Obj. 

Total 
cost 

ERDF 
assistance 

(1) 

National 
public 
contribution 

Private 
contribution 

Commitments 
1995 

% 
(2)/(l) 

(2) 

Payments 
1995 
(3) 

ECU million 
% 
(3V(2) 

IRELAND 
Tallaght Hospital 
(Dublin) 

ITALY 
Gioia Tauro Port 
(Calabria) 

1 

1 

131,24 

39,37 

91,87 

0,00 

39,37 

100% 

31,50 

80% 

120,00 

40,00 

0,00 

80,00 

40,00 

100% 

0,00 

0% 

Major  projects  within the  meaning of Article  16(2) ofthe  Coordination  Regulation. 

3ci  ^ào 

ANNEX VII: 

Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

321 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF Unancing by measure, theme, benefîciaries4 

Table 1: EUR15 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational  Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation  of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential  in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 

b. Occupational  Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration  of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

% 

75% 
3% 
2% 
20% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

50% 
62% 
57% 
47% 
51% 

20.008,9 
820,0 
482,4 
5.403,5 
26.714,8 

74% 
6% 
5% 
15% 
100% 

19% 
20% 
11% 
3% 
10% 
19% 
2% 
12% 
0% 
3% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

13,9 
14,5 
7,3 
1,9 
8,9 
11,7 
0,7 
11,5 
1,7 
1,3 
73,4 

% 

19% 
20% 
10% 
3% 
12% 
16% 
1% 
16% 
2% 
2% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

322 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, benefîciaries' 

Table 2: Belgium 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential  in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

% 

86% 
5% 
3% 
5% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

38% 
35% 
44% 
43% 
39% 

371,5 
23,6 
11,4 
23,2 
429,7 

80% 
4% 
6% 
9% 
100% 

24% 
14% 
20% 
4% 
10% 
8% 
5% 
9% 
0% 
7% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

16,1 
8,2 
4,8 
1,0 
5,2 
4,0 
1,3 
1,8 
0,0 
1,1 
43,5 

% 

37% 
19% 
11% 
2% 
12% 
9% 
3% 
4% 
0% 

100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

323 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' 

Table 3: Denmark 

Distribution of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration  of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational  Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth  and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

% 

97% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

47% 
50% 
49% 
0% 
47% 

56,5 
1,4 
0,4 
0,0 
58,4 

93% 
3% 
4% 
0% 
100% 

41% 
17% 
19% 
1% 
10% 
7% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
4% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

4,4 
2,1 
2,0 
0,1 
U 
1,6 
0,0 
0,1 
0,0 
0,1 
11,5 

% 

38% 
18% 
17% 
1% 
10% 
14% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

324 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex VII: Distribution  of ESF  financing  by measure, theme,  beneficiaries4 

Table 4:  Germany 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

Training 
Employment  support 
Technical  assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational  Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 

b. Occupational  Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation  of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen  and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational  Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational  Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration  of persons exposed to exclusion  from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation  of workers to industrial change 
3  a. Supporting employment growth  and stability 

b. Boosting human potential  in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training  of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

%. 

79% 
1% 
5% 
15% 
100% 

% 

16% 
16% 
6% 
6% 
2% 
43% 
2% 
3% 
0% 
4% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

3,2 
2,3 
1,2 
1,4 
1,3 
8,1 
0,3 
0,7 
0,0 
0,0 
18,5 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

48% 
52% 
58% 
58% 
50% 

1.214,1 
9,3 
0,0 
275,0 
1.498,5 

% 

81% 
1% 
0% 
18% 
100% 

% 

17% 
12% 
6% 
8% 
7% 
44% 
2% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

325 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries* 

Table 5: Greece 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical assistance/M ultipurpose 
Total 

% 

91% 
0% 
0% 
9% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

66% 
0% 
76% 
74% 
68%. 

1.050,3 
0,0 
3,0 
98,1 
1.151,4 

79% 
0% 
2% 
19% 
100% 

4% 
3% 
10% 
2% 
15% 
8% 
1% 
54% 
2% 
0% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

4,9 
4,6 
11,7 
2,5 
27,3 
8,1 
0,4 
31,7 
19,2 
0,3 
110,7 

% 

4% 
4% 
11% 
2% 
25% 
7% 
0% 
29% 
17% 
0% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

326 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries* 

Table 6: Spain 

% 

Distribution  of ESF financing  by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

% 

85% 
6% 
6% 
3% 
100% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

% 

61% 
69% 
64% 
62% 
63% 

6.630,6 
496,4 
433,8 
213,9 
7.774,8 

67% 
21% 
6% 
6% 
100% 

26% 
24% 
10% 
3% 
10% 
9% 
3% 
15% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

29,0 
28,0 
10,8 
5,1 
38,5 
.  22,1 
3,8 
58,2 
2,7 
11,1 
209,3 

% 

14% 
13% 
5% 
2% 
18% 
11% 
2% 
28% 
1% 
5% 
100% 

Distribution  of ESF financing  by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational  Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting eoual opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential  in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational  Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational  Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration  of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation  of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth  and stability 

b. Boosting human potential  in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training  systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Situation  mid  1996. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

i ll 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 

Table 7: France 

Distribution  of  ESF  financing  by  measure 

Training 
Employment  support 
Technical  assistance 
Other  support  measures 

Total 

Distribution  of  ESF  financing  by  theme  (1994  prices) 

1. a.  Occupational  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  long-term  unemployment 

b.  Occupational  Integration  of  young  persons  seeking  employment 
c.  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  exclusion  from  the  labour  market 

d.  Promoting  equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women 

2.  Adaptation  of  workers  to  industrial  change 
3.  a.  Supporting  employment  growth  and  stability 

b.  Boosting  human  potential  in  research,  science,  and  technology 

4.  a.  Strengthen  and  improve  education  and  training  systems 

b.  Training  of  public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000  inhabitants  by  theme 
1. a.  Occupational  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  long-term  unemployment 

b.  Occupational  Integration  of  young  persons  seeking  employment 
c.  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  exclusion  from  the  labour  market 
d.  Promoting  equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women 

2.  Adaptation  of  workers  to  industrial  change 
3.  a.  Supporting  employment  growth  and  stability 

b.  Boosting  human  potential  in  research,  science,  and  technology 

4.  a.  Strengthen  and  improve  education  and  training  systems 

b.  Training  of  public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 

Total 

% 

35% 
0% 
0% 
6 5% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF  Finance 

Beneficiaries 

%  of  total  costs 

1000  pers 

33% 
0% 
52% 
43% 
39% 

2.264,3 
0,0 
0.2 
4.155,1 

6.419,6 

36% 
0% 
5% 
58% 
100% 

15% 
25% 
18% 

1% 
20% 
14% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
7% 
100% 

Bfc/1000  pers 

27,3 
42,9 
16,8 
0,8 
8,9 
14,0 
0,1 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 

111,0 

% 

25% 

39% 
15% 
1% 
8% 
13% 
0% 

0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

328 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' 

Table 8: Ireland 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential  in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

% 

90% 
0% 
0% 
10% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

44% 
75% 
80% 
63% 
46% 

897,6 
3,7 
0,0 
95,1 
996,4 

89% 
1% 
1% 
9% 
100% 

12% 
44% 
22% 
1% 
4% 
13% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

22,8 
74,0 
82,5 
10,7 
43,5 
45,0 
0,0 
4,2 
0,0 
0,0 
282,7 

% 

8% 
26% 
29% 
4% 
15% 
16% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

329 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 

Table 9: Italy 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth  and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

% 

98% 
0% 
0% 
2% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

57% 
0% 
51% 
61% 
56% 

1.856,4 
0,0 
5,9 
37,3 
1.899,6 

90% 
0% 
6% 
3% 
100% 

19% 
27% 
8% 
5% 
11% 
11% 
5% 
7% 
2% 
6% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

7,8 
8,2 
1,4 
1,1 
2,4 
3,7 
0,7 
5,6 
2,4 
0,1 
33,4 

% 

23% 
25% 
4% 
3% 
7% 
11% 
2% 
17% 
7% 
0% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

330 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 

Table 10: Luxemburg 

Distribution  of  ESF  financing  by  measure 

Training 
Employment  support 
Technical  assistance 
Other  support  measures 

Total 

Distribution  of  ESF  financing  by  theme  (1994  prices) 

1. a.  Occupational  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  long-term  unemployment 

b.  Occupational  Integration  of  young  persons  seeking  employment 
c.  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  exclusion  from  the  labour  market 

d.  Promoting  equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women 

2.  Adaptation  of  workers  to  industrial  change 
3.  a.  Supporting  employment  growth  and  stability 

b.  Boosting  human  potential  in research,  science,  and  technology 

4.  a.  Strengthen  and  improve  education  and  training  systems 

b.  Training  of  public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 

Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000  inhabitants  by  theme 
1. a.  Occupational  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  long-term  unemployment 

b  Occupational  Integration  of  young  persons  seeking  employment 
c.  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  exclusion  from  the  labour  market 
d  Promoting  equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women 

2.  Adaptation  of  workers  to  industrial  change 
3.  a.  Supporting  employment  growth  and  stability 

b.  Boosting  human  potential  in  research,  science,  and  technology 

4.  a  Strengthen  and  improve  education  and  training  systems 

b.  Training  of  public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

% 

86% 
14% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF  Finance 

Beneficiaries 

%  of  total  costs 

1000  pers 

45% 
45% 
45% 
45% 
45% 

8,6 
1,4 
0,0 
0,0 

10,0 

82% 
12% 
5% 
0% 

100% 

22% 
12% 
40% 
5% 
4% 
8% 
0% 
6% 
0% 
4% 
100% 

Bfc/1000  pers 

2,9 

2,7 
3,6 
2,5 
3,6 
9,5 
0,0 
1,2 
0,0 
0,0 
26,0 

% 

11% 
10% 
14% 
10% 
14% 
37% 
0% 
5% 
0% 
0% 

100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

331 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 

Table 11: Netherlands 

% 

8 1% 
0% 
0% 

19% 

100% 

ESF  Finance 

Beneficiaries 

"A, 

%  of  total  costs 

1000  pers 

41% 
45% 
46% 
42% 

42% 

292,7 

1,0 
0,0 
66,9 

360,6 

62% 
0% 
5% 

33% 
100% 

42% 
27% 
3% 
1% 
17% 
10% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

Bfc/1000  pers 

10,9 
0,1 
0,3 
0,1 
8,1 
4,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

23,5 

% 

46% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
34% 
17% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

100% 

Distribution  of  ESF  financing  by  theme  (1994  prices) 

1. a.  Occupational  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  long-term  unemployment 

% 

Distribution  of  ESF  financing  by  measure 

Training 

Employment  support 
Technical  assistance 
Other  support  measures 
Total 

b.  Occupational  Integration  of  young  persons  seeking  employment 
c.  Integration  of  perçons  exposed  to  exclusion  from  the  labour  market 
d.  Promoting  equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women 

2.  Adaptation  of  workers  to  industrial  change 
3.  a.  Supporting  employment  growth  and  stability 

b.  Boosting  human  potential  in  research,  science,  and  technology 

4.  a.  Strengthen  and  improve  education  and  training  systems 

b.  Training  of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000  inhabitants  by  theme 
1. a.  Occupational  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  long-term  unemployment 

b.  Occupational  Integration  of  young  persons  seeking  employment 
c.  Integration  of  persons  exposed  to  exclusion  from  the  labour  market 
d.  Promoting  equal  opportunities  for  men  and  women 

2.  Adaptation  of  workers  to  industrial  change 
3.  a.  Supporting  employment  growth  and  stability 

b.  Boosting  human  potential  in  research,  science,  and  technology 

4.  a.  Strengthen  and  improve  education  and  training  systems 

b.  Training  of  public  officials 

Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Situation  mid  1996. 

332 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, benefîciaries" 

Table 12: Austria 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994  prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion  from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation  of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth  and stability 

b. Boosting human potential  in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training  systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

%. 

63% 
13% 
5% 
18% 
100% 

% 

20% 
4% 
17% 
11% 
17% 
23% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
6% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

3,9 
0,9 
1,5 
1,4 
7,1 
4,9 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
20,0 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

41% 
44% 
48% 
42% 
42% 

128,7 
17,2 
0,0 
12,7 
158,7 

% 

81% 
11% 
0% 
8% 
100% 

% 

20% 
5% 
8% 
7% 
36% 
25% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

7th Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1995) 

333 

Annex VTI: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' 

Table 13: Portugal 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational  Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training  of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational  Integration  of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation  of workers to industrial  change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth  and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

%. 

82% 
3% 
0% 
16% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

74% 
74% 
76% 
75% 
74% 

1.917,1 
60,0 
0,3 
362,8 
2.340,2 

82% 
4% 
3% 
11% 
100% 

14% 
9% 
7% 
0% 
2% 
15% 
5% 
46% 
1% 
1% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

35,7 
7,8 
10,6 
0,0 
2,7 
34,7 
0,5 
125,0 
20,8 
0,0 
237,8 

% 

15% 
3% 
4% 
0% 
1% 
15% 
0% 
53% 
9% 
0% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

334 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF fînancing by measure, theme, beneficiaries* 

Table 14: Finland 

Distribution of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants by theme 
1. a. Occupational  Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational  Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth  and stability 

"" 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

% 

66% 
2% 
0% 
31% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

%  of total costs 

1000 pers 

31% 
48% 
49% 
31% 
31% 

132,7 
4,9 
0,0 
63,0 
200,6 

56% 
6% 
2% 
36% 
100% 

33% 
19% 
5% 
1% 
22% 
12% 
3% 
4% 
0% 
1% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

11,4 
10,4 
1,2 
0,4 
64,6 
5,7 
1,4 
0,9 
0,0 
0,0 
96,0 

% 

12% 
11% 
1% 
0% 
67% 
6% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

335 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries' 

Table 15: Sweden 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration  of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential  in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration  of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential  in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training  systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

93% 
0% 
7% 
0% 
100% 

37% 
0% 
50% 
0% 
37% 

281,3 
0,0 
3,5 
0,0 
284,7 

% 

99% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
100% 

%. 

26% 
16% 
12% 
1% 
27% 
7% 
6% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

9,0 
5,2 
3,4 
0,1 
60,5 
1,6 
0,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,4 
80,5 

%. 

11% 
6% 
4% 
0% 
75% 
2% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

336 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Annex VII: Distribution of ESF financing by measure, theme, beneficiaries" 

Table 16: United Kingdom 

Distribution  of ESF financing by  measure 

Training 
Employment support 
Technical assistance 
Other support measures 
Total 

Distribution  of ESF financing by theme (1994 prices) 
1. a. Occupational Integration of persons exposed to long-term unemployment 

b. Occupational Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from  the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

Beneficiaries  per  1000 inhabitants  by theme 
1. a. Occupational Integration  of persons exposed to long-term  unemployment 

b. Occupational  Integration of young persons seeking employment 
c. Integration of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market 
d. Promoting equal opportunities for men and women 

2. Adaptation  of workers to industrial change 
3. a. Supporting employment growth and stability 

b. Boosting human potential in research, science, and technology 

4. a. Strengthen and improve education  and training systems 

b. Training of public  officials 
Technical  assistance/Multipurpose 
Total 

% 

93% 
6% 
1% 
0% 
100% 

% 

% 

ESF Finance 

Beneficiaries 

% of total costs 

1000 pers 

41% 
43% 
51% 
71% 
42%, 

2.906,5 
200,9 
23,7 
0,5 
3.131,6 

89% 
5% 
3% 
2% 
100% 

16% 
14% 
15% 
4% 
9% 
38% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
100% 

Bfc/1000 pers 

12,4 
9,5 
8,7 
3,0 
2,8 
17,1 
0,2 
0,0 
0,0 
0,4 
54,1 

% 

23% 
18% 
16% 
6% 
5% 
32% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
100% 

Situation  mid  1996. 

3 2 ? .^ 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

7th Annual  Report  on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

339 

ADAPT 
AFETT 
CAP 
CEEP 

CES 
CI 
CIP 
CSF 
EAGGF 
ECOS-OUVERTURE 
ECSC 
EFTA 
EIB 
EIF 
EMPLOYMENT 
ENVIREG 
ERDF 
ESDP 
ESF 
EUROCHAMBRES 
EUROFORM 
EUROPARTENARIAT 

FIFG 
Forcem 
GG 
HORIZON 

INTERREG 

ISDN 
KONVER 

LEADER 
NOW 
OP 
PACTE 

PEACE 

PERIFRA 
PESCA 
PHARE 

PRISMA 
RECHAR 
RECITE 
REGEN 

Community Initiative for the adaptation of workers to industrial  change 
Association for European training of workers in new technologies 
Common agricultural policy 
Centre  européen  de  l'entreprise  publique  (European  Centre  for  Public 
Enterprise) 
European confederation  of trade unions 
Community Initiative 
Community Initiative programme 
Community support  framework 
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
Cooperation network with central and eastern European cities 
European Coal and Steel Community 
European Free Trade Association 
European Investment Bank 
European Investment Fund 
Community Initiative for the development of human  resources 
Community Initiative for the environment 
European Regional Development Fund 
European Spatial Development  Perspective 
European Social Fund 
Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry 
Community Initiative to develop new  qualifications 
Events  to  promote  contacts  between  businesses  in  regions  eligible  under  the 
Structural  Funds  and  businesses  elsewhere  in  the  Community  and/or  non-
member countries 
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance 
Foundation for continuing training (Spain) 
Global grant 
Community  Initiative  for  the  occupational  integration  of  handicapped  and 
disadvantaged persons 
Community  Initiative  for  the  promotion  of  cross-border  and  inter-regional 
cooperation 
Integrated  Services Digital Network 
Community  Initiative  for  the  conversion  of  regions  dependent  on  the  defence 
sector 
Community Initiative for rural development  projects 
Community Initiative for the occupational  integration of women 
Operational  programme 
Programme  for  sharing  of  experience  among  local  and  regional  authorities  of 
Europe 
Community  Initiative  for  reconciliation  and  peace  in Northern  Ireland  and  in 
the border counties of Ireland 
Action programme for the remoter regions and declining activities 
Community Initiative for the fishing  industry 
Programme of aid for the economic conversion of central and eastern  European 
countries 
Community Initiative to prepare for the single market 
Community Initiative for the conversion of coal-mining areas 
Programme to create networks among the regions and cities of Europe 
Community Initiative for energy networks 

340.  *>4  1 

REGIS 
RESIDER 
RETEX 

RTD 
SME 
SME(s) 
SPD 
STRIDE 

TELEMATIQUE 

TEN(s) 
UCLAF 

UNICE-CONPRI 

URBAN 
YOUTHSTART 

7th Annual  Report on the Structural  Funds  (1995) 

Community Initiative for the most remote regions 
Community Initiative for the conversion of steel-making areas 
Community  Initiative  for  the  diversification  of  economic  activities  in  regions 
heavily dependent on the textiles and clothing industry 
Research and technological  development 
Community Initiative for the adjustment  of SMEs to the Single Market 
Small and medium-sized firm(s) 
Single programming document 
Community  Initiative  on  science  and  technology  for  regional  innovation  and 
development 
Community  Initiative  to  promote  the  use  of  advanced  telecommunications 
services in the least-favoured  regions 
Trans-European  network(s) 
Unité  de  coordination  de 
Commission) 
Union des industries de la Communauté européenne - employers' federation  for 
industrial relations 
Community Initiative to assist declining urban areas 
Community Initiative for the occupational  integration of young people 

(anti-fraud  unit  at 

lutte  anti-fraude 

the 

la 

<#a 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 502 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

13  03  05 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-96-557-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-10829-4 

Office  for  Official  Publications ofthe  European  Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg