Communication from the Commission to the Member States on the links between regional and competition policy : Reinforcing concentration and mutual consistency
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Structural Funds, competition policy, eligibility criteria, eligible region, regional aid, regional policy

26.3.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  90/3

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Member  States  on  the  links  between  regional  and
competition  policy

REINFORCING  CONCENTRATION  AND  MUTUAL  CONSISTENCY

(98/C  90/03)

In  1996  the  Commission  produced  its  first  report  on
economic  and  social  cohesion  in  the  Union.  The  report
notes  that  targeting  resources  on  problem  areas,  known
as  "concentration’,  is  the  key  principle  underpinning  the
effectiveness  of  cohesion  policies  (Chapter  6,  section  2)
and  it  concludes  in  particular  that  "within  the  context  of
the  most  disad(cid:220)
the  concentration  of  resources  on 
vantaged 
the
Commission  need  to  address,  in  partnership,  inconsist(cid:220)
encies  between  the  regions  which  are  suported  under
national  regional  policies  and  those  which  are  supported
under  Union  regional  policies.  Eligibility  for  Union
regional  aid  should  in  the  future  become  one  of  the
criteria  for  allowing  assistance  under  Member  States’
own  regional  policies’  (Chapter  7).

the  Member  States 

regions, 

and 

The  Commission  again  stressed  in  Agenda  2000,  which  it
adopted  in  July  1997,  that  there  was  a  need  to  increase
the  geographical  concentration  of  structural  assistance
with  a  view  to  making  it  more  visible,  more  effective,
and  also  more  consistent  with  the  Union’s  competition
policy(cid:216)(˛).  The  Commission  announced 
the  same
document  that  the  geographical  extent  of  areas  covered
by  regional  assistance  would  be  reduced.

in 

Finally,  in  its  action  plan  for  the  single  market  the
Commission  has 
it  will  produce  new
guidelines  for  regional  State  aid  which  will  aim  to  reduce
disparities  by  concentrating  aid.

indicated  that 

1.(cid:217)Statement  of  the  problem

Concentration

Despite  progress  since  the  Community  started  to  operate
a  regional  policy,  there  are  still  important  structural
disparities  within  the  Union  and  one  of  its  fundamental
goals  remains  to  increase  economic  and  social  cohesion,
as  required  by  Article  130a  of  the  EC  Treaty.  The  Union
needs  to  be  in  a  position  to  continue  its  support  for  the

(˛)(cid:217)"This  will  lead  to  a  zoning  which  is  less  scattered  and  as
consistent  as  possible  with  the  areas  assisted  by  the  Member
States  under  Article  92(3)(c)  of  the  Treaty.’

creation  and  development  of  productive  activities 
in
regions  lagging  behind  in  their  development  and  those
undergoing  economic  and  social  transformation.  Past
experience  shows  that,  to  be  effective  in  regional  devel(cid:220)
opment  terms,  such  assistance  should  not  be  spread
thinly  over  areas  which  are  too  large  or  fragmented.  We
need  to  increase  the  concentration  of  Community  part(cid:220)
financing  if  we  are  to  reach  critical  mass  and  have  a
significant  impact,  and  among  other  things  this  involves
identifying  the  regions  in  the  Union  which  are  most
affected.

Concentration  is  an  equally  important  aim  in  the  context
in
of  the  Comunity’s  competition  policy  as  set  out 
Articles  92,  93  and  94  of  the  Treaty,  since  concentration
would  help  to  limit  the  distortions  brought  about  by
national  regional(cid:220)aid  schemes,  in  terms  of  the  extent  of
the  geographical  area  involved,  while  at  the  same  time
focusing  on  the  regions  lagging  behind  in  their  devel(cid:220)
opment.

Mutual  consistency

is  a  system 

in  the  Union 

Decision(cid:220)making 
involving
several  actors  which  have  different  institutional  responsi(cid:220)
bilities.  This  applies  in  particular  to  regional  policy.  For
example,  the  Commission  has  sole  responsibility  for
checking  that  national  aid  schemes  (as  well  as  any
related  lists  of  designated  areas)  which  are  notified  by
Member  States  under  Article  93(3)  of  the  Treaty  are
compatible  with  the  aims  of  the  Treaty,  whereas  the  task
of  ensuring  that  the  less  prosperous  regional  economies
are  helped  is  primarily  in  the  hands  of  the  regional  and
national  authorities,  with  the  Union  contributing  in  a
subsidiary  fashion  through  its  structural  assistance.  The
Structural  Funds  provide  this  support  inter  alia,  by  part(cid:220)
financing  schemes  for  assisting  investment  in  production
activities  which  are  designed  and 
implemented  at
national  and/or  regional  level.  Structural  Fund  assistance
forms  only  a  rather  small  part  of  the  total  regional(cid:220)aid
spending  of  the  Member  States.  This  logically  means  that
the  ERDF  ought  to  be  providing  this  assistance  only  in
areas  where  Member  States  themselves  are  granting
regional  aid,  although  this  does  not  prevent  them  from
assisting  other  regions  as  well  if  they  want.  But  national
regional(cid:220)aid  schemes  have  to  be  given  prior  authorisation
under  the  Union’s  policy  on  State  aids,  so  the  areas
eligible  for  assistance  from  the  Structural  Funds  ought
also  to  be  covered  by  national  aid  schemes.  However,
because  there  are  several  different  actors  with  differing
powers,  objectives  and  timetables,  it  has  proved  difficult
to  coordinate  these  two  policies.  This  situation  has  been

C  90/4

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

26.3.98

criticised  by  the  actors  involved,  such  as  the  regional  and
local  authorities,  and  by  the  European  Parliament.

each  Member  State  on  the  basis  of  a  proposal  from  the
Member  State  concerned.

and 

instance, 

schemes  dealing  with 

in  areas  currently  elibible  under 

For 
the
Structural  Funds  but  not  eligible  for  regional  State(cid:220)aid
schemes  under  the  exemptions  in  Article  92(3)(a)  and
(c),  it  is  still  possible  to  part(cid:220)finance  schemes  to  assist
small  businesses 
the
environment  or  research,  at  lower  rates  than  allowed  in
areas  eligible  under  Article  92(3)(a)  and  (c).  In  such
areas,  the  Structural  Funds  are  not  able  to  attract
investment  by  major  companies,  even  though  this  would
be  highly  desirable 
terms
because  of  the  knock(cid:220)on  effects  and  access  to  world
markets  it  would  bring.  This  inconsistency  should  not  be
allowed  to  continue,  for  both  political  and  economic
reasons.

in  regional  development 

the  Member  States  were  agreeing  on 

The  Commission  made  an  attempt  to  introduce  more
consistency  when  the  Structural  Fund  Regulations  were
being  reviewed  in  1993.  Later,  when  the  Commission
and 
lists  of
designated  areas,  especially  under  Objective  2  but  also
under  Objective 
repeatedly
encouraged  them  to  propose  eligible  areas  that  were
compatible  with  their  State(cid:220)aid  designations.  What  is
needed  now  is  to  lay  down  a  set  of  principles  and  find
ways  of  making  decisive  progress  in  this  area  in  time  for
the  next  programming  period  under  the  Structural  Funds
(2000  to  2006).

the  Commission 

5b, 

In  essence,  the  consistency  being  sought  would  ensure
that  the  regions  in  each  Member  State  which  are  eligible
under  the  Structural  Funds  could  also  be  covered  by  a
regional  State(cid:220)aid  scheme.

With  regard  to  assistance  from  the  Structural  Funds,
there  are  currently  four  region(cid:220)based  Objectives, 
i.e.
Objectives  1,  2,  5b  and  6.

The  Objective  1  regions  have  been  designated  until  now
by  the  Council  acting  unanimously  on  a  proposal  from
the  Commission.  In  theory  these  are  the  NUTS  II
regions  where  per  capita  GDP  (in  PPPs)  is  less  than
75(cid:216)%  of  the  Community  average.  But,  as  pointed  out  in
Chapter  6,  section  2,  of  the  cohesion  report,  "political
compromise  in  1993  led  to  the  inclusion  under  Objective
1  of  [regions  containing(cid:129)  7,4  million  people,  8(cid:216)%  of  the
total  eligible  population,  living  in  regions  with  GDP  per
head  of  more  than  75(cid:216)%  of  the  Union  average’.

The  Objective  6  areas,  i.e.  where  population  density  is
less  than  eight  people  per  km2,  were  designated  in  the
Act  of  Accession  of  Austria,  Finland  and  Sweden  in
1995.

latter 

Under  the  rules  set  by  the  Council,  the  Objective  2  and
5b  areas  have  been  designated  by  the  Commission  on  the
basis  of  Community  socioeconomic  criteria  as  well  as
national  criteria  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member
States.  The 
the
in 
send 
to 
subject  of
these  are 
Commission  and 
negotiation  between 
the  Commission.  As
them  and 
already  mentioned,  the  number  of  different  actors,  each
with  their  own  responsibilities,  and  different  implemen(cid:220)
tation  timetables  have  hampered  attempts  to  reduce  the
last  programming
inconsistencies 
period,  although  this  should  have  been  an  ideal  oppor(cid:220)
tunity  to  do  so.

their  proposals 

further  during 

then 

the 

the 

2.(cid:217)Review  of  the  current  situation

2.2.(cid:217)Statistical  data

2.1.(cid:217)Mutual  consistency  as  a  responsability  shared  by  the
Commission,  the  Council  and  the  Member  States

in 

the  development  of  Community
Chronologically 
policy,  it  was  the  eligible  areas  under  competition  policy
which  were  the  first  to  be  designated  using  a  method
in  1988  (OJ  C  212,
published  by  the  Commission 
12.8.1988),  although 
the  Commission  had  already
clarified  and  amplified  the  basic  principles  for  coordi(cid:220)
nating  regional  aid  dating  from  1997.  Under  its  sole
responsibility 
the
Commission  gives  approval  to  the  designations  within

reviewing  State(cid:220)aid 

schemes, 

for 

in 

live 

eligible 

regions 

(EU(cid:220)15) 

In  1994  to  1999  a  total  of  50,6(cid:216)%  of  the  population  of
the  Union 
for
Community  structural  aid,  while  46,7(cid:216)%  live  in  areas
qualifying  for  exemption  under  Article  92(3)  and  (c).  As
these  figures  show,  some  regions  eligible  under  the
Structural  Funds  cannot  at  the  same  time  receive  State
aid  for  regional  purposes.  The  following  two  tables
indicate  the  degree  of  overlap  between  the  two  sets  of
designations.  However,  it  has  to  be  stressed  that  the
figures  below  are  only  an  approximate  guide  because
they  are  aggregated  for  the  whole  Community  and  there
is  some  drift 
the
programming  period.

in  actual  areas  covered  during 

26.3.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  90/5

MUTUAL  CONSISTENCY  BETWEEN  DESIGNATED  AREAS  UNDER  THE  STRUCTURAL
FUNDS  AND  UNDER  STATE(cid:220)AID  SCHEMES

Table  1

(percentages  of  the  Community  population)

Regions  eligible  under  the
Structural  Funds

Regions  not  eligible  under
the  Structural  Funds

Total

where 
Areas 
regional 
aid 
(Article  92(3))

national
is  permitted

Areas 
national
where 
regional  aid  is  not  permitted

Total

44,0

6,6

50,6

2,7

46,7

49,4

46,7

53,3

100

These  figures  show  that  6,6(cid:216)%  of  the  Community  population  live  in  regions  eligible  under  the
Structural  Funds  where  competition  policy  precludes  the  granting  of  regional  aid.

By  contrast,  2,7(cid:216)%  of  the  Community  population  live  in  regions  which  are  covered  by  a
national  regional(cid:220)aid  scheme  but  are  not  eligible  under  the  Structural  Funds.  This  is  not  a
particular  problem.  On  the  contrary, 
it  helps  promote  consistency  between  policy  on
regional(cid:220)aid  schemes  and  the  Community’s  own  assistance  under  the  Structural  Funds  because
it  means  that  Member  States  have  a  margin  of  room  for  manoeuvre  to  pursue  regional  policy
goals  specific  to  their  situations  in  addition  to  the  areas  designated  jointly  for  the  purposes  of
Community  regional  policy.

Table  2

Percentage  of  the  national  population  in  regions  eligible  under  the  Structural  Funds  but  not  covered  by  national
regional(cid:220)aid  schemes

B

0

D

DK

E

EL

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

5,3

0

8,9

0

9,6

0

7,5

6,4

10,4

5,9

P

0

S

FIN UK

EU

8,7

12,6

9,0

6,6

Complete  congruence  already  exists  in  five  countries:  Belgium,  Denmark  and  the  three
Member  States  whose  entire  territory  is  classed  in  Objective  1.  By  contrast,  all  the  other
Member  States  display  wide  divergences.

3.(cid:217)Proposal  for  a  coordinated  approach

3.1.(cid:217)Better  identification  of  responsibilities

The  Commission, 
the
Member  States  all  have  their  share  of  responsibility  in
pursuit  of  greater  consistency:

the  Council,  Parliament  and 

Achieving  consistency  between  the  two  sets  of  desig(cid:220)
nations  is  predicated  on  having  an  overall  picture  of  the
various  instruments  involved  so  that  they  can  converge
on  this  common  goal,  on  the  basis  of  a  timetable  that
will  ensure  it  is  attained.

-(cid:217)the  Commission,  which  has  sole  responsibility  for
State  aids  and  shares  responsibility  with  the  Member
States  and  the  Council  for  structural  policy,  has
for  consistency  and  greater
stressed 

the  need 

C  90/6

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

26.3.98

In 

concentration. 

its  decision  of
geographical 
16  December  1997  on  State(cid:220)aid  guidelines, 
the
Commission  has  accordingly  modified  the  rules  on
regional(cid:220)aid  schemes  and  will  be  proposing  that  the
regulatory  and  operational
Council  adjust 
provisions 
the  Structural  Funds.  The
Commission 
is  naturally  well(cid:220)placed  to  ensure  an
overall  coordinated  approach,

the 
regarding 

-(cid:217)the  Council  and  Parliament  must  take  account  of  the
concentration  when
the  Structural

the  new  regulations  on 

consistency  and 

for 

need 
adopting 
Funds,

-(cid:217)the  national  authorities  in  charge  of  regional  policy
need  to  face  up  to  their  responsibilities  regarding  the
consistency  and  concentration  effort  and  take  part
where  their  field  of  competence  is  involved.

in  time  for  them  to  enter 

It  is  important  that  designations  under  both  national
regional(cid:220)aid  schemes  and  the  Structural  Funds  should  be
adopted 
into  force  on
1  January  2000.  In  the  case  of  national  schemes  the  onus
is  on  the  Commission  because  of  its  particular  powers,
while 
the  Commission,  Council,
Parliament  and  Member  States  are  all  concerned.

the  other  case 

in 

3.2.(cid:217)Proposed  method  and  timetable

for 

The  Commission  made  it  clear  in  Agenda  2000  that  the
percentage  of  the  population  of  the  European  Union
eligible 
future
structural  assistance  under 
Objectives  1  and  2  should  be  cut  from  the  figure  of
51(cid:216)%  today  to  one  siutated  between  35(cid:216)%  and  40(cid:216)%,
and  that  the  overall  figure  will  have  to  be  smaller  than
the  population  coverage  of  regions  qualifying  under
Article  92(3)  and  (c)  (added  together).  The  Commission
also  stated  that  the  coverage  of  national  regional(cid:220)aid
schemes  had  to  be  reduced.

the 

Following  up  on  these  indications,  the  Commission  in  its
Decision  of  16  December  1997  on  State(cid:220)aid  ceilings  has
set  an  overall  figure  for  population  coverage  under
Article  92(3)  and  (c)  of  42,7(cid:216)%  for  the  2000  to  2006
programming  period,  i.e.  a  cut  of  four  percentage  points
compared  with  the  current  coverage  of  46,7(cid:216)%.  The
Commission  has  recently  put  to  the  Member  States  the
measures  that  will  be  needed  under  Article  93(1)  of  the
Treaty  to  implement  the  new  regional(cid:220)aid  regime  by  the
required  date  under  the  new  regional  State(cid:220)aid  rules
which  it  has  just  adopted.  The  figure  of  42,7(cid:216)%  is  higher
than  the  range  from  35(cid:216)%  to  40(cid:216)%  set  out  in  Agenda
2000  for  the  share  of  eligible  population  under  the  future

Objectives  1  and  2,  making  overall  consistency  possible
across  the  Union.  The  two  designation  systems  will  thus
be  like  two  concentric  circles  for  the  Union  as  a  whole.
This  relationship  will  have  to  be  reflected  as  well  in  each
of  the  15  Member  States,  in  particular  to  make  Objective
2  designations  fall  within  the  areas  designated  under
Article  92(3)(c).

As  Agenda  2000  points  out,  the  particular  situation  of
the  most  remote  regions  means  that  they  can  be  included
as  a  special  case 
in  Objective  1.  Equally,  the  most
northerly  regions  with  very  low  population  density  which
are  currently  eligible  under  Objective  6  but  which  would
not  qualify  under  Objective  1  should  also  be  treated  as  a
special  case.  The  regions  lagging  behind  in  their  devel(cid:220)
opment  (i.e.  eligible  under  Objective  1)  should  be
designated  by  strictly  applying  the  criterion  of  75(cid:216)%  of
per  capita  GDP  so  that  they  coincide  with  those  qual(cid:220)
ifying  for  exemption  under  Article  92(3)  ,  otherwise  the
overall  consistency  effort  will  be  put  in  doubt  as  well  as
the  concentration  being  sought  under  the  Structural
Funds.  The  list  of  Objective  1  regions  is  to  be  finalised
early  in  1999  on  the  basis  of  the  latest  data  available  at
the  start  of  the  last  quarter  of  1998.

As  regards  the  new  Objective  2,  consistency  needs  to  be
established  with  Article  92(3)(c),  which  must  cover
regions  treated  in  the  same  way  as  Objective  1  or  qual(cid:220)
ifying  for  special  arrangements  but  not  eligible  for
exemption  under  Article  92(3)  .  In  its  Decision  setting
aid  ceilings,  the  Commission  gives  a  rate  of  coverage  for
each  country  which,  when  totalled  (i.e.  Article  92(3)  and
(c)  together),  produce  the  figure  of  42,7(cid:216)%.  These
figures  should  ensure  that  the  Objective  2  list  for  each
country  lies  within  the  boundaries  of  the  Article  92(3)(c)
list.

If  the  Commission’s  recommendation  of  keeping  strictly
to  the  criterion  of  75(cid:216)%  for  selection  regions  lagging
behind  in  their  development  (i.e.  Objective  1)  is  not
followed, 
lack  of
consistency  not  only  between  Article  92(3)  and  Objective
1  but  also  between  Article  92(3)(c)  and  Objective  2,
given  the  overall  ceiling  of  42,7(cid:216)%  and  the  different
national  ceilings.

inevitably  be  a 

the  result  will 

The  Commission  will  not  accept  a  region  under  the  new
the  Member  State  concerned
Objective  2  unless 
undertakes  to  include  it  on  the  list  of  assisted  areas
notified  to  the  Commission  under  Article  92(3)(c).

However,  in  duly  justified  cases  the  Commission  could
the  new  Objective  2  as
include  other  regions 

in 

26.3.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  90/7

exceptions.  This  would  be  confined  to  a  maximum  per
Member  State  of  2(cid:216)%  of  the  national  population  not
falling  under  Objective  1,  and  consistently  with  the
general 
(i.e.
geographical 
Objectives  1  and  2  together  should  cover  between  35(cid:216)%
and  40(cid:216)%  of  the  Union’s  total  population  (EUR(cid:220)15)).

concentration 

aim 

of 

The  present  situation  is  that  Agenda  2000  proposes  that
the  list  of  Objective  2  areas  should  be  drawn  up  on  the
basis  of  Community(cid:220)agreed  criteria  in  partnership  with
the  Member  States,  taking  into  account  their  regional
priorities.  The  actual  selection  method  will  be  defined  in
the  new  Structural  Fund  Regulations.  So  that  both  lists
of  designations  can  come  into  effect  on  1  January  2000,
the  Commission  will  be  asking  Member  States  to  make
their  proposals  for  regions  to  be  assisted  under  the
Structural  Funds  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the
Structural  Fund  Regulations,  at  the  latest  by  31  March
1999.  The  Commission  calls  on  the  Council  and  the
Member  States  to  take  all  necessary  steps  to  ensure  that
these  decisions  can  be  adopted  in  time.  As  regards  the
the
regions  covered  by  regional  State(cid:220)aid  schemes, 
Commission  has  recently  proposed  to  the  Member  States
that  they  make  their  notifications  as  soon  as  possible  but
also  by  31  March  1999  at  the  latest.  The  Commission
will  decide  on  the  regional(cid:220)aid  lists  in  line  with  the
relevant  procedures  and  deadlines, 
time  by
31  December  1999  at  the  latest.

this 

The  Commission  is  not  able  to  say  at  this  point  what  will
be  the  population  coverage  of  the  Objective  2  eligible
areas  in  each  country  because  the  method  for  desig(cid:220)
nating  them  will  not  become  applicable  until  after  the
adoption  of  the  new  Structural  Fund  Regulations.  The
idea  will  be 
latest  socioeconomic  data
available  at  that  juncture.

to  use 

the 

3.3.(cid:217)Transitional  measures

As  a  result  of  the  concentration  effort  made  during  each
of  the  two  designation  exercises,  a  number  of  regions
across  the  Union  will  lose  their  current  status  after  2000.
How  this  "phasing  out’  is  to  be  conducted  will  vary
depending  on  which  of  the  two  policies  is  involved.
Consistency  between  them  will  none  the  less  be  ensured,
as  Agenda  2000  points  out,  by  the  fact  that  "measures  for
the  regions  which  will  benefit  from  transitional  (phasing
out)  support  from  the  Structural  Funds  will  have  to
comply  with  the  competition  rules  on  State  aid.’

has  laid  its  groundwork  for  ensuring  consistency  between
the  two  designation  lists  as  from  the  year  2000.  With  this
communication,  the  Commission  would  like  to  call  on
the  national  governments  to  do  their  part,  both  for  their
the  competent
own  account  and  collectively  within 
bodies  of  the  Council.

The  Commission  is  proposing  the  following  action.

(a)(cid:217)In  the  new  Structural  Fund  Regulations,  the  Council
should  designate  the  regions  lagging  behind  in  their
development  by  strictly  applying  the  ceiling  of  75(cid:216)%
of  per  capita  GDP  so  that  these  regions  are  the
same  as 
for  exemption  under
Article  92(3)(a),  and  also  avoid  consequent  inconsist(cid:220)
encies  between  the  Objective  2  list  and  the  desig(cid:220)
nations  under  Article  92(3)(c).

those  qualifying 

the  Commission 

(b) In  the  light  of  the  guidelines  on  regional  State(cid:220)aid
schemes  which 
adopted  on
16  December  1997,  it  calls  on  the  Member  States  to
notify  it  under  Article  92(3)  of  all  the  regions  treated
as  Objective  1  regions  or  qualifying  for  a  separate
regime  of  their  own.

(c) The  Commission  is  announcing  now  that,  in  the
context  of  the  future  Structural  Fund  Regulations,  it
will  not  accept  a  region  as  eligible  under  the  new
Objective  2  unless  the  Member  State  concerned
undertakes  to  include  it  in  the  list  of  assisted  regions
notified  to  it  under  Article  92(3)(c).

However, 
in  duly  justified  cases  the  Commission
could  include  other  regions  in  the  new  Objective  2  as
exceptions.  These  would  be  confined  to  a  maximum
limit  per  Member  State  of  2(cid:216)%  of  the  national  popu(cid:220)
lation  not  falling  under  Objective  1,  and  consistently
with  the  general  aim  of  geographical  concentration
(i.e.  Objectives  1  and  2 
together  should  cover
between  35(cid:216)%  and  40(cid:216)%  of  the  Union’s  total  popu(cid:220)
lation  (EUR(cid:220)15)).

(d) The  Commission  stresses  that  the  guidelines  on
regional(cid:220)aid  schemes 
identify  eligibility  under  the
Structural  Funds  as  a  major  selection  criterion,  on
condition  that  the  ceiling  which  is  set  is  complied
with  and  that  the  regions  eligible  under  the  Funds
are  not  designated  after  the  list  of  regions  to  receive
regional  State  aid.

4.(cid:217)Conclusions

There  are  various  stages  remaining  to  be  gone  through
and  many  different  actors  involved,  but  the  Commission

(e) The  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  two  designation
exercises  will  start  and  end,  following  their  respective
procedures,  in  time  to  guarantee  that  both  desig(cid:220)
nation  lists  can  come  into  effect  on  1  January  2000.

C  90/8

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

26.3.98

As  far  as  the  Structural  Funds  are  concerned,  this
exercise  will  start  immediately  after  adoption  of  the
new  regulations,  which  must  in  turn  therefore  take
place 
in  time  for  Member  States  to  be  able  to
forward  their  proposals  for  designated  regions  to  the
Commission  by  31  March  1999  at  the  latest.  With
regard  to  regional  State(cid:220)aid  schemes,  Member  States’
proposals  will  have  to  be  notified  to  the  Commission
as  soon  as  possible  but  at  the  latest  by  31  March
1999.

(f) The  Commission  notes  that  the  ceiling  for  coverage
of  total  Community  population  in  the  regions  of  the

Union  (EU(cid:220)15)  selected  under  Articles  92(3)(a)  and
92(3)(c)  is  to  be  42,7(cid:216)%  in  the  period  2000  to  2006.

(g) The  Commission  will  be  sending  this  communication
to  the  Member  States  and  publishing  it  in  the  Official
Journal  of  the  European  Communities.

Done  at  Brussels,  17  March  1998.

For  the  Commission

Monika  WULF(cid:220)MATHIES

Member  of  the  Commission

CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum  to  the  joint  call  for  proposals:  PHARE  and  TACIS  LIEN  programme,  PHARE  partnership
programme

(Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities  C  49  of  14  February  1998)

(98/C  90/04)

On  page  16  in  the  righthand  column,  fourth  paragraph,  second  line:

for:

"http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg1a/phare.html’,

read:

"http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg1a/phare/programme(cid:217)types/horizontal/ph(cid:217)horiz(cid:217)
program.htm’.