Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Draft Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)'
Date: 1999-12-09
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU initiative, cross-border cooperation, economic development, regional development

C 51/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

relevant to the Urban initiative and to urban policies in general.
Ultimately, the key to the success of any initiative will lie in
the EU’s ability to develop an interactive relationship with its

citizens and with the environments in which they live and
operate, where decisions are taken that will affect the lives of
future generations.

Brussels, 9 December 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Draft Communication from the
Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning
trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of
the European territory (Interreg)’

(2000/C 51/20)

On 19 October 1999 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned draft
communication.

The Committee decided to appoint Mr Barros Vale as rapporteur-general for its opinion.

At its 368th plenary session (meeting of 9 December 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 78 votes to one, with five abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2. General assessment

1.1.
The present opinion has been drawn up subject to the
constraints imposed by the fact that the Committee is being
consulted, as a matter of urgency, at an early stage in
the institutional procedure. The tight deadline obliges the
Committee to be systematic and home in on the key issues if
it is to offer its opinion in good time. The Committee may
issue a more detailed opinion on the Interreg III programme at
a later date, using the traditional format. This later opinion
will be able to consider the experience and lessons drawn from
the operational measures which preceded the programme, and
assess its future prospects.

In any event, the Committee welcomes Commissioner
1.2.
Barnier’s move to consult it at this stage, and hopes that this
will become standard practice in such situations.

The Committee welcomes the proposal, which follows
2.1.
its past recommendations to reduce the number of Community
initiatives and extend their scope and capabilities. However,
the Committee regrets that the Commission’s proposals are
not backed by information on the results of activities during
the previous period.

2.2.
The Committee welcomes the plan to involve the
economic and social partners more closely in the various
stages of the programme.

2.3.
The proposal to oblige the regional authorities to
involve local organisations right from the design stage of
each programme is also a welcome step. The fact that the
programmes will not depend solely on the central authority,
but also on local players and operators, should make it easier
to adapt them to the situation on the ground in each group of
regions concerned, and should also make for more decentrali-
sed and effective action.

23.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 51/93

2.4.
The Committee approves the proposal to select pro-
jects on the basis of competitive calls open to both the public
and private sectors, as this will make the process more
transparent.

2.13.
Finally, the Committee points out that the budget
allocated to the programme is rather modest in view of its
ambitious and extensive scope, especially as other Community
initiatives have been discontinued.

The Committee welcomes the Commission’s decision
2.5.
to pay the ERDF contributions into a single bank account in
the name of the managing or paying authority, who will in
turn transfer them to the bodies and authorities designated to
implement the various sub-programmes and measures; only
then will payments be made to the final beneficiaries.

The Committee also welcomes the possibility of loans

2.6.
being secured from the EIB.

The Committee endorses the requirement that Member
2.7.
States ensure that between 50 % and 80 % of their indicative
allocation goes to Strand A. The Committee thinks that the
6 % (EUR 292 million) allocated to Strand C should be broken
down as follows: 3 % for projects selected by the Commission
under the terms specific to Strand C; 3 % for projects that link
in with and strengthen projects approved under Strands A and
B.

2.8.
The Committee is pleased to note the Commission’s
continuing concern to promote the development not only of
border regions within the EU but also of those on the EU’s
external borders, with a view to enlargement.

2.9.
The Committee welcomes the efforts to coordinate
the various Community initiatives, as is apparent from the
opening-up of the programme to measures in the fields of
rural development and fisheries structures.

2.10.
The Committee is pleased to see that measures to be
funded inside and outside the EU have separate budgets, with
the former financed from the ERDF and the latter from other
financial instruments.

2.11.
The Committee also approves the flexibility offered
to the Member States when deciding on the breakdown of
funds by strand (while still respecting the margins set by the
Commission), border and region.

3. Recommendations

3.1.
So that action can be taken to remedy any short-
comings, the Committee feels it extremely important that
Interreg be the subject of an implementing report, and that a
comparative table of the various Interregs be compiled. No
such table exists at present.

3.2.
The Committee considers that the Commission should
play a greater role in the monitoring and implementation
bodies for Interreg, inter alia in order to provide more impetus
and encouragement.

3.3.
Since Interreg is to operate in conjunction with other
Community programmes such as Phare, Tacis, MEDA and
PASI, and as the procedures for each fund vary greatly, the
Commission should coordinate procedures in order to prevent
any blockages.

The Commission should include Kosovo and Montene-
3.4.
gro among the Adriatic regions eligible for Interreg, as they
are cross-border regions which currently face serious structural
problems.

3.5.
In order to promote good practice in the application
of the Community initiatives and to make projects more
rigorous and credible (as shown by experience with other
initiatives such as Leader), the Commission should require
each project to be monitored by a statutory auditor or similarly
qualified expert.

the Committee considers that

3.5.1.
Again in the interests of rigour and credibility, and
in order to ensure that the general regulation’s guidelines are
respected,
the Commission
should make sure that the Member States and local/regional
authorities genuinely involve the economic and social partners.
It should also make sure that this involvement is more than
just a declaration of principles, and continues throughout the
framing and implementation of the programme.

2.12.
The Committee welcomes the use of a Monitoring
Committee comprising representatives of local, regional and
(where relevant) national authorities, alongside representatives
of the socio-economic partners and non-governmental organ-
isations. This will promote a wider perspective and hence
more appropriate action.

3.6.
The Committee also suggests that when selecting
projects, particular attention be paid to their structural impact,
so that they do not peter out when their Interreg support
comes to an end, as is often the case. The aim should be to
create self-sustaining long-term infrastructure.

C 51/94

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2000

3.7.
The Committee also thinks that projects should be
highly entrepreneurial and should involve objective, practical
cooperation. They should be sustainable and increasingly
successful over the long term.

3.8.
The Committee recommends that careful attention be
paid to the outermost regions, now that the Regis initiative
has been subsumed into Interreg.

3.9.
The Committee considers that the Commission should
ensure that the programmes proposed by the Member States
place maritime regions, islands and upland areas on an equal
footing with other regions, as otherwise these types of region
could find themselves lagging behind other border areas from
the same country.

The creation of

three strands within Interreg is
3.10.
intended to precisely delimit the geographical scope of the
projects presented within each strand. However, the Com-
mittee fears that worthwhile projects could be rejected because
they are transversal and do not fit neatly into one particular
strand. The Committee considers that when assessing projects,
a reasonable degree of flexibility will be needed in order to
cater for such cases, provided that the projects are relevant and
worthwhile within the context of cooperation.

3.11.
In order to build on the results of the first two
Interreg programmes and ensure that projects designed to get
enterprises and administrations to work together can be
completed,
is necessary to
this type which were
continue to support
launched during Interreg II.

the Committee thinks that

initiatives of

it

3.12.
the priorities and measures proposed by the Commission:

The Committee suggests the following alterations in

Brussels, 9 December 1999.

— S t r a n d A — P o i n t 2

— Business spirit and SMEs: Development of

trans-
European networks and infrastructure, and of econ-
omic relations between SMEs (...) information, training
(...).

— It must be possible to part-finance operational expendi-
ture by cross-border organisations for a longer period
than that proposed by the Commission.

— Tourism: (...) cultural tourism, sports tourism, environ-

mental tourism (...).

— S t r a n d A — P o i n t 6

— Improvements to other infrastructure: Improvement of
information, training and communication networks,
services and centres.

— S t r a n d A — P o i n t 8

(...)
— Cooperation between citizens and institutions:
to promote employment. This action must
focus
particularly on young people, given that this is a
strategic requirement for future convergence of the
social, cultural and economic conditions of the regions
concerned.

3.13.
Lastly, systems must be introduced at all tiers of
decision-making for evaluating and approving applications,
for making payments and for monitoring. The aim should be
to speed up proceedings in order to minimise risks, encourage
operators, and set the programme in train promptly. Generally
speaking, this was not the case in the past with Interreg.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI