Opinion of Committee of the Regions on the '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: 2000-02-17
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU initiative, Structural Funds, cross-border cooperation, deprived urban area, equal treatment, rural development

C 156/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.6.2000

Opinion of Committee of the Regions on:

— the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for

the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+)’,

— the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States establishing the guidelines
for Community Initiative Programmes (CIPs) for which the Member States are invited to
submit proposals for support under the Equal initiative’, and

— the ‘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 156/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down the
guidelines for a Community Initiative concerning trans-European co-operation intended to encourage
harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)’ COM(1999) 479 final;

having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines
for the Community Initiative for rural development (Leader+)’ COM(1999) 475 final;

having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States establishing the
guidelines for Community Initiative Programmes for which the Member States are invited to submit
proposals for support under the Equal initiative’ COM(1999) 476 final;

having regard to the Commission’s decision of 25 October 1999 to consult the Committee on this
subject, in accordance with Article 265c (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to its Bureau’s decision of 2 June 1999 to assign the preparation of an opinion to
Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross-Border and
Inter-Regional Cooperation;

having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Social Policy, Public Health, Consumer
Protection, Research and Tourism (Commission 5) (rapporteur: Mrs Sexton, Member of Longford County
Council (IRL/ELDR);

having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries
(Commission 2) (rapporteur: Mr Correia, President of Tavira Municipal Council, (P/EPP);

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 219/99 rev. 3) adopted by Commission 1 on 1 December 1999
(rapporteur: Mrs Storm Rasmussen, Mayor of the County of Copenhagen DK/PES),

at its 32nd plenary session of 16 and 17 February 2000 (meeting of 17 February) adopted the following
opinion.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
In the light of the Commission’s Communication on
the Community initiatives 2000-2006 (Commission work
programme No 97/020) and the Communication from the
Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines
for a Community initiative concerning trans-European co-
operation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced
development of the European territory (Interreg) (COM(1999)
479 final) the Committee of the Regions is drawing up an

own-initiative opinion on the subject, as its contribution to
the debate on the Interreg, Leader+ and Equal Community
initiatives during the next Structural Fund period. The opinion
does not cover the Urban initiative.

The Committee calls on the Commission and the
1.2.
Member States’ representatives on the management com-
mittees in charge of the individual Community initiatives to

6.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/19

ensure that regional and local interests are taken into account,
as this opinion recommends.

2. General comments on the Community initiatives

2.1.
The Community initiatives are of key importance and
interest to EU regional and local authorities, which often have
the responsibility of managing programmes or implementing
projects. The Committee therefore welcomes the increased
emphasis on regional and local authority involvement in the
Community initiatives under the new Structural Funds period.

2.2.
Bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, the Com-
mittee would stress that both the framing and execution of
plans and programmes primarily fall within the local and
regional authorities’ remit.

Basically the Committee agrees with the proposed
2.3.
concentration of support for Community initiatives, which are
to be reduced from the current thirteen to four. The principle
of continuity and current development trends are largely
respected in the thrust of these initiatives.

Interreg

cross-border, transnational and Interregional
cooperation intended to encourage harmoni-
ous and balanced development in Europe;

Leader+

development of rural areas;

Equal

Transnational cooperation to promote new
means of combating all forms of discrimi-
nation and inequalities in connection with the
labour market, and

Urban

economic and social renewal in urban areas
with acute problems.

2.4.
One welcome simplification is that each Community
initiative is to be financed by only one of the Structural Funds.
Interreg and Urban are financed under the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), Leader+ under the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and Equal
under the European Social Fund (ESF). Hence the scope of each
Community initiative will also include measures covered by
the other Funds. For instance, Interreg, under the ERDF, should
also be able to support activities that normally belong under
the ESF or EAGGF. In this way, action under each Community
initiative will be more closely tailored to the problems to be
tackled and to the needs of the authorities deploying the
resources. That will reduce the administrative burden but also
require a special effort on the part of the authorities responsible
for the Structural Funds.

2.5.
The Community initiatives supplement the other Struc-
tural Fund initiatives under the programmes for objectives 1,
2 and 3 regions. The Community initiative programmes
must
therefore be coordinated with the Member States’
programming documents and the operational programmes.

The Committee is pleased to note that one of the key
2.6.
principles underpinning the new Community initiatives is
a bottom-up approach, combined with regional and local
responsibility and involvement (the partnership principle). The
vital role played by regional and local authorities in connection
implementation and assessment of pro-
with the framing,
grammes needs to be stressed. Since these authorities are
closest to grassroots level, they are best placed to know how
to tackle challenges. In this connection, the Committee would
reiterate the need, when the Member State sets the programme
in motion, for provision to be made for close partnership with
bodies and associations representing the local and regional
authorities which implement the programme.

2.7.
Administrative and assessment arrangements should
be as simple and informal as possible, and approval procedures
should be speeded up; accordingly, the administrative machin-
ery should be streamlined.

2.8.
The purpose of the Community initiatives is to support
initiatives of particular Community interest. Consequently
Community initiative-related funding should not depend on
whether or not the project concerned is to be carried out in an
area designated under a Community objective. On the other
hand, the task of structural policy is to help alleviate income
discrepancies between the regions; the Community therefore
designates eligible areas and regional programmes.

In the Committee’s view, the partners in cooperation
footing under Community

2.9.
must participate on an equal
initiatives.

2.10.
On 1 July 1999 the Council decided that EUR 10,4
billion (in 1999 prices) should be earmarked for Community
initiatives; to include EUR 4 875 million for Interreg, EUR 700
million for Urban, EUR 2 020 million for Leader+ and EUR
2 847 million for Equal.

2.11.
The Committee notes that support for the Com-
munity initiatives is to be scaled down over the forthcoming
period 2000-2006.

Interreg

3. Comments on Interreg

The purpose of the new Interreg initiative is to promote
3.1.
cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation so
as to encourage balanced development in Europe.

C 156/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.6.2000

3.2.
The Committee is happy to observe that the proposals
for Interreg III recognise the value of the regional and local
authorities’ role.

3.3.
The Committee notes with satisfaction that this initiat-
ive is founded on the experiences of the previous Interreg
programmes; its inclusion of experiences from the innovative
actions provided for in ERDF Article 10 is also welcomed.

3.4.

The Interreg initiative has three strands:

Strand A

Strand B

Strand C

Cross-border cooperation aiming to promote
integrated regional development between bor-
der regions, including external and maritime
borders (Interreg III A);

Transnational cooperation with a view to
contributing to harmonious and sustainable
development across large groups of European
regions — macroregions (Interreg III B);

Interregional cooperation to foster exchanges
of experiences within regional development
and cohesion policies and techniques, as well
as promoting the networking within areas of
regional policy (Interreg III C).

3.5.
In the Committee’s view, it is important that the A, B
and C programmes should not overlap but be mutually
complementary so as to facilitate a broad spectrum of
partnership formulae and relations. As a result authorities
which have played only a limited part to date in Interregional
cooperation should have the possibility of participating along
with more experienced regions and municipalities in Interreg
cooperation.

3.6.
The Committee feels that the management of Interreg
resources needs to be simplified substantially by in effect
devolving decisionmaking powers to the parties concerned
and by creating the right balance between simplification and
flexibility so as to ensure speedy and efficient payment of
funds. Hence the division of responsibility between the vertical
and horizontal partnership must be clarified, redtape cut and
monitoring, assessment and control tightened so as to place
financial management on a sounder footing.

3.7.
The Commission attaches importance to establishing
genuinely cross-border and transnational activities and admin-
istrative units. Characteristic features of genuine cross-border
cooperation include common decisionmaking procedures
encompassing programme development, project selection and
financing, as well as common administrative structures.

3.8.
The Committee is pleased to note that the Commission
proposes to grant a ‘global grant’ directly to each Interreg III
programme A and B region. Programmes are most effective
when the bottom-up principle, is observed, i.e. when regional
and local partners themselves take the initiative and projects
are selected jointly by the regional, local and social partners.
Hence joint decisions are taken on which activities are key
the programme and should therefore be
components of
supported.

The Committee welcomes the possibility of funding up
3.9.
to 100 % of the costs of establishing and developing joint
programming, monitoring and programme management
structures (technical assistance).

3.10.
Public sector structures and the definition of public
tasks and resources differ from Member State to Member State.
The Committee recommends that consideration be given — in
the light of experiences from the current Interreg programmes
and heeding the existing rules on competition — to allowing
private funding in certain forms to co-finance EU support and
placing such funding on an equal footing with public sector
co-financing. Funders could include trade unions, NGOs
or associations supporting more general aims. Co-financing
should therefore be assessed on the basis of the purpose rather
than the source of funding.

3.11.
The Committee observes that the Commission’s list
of border areas eligible under Interreg II A and the geographical
delimitation of Interreg II B macro-regions has been adjusted
in the new Interreg guidelines.

The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal
3.12.
to set up an observatory for cross-border, transnational and
Interregional cooperation, provided that funding of Interreg
programmes does not suffer as a result. A system for coordinat-
ing, developing and disseminating experiences from Interre-
gional cooperation is much needed.

4. Strand A — Cross-border cooperation (Interreg III A)

4.1. Many of Europe’s national frontiers were fixed in the
course of this century. It takes a long time for the discord and
distrust generated by a change of border to give way to
peaceful co-existence and fruitful cooperation. In particular,
the regions adjoining the central and eastern European
countries are all too aware that a border tends to divide two
countries instead of serving as a meetingpoint. It is therefore
most important to continue to prioritise support for cooper-
ation across the EU’s external frontiers, including maritime
frontiers.

6.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/21

4.2.
Cross-border cooperation serves a valuable purpose in
improving the populations’ mutual historical, cultural and
political understanding and attempting to eliminate linguistic,
cultural, political, administrative and other obstacles to cross-
border cooperation.

4.3.
The Committee agrees with the Commission that the
existing Interreg II A areas serve as basis for framing future
programmes for cross-border cooperation. The Committee of
the Regions is pleased to note that the guidelines also focus on
the EU’s external borders. Interreg III A is a very important
programme for levelling out regional differences in living
standards, in particular along the long border between the EU
and Russia. The Interreg III A programme helps the Baltic
states which have applied for membership to embrace the EU’s
development policy.

4.4.
Island or maritime regions depend on cross-sea com-
munications and contacts. Maritime communication routes
must be improved and developed, to give greater coherence to
the Single Market’s cross-border labour market, industry and
commerce, educational sector and cultural life. It is therefore
advisable to introduce more flexible arrangements to enable
islands to befit from Strand A, particularly for the most remote
regions which are faced with the ending of the Community
initiative Regis.

4.5.
The Committee is therefore pleased to see that some
maritime borders continue to be under Interreg III A. The fact
that existing viable, natural maritime partner-regions will
continue to be eligible for aid will particularly benefit island
communities and isolated and peripheral regions.

4.6.
There are a large number of examples of genuine
cross-border Interreg administrative structures, including the
‘Euroregions’. Though the Euroregions are founded on
decentralised, transnational political and administrative struc-
tures, the Committee is opposed to the Euroregion concept
being used as a criterion for eligibility to manage Interreg III A
programmes and funds: it should however represent added
value.

The Commission proposes to frame one programme
4.7.
only per national border, with specific sub-programmes for
smaller cross-border cooperation zones. In the Committee’s
view, the Interreg III A regions in particular proceed on the
basis of
their own political priorities, which cannot be
encapsulated in one central programme per national border.
Further,
is inconsistent with the bottom up principle
to distance the administrative and financial decisionmaking
process from the horizontal partnership between regional,
local and social players in cross-border regions. The Committee
therefore urges that all programmes concerning cooperation
over the same national border should remain autonomous.

it

4.8.
The Committee welcomes the broad range of cooper-
ation zones proposed by the Commission for purposes of
implementing cross-border development strategies. The cross-
border programmes reflect the particular challenges facing
each individual border region. It is therefore important for the
list of spheres of cooperation to form a broad framework into
which, for instance,
local and regional cooperation in the
media sphere could be incorporated.

4.9.
The Committee advocates greater flexibility in the
inter-pro-
Interreg programmes so as to improve internal
gramme cooperation at four levels: programming, policymak-
ing and administration, and the project itself. It should be
possible for two or more programmes to pursue common
goals, coordinate activities and support common projects.
Where appropriate, flexibility should also make it possible for
Interreg III A programmes to encompass regions in more
than two countries, as in the case of the Belgium-France-
Luxembourg border region.

4.10.
The Committee endorses the existing rule under
which up to 20 % of cross-border programme funding can be
allocated to support projects and activities in areas adjoining
border regions. One condition for such aid is that the entire
border area derives benefit from the funding, (e.g. greater
mobility).

5. Strand B — Transnational cooperation (Interreg III B)

One of the differences between strand B and strand A
5.1.
cooperation is the larger geographical area and number of
partners (macro-regions). Action covers cooperation on spatial
planning and regional development. Strand B allows for
cooperation with adjoining regions in non-EU countries on
projects aiming to develop and reinforce common strategies
for the macro-regions.

The range of activities eligible under Interreg III B
5.2.
should be broader than under the current
Interreg II C
programme. In addition to research and studies, it should be
possible for projects with more visible impact,
including
smallscale (infrastructure) investments and pilot projects, to
receive support. It will then be easier to evaluate the activities
and their value. The spatial planning concept should also be
extended so as to allow support for actual regional and business
development (e.g. research and technological development,
promotion of employment and education and training).

For Interreg to make a positive contribution to the
5.3.
EU’s future spatial development policy, the Committee feels
that the initiative’s operational programmes should, where

C 156/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.6.2000

possible, be consistent with the objectives of the European
Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Interreg III B and the
ESDP should be mutually complementary so that the latter’s
recommendations regarding a more balanced polycentric
territorial area, sustainable development, a more balanced
transport infrastructure and respect for the environment and
cultural heritage are translated into practical projects.

5.4.
In the Committee’s view, the strand B macro-regions
should extend to regions that can make a positive contribution
to sustainable, harmonious and balanced development.
Regions acting as a natural hinterland and having close ties
with the macro-region should be able to participate under
Interreg III B.

The existing Interreg II C programme appears to be
5.5.
a nationally-dominated programme,
from which regional
authorities can also benefit. However, it is not rooted in the
regional and local authorities’ development priorities for the
geographical areas covered by the programme. Hence the
wisdom of transposing existing Interreg II C programming and
management structures to the new Interreg III B programmes
should be carefully considered.

The Committee believes that the Interreg III B cooper-
5.6.
ation areas should be defined with the full agreement of the
regions and the regional groupings concerned, following an
assessment of the relevance of the Interreg II C areas. This
assessment must take account of the slowness in implementing
operational programmes in certain Interreg II C.

6. Strand C — Interregional cooperation (Interreg III C)

6.1.
Interreg III C is to address cooperation between regions
throughout Europe. Some regional and local authorities lack
the geographical characteristics, experience, capacity or size to
participate in strand A or B cross-border or transnational
cooperation. The Committee therefore welcomes the new
initiative and confirms that funding to promote the establish-
ment of networks and smaller scale Interregional schemes for
exchanging experiences can be put to good use.

to draw up programmes that can span the entire EU and cover
a broader range of subjects than in the case of strand B
programmes.

Strand C should be designed with the aim of ensuring

6.3.
that:

— Interregional cooperation has its own qualitative content

within Interreg III;

— Interregional cooperation complements the other strands
as a horizontal instrument for Community-wide dialogue
and exchange of experiences on the involvement of local
and regional authorities in implementing Community
policies;

— promotion of Interregional cooperation is implemented by
an independent and decentralised programme adminis-
tration in Europe.

6.4.
The Interreg III C programmes must have common
geographical, thematic or other characteristics. In the Com-
mittee’s opinion, strand C should be more innovative and
specific in emphasis and support partnership models which
are not eligible for support under strands A or B.

6.5.
Looking ahead to the enlargement of the EU, a number
of geographical programmes focusing exclusively on territorial
and local authorities could be introduced; these programmes,
combined with Phare, Tacis and MEDA resources, would be
anchored in common political priorities for development of
the area concerned. This common network should be able to
take decisions on support for projects involving partners from
both EU and non-EU countries so as to ensure the initiatives’
relevance to the regional and local authorities’ actual needs
and the regions’ priorities.

6.6.
The Committee is pleased to see that local authorities
in less-favoured regions, islands and isolated and peripheral
regions in particular will be able to participate under strand C.

7. Coordination with aid to non-EU countries

The Committee does not agree with the idea that the
6.2.
strand B administrative units should draw up and manage
strand C programmes. The strand B programmes are based on
geographical macro-regions and relate to spatial planning and
regional development. The strand C transnational programmes
should be viewed from other angles, and the strand B
administrative units intrinsically lack the relevant prerequisites

Simplified, coherent procedures are needed in order to
7.1.
reinforce cooperation with the central and eastern European
countries and the Mediterranean region and to integrate these
countries into EU policies. The Phare, Tacis and MEDA
programmes as well as EU instruments to support non-Phare
Balkan countries, therefore need to be better coordinated with
Interreg III.

6.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/23

Interregional cooperation is particularly necessary in
7.2.
the run-up to enlargement of
the EU. Cooperation and
exchanges of experiences make a key contribution in preparing
the applicant countries for membership — and hence to
European integration and cohesion.

Coordination of aid raises a number of problems:

Under the new guidelines, Phare CBC (cross-border
7.3.
cooperation) can only co-finance strand A whereas strand B
can be co-financed by the instrument for structural policies for
pre-accession (ISPA) or Mainstream Phare. However, strand B
projects are not large enough to qualify for them. (ISPA is
restricted to aiding large projects over EUR 5 million in the
transport and environment sectors, while Mainstream Phare
only supports projects over EUR 2 million).

7.4.
The programmes’ procedures and budgets are not
compatible. The Phare, ISPA and Tacis budgets operate on a
yearly basis whereas Interreg budgets cover several years.
Consequently the projects have to be executed within different
time frames.

7.5.
The objectives and scope of the programmes differ.
Interreg III B focuses on spatial planning while, for instance,
the Phare programme concentrates on preparing the applicant
countries for EU membership and Tacis facilitates transition in
the former Soviet Union countries. The programmes’ different
guidelines mean that several separate applications have to be
made for the same project. Concurrently the amount of time
it
takes to approve an application under the respective
programmes differs, thereby delaying projects unnecessarily.

7.6.
The Committee proposes that funds be earmarked for
co-financing of Interreg III projects in the Phare, Tacis and
MEDA budgets, to which the Interreg transnational manage-
ment committees can address eligible projects.

the overall appropriation earmarked for Community initiatives
(EUR 4 875 million for the period 2000-2006).

8.2.
In connection with the adoption of Agenda 2000, the
heads of state and government stressed that cross-border
activities should be prioritised, in the run-up to EU enlarge-
ment.

8.3.
The Committee also feels that it needs to be remem-
bered that Interreg II C has only been allocated funding for
1997-1999 under the current Structural Funds period. Hence,
in the light of the positive impact made by Interreg II C,
the relative priority of transnational activities needs to be
upgraded.

8.4.
The Committee therefore advocates a reasonable break-
down of appropriations for Interreg III A and B which retains
the present Interreg II A level for cross-border activities while
at the same time in relative terms, taking account of the fact
that Interreg II C transnational activities have only been
allocated funding for half the current Structural Fund period.
As a result a smaller share should be allocated for the new
Interreg III C initiatives.

8.5.
The Committee therefore advocates a breakdown of
appropriations for the Interreg III budget lines that reflects the
breakdown decided by the heads of state and government in
relation to Agenda 2000 and prioritises cross-border activities,
especially with a view to enlargement.

8.6.
In order to prevent parts of the Interreg III B transna-
tional areas contained with one country being underfunded in
comparison with their neighbours, thereby undermining the
expected synergies, the Committee of the Regions suggests
that the European Commission ask Member States to comply
with a principle for the distribution of their ERDF package
which ensures internal solidarity within areas and real conti-
nuity with Interreg II C.

7.7.
The Committee observes that the Commission paves
the way, in the Interreg guidelines, for closer coordination
between Interreg and aid to the EU’s neighbours in central and
eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean region.

9. Recommendations for Interreg III

The Committee calls for:

8. Financing

8.1.
The Committee welcomes the higher priority given to
the Interreg initiative and the allocation to Interreg III of half

(1) the local and regional authorities’ role in programming,
implementation, selection and assessment to be stepped
up in full application of the subsidiarity principle;

(2) procedures to be streamlined significantly by in effect
devolving decisionmaking powers to the parties con-
cerned and creating the right balance between simplifi-
cation and flexibility so as to ensure speedy and efficient
payment of funds;

C 156/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.6.2000

(3) programmes to be drawn up in line with the partnership
principle, with programming, financial and administrative
decisions taken by the regional, local and social partners;

(14) rejection of the idea that strand B transnational adminis-
trative units are to frame and manage strand C pro-
grammes;

(4) the Interreg A, B and C programmes to be mutually
complementary, allowing authorities which have only
played a limited part to date in inter-regional cooperation
to participate along with more experienced regions in
Interreg action;

(5) Interreg III programmes to be structured with sufficient
flexibility to allow cooperation to span programming,
policymaking and administration as well as the project
levels;

(6) Interreg III resources to be deployed flexibly and be
accessible to regions which can make a positive contri-
bution to harmonious, balanced development. Regions
acting as a natural hinterland and having close ties with
the Interreg area should be eligible to participate in
Interreg III programmes;

(7) uniform grants to be made to all assisted projects and
partners, regardless of whether the partners are in an area
designated as eligible for objective-related aid;

(8) private sector funding to support general purposes to be
placed on an equal footing with public sector financing;

(9) the Euroregion concept not to serve as criterion for
eligibility to act as programming and management body
for Interreg III A programmes;

(10) the introduction of more Interreg III A programmes
across national borders; there are already several such
programmes for the present period;

(11) the list of areas of action under Interreg III A to serve as
a broad framework allowing for cooperation within the
relevant spheres;

(12) the activities eligible for Interreg III B funding to be
extended to cover e.g. smallscale (infrastructure) invest-
ments and pilot projects;

(13) careful consideration be given to the wisdom of transpos-
ing the existing Interreg II C programming and adminis-
trative structures to the new Interreg III B programmes;

(15) Phare, Tacis and MEDA programmes to be coordinated
more effectively with the Interreg III programme, and

(16) Interreg III A and B funding to be reasonably apportioned
so as to retain cross-border activities while upgrading
the relative priority of transnational activities and also
allocating an adequate share to initiatives under the new
Interreg III C.

Equal

10. Comments on Equal

10.1.
The twin goals of optimum employment and social
cohesion are major challenges for the European Union.
Recognition of the role the Union has to play in combating
social exclusion is affirmed in the Amsterdam Treaty. The
Treaty explicitly refers to combating exclusion and discrimi-
nation. Article 137 provides for

‘measures designed to encourage co-operation between
Member States through initiatives aimed at improving
knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best
practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating
experiences to combat social exclusion’.

There are not only moral and ethical reasons for
10.2.
combating unemployment and social exclusion, but also
economic reasons. The pace of modernisation and develop-
ment of new technologies has forced a rapid re-appraisal of
skills needs across the Union. For those who have access to
training and education there are boundless opportunities to
take advantage of the developing information society. How-
ever, for those members of the labour force who are in low
skilled jobs, or even worse, those who are placed outside the
labour force, the divide between skilled and unskilled is only
accentuated. By working towards opening up the labour
market to all, and particularly the most disadvantaged, the
Union can release a potential of human resource that might
otherwise remain hidden and unused. It is not uncommon
when employers are experiencing skills shortages to recruit
employees from abroad rather than provide training and
education to members of their own labour force who are in
low skilled jobs or people from the ranks of the unemployed.

10.3.
The formulation of the European Employment Strat-
egy and National Action Plans has prompted the reform of the
In terms of objectives and
European Social Fund (ESF).
priorities, the future shape of the European Social Fund will be
guided by the European Employment Strategy.

6.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/25

the

During

programming

10.4.
period
1994-1999
important parts of the ESF activities are taking place within
industrial
two Community Initiatives: Adapt (adoption of
change) and Employment (re-integration of unemployed target
groups into the labour market). The latter is sub-divided into
four strands: NOW, Horizon, Youthstart and Integra.

10.5.
These two Community Initiatives are important Com-
munity instruments for the promotion of changes in policy
areas related to employment and the labour market. Both
Adapt and Employment have played important roles in setting
the stage for future action in the area of innovation and
innovative ways of delivering preventative and active measures.
By transferring mainstreaming good practices and experiences
to other organisations, programmes and projects across the
Member States they have provided a basis for the spread of
labour market policies. Also,
through their transnational
partnerships, they have accelerated the learning process.

10.6.
The newly devised Equal Initiative will build on the
experiences and successes of Adapt and Employment. It is
envisaged that the considerable potential of transnational co-
operation, both between individual projects and between
project managers and political decision-makers, will be further
developed and the transfer of good practice will feed back into
the European Employment Strategy.

10.7.
The Commission has correctly acknowledged that
lessons can be learned from Adapt and Employment. The
expertise that has been garnered must be built on and this is
particularly the case in relation to the project promoters and
those involved in managing the Initiatives. The value-added
created in the final years of the current Community Initiatives
must be retained and furthered.

11. Project Profile and Additionality

11.1. Project Profile

11.1.1.
The Commission’s proposal pertaining to the avoid-
ance of dissipation of financial resources across too many
small projects represents a change of direction. In contrast to
the present programming period, the Commission’s view is
that the number of projects in receipt of funding should be
reduced, with the result that the successful projects would tend
to be bigger in scale. The issue of whether or not it is viable
for ‘small’ projects to develop transnational elements is most
important. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that
projects should not be judged or evaluated on the basis of size.
It is often the case that small projects possess huge potential
in terms of devising methods and transfer of best practice. It
may be somewhat easier to demonstrate methods of best
practice emanating from projects that are smaller in scale than
large unwieldy projects.

11.1.2.
The Commission may fear that the administrative
burden placed on organisations, and indeed the Commission,
participating in small-scale projects would not lead to a
significant multiplier effect. However, the Committee of the
Regions believes that if the administration of Equal was to be
efficient and simplistic, then the rate of return would be higher
and would prove to be a worthwhile exercise for all.

11.2. Additionality

The issue of additionality must also be addressed in
11.2.1.
the new Equal Initiative. It has been the experience of Adapt
and Employment that partners often struggle to raise the co-
financing funds. In particular, this has been a problem for local
and regional authorities that sign up to large transnational
projects. By concentrating funding under the Equal Initiative
on projects that are large in scale, some local and regional
authorities may be excluded from participating in Equal
projects by virtue of the fact that they cannot raise the
is re-enforced that
necessary co-finance. Thus the point
‘smaller’ type projects may have an important role to play in
the Equal Initiative, as co-finance may be realisable for projects
that have smaller budgets.

12. Measures

12.1.
measures to be launched under three main strands.

It is envisaged that Equal will provide support for

i)

Strand A: transnational, integrated projects;

ii) Strand B: national networking and dissemination;

iii) Strand C: policy development.

12.2. Strand A: Transnational, Integrated Projects

12.2.1.
It is intended that projects under Strand A would
combat discrimination and inequalities in relation to the
labour market. Further to calls for proposals, projects would
be selected and implemented on the basis of three criteria.
These are:

a)

innovation — to be benchmarked against previous Com-
munity Initiative experience;

b) empowerment — the direct involvement of those most
directly concerned with the fight against labour market
discrimination and inequalities;

c)

integrated approach — successful projects should integrate
a range of actions.

12.2.2.
Under Strand A: Transnational, Integrated Projects,
the Commission has recommended that there should be three
project phases taking projects from a preparatory phase to an
operational phase and finally an evaluation and dissemination
phase.

C 156/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.6.2000

12.2.3.
The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact
that the Commission has recommended that the European
Social Fund will be the only Structural Fund to finance these
integrated project, as this will lead to greater simplification.

12.2.4.
The Committee of the Regions is of the view that it
is most important that the terms innovation, empowerment
and integrated approach be clearly defined from the outset of
the Initiative. Once these terms are clearly defined in the
context of Equal much of the confusion that was apparent
with regard to Adapt and Employment should be avoided.

12.3. Strand B: National Networking and Dissemination

12.3.1.
It is envisaged by the Commission that Strand B:
National Networking and Dissemination, would provide focus
for a limited number of thematic areas to be funded by Equal
in each Member State. The Committee of the Regions believes
that local and regional interests should have an input into the
decision making process with the Member State and the
Commission in deciding upon relevant thematic areas. The
Commission also recommends that each Member State pro-
pose suitable mechanisms at national level for the networking
of projects and the dissemination of good practice. In the
Committee of the Regions view, local and regional interests
should be actively involved in the establishment of
the
aforementioned mechanisms.

12.4. Strand C: Policy Development

12.4.1.
The Committee of the Regions agrees with the
Commission that Strand C: Policy Development should involve
the Commission and Member States working together to
create the link between good practice emerging from projects
and policy development in thematic areas agreed upon for
Equal. The Committee of the Regions is particularly supportive
of attempts to develop mechanisms for the benchmarking and
dissemination of results.

13.

Implementation of Equal

13.1.
In implementing Equal the Commission recommends
that each Member State should prepare a national programme
according to the themes agreed, in relation to the European
Employment Strategy, by a co-ordination structure. Once these
programmes are agreed, the Member States will be responsible
for launching regular calls for projects and establishing
national monitoring committees to oversee the implemen-
tation of the Initiative. The Committee of the Regions is of the
view that it is at Member State level that the local and regional
authorities can play a significant role in shaping the success of
Equal. The Committee believes that regional and local interests
should be represented on the National Monitoring Committees
where they can bring their own local and regional experience
to bear on the process.

14. Targeting Measures

The Committee of the Regions is concerned that the
14.1.
Commission in setting out its initial position with regard to
Equal has indicated that, unlike the present round of Com-
munity Initiatives, there will be no ring fencing of funds
for certain sectors of society. All organisations involved in
combating marginalisation will be left to compete against each
other for funding under the Equal Initiative. For example, those
sections of society fighting against discrimination on the
grounds of disability may have to compete against those
attempting to progress equal opportunities for women in the
work place. Whether this will result in the selection of the best
and most deserving projects is questionable. The Committee
of the Regions would encourage the Commission to consider
the introduction of measures under the Equal Initiative that
would specifically target the various marginalised sections of
society.

15. General Remarks and Recommendations

15.1.
The Committee of the Regions recommends that a
number of points be borne in mind when drafting the
guidelines for Equal.

(1) Equal, the newly proposed human resource Community
Initiative, is designed to consolidate the achievements of
the current Adapt and Employment initiatives. There is the
to incorporate new programmes and
need, however,
measures into a new context,
the European
that of
Employment Strategy. Equal should be shaped into an
instrument that will aid community, local, regional and
national agencies in their fight against social exclusion in
the work place and beyond.

(2) The administrative burden of submitting applications for
funding should be kept as light as possible. It is often the
case that the spectre of an overly bureaucratic process is
offputting for potential applicants.

(3) Clear definitions should be provided, where possible.
The terms innovation, transnationality and mainstreaming
need to be clearly defined in the context of Equal.

(4) Monitoring activities will have to be developed which will
allow for a comparison of project results and degrees of
success.

(5) It is of paramount importance that effective mainstreaming
of successful Equal projects, at national, regional and local
level, can only be achieved if a dissemination strategy is
developed during the project cycle and not deferred to the
very end of it.

Leader+

16. Comments on Leader+

The major innovation of the Leader+ Community
16.1.
initiative (I and II) was the approach adopted, which can be
summarised as follows:

6.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/27

— integrated action — nearly all aspects of intervention

— encouragement and technical support for develop-

ment;

The Committee therefore proposes that passages to this effect
be deleted in the draft communication from the Commission
to the Member States. This concerns the second half of the last
sentence in point 9 and the whole of the last sentence in point
10.

— training at various levels;

— establishment/consolidation/modernisation of busi-

ness units;

16.3. Moreover, reference is made to the specificity and
originality of the development strategy expected of each Local
Action Plan in relation to the operations of mainstream
programmes.

— development of the use of local raw materials by

means of small-scale processing;

However, these very programmes are themselves hallmarked
by, amongst other things, a sectoral or target group approach.

— promotion and marketing of local products and ser-

vices;

— consolidation and diversification of rural tourism;

— preservation and development of natural resources and

cultural heritage.

— intervention promoting integration — projects and activi-
ties developed under the various aspects of the programme
are organised into a single, coherent plan of action and do
not merely comprise a series of separate projects;

— local territorial approach — devised and implemented in
line with the resources, potential and expectations of the
area concerned;

— a bottom-up approach — resulting from efforts to involve
local bodies and population in the local development
process;

— decentralised management — under the responsibility of
Local Action Groups who are granted considerable leeway
in implementing the process with the flexibility required.

16.2.
The Commission’s document on Leader+ follows the
guidelines of the previous programmes. However, a new
feature is added, requiring the strategy of local action plans to
be linked with one out of a series of specified themes. In the
Committee’s view, action must focus on targeted problem
areas. The subjects and target groups indicated by the Com-
mission are appropriate for inclusion in an integrated develop-
ment strategy. However, the Committee feels that the local
action group should be able to choose more than just one
theme or target group; it therefore urges the Member States to
take advantage of the opportunity to amplify the list of
possible themes and target groups.

16.4.
The real innovation introduced by the Leader+ pro-
gramme is the approach which it has facilitated and encour-
aged; it is precisely this advance in methodology which should
be preserved and consolidated.

16.5.
Here we feel it important to mention that an action
plan for the integrated development of a rural area cannot be
comprised of innovative actions above. A plan of this type has
to include a large number of initiatives and projects which
provide a response to local problems and expectations, which
have a local
impact and which can consequently help to
enhance local development dynamics. What is innovative is
the plan as a whole; some non-innovative action can be
necessary in order to secure viability, coherence and consist-
ency in the overall process.

16.6.
One last point should be noted: the Leader+ approach
requires there to be a Local Development Association respon-
sible a) for devising and carrying out a Local Action Plan
and, in parallel, b) for actively encouraging, mobilising and
involving local people and organisations. Without a local
dynamic and without encouraging the creation of a local
development culture, Leader+ will not work.

Thus it is vital that Leader+ continues to include a strong
element of encouragement and technical support for develop-
ment, allowing a wide range of activities and initiatives to be
funded — including the establishment and operation of
networks for stimulating development (each with its own
nucleus, equipment and human resources), the publication of
information and incentive instruments for the territory, and
the organisation of events and festivals.

The possibility of aiding the acquisition of knowhow and other
technical assistance should — possibly on a lesser scale — also
apply to rural areas where existing Leader+ groups are
renewed.

First, it must be recognised that the main point about Leader+
has always been that it can be applied in principle in all rural
areas in the fifteen EU Member States and that this may not be
thwarted by the guidelines governing the drawing up of plans.

16.7.
The Leader + programme is to place special emphasis
on actions which favour an integrated approach, creating
synergies and complementarity between the various instru-
ments which contribute to the same objective.

C 156/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.6.2000

16.8.
gramme encourages small-scale local initiatives.

One particularly important feature is that the pro-

16.9.
Leader+ should enhance the work of local develop-
ment associations and agents. The direct involvement of
Carrefour should be envisaged, to improve the implementation
of outreach activities,
Interregional cooperation and rural
networks.

16.10.
Leader+ is to work in conjunction with other
programmes having complementary objectives in the field of
job creation, vocational training, craft industries and other
social measures.

16.11. With its constituency made up of many locally
elected representatives from rural areas with specific structural
problems, the COR welcomes the Leader+ programme with
particular interest.

16.12.
Locally elected representatives are the prime movers
in development processes in rural areas where bottlenecks
occur. Local authorities are the bodies sustaining the main
investment projects aimed at creating jobs and kick-starting
the economy as a whole. It would therefore be counterpro-
ductive if, rather than encouraging local planning, Leader+
were to be governed by a bureaucratic or dirigiste approach at
European, national or regional level.

16.13.
The COR would like to see the regulations to make
the programme operational implemented as soon as possible.

Given the level of expectation created, it would be preferable
if applications could be assessed in less than the five months
mentioned. Local development agents have little experience of
dealing with bureaucracies and will find it difficult to accept
long delays.

Steps must also be taken to prevent delays in programme
implementation. Under the Commission’s proposal, the selec-
tion of action groups can span a period of as much as two
years after approval of the selection criteria. It should be
possible to reduce this process to, for instance, six months. In

Brussels, 17 February 2000.

the light of experiences from the current programme period,
the Committee feels that delays in getting the programmes off
the ground would undermine the implementation and impact
of action in new Leader areas, which must first build up
knowhow. In reselected areas, the expertise accumulated could
go to waste.

Considering the three actions under the Leader+
16.14.
programme, the COR feels that the bulk of funding should go
on the first of
these, namely integrated territorial rural
development strategies of a pilot nature.

The success of applications for funding should depend on
whether a local strategy involving various partners actually
exists.

The COR would like to see infrastructure projects
16.15.
incorporated into the Leader+ programme, and if they are not
eligible for this programme, they should be given priority by
the assessors of other programmes.

The fact is that any rural development strategy requires some
basic infrastructure input otherwise the development process
is not sustainable.

The Commission’s call for cooperation not to be
16.16.
restricted purely to the exchange of experience is in the main
endorsed. However, the exchange of experience should not be
excluded from support as a separate form of cooperation.

16.17.
The provision under point 9 of the draft guidelines
specifying that Community funding ‘will be granted to a
limited number of rural territories only’ should be deleted.

The provision whereby it is exclusively local action
16.18.
groups (LAGs) which qualify for financial assistance under
Leader+ (point 12, first paragraph) should be deleted.

The provision whereby ‘at the decision-making level not more
than 50 % of a local partnership may be made up of
government officials and elected office-holders’
(point 12,
third paragraph) should also be abolished.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT