Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "The regions in the new economy — Guidelines for innovative measures under the ERDF in the period 2000-2006"
Date: 2000-12-13
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, management, regional development, regional policy

C 144/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.5.2001

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The regions in the new economy — Guidelines for
innovative measures under the ERDF in the period 2000-2006’

(2001/C 144/19)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Draft Communication from the Commission to the Member States — ‘The Regions
in the new economy, Guidelines for Innovative Measures under the ERDF in the period 2000-2006’ —
adopted on 11 July 2000;

having regard to the Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions
on the Structural Funds (1), stating that ‘At the initiative of the Commission … the Funds may finance
innovative actions … [which] contribute to the preparation of innovative methods and practices designed
to improve the quality of assistance under Objectives 1, 2 and 3’;

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 10 November 2000, under the fifth paragraph of
Article 265 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, to draw up an opinion on the subject and to direct Commission 1
for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross Border and Inter-regional
Cooperation to prepare its work on the subject;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 1 on 22 November 2000 (CdR 351/2000
rev. 1), rapporteur Mr O’Neachtain, Member of Galway County Council, Member of West Regional
Authority (IRL/EA);

having regard to the previous Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Structural Funds
Innovatory Measures 1995-1999 — Guidelines for the Second Series of Actions under Article 10 of the
ERDF Regulation, (CdR 303/95) (2) 21 September 1995 (Rapporteurs: Holgersson and Pettitt);

considering that these guidelines directly effect regional and local authorities with the management of
innovative measures;

that the new proposed guidelines for 2000-2006 introduce a number of significant differences in the
application and administration of innovative measures in comparison with the previous programming
period;

the need for proposals that are clear, simple and transparent to the Commission, to Regional/Local
Authorities and to final beneficiaries;

the need for flexible rules governing measures to promote regional innovation, to facilitate the divergence
of administrative and legal organisation at regional level throughout the Union and the objective of
promoting effective partnership within these diverse regions;

the role that innovation and technology transfer can play in helping to develop lagging regions and the
desirability of promoting such innovation and technology transfer in the least bureaucratic way possible;

that the innovation measures under the ERDF are intended to complement mainstream regional assistance
under Objectives 1 and 2;

the innovation measures are one of few EU opportunities that many regions of Europe have to formulate
programmes within their regions and seek funding from the EU for uniquely regional proposals,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 36th plenary session on 13 and 14 December 2000
(meeting of 13 December).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 100, 2.4.1996, p. 124.

16.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/63

The Committee of the Regions

1.

supports the continuation of innovative measures under
the ERDF and the role of regions in formulating and
promoting innovation;

2. welcomes these draft guidelines for innovative measures
under the ERDF 2000-2006 and wishes to see these
measures in place as quickly as possible;

3.

4.

regrets the fact that the Communication was addressed
to Member States and not to the Committee of the
Regions (the designated consultative body for Local and
Regional Authorities) and to the European Parliament;

believes that these innovative measures are an oppor-
tunity to develop capacity of Regional/Local Authorities
with respect to Community procedure and practices;

5. welcomes the identification of regions whose Regional
Authorities are eligible for funding,
in particular the
clarification in the draft Communication that in, Ireland,
Denmark, Finland and Sweden,
level
Regional Authorities will be invited to make a proposal
and would strongly reject any further proposals to change
this position;

the NUTS III

6. would further propose that innovative measures under
Article 22 should also apply in regions that are currently
eligible,
in whole are in part, under Objective 1 in
transition and Objective 2 in transition in order to
reinforce the links with ERDF co-financed programmes;

7.

8.

considers that in some Member States, this eligibility
should also be extended to other statutory public auth-
orities with a pronounced regional remit;

recognises the need for practical subsidiarity and for
regions to have a direct link with the EU, without being
subject to undue financial or administrative control by
central governments;

9. welcomes the structured cooperation between those
responsible for the management of innovative measures
and those in charge of Objective 1 and 2 programmes,
however these innovative measures should not be oper-
ated as another mainstream Operational Programme;

the Commission consider that this might give rise to
legitimate concern in particular cases then these concerns
should be addressed by appropriate training and capacity
building measures;

11. wishes to see a strong emphasis on implementation of
individual projects within the regional programmes.
Because of
the 2-year timeframe for completion of
programmes, strategies should be clear, short and quickly
approved to ensure that pilot projects/innovative actions
are not inhibited due to time constraints;

12. calls for payment schedules from the Commission to
regions to be clearly set out in the financial instructions.
The procedures should be simple and transparent for
both the Commission and the regions. Final payments
should not be unduly delayed;

13. wishes to promote subsidiarity, therefore, the payment,
control and management of the programmes should be
the responsibility of the respective region, this in itself
may be innovative in some countries. The COR does not
agree that the payment and control agents, in all Member
States, be the same as under Objectives 1 and 2 pro-
grammes;

14.

recommends that regions be eligible to apply for a second
programme once the final financial and other reports for
the first programme have been received and approved by
the Commission without undue delay.

15. urges the Commission to be flexible in interpreting the
three priority themes proposed in the draft guidelines.
These themes are relevant and important for the pro-
motion of innovation at regional level. However, thematic
rationalisation, and the reduction of the number of
themes to three, should not result in any stifling of
opportunities for promoting innovation at regional level;

16.

suggests that under the theme, Regional economy based
on knowledge and technological innovation, the content
of a Programme could be extended to include:

— purchase of external expertise,

— analysis of infrastructure — what exists, its potential,

— analysis of skill needs particularly in SMEs,

10.

that

regions, whose programmes are
recommends
approved, should be empowered to be the management,
control and payment authority for that Programme. If

— prioritise infrastructure needs — particularly tele-

communications in rural regions,

C 144/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.5.2001

— establishment of

technological and knowledge
research centres, to raise awareness of the consider-
able importance of the interplay between the public,
private and the social economies in promoting
development in the regions;

17.

suggests that under the theme of e-Europe Regio, the
following could also be included:

— establishing Internet sites for regional services,

— supporting SME to improve Internet sites, by
research, training and innovative content (e.g. digital
images, links, etc.),

— providing local authority services over the Internet,

— pilot use of local radio broadband;

18.

suggests that under the theme of Regional Identity and
Sustainable Development, the following could also be
included:

— a use of technology to preserve cultural and linguis-

tic identity,

— research and identify, regional sustainable economic

activities,

Brussels, 13 December 2000.

— opportunities and threats of e-procurement;

19. considers technology transfer to be of significant benefit
to regions lagging behind, therefore the transnational
cooperation element should be clarified at the outset and
incorporated into approved programmes;

20. wishes to emphasise the necessity of skills training to
fully utilise technologies and innovations. Particularly
with SMEs, if skills training does not happen with the
introduction of new technologies, the full
long-term
benefits will not be realised;

21.

recognises that the real test of any strategy is the success
or otherwise of pilot projects. These projects must not be
unduly restricted or overburdened with unnecessary
auditing and control requirements. The Regional Auth-
orities are competent to ensure good financial manage-
ment administered in a simple, transparent fashion;

22. proposes that as part of the dissemination and discussion
on the Annual Report action, an annual conference/sem-
inar should be held, in cooperation with the Committee
of the Regions and representatives of the Regions and
their partners, to assess progress on the approved Pro-
grammes.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT